Canada declares neutrality in an Anglo American War. Is this plausible?

Like the title asks. In the event of an anglo american war after the 1900's before the 1940's, is it plausible that Canada instead declares itself independant of the empire so she won't be over run by the USA. If so, would the Americans still invade, and how would this affect the British Empire itself, with her oldest white dominion jumping ship.

Or is this just implausible. I'm really curious.
 
Incredibly implausible in timeframe asked. In 1932 Canada and the other dominons were granted FULL independance. From 1867 to 1932 what Britain said is what Canada said. In WWI we went to war but in WWII we waited nearly a week before we went to war. Now if it's say 1945 on then we have a different story.
 
Incredibly implausible in timeframe asked. In 1932 Canada and the other dominons were granted FULL independance. From 1867 to 1932 what Britain said is what Canada said. In WWI we went to war but in WWII we waited nearly a week before we went to war. Now if it's say 1945 on then we have a different story.

Yeah, from 1945 on it was whatever the USA says, Canada says. :D

What would really be interesting was if Canada were to declare its independance from Britain sometime in the 19th century ala Revolutionary War style. The US would be REALLY interested in helping out the Canadian rebels, or at least ensure that such a war carries on as long as possible. If such a scenario occurs would Britain risk enlarging a Canadian rebellion into another Anglo-American war?
 
^That sounds similar to the failed Patriote rebellion, but let's not bring THAT up again, shall we?:rolleyes:
 
I think this is a very plausible problem that would face Washington and the American military leaders. Post 1900 had Canada declared itself either neutral or independent in an Anglo-American War it certainly would have started things out in an interesting way. I wouldn't be too surprised that such a move would shock Washington and London into peace talks. London just does not have its finger on the American pulse like Ottawa, Toronto or Vancouver.
 
Very unlikely. The legal concept of neutrality means far more than simply not fighting and if Canada permits free and unrestricted passage of American shipping through the Great Lakes and St Lawrence it would be a clear violation of the rules of neutrality. Of course, not allowing such would be an act of war and...:(
 
Very unlikely. The legal concept of neutrality means far more than simply not fighting and if Canada permits free and unrestricted passage of American shipping through the Great Lakes and St Lawrence it would be a clear violation of the rules of neutrality.

No, I don't think so. What Convention do you have in mind to state that?
 
Very unlikely. The legal concept of neutrality means far more than simply not fighting and if Canada permits free and unrestricted passage of American shipping through the Great Lakes and St Lawrence it would be a clear violation of the rules of neutrality. Of course, not allowing such would be an act of war and...:(

Grimm

In what way is it an act of war to stop a belligerent in a conflict using your national territory?:confused:

On the wider issue if relations between Britain and the US went that far off the scale then Canada would almost certainly seek to be neutral and I suspect that would be a position [quietly] supported by the British government. Whether that neutrality and its independence for more than 50 years by this time would prevent an American attack, especially if the latter started losing heavily at sea, is a different matter.

Steve
 
This is a tough call. On one hand, Canada is extremely pro-British, almost as much as the British themselves. On the other hand, Canada's economic lifeblood flows from the United States. So Canada could declare neutrality, but it would really depend on how the conflict started. If the USA is starting to loook like the agressor, she'll go more towards the Anglo camp, or vice versa. But I honestly wouldn't put money on either way.
 
Grimm

In what way is it an act of war to stop a belligerent in a conflict using your national territory?:confused:

Steve

I think he meant that the Americans would view it as an act of war, whether or not international law recognizes it as such.
 
I think he meant that the Americans would view it as an act of war, whether or not international law recognizes it as such.

Trotsky

I suspect your right but that is a different matter politically than an actual breach of neutrality by Canada.

Mind you in the wider matter I think it would be a moot point as I don't think the US would allow Canada to stay neutral. [Which could however make for a very long, bloody and bitter conflict depending on the exact circumstances].

Steve
 
Top