Can Canada be a superpower?

Lusitania

Donor
Well, the US would be completely overpowered by British Empire ITTL
That includes the Caribbean provinces. Also by 1900 with 50 years of self government and such Canada would be asserting its own will and at times it would not be same as londons.

As for over powering the US While it would Result in certain level of animosity between Canada/British empire and USA. The US would be strong enough to stand up to British/Canada. The huge difference is the Canadian constant fear of American invasion and or economic dominance during late 19th and early 20th century would be gone.

Also a Canadian saying that when sharing a bed with elephant we feel every twitch and turn would no longer exist.
 

Archibald

Banned
In the 50's Canada even if not a true super power had some good technological base.

Canada has uranium and a clever nuclear reactor design - CANDU. As said earlier they had a strong navy with aircraft carriers.

Also Avro Canada if the CF-105 was not scrapped, and also the C-102 Jetliner. Plus Canadair CL-84 and DHC STOL aircrafts.

And finally, in the 60's Canada was a major space power - Alouette satellite, Black Brant rocket, and Churchill launch base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Brant_(rocket)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Rocket_Research_Range

What Canada lacked was an indigenous rocket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herbert_Chapman

there was also Gerald Bull and his gun.
 
EDIT: Wait, wtf? This had no necro warning box, bit it's been 3 months since the last post? Well, sorry then... but I don't think deleting a new post un-bumps the thread, does it?

Both of my Canada wank TLs that will go on to make Canada a superpower are classified as ASB for good reason. OTL Canada simply lacked the mindset and willpower to have any real hope of bootstrapping itself to superpower status.

Canada as a superpower is definitely possible, however, it is exceedingly improbable.
Yes, when the US took over the role of Global Policeman from the British, it just meant one Anglophonic country traded off the burden of keeping up a massive military to the other. As a map on here that had the US ISOTed back in time mentioned in the Munroesque notes, the Canadians looked over the cost-benefit ratio and decided the peace and prosperity that came with being America's had wasn't that bad. Certainly doesn't hurt that the US is extremely fond of Canada and Canadians. People claiming claiming Americans see Canadians as 51 Staaters are like those who claim America claims to have their own language. Fairly untrue, and I have only ever found references to it in dated jokes by snooty British aristocrats and in the comics and textbooks of Scandinavians, who are used to having some rather similar languages getting their own names.
 
So if this Indian boundary state is created, it will be a de facto British protectorate and may ultimately be formally admitted to Canada. No reason a Canada that includes Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. can't be a superpower... View attachment 328288
No reason all the colonies should unify. We also get the issue that now you are merely having the British being the ones to push people out. How long do the British think they will manage? First the American settlers form the American Northeast who would move into Canada and the Midwest anyways. There would be the tribes angry when the British try to move them onto reservations or out of this supposed neutral zone(defeats the purpose of a buffer zone to annex it anyways). Ahhh, the Metis might come into play. The Fenians and various Scottish(I know the Fenians are Irish, they two things are unrelated) might be angry at the English, as per usual, and go republican. I suppose this theoretically cut down on militarizing the Great Lakes, but the British would be totally unable to get this treaty though. Hell, why would the Senate agree to it? The Americans didn't take Montreal partially because the US Army and various militias avoided going through New York and New England because they were against the war. So now those states which gave the leadership driving for war against the British lose nothing? Hell, I can see the Georgians and Carolinians doing their best to slaughter the Five Civilized Tribes, so that they don't risk another buffer state being made down there. You know actually, I would say a French Canada might have a good chance at being a Great Power. One keeping Ontario, Quebec, and the Midwest. Nice compact area. Limited foreign influence, though.
 

Guardian54

Banned
peace and prosperity that came with being America's hat wasn't that bad.

Problem is in my TLs race relations was a constant massive problem until the 1970s between Canada and the US, due to Canada being forward-looking and the US being reactionary in response. The Americans were a lot more hostile as they saw that version of Canada as an actual rival. And then there's the Sixth World War in 2001...
 
Canada's biggest challenge will always be the USA, as the USA by historical policy will try to dominate Canada. Tie Canada closer to the Empire where it is a serious number 2, its economy will diversify much faster and become more of a German styled "make the thing that makes the thing that makes the thing" model. It really needed to pull back on the racist immigration policies through to the 1940s as it would have helped a lot. Industrious be the Canadian immigrant, of any stripe.

I am of the belief though, and I know it might not be the majority, the Maritimes should have reunited before joining Canada. After WWI, as the maritimes would have developed economically their own corridors and niches, to have parity with the rest the country. The odds of Bermuda being a part of Canada, if of Nova Scotia, are higher as the relationship between Hamilton and Halifax was quite integrated militarily and connected economically till confederation.

Canada IMO has much potential but keeps selling itself short economically. We scrape out what we can and sell it instead of developing an integrated economy. C'est la vie.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Alright let's distinguish what we are discussing. A stronger Canada with 50-60 million people, on par with France and UK in terms of military and economic power could of been achieved, if as many have indicated certain things or decisions had happened.
The question was could Canada become a super power with the capabilities of projecting military and economic power throughout the world. For the later to happen I do not see it possible for Canada to have become a super power on par with US without major historical changes from prior to confederation. An example was outlined in a previous post of mine.
 
Last edited:
Without some major changes pre-1900, Canada will always be dominated by their southern neighbor.

Current economics, governmental failure, and a struggling military show the limits of Canada's ability to be more than a middle power. It needs more people (unlikely with destinations like the US, Australia, New Zealand, and others available), a less powerful US (not going to happen without a failed ARW, a Mexican victory in the Mexican-American War, and/or a crippling Civil War), and less reliance on the UK (one can't go their own way if their defense relies on an outside power). Now if Canada joined a federal union with the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa...
 
From the Canada Yearbook these are the regular personnel strengths of HM Canadian Forces from 1949 to 1988. From the middle of the 1950s to the middle of the 1960s it was about 50,000 Army, 50,000 RCAF and 20,000 RCN.
31/10/1949 - 44,866
31/12/1950 - 61,779
31/05/1952 - 97,834
31/03/1953 - 104,427
30/06/1954 - 113,958


31/07/1957 - 116,599
31/03/1959 - 120,412
31/03/1960 - 119,597
31/03/1961 - 120,055
31/03/1962 - 126,430
31/03/1963 - 123,694
31/08/1964 - 118,513
30/09/1965 - 110,353


31/03/1969 - 98,340

31/03/1972 - 84,933

31/03/1976 - 79,738

31/03/1978 - 81,137
31/03/1979 - 80,591
31/03/1980 - 80,298
31/03/1981 - 80,861
31/03/1982 - 82,858
31/03/1983 - 82,905
31/03/1984 - 81,675
31/03/1985 - 83,740
31/03/1986 - 84,373
31/03/1987 - 85,999
31/03/1988 - 86,384
 
According to the Armed Forces of the World table in the Encyclopaedia Book of the Year 1967 Canada spent 3.0% of GNP on defence in 1966. According to the same source Canada had a total of 107,100 regular military personnel.

In 1972 this had declined to 84,000 regular military personnel and 1.8% of GNP was spent on defence. From then until 1993 which is the last year on my spreadsheet it ranged from 1.7% (1980 to 1982) to 2.2% (1976, 1987 and 1988). The average from 1972 to 1993 (not counting 1977 which wasn't on the spreadsheet) was 2.0%.
 
Top