RodentRevolution
Banned
PS for anyone interested in weird little's chapters of British history there is this
Aims and Strategy of the National Service League
Aims and Strategy of the National Service League
Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?
- Thread starter ReconGuy02
- Start date
Jesus the boards Canadians are a persistent lot. All these claims that not only will Canada fight off the Americans but take American soil.
We are in the wrong forum for that lads.
The Americans quite literally have the ability to train equip and deploy as many soldiers to Canada as Canada had total residents. There can be no vict'ry here for Canada, Only mildly less total forms of defeat.
And what the h*** is all this talk of armed resistance? Who the h*** is going to give a farmer in saskatoon equipment he needs to survive combat with an American infantry platoon?
It also ignores the fact that outside of Ontario and quebec Canada at this point was barely populated. In a nation of 7 million people 5 and a 1/2 million of them live in Ontario and quebec. Pass Lake Heron There aren't even a million Canadians.
The US could literally take and occupy everything West of Lake Huron at little to no cost and easily settle enough people that within 10 years it's as American as the dakotas.
And that's the best case scenario for Canada here: A rump state consisting of half of Ontario quebec and the maritimes. And realistically if I'm an American diplomat I divide the 3 of them into separate republics.
We are in the wrong forum for that lads.
The Americans quite literally have the ability to train equip and deploy as many soldiers to Canada as Canada had total residents. There can be no vict'ry here for Canada, Only mildly less total forms of defeat.
And what the h*** is all this talk of armed resistance? Who the h*** is going to give a farmer in saskatoon equipment he needs to survive combat with an American infantry platoon?
It also ignores the fact that outside of Ontario and quebec Canada at this point was barely populated. In a nation of 7 million people 5 and a 1/2 million of them live in Ontario and quebec. Pass Lake Heron There aren't even a million Canadians.
The US could literally take and occupy everything West of Lake Huron at little to no cost and easily settle enough people that within 10 years it's as American as the dakotas.
And that's the best case scenario for Canada here: A rump state consisting of half of Ontario quebec and the maritimes. And realistically if I'm an American diplomat I divide the 3 of them into separate republics.
Basically everything between Lake Superior and the BC coastal range can be taken by the USA with minimal resistance - its lots of emptiness with few terrain features other than the Rockies and low population. The coastal area of BC and Victoria benefits from RN support, and maybe the IJN helps however the only logistic support is whatever is stockpiled at bases there, and the ability to repair battle damage is minimal, whereas any US battle damage is readily repaired in Seattle or San Francisco and logistical support is functionally unlimited. even if the UK/Japan take Hawaii, that has a limited benefit for supporting BC by threatening raids against the West Coast. The Eastern Great Lakes shores will be heavily defended (think of facing fortifications between Detroit and Windsor) and Halifax will be a fortress. The problem will be the USA can attack from the west, from the south, and force the Canadians to defend the entire lake shore as the US will rapidly have naval dominance. Isolated pockets can hold out, but food, munitions, and manpower will all become issues fairly quickly it is questionable how much money the UK/Canada can or will invest in stockpiles.
IMHO if the USA is with the CP, then the Italians will stay neutral until they are pretty sure of the winning side, which puts an extra burden on the MN and RN in the Med. A CP USA won't be providing any loans to the Entente, nor will they be source for food or any manufactured goods let alone military equipment - all of that was the major US contribution 1914-17. Nobody else can make up this deficit, and even if you have an independent CSA like in the Turtledove series, they certainly can't fill in for what the USA produced/loaned, and trade from such a CSA to the Entente would be as difficult as British reinforcement of Canada. To the extent there are blockade runners or merchant submarines, some of the shortages in Germany can be alleviated.
One possibility for the USA throwing in with the CP, where the CSA does not exist, is a more CP leaning USA to begin with where the irritation at the type and scope of the British blockade is not acceptable and the USA sends an escorted convoy of humanitarian goods to Germany or even a neutral port for transshipment and the RN attempts to block the escorted convoy. Shots are fired, losses on both sides, and away we go...
IMHO if the USA is with the CP, then the Italians will stay neutral until they are pretty sure of the winning side, which puts an extra burden on the MN and RN in the Med. A CP USA won't be providing any loans to the Entente, nor will they be source for food or any manufactured goods let alone military equipment - all of that was the major US contribution 1914-17. Nobody else can make up this deficit, and even if you have an independent CSA like in the Turtledove series, they certainly can't fill in for what the USA produced/loaned, and trade from such a CSA to the Entente would be as difficult as British reinforcement of Canada. To the extent there are blockade runners or merchant submarines, some of the shortages in Germany can be alleviated.
One possibility for the USA throwing in with the CP, where the CSA does not exist, is a more CP leaning USA to begin with where the irritation at the type and scope of the British blockade is not acceptable and the USA sends an escorted convoy of humanitarian goods to Germany or even a neutral port for transshipment and the RN attempts to block the escorted convoy. Shots are fired, losses on both sides, and away we go...
Pondering this topic a bit more.. IMHO a US that decides to secretly join the CP (even if keeping this secret was possible which I doubt) is a US that IMHO isn't acting very rationally.
To recap in my view the UK will decide to focus many of their efforts on defending Canada if the US suddenly declares war on them. Pitting the historical pre ww1 US army against the forces the UK historically dispatched to Europe at the start of WW1 (which I expect would be sent to Canada in this time frame) doesn't seem likely to end well for the US. (If the US builds up their forces pre war, IMHO some form of comparable pre war build up by the UK and Canada is also likely.) Sure the US can raise bigger armies but so can the UK. In the long run I do expect the US would eventually eject the Canadians and the UK from the important parts of Canada but I believe the cost in lives and money is going to be massive (plus the US will be cut off from many of their trading partners which will also have significant impact on the US.) Depending on how much of the pre ww1 US army gets deployed against Canada, the Mexicans may also decide to join the war against the US.
IMHO A much better play for the US that was looking to gain parts of Canada would be for them to demand the UK hand over certain parts of Canada and insist on the US right to remain neutral and sell war supplies on a cash and carry basis to all who could pay for them. I suspect the UK would be reasonably accommodating especially if the bulk of the territory in question had been obtained by the UK by force in the 1860's (although this might conceivably sow the seeds for a later US / UK conflict.) Perhaps the US could push their definition of neutrality a bit and run their own convoys to sell some supplies to the Germans as well. I suspect the UK might end up accepting this so long as the US also sold more supplies to the Entente. The US would profit immensely from this and probably not have to fire a shot.
Conversely a US that was bellicose enough to act in the manner as postulated by the OP would probably fall into the trap of insisting they cleared the UK out of locations such as Churchill Manitoba and I suspect would be unlikely to ever be able to "declare victory" before the almost inevitable peace conference. I suspect this conference might not produce the outcome the US was looking for as the Germans would not be pleased at the US squandering their forces in Northern Canada (vs fighting in Europe) and the UK would point out that they still occupied parts of Canada (and IMHO the UK still holding parts of the Maritimes is probably not out of the question.) Edit to add: The main carrot for the UK to offer Germany would be a complete lifting of their blockade against Germany and a normalization of relations between the British Empire and Germany. If the Germans have more or less conquered Europe I don't see what the up side would be for the Germans to continue hostilities if the UK offered those terms. (I suspect the Germans would also get some concessions from the UK in other areas.)
I can see the war and resulting treaty process ending with an economically devastated US holding most (but not all) of Canada and a significantly annoyed UK being able to rally their remaining empire for another round (having put most of their energies on land into holding parts of Canada will play well with the rest of the empire IMHO) while an ambivalent Germany focuses their energies on consolidating their holdings in Europe and leaves the US to their fate while enjoying the prospect of the English speaking world fighting each other. Probably at some point the Germans would hope to pick up the pieces once the US and UK and the empire had reached a state of exhaustion. I'm not sure what the Japanese might do in this notional time line
Last edited:
The priority for the UK is to keep the CP/Germany from dominating the continent, preventing a single continental hegemon has been the keystone of British foreign policy for a long time. Losing Canada to the USA, while a negative, is not to be prevented at the cost of Germany winning on the continent. If the major deployment of British forces is to Canada, this means for sure Belgium is completely overrun and most likely much more of Northern France and potentially Paris is under direct attack or even siege. Even if Britain was to deploy most of its active duty land force to Canada, the way it was deployed to the continent OTL the USA will be able to make significant advances before they get in place as US forces are right there. It will be substantially more difficult to support a BEF force in Canada than on the continent, both because of distance and shipping requirements and the fact that USN and Kriegsmarine forces/U-boats will cause a certain level of loss in supply shipping. Preventing a German advance on the continent that knocks France out of the war straight away is much more important that fighting the USA somewhere in Canada.
On the naval side, yes the RN can make US trade difficult however the USN is going to be doing the same to British trade and ships raiding US trade can't be protecting British trade - and Britain is much more dependent on maritime trade for even basics like food. This is not a replay of the War of 1812 where the USN is tiny and the RN is larger than all other navies combined. Here the RN and MN have to contend with the USN, the Kriegsmarine/HSF, and the KuK Navy. The Ottomans are basically a local problem for the Entente, the Russian Navy is basically a minimal nuisance for the CP, and Italy is neutral. Japan can help some, but the IJN in 1914 is quite limited. On top of all that the RN has huge areas to protect and long trade routes to police, OTL a few merchant raiders were a headache and with the USN having more of those(on top of German ones) as well as real warships commerce raiding, it will be an issue.
On the naval side, yes the RN can make US trade difficult however the USN is going to be doing the same to British trade and ships raiding US trade can't be protecting British trade - and Britain is much more dependent on maritime trade for even basics like food. This is not a replay of the War of 1812 where the USN is tiny and the RN is larger than all other navies combined. Here the RN and MN have to contend with the USN, the Kriegsmarine/HSF, and the KuK Navy. The Ottomans are basically a local problem for the Entente, the Russian Navy is basically a minimal nuisance for the CP, and Italy is neutral. Japan can help some, but the IJN in 1914 is quite limited. On top of all that the RN has huge areas to protect and long trade routes to police, OTL a few merchant raiders were a headache and with the USN having more of those(on top of German ones) as well as real warships commerce raiding, it will be an issue.
This makes sense but IMHO if the UK believes the U.S. is a full partner with the CP then I believe keeping the U.S. busy in North America (and helping defend UK subjects in Canada) makes more sense than letting the U.S. take Canada more or less un opposed and subsequently fighting the U.S. in Europe or possibly the UK.
Trying to hold the naval bases in Canada will also help the RN interdict the commerce between the USA and the central powers.
Being able to lift a blockade that prevents effective trade between the U.S. and the CP would be a good bargining chip for the UK to have.
Edit to add:
IMHO Germany is likely to conquer Europe in this notional time line no matter what the UK does. The UK is probably going to come to a similar conclusion and look towards keeping as much of their empire as they can and being in a good bargining position with the CP.
Also by fighting the U.S. in North America and interdicting trade between the U.S. and the CP I beleieve the UK is making a meaningful contribution to cause of the Entente. If some how the Entente holds the Germans back the UK can still claim some credit for their efforts.
Last edited:
Here’s the problem, their is no way the British can hold Canada. The American population is larger than Britain and Canada combined. And most of the British Army is in Europe. Also America is a huge Industrial power. Their is no way Britain can old Canada because America is bigger in terms of Industry and Manpower. Also the Canadian front would be to large and spread out for their to be trenches so the British can’t use trenches to hold back the Americans. The best case scenario for Britain would be to use their navy to hold onto Newfoundland and Vancouver Island.
If this was the case this would still somewhat align with my fight the U.S. in North America scheme and retain bases to help interdict commerce between the U.S. and the CP.
I agree with Newfoundland. Victoria not so much. The USA will hold all of BC and distance between BC and Victoria is small. It will be much easier for the US to blockade Victoria than it would be for the UK to supply it. The distance between Victoria and the mainland varies from 11.5 to 32 miles, which means a good portion of Eastern Victoria is at risk from artillery on the mainland. It also means that if and when the US wants to land forces, they will have support not only from naval guns but also land based artillery. There is no way realistically the RN can interfere with an assault across the Georgia Strait. Newfoundland is an entirely different matter, the British have a much better shot at keeping that, although no guarantees.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Well, it's at the very least rather unrealistic to assume the British building a large land army and demonstrating both the ability and willingness to deploy it won't dramatically shift German calculus in terms of their initial war strategy. I doubt they'd be so cavilier an stepping outside the lines of tolerability by London (See; invading Belgium or other incursions into France in force) if the protests and diplomatic notes have the weight of hunderads of thousands of bayonets behind them, which means assuming the Western Front looks like otl (IE Mons) isent really fair.
RodentRevolution
Banned
But I am not the one arguing that change does not have consequences. My point is the idea the British might react to a greater level of international threat by introducing a conscript army is not ASB. That Germany would have likely decided against war in 1914 if there was a large British reserve army is I agree the most likely outcome of such a scenario.
All these mental hoops about how the Brits will willingly sacrifice the cornerstone of their European policy of the past 200 years to ride to the rescue of Canada.
Sorry, London is not going to trade Brussels and Paris for Toronto and Vancouver. Never gonna happen.
The USA has more factory might than all of Europe - Allied AND Central Powers - COMBINED. They can equip, train and deploy more soldiers than Canada has total residents.
This is not 1812, or 1848, or even 1880. There is a reason why, post-US Civil War, the number one goal of British North American policy was "keep the Americans on our side at all costs". Because the instant it becomes a shooting war, the Brits/Canadians have already lost. And that compounds for every passing decade.
With the Krauts at the door, if carving up Canada is enough to get the Americans out of the war, sorry Nooks, the Brits will stab them in the back and carve Canada up like a Christmas goose.
Which is why if you are having a shooting war, sorry, America wins. Only question is how much of Canada do they want - and mind you, the starting point is probably "everything west of Sault Ste. Marie".
All these desperate hail mary passes - Japan will go to war with the most powerful naval power in the Pacific for the sake of Canada, Britain will sacrifice Europe and Empire to save us, Britain will force conscription against the Yanks when they never did against the Germans, la de freaking da.
The only way Canada wins this game is to not play. The second the die is cast, they have already lost.
Sorry, London is not going to trade Brussels and Paris for Toronto and Vancouver. Never gonna happen.
The USA has more factory might than all of Europe - Allied AND Central Powers - COMBINED. They can equip, train and deploy more soldiers than Canada has total residents.
This is not 1812, or 1848, or even 1880. There is a reason why, post-US Civil War, the number one goal of British North American policy was "keep the Americans on our side at all costs". Because the instant it becomes a shooting war, the Brits/Canadians have already lost. And that compounds for every passing decade.
With the Krauts at the door, if carving up Canada is enough to get the Americans out of the war, sorry Nooks, the Brits will stab them in the back and carve Canada up like a Christmas goose.
Which is why if you are having a shooting war, sorry, America wins. Only question is how much of Canada do they want - and mind you, the starting point is probably "everything west of Sault Ste. Marie".
All these desperate hail mary passes - Japan will go to war with the most powerful naval power in the Pacific for the sake of Canada, Britain will sacrifice Europe and Empire to save us, Britain will force conscription against the Yanks when they never did against the Germans, la de freaking da.
The only way Canada wins this game is to not play. The second the die is cast, they have already lost.
Britain can man and sustain in peacetime either a large and effective navy or a large and effective army (designed to fight European peers, not chase recalcitrant Afghans and others unappreciative of being in the Empire). They can't do both, at least not in peacetime. Because of the needs of protecting Imperial Trade, and also the reality that Britain was dependent on maritime trade for basics and had a very nice moat, they concentrated on peacetime naval power. If they have enough land forces to have a BEF to send to the continent more or less the size of what they sent OTL, they then need to have a several division force plus all the usual attachments for Canadian defense. A British infantry division in WWI was 16,000-18,000 men plus attachments, the initial BEF sent to France was four infantry divisions and 2 cavalry divisions, another of each followed soon after. To have a useful force in Canada this means a minimum of 50,000 infantry plus cavalry plus attachments not counting local Canadian active and militia units and any fortress troops. even with this number of British forces IN CANADA on day one, you are realistically only defending Eastern Canada east of Windsor and the BC coast and Victoria in the west. Even this relatively modest increase in British forces will be difficult to sustain.
I also wonder what the response will be in Quebec if the USA tells them "we guarantee an independent Quebec after the war". Sure in WWI and WWII many Quebecois signed up, but full conscription and mandatory overseas service for Quebecois never happened. IMHO many Francophones may decide to sit on their hands and let the two groups of "Anglais" fight it out.
I also wonder what the response will be in Quebec if the USA tells them "we guarantee an independent Quebec after the war". Sure in WWI and WWII many Quebecois signed up, but full conscription and mandatory overseas service for Quebecois never happened. IMHO many Francophones may decide to sit on their hands and let the two groups of "Anglais" fight it out.
Yes, lets see what difference 10 to 20,000 British troops will make against, let me check my numbers here...
4,000,000 American soldiers. Oh, and those were the numbers in OTL when we were shipping them to Europe in WW1, not literally sending them across the border. So more likely double or triple that number.
Ant, say hello to Boot.
Memorize this map Canadians - the second a shit is fired, that red line, that is your BEST case scenario.
4,000,000 American soldiers. Oh, and those were the numbers in OTL when we were shipping them to Europe in WW1, not literally sending them across the border. So more likely double or triple that number.
Ant, say hello to Boot.
Memorize this map Canadians - the second a shit is fired, that red line, that is your BEST case scenario.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Ah. When I saw you mention the "British holding the lines at Mons" comment I mistook your intended point. It is indeed true that Britain considering both Germany and America as THE overiding security interest in OTL's setup isent really feesable, so connecting Germany and the US by common belligerent is just as hard.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Why cannot Britain do both? Yes it will cost a bit and have a penalty that will bite a few decades down the line but I fail to see why they cannot do both. In fact the main loser from the US in the CP is always the US because Germany was her main economic rival but investment in an expanded British arms industry might well draw capital that went OTL into the US economy instead into the British economy. So you could see a temporary apparent British economic boost at the price of slower US economic and industrial growth.
Conscript armies are not as huge an expanse relative to their fully mobilised size as many folks seem to be implying. The whole point of conscription was for a large reserve. If say the British start conscription in 1908 by 1914 they have between 5 and 6 classes of conscript reservists to call upon, depending on the size of such classes and it is unlikely to be total conscription for every single male you are probably looking at around 1 million reservists (not counting long service regulars) if say roughly 40% of each annual cohort is conscripted.
Now I realise that eventually the combined loss of returns on lost overseas (again most likely American) investments and the tying up of young men in unproductive work for 2-4 years will have a negative impact upon the British economy but it would be a long time before that impact became apparent. Longer than would apply if World War 1 starts on schedule as per the OP.
Now the Great War of 1920 would likely be a different kettle of fish (which btw is the date that US industrial did indeed overtake the Entente and CP powers combined though without the war of OTL it was still on course to do so by around 1928, though also note this is per OTL) might be a lot different.
Then again in a scenario where the US is spending more on defence and making anti-British warlike noises the US economy is going to distort away from the one we are familiar with. Just the added loss of life from a Trent intervention would have a lasting impact (on the British too mind but at that time they had the bigger economy and under the scenario stated the shorter experience of war, do recall both sides in the Civil War are future American economic contributors). Then add an anti-British war drum with extended spending on an army and navy sufficient to challenge the British in the US's near abroad. Which would be greater pain for the US because the US at this time has the by far smaller economy. Then add in a certain amount of fright among British investors alarmed by the anti-British rhetoric not to mention higher taxes of this scenario. A loss of about 1% of GDP annual growth is easy to envisage in this scenario and while that might not sound like much add up the effect over the 49 years from the end of OTL's Civil War to 1914.
Now you can have a militarily feisty US around 1914 under this scenario rather than the then surprise US intervention that was discussed in a different thread. The problem is that such a US lack a lot of the deep economic base of OTL USA 1914. Hence the scenario diverges considerably from the OTL but surprise scenario (which was generally agreed to never look particularly good for the British).
Note here British as opposed to Canadian spending increases are not anticipated to start prior to around the 1908 mark. However also note that any increase in British defence spending will be at least partly funded out of capital that OTL was invested in the USA.
Of course none of the changes caused by the scenario as posited assure British victory or US defeat but they do mean that trying to ram US figures plucked from OTL 1917 (not to mention 1920) are gross distortions of the facts on this ground.
Last edited:
IMHO in this Notional Time line the UK plans would not have saving Canada as their main goal but keeping the U.S. tied down in North America, preventing easy comerce between the U.S. and the CP (ie. Helping maintain a blockade) and preventing large scale US troop deployments to Europe. IMHO all of this is far better use of British manpower than being over run on the continent by a large combined US / German army fighting in a battle that entente is almost certain to lose.
Desparte times call for desperate measures. Having the U.S. suddenly join the CP (assuming they plan to actually fight in Europe) is an out of context problem that calls for a different solution than the historical UK plans.
At this point I think I have made my point and will bow out of this discussion unless something new comes up.
No you wouldn’t. The US during the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century had huge tariffs and little foreign investment. Less trade with Britain would have little impact on the US economy and can be compensated by more trade with Germany and Austria. Also less trade between Britain and America would also hurt Britain too.
[/QUOTE]
Conscript armies are not as huge an expanse relative to their fully mobilised size as many folks seem to be implying. The whole point of conscription was for a large reserve. If say the British start conscription in 1908 by 1914 they have between 5 and 6 classes of conscript reservists to call upon, depending on the size of such classes and it is unlikely to be total conscription for every single male you are probably looking at around 1 million reservists (not counting long service regulars) if say roughly 40% of each annual cohort is conscripted.
Now I realise that eventually the combined loss of returns on lost overseas (again most likely American) investments and the tying up of young men in unproductive work for 2-4 years will have a negative impact upon the British economy but it would be a long time before that impact became apparent. Longer than would apply if World War 1 starts on schedule as per the OP. [/QUOTE]
The US can also do conscription and they have more industry and manpower than Britain so they can do it better.
[/QUOTE]
Then again in a scenario where the US is spending more on defence and making anti-British warlike noises the US economy is going to distort away from the one we are familiar with. Just the added loss of life from a Trent intervention would have a lasting impact (on the British too mind but at that time they had the bigger economy and under the scenario stated the shorter experience of war, do recall both sides in the Civil War are future American economic contributors). Then add an anti-British war drum with extended spending on an army and navy sufficient to challenge the British in the US's near abroad. Which would be greater pain for the US because the US at this time has the by far smaller economy. Then add in a certain amount of fright among British investors alarmed by the anti-British rhetoric not to mention higher taxes of this scenario. A loss of about 1% of GDP annual growth is easy to envisage in this scenario and while that might not sound like much add up the effect over the 49 years from the end of OTL's Civil War to 1914.
Now you can have a militarily feisty US around 1914 under this scenario rather than the then surprise US intervention that was discussed in a different thread. The problem is that such a US lack a lot of the deep economic base of OTL USA 1914. Hence the scenario diverges considerably from the OTL but surprise scenario (which was generally agreed to never look particularly good for the British).
[/QUOTE]
Again less trade with Britain would have little impact on the US economy as it was for the most part dependent on internal growth. And most US trade was selling grain to Continental Europe during this time, not Britain. It’s hard to see a scenario where less (not an end to) Anglo-American trade would cause the US economy to lose 1% GDP growth each year.
Last edited:
RodentRevolution
Banned
That is not really true, by 1913 per William Goetzman of Yale University the British had £616 million invested in US railways (see table 3) while the US Government raised money in London 7 times in 1869 and twice in 1890 (the two sample years in table 4). Let also be clear I am talking about investment into the US rather than trade upon which I do agree both sides at least somewhat depended. However on the subject of British capital inflows to the US they were considerable.