Best Time For The US To Invade Canada?

As long as Canada's population is small and can be demographically "spammed" by pro-US settlers.

This is not the case now. It might not have been the case for a long time, considering how a significant number of Canadians were loyalists from the ARW.
 

Eurofed

Banned
As long as Canada's population is small and can be demographically "spammed" by pro-US settlers.

There is not just that. There is also the long-term effects of spontaneous cultural and political homogeization arising from political unity, and the rise of Canadian generations that do not remember being British/Canadian subjects, and find nothing really objectionable with American democracy or culture.

This is not the case now.

This is very questionable, given the sizable amount of immigrants that the USA are getting even now, which would spread to a US Canada as well, and would not give a damn about the Queen or Canadian nationalism.

It might not have been the case for a long time, considering how a significant number of Canadians were loyalists from the ARW.

Check Ontario population (that were not all UK immigrants or UEL descendants) during most of its history, against US population and immigration rates.
 
Before 1900?
1899.
But it would be damn hard.
Things go roughly for UK-US wars
-1840: Not even funny. The UK walks over the US.
1840-1890: Things are very very much in the UKs favour. They will win without a doubt.
1890-1914: Things lean towards the UK.
1914-1955: Things lean towards the US
1955-1975: Things are very very much in the US' favour.
1975: The US walks over the UK
 
Ridiculous. European Russia is settled to a degree that can support retreating conventional forces and stay-behind guerrillas for thousands of KM. Canada cannot. The only area that can do that is a relatively tiny strip of inhabited territory (typically 300 Km deep at the most) alongside the US border. Conquering and occupying that is within the easy reach of any wartime US Army from 1860s onward. If the British and Canadians try to withdraw to the great empty frozen norhtern nowhere, they would be out of supplies and starve in no shoirt order.

A strip of land 300 km deep and over 1600 kilometers long (1867 size; much longer afterwards) would be relatively easy to invade, conquer and, more importantly, hold for an 1860's era army? :confused:

And there's apparently nothing after that hypothetical 300 km mark except 'frozen norhten(?) nowhere'? :confused:
 

Eurofed

Banned
A strip of land 300 km deep and over 1600 kilometers long (1867 size; much longer afterwards) would be relatively easy to invade, conquer and, more importantly, hold for an 1860's era army? :confused:

Yup. During the Reconstruction, the US Army could hold an area many times that size with somewhat-bumped up peacetime resources.

And there's apparently nothing after that hypothetical 300 km mark except 'frozen norhten(?) nowhere'? :confused:

Nothing that can really sustain a conventional army that withdraws there, or a guerrilla that puts its bases here.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Before 1900?
1899.
But it would be damn hard.
Things go roughly for UK-US wars
-1840: Not even funny. The UK walks over the US.
1840-1890: Things are very very much in the UKs favour. They will win without a doubt.
1890-1914: Things lean towards the UK.
1914-1955: Things lean towards the US
1955-1975: Things are very very much in the US' favour.
1975: The US walks over the UK

Defining US victory as it can conquest Canada, and hold it against UK backlash:

Before 1840: The USA can only win if Britain is distracted elsewhere or America has good allies, and if it prepares its military really well.

1840-1880: As above, but to a lesser degree.

1880-1914: If the USA prepares its military really well or it has good allies, and the UK does not, US victory. If not, UK victory.

1914-1930: If the UK prepares its military really well or it has good allies, and the US do not, UK victory. If it happens as part of WWI, UK always loses.

1930-1940: If the UK prepares its military really well and its has good allies, and the USA bungle everything, it might win. Maybe.

Post 1940: The USA says "I want Canada" and the terrified UK says "Do you fancy a gift wrap ?"
 

Eurofed

Banned
Actually--there *is* quite a bit up there.

Enough population and industry to sustain a major conventional army or guerrilla good enough to give the occupying USA a real headache ? I am very skeptical. Care to make contrary examples ?
 
Enough population and industry to sustain a major conventional army or guerrilla good enough to give the occupying USA a real headache ? I am very skeptical. Care to make contrary examples ?

Define the size of a guerrilla army that will give the occupying forces a 'headache'?
 
Defining US victory as it can conquest Canada, and hold it against UK backlash:

Before 1840: The USA can only win if Britain is distracted elsewhere or America has good allies, and if it prepares its military really well.

1840-1880: As above, but to a lesser degree.

1880-1914: If the USA prepares its military really well or it has good allies, and the UK does not, US victory. If not, UK victory.

1914-1930: If the UK prepares its military really well or it has good allies, and the US do not, UK victory. If it happens as part of WWI, UK always loses.

1930-1940: If the UK prepares its military really well and its has good allies, and the USA bungle everything, it might win. Maybe.

Post 1940: The USA says "I want Canada" and the terrified UK says "Do you fancy a gift wrap ?"

Getting troops across the Atlantic is HARD.
Britain has the advantage when its on top of having Canada nad Newfoundland and other places for bases, the US would be coming direct from home. Hence it takes them a while longer for them to take the walk over status.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Define the size of a guerrilla army that will give the occupying forces a 'headache'?

Given that Philipino insurgency did not force the USA to withdraw (and it later gave up annexation of Philippines as long-term goal out of racist and poverty concerns that would be unexistent for Canada), and that, once the USA has committed to this path during and after a successful war with Britain, the US drive to achieve assimilation of Canada whatever the cost would be somewhat but not any substantially inferior to the one to keep the Union together during the ACW and the Reconstruction for similar political, strategic, and economic concerns, Canadian guerrillas would have to become as much of an headache lying somewhere between the Philipino-American War and the ACW, likely more close to the latter end, to make America reconsider. Good luck for Canadians to achieve that on their own. This war may be lost or won by the USA depending on their relative degree of economic development, military preparedness, and quality of allies, in comparison with the UK, but this is not a war that Canada may ever win, or even play the pivotal role in, with its own forces, conventional or otherwise, no matter how its nationalists fantasize otherwise.
 
Last edited:

DAMIENEVIL

Banned
See: the Reconstruction.



The ultimate outcome is not going to be that much different. Once a war with the British Empire occurs, and America wins it, it is not ever again going to allow a potentially hostile Anglophile independent entity on its borders. Besides, annexation of Canada has been a long-standing irredentist aspiration of the USA since the ARW. However, it mainly depends on Canada's reactions to the war. If it remains defiant to the bitter end, then America shall go for the Reconstruction treatement, military occupation and territorial status until the Canadians accept their newfound destiny as americans, then gradual statehood. However, if Canada sees the writing on the wall, throws Britain to the wolves, and pleads for a compromise peace, it may get a special Puerto Rico-like confederal status and autonomy in internal matters, effectively becoming a (pre-WWI) Dominion of America instead of Britain. Over several decades, peacefully progressing to acceptance of US statehood for Anglo Canadian provinces, as they become fully integrated culturally and politically, whileas Quebec may likely keep associated status for all time.



Resentment may indeed linger for a few decades, but not longer than the lifespan of the generations that remember being subjects of the King/Queen as adults. America and Anglo Canada have none of the long-standing cultural, linguistic, and religious differences that the British and Irish have had. For all practical purposes, they are the same culture, with a few bones of contention about their political system. Quebec, however is a wholly different matter.


Sorry but it would last longer then that I would side with the Quebecois over the Americans every day of the week. And there is alot of cultural differences between Canadians and Americans think Like welsh and english
 
Defining US victory as it can conquest Canada, and hold it against UK backlash:

Before 1840: The USA can only win if Britain is distracted elsewhere or America has good allies, and if it prepares its military really well.

I say this all the time and I never get an answer so it must be really ASB but what if the French and Spanish win at Trafalgar and I mean really win and the US under Jefferson (not implausible after all he loved the French) takes advantage of the situation and invades Canada. This situation I think means that England loses it naval supremacy at least enough for Napoleon to stall any English fleet going to America in an earlier war of 1812.

Also how ASB is Canada joing the American Rev? afterall there are a lot of French who don't wanna be English either. I am assuming that the Parliamentary laws apply to Canada as well. I know a large part of the American Rev was Virginian debt ducking, but alot of New Englanders were genuinely pissed about all the taxes. but back to Canada, I know the Americans sent them an offer to join in the fun;)

Besides then I don't have to cross an international border to see some real wilderness:)
 
I say this all the time and I never get an answer so it must be really ASB but what if the French and Spanish win at Trafalgar and I mean really win and the US under Jefferson (not implausible after all he loved the French) takes advantage of the situation and invades Canada. This situation I think means that England loses it naval supremacy at least enough for Napoleon to stall any English fleet going to America in an earlier war of 1812.

Also how ASB is Canada joing the American Rev? afterall there are a lot of French who don't wanna be English either. I am assuming that the Parliamentary laws apply to Canada as well. I know a large part of the American Rev was Virginian debt ducking, but alot of New Englanders were genuinely pissed about all the taxes. but back to Canada, I know the Americans sent them an offer to join in the fun;)

Besides then I don't have to cross an international border to see some real wilderness:)
it was eather ben franklen or thomas jefferson that wanted canada as part of the us after the american revolution
 

Eurofed

Banned
Also how ASB is Canada joing the American Rev? afterall there are a lot of French who don't wanna be English either. I am assuming that the Parliamentary laws apply to Canada as well. I know a large part of the American Rev was Virginian debt ducking, but alot of New Englanders were genuinely pissed about all the taxes. but back to Canada, I know the Americans sent them an offer to join in the fun;)

My "United States of the Americas and Oceania" TL starts with the British Parliament passing a Quebec Act that was as oppressive to the Quebeckers as the other "Intolerable Acts" were to the 13 colonies. Given that George III had a very strong anti-Catholic bigot attitude, he still yielded a great deal of influence over the Parliament at the time, and assuming some random incident occurring between the Franco-Canadians and the colonial administration beforehand, the change is fully plausible. PO Quebeckers eagerly join the other Colonials in rebellion, and their swing makes the Patriot movement win out in Nova Scotia as well. I share the opinion that this is likely the easiest and most plausible PoD to make Canada join the US into a seamless whole.

America fights the ARW successfully with Quebec and Nova Scotia joining the 15 founding states, and gaining Bermuda and Bahamas as well. America and Britain reluctantly agree to a kind of joint ownership about Rupert's Land, even if contrasts over it linger.

The 15 states draft a Constitution much like OTL, with some tweaks (The Quebecois get a "domestic institutions" states' rights' guarantee about their language and Church, and butterflies from that make a stronger Bill of Rights that is enforceable against the States, line item veto for the POTUS, and explicit Congress' power to give economic subsidies to business, create independent agencies and exeuctive departments, acquire and manage territories).

Butterflies make the Iroquois confederation join the Patriots during the ARW (which makes the USA develop a more integrationist attitude towards "civilized" Indians) and Washington gett a third term. The latter change butterflies away the Alien and Sedition Laws, and expands the Quasi-War into a declared Franco-American War which the US win. These changes in turn usher in a 40-year Federalist political hegemony, which the party puts to good use with steadfast dedication to develop US economy, infrastructure and military rather more than OTL. The peace treaty and later Lousiana Purchase give America Hispaniola and the French Caribbean as well.

When the War of 1812 occurs with pretty much the same motivations than IOTL (only substitute Rupert's Land to settled Canada), the USA have a much better strategic position and a very efficient Army and Navy to kick the British out of mainland North America, and invade Jamaica, Hispaniola, and Guyana while the British are busy with the Napoleonic Wars (and they are also rebuilding a colonial empire in southern Latin America). In the meanwhile, America also gives strong support to Simon Bolivar and other Gran Colombian and Peruvian pro-independence fighters in the South American Wars of Independence (greater success in the ARW and the FAW has given the US a bit more manifest destiny attitude), which turns those leaders strongly pro-US.

Another independent PoD at the end of the Napoleonic Wars occurs. Britain, France, and Austria come to blows with Prussia, Russia, and Naples over the Poland-Saxony issue. While they are fighting, Napoleon stages it comeback, and turns the war into a three-way conflict. Napoleon crushes the British at Waterloo, but it is eventually swamped by Prusso-Russian numbers, Austria is steamrolled. British morale crumbles and they sign peace with America and the Prusso-Russians.

America gains Rupert's Land and Northwestern Territory (Pacific Northwest remains a joint ownership but it is ceded to America later), Jamaica, and Guyana. Gran Colombia and Peru become US protectorates, later US territories, and then states (more multicultural and integrationist US has less concerns about assimilating large numbers of Hispanics).

Britain builds up its new colonial empire in South America, which ensures long-standing imperialistic rivalry with America. All the way, it maintains a rather stronger military, economically develops and settles North America somewhat faster than OTL thanks to Federalist policies (which eventually become bipartisan) and integrationist attitude to Indians. Britain remains alienated, but dares not interfere with the development of a stronger US, having to face a strong great powers bloc in Europe of a successful Prussia (which soon unifies Greater Germany), Naples (which soon unifies Greater Italy), and Russia (which gobbles most of the Balkans).

The Mexican-American War occurs earlier and with California and Rio Grande breaking away and joining the US like Texas, but just as successful for America. It annexes northern Mexico down to Tampico and turns the rest into a protectorate.
 
Last edited:
Best time for anyone to have invaded Canada was during the Canada-Russia hockey series. While those games were on, some incredibly high percentage of the Canadian population was in front of a TV set, and we would hardly have noticed an invading army. :)
 
Okay, I've checked my personal calendar. Looks like the afternoon of November 17th is good. Also the Morning of the 21st, and all day on the 26th. December 8, there's a few spare hours where it could be done. But past December 16, we're into the holiday season.

How about you guys? Any of these work for you?
 
I know the most common views are during the American Revolution or the War Of 1812. That's not fun,I would be a bit more broad and say around anytime before "Canada" formed. So that's roughly up until the 1850's? I would guess that would be good,before that it was scattered colonies under British protection?
 
Getting troops across the Atlantic is HARD.
Britain has the advantage when its on top of having Canada nad Newfoundland and other places for bases, the US would be coming direct from home. Hence it takes them a while longer for them to take the walk over status.
Ok, while I agree that there's not much of a window where the US can invade and succesfully conquer the whole of canada due to either overwhelming UK power or too good relations, I can't make heads or tails of your statement here.

Are you honestly claiming that it's more difficult for US forces to get to the country directly bordering them than it is for the UK to transport troops across the atlantic? Or am I reading that wrong?

There's no way that British naval superiority is going to help the Canadian Plains in case of an American invasion, although BC and the East provinces are a different story.
 
There's no way that British naval superiority is going to help the Canadian Plains in case of an American invasion, although BC and the East provinces are a different story.

Without a canal and before the invention of steamers, BC probably isn't going to be getting much help from the British fleet either. It'll take a loooong time for them to get anything over there.
 
Top