Indeed! Increasing the plausibility if the fact that Leo Amery is actually the British Secretary of State for the colonies from 1924 - 1929. He would hold a lot of power in the period that would result in the transfer to Canada. He has given the okay in OTL, all the POD needs is the interest.
Argentine-Canadian War over the Falklands
- Thread starter Super_Cool2
- Start date
Indeed! Increasing the plausibility if the fact that Leo Amery is actually the British Secretary of State for the colonies from 1924 - 1929. He would hold a lot of power in the period that would result in the transfer to Canada. He has given the okay in OTL, all the POD needs is the interest.
Lusitania
Donor
The thing is that Canada request could not be looked upon in a vacuum since two other dominions are also requesting colonies of their own. South Africa and Australia. Giving in to Canada would require the British government also heed to the other dominions requests.
It could be explained as making things even between Canada and the other Dominions. After all, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all received LoN mandates after WWI.
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
@SealTheRealDeal @Lusitania So what requests had Australia and South Africa? Because except an unification with New Zealand with the first and Bechuanaland & Rhodesia the second?
Lusitania
Donor
Australia was chomping to take over both Solomon island and British New Guinea island. Meanwhile after WW1 SA for German west africa (Namibia) but the wAnted Botswana and all of Rhodesia.
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
@SealTheRealDeal @Lusitania I see the Australians achieveing both and South Africa Rhodesia if the referendum doesn't fail, Swaziland and Lesotho also. Botswana maybe not.
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
@SealTheRealDeal @Lusitania for this timeline we could see also a bigger Union of South Africa that stays a monarchy, no complete Apartheid (more votes to Jan Smuts) and why not, a Seretse Khama heading this absolute giant of a country that can become THE superpower of Southern Africa.
Seretse Khama - Wikipedia
So, let's see if I'm following this correctly.
1) Canada gets the west indies+ stuff
2) Canada randomly starts giving out citizenship even if that doesn't fit the mentality of the era
3) ???
4) Canada is a military power and able to afford it
5) Profit!!!
Ok, well first of all let's ignore everything. Let's ignore how some small extra territories do not make any difference for GDP and in no way affect military spending (see: UK after the collapse of the empire), that Canada has not had any such ambitions ever or that giving some random colonies state/province/whatever hood is a suspect idea at best. Let's ignore that such a changed world would see everything change, not just a Canada wank as it's being proposed (seriously, what's with AH and turning everything into a wank?), like Argentina and the UK getting along better than OTL due to one point of contention being gone. Let's ignore all that for this fact.
Isn't the main argument against a transfer to Argentina "sElF DeTeRmInAtIoN" (which is hilarious by the way, as no country has ever given a shit about this, neither the UK nor Argentina nor anyone)? Then how does that hold up when the UK literally gave their people and land to some other country because keeping them was too much work and they didn't feel like spending that money? The kelpers see themselves as British yet... They aren't? They are canadians now!
1) Canada gets the west indies+ stuff
2) Canada randomly starts giving out citizenship even if that doesn't fit the mentality of the era
3) ???
4) Canada is a military power and able to afford it
5) Profit!!!
Ok, well first of all let's ignore everything. Let's ignore how some small extra territories do not make any difference for GDP and in no way affect military spending (see: UK after the collapse of the empire), that Canada has not had any such ambitions ever or that giving some random colonies state/province/whatever hood is a suspect idea at best. Let's ignore that such a changed world would see everything change, not just a Canada wank as it's being proposed (seriously, what's with AH and turning everything into a wank?), like Argentina and the UK getting along better than OTL due to one point of contention being gone. Let's ignore all that for this fact.
Isn't the main argument against a transfer to Argentina "sElF DeTeRmInAtIoN" (which is hilarious by the way, as no country has ever given a shit about this, neither the UK nor Argentina nor anyone)? Then how does that hold up when the UK literally gave their people and land to some other country because keeping them was too much work and they didn't feel like spending that money? The kelpers see themselves as British yet... They aren't? They are canadians now!
Well, self determination was not a thing back in the 1920 (honestly, it's not a thing nowadays either, but people pay lip service to it). But as long as the locals don't want to become part of Argentina, they'll claim to want to be part of whatever metropolis rules over them. Let's remember they weren't actual British citizens in the 1920s either.
While that's true, IIRC ever since the subject started coming up (1940's or so) the excuse has been "self determination" or something similar, instead of "we want a friendly port in the South Atlantic from which to project power and/or maintain Antarctic ambitions" which has always been the real reason (plus saving face by not giving a shitty third tier power what they want).
So my point still stands, if/when Argentina starts asking "can you give clay back?" (As it took quite a long time for them to stop asking and start taking) The OTL argument won't hold any water.
Something to consider before speculating about how big the RCN would be ITTL is how many of these territories would even still be Canadian by the 1980s? Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and the Bahamas (which account for the vast majority of the population in the territories that would be transferred to Canada) all achieved independence between 1962 and 1973. The only way to keep them is to eventually make them provinces and the people living there Canadian citizens. I don't see Canada and Canadians being willing to accept millions of mostly black new citizens who now have full rights to vote and move about the country however they wish before the 1980s at the earliest and by then it's almost certainly too late. I think best case scenario for Canada is that it possess at most the same territories that were still British ITTL.
This is the first time I had heard about the Falklands in relation to Canada.
I am skeptical about the idea of Canada wanting the South Atlantic territories. Canada has interests in the Caribbean, but no further south. South Africa might be more plausible, frankly.
Oh boy, a war between Galtieri's Argentina and Apartheid South Africa might be even more interesting.
Lusitania
Donor
I think that you are misrepresenting most of what has been written here.
We are talking about transfer of administration in the early 1920s. At that time any european British citizen was automatically given same rights within Canada including ability to vote. Over the next 60+ years there would of naturally be a democratic and nationalistic movement of granting rights to all those who live within Canada. We did this with native Canadians in the territories.
By end of WW2 Canada would of done away with concept of colonies and organized these areas into territories. Some of these would eventually by 1960s become provinces. This of course would be subject to Canada 1) being interested in integrating said territories into the country 2) able to provide structure, investment snd integrate majority of the people living in those territories into Canada.
If you live in Canada you know the country has the capabilities and willingness to do so. If you don’t you just found out. Canada would be able and willing to invest snd develop such territories unlike Britain.
Now as for economics and increase in GDP. Bringing in Bermuda, South Georgia islands or Belize alone would not provide a noticeable increase in GDP to Canada but the inclusion of all British colonies in Western Hemisphere would increase Canadian GDP. What percentage I have to review these territories economy and determine also what increased economic activity they would have.
Hope this answer some of your disdain comments. Thanks.
Lusitania
Donor
You are right that Canada might be reluctant to take on such territories. Iotl Canadá wanted Caribbean and Britain said no. Therefore this thread was started in the basis that for what every reason Britain said yes and it would make sense that if they said yes they want to unload all the Western Hemisphere colonies and territories. As I mentioned before if Canada was given choice of everything or nothing they take everything but it makes logistic choice to get Ascension Island thrown in to provide Canada a better link between Canadian Caribbean to Falklands.
No, it actually does not answer any of my points (and it outright ignores quite a few)
Canada is a country with a defined identity, they aren't just "british living in America" but their own distinct people (even if their identity is related to the British one) and thus would not simply accept foreigners as part of their country, especially in the form of settler colonies from far away places when most of the country was (and still kinda is) unsettled. Nevermind that you are also applying a much more modern mindset when in truth the canadians of the time were as racist and xenophobic as everyone else. Maybe they would accept the mostly white settler colonies but places like Jamaica? Or quite a few other caribbean colonies? No way in hell they are given the same rights as continental canadian territory (or that they don't try to gain their independence before the proposed timeframe for the thread).
And what increased economic activity? Policing and protecting these territories would be a money sink and not something the population would like. Unless somehow the canadian population started buying into imperial ambitions (Big X for doubt here) the idea of "Let's have some former british colonies as our own!" would be answered with "Hmm, paying more taxes so the admiralty can have a few extra destroyers and maybe a carrier so we can keep some worthless souther territory that the UK gave us because they didn't want to deal with it? How about no." Because holy shit, why would anyone want such commitment when you are a small middling power happy to make your country good but with no real ambitions on the glabal stage? Most countries would kill to be where Canada is today.
Of course the crux of the matter is that you haven't really answered any of my criticisms.
1) The AU nature of this divergence means that it wouldn't be just Canada which would be different, but everything else.
2) Canada would never, ever, waste the required money to maintain overseas possesions when not even the British were willing to.
3) The nature of nationalism means that most of the territories worth keeping would much rather become independent instead of being treated like shit or as second class citizens.
4) You have yet to explain how do they defend their ownership of it this time when "self determination" isn't an excuse (seriously, if the British pass the colonies like one does trading card then the whole "their identity and wishes matter" kinda takes a big hit).
Hope this answer some of your wankish assumptions of alternate history. Thanks.
It makes it really difficult to know who you want to root for, doesn't it? Both failling horribly seems like the best outcome.
Last edited:
coffeebreakcigarette
Banned
@Lusitania @Super_Cool2 so basically to accomplish this TL we must have Britain said yes basically and have a "super" convincing , we could follow Lusitania example of a Lusophone World [BTW how it is going with that TL?] however I do agree with most @deathstrokenorris points except with the part of racism (excluding the First Nations treatment, that part of history is better not to be forgotten).
I have an idea.
TL "ideas"
- Leo Amery stays British Secretary of State for the colonies for longer and reproposes during the late 1930s the same idea so in case of another war with Germany and Great Britain falls to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe the Carribean colonies are not controlled by them/collaborationist government OR
- Britain goes along with the 1st proposal of Amery , the Mackenzie King administration that coincides with Leo Amery British Secretary of State , he listens to one of medium/fortune tellers/other despite being a monetary sinkhole idea OR
- Operation Seelowe almost succeeds but ends like the DDAY if it went awry for the allies, but the Parliament transfers the American-Carribean colonies for safekeeping (except maybe Guyana and Belize because I don't think Mackenzie would go that far, then again this guy really believed a lot interesting stuff so who knows?) OR
- Operation Seelowe actually succeeds Britain is occupied and power either goes to Reichkommissariat / Collaborationist government in the style of Vichy and Canada "invades" British colonies.
Lusitania
Donor
Again you are not speaking from Canadian perspective. If Canada today was willing to take over Caicos, cayman and Bermuda what makes us think that 100 years ago it would not take a chance at owning and incorporate all of the British Caribbean?
We are a young country that was mound from two distinct cultures British and French Québécois. Till the 1930s British descent people considered themselves part of British empire and people arrived from British isles and were British-Canadian. The country had just been formed in 1867 as a union of British colonies banding together to “fight off “ the Americans. Canadian identity was just going. It had felt it’s true first nationalistic pride and accomplishments on the international stage during WW1 when Canadian troops got first time fought as a unit alongside the British and not part of the British forces. Therefore we talking about a young country that wanted to incorporate the Caribbean (using the terms and ideas of the era though). The entire thing is not an idea that we today are thinking but one that had its roots right after the war. We simply discussing the idea of what would happen if the idea had come true.
If you are challenging Canadians ability of Canadians to absorb and to invest in these territories you don’t understand the country. We built one of the largest railways in the world at a time that the world thought it not feasible, not economical or worthwhile. We brought millions of people from all over the world and built a great country and look after its people (perfect no but we try to be good) we do not have millions of people without insurance we provide large amount of $ to the regions that are well less off.
Therefore would it be a different Canada, yes. Would there been discrimination and racism? yes there would be but at same time millions of people would of had a much better standard of living living in Canadian Caribbean provinces and territories.
Lastly to compare Canada to Britain is actually an insult. While British people are great and such the mentality of the two countries and what values each one has is complete different. Multiculturalism works in Canada we have people from all over the world integrating into a single country it does not work in Britain. British people in some ways always look at those communities are separate here in Canada they are all part of mosaic.