The thread about a US invasion of Canada has me wondering, could any single nation other that the US actually invade, occupy some or all of Canada and persuade the Canadians to stop fighting ?
For the sake of argument assume that the US is a benevolent neutral (ie. will sell Canada any arms except nukes (at fair prices) including existing ships, planes, tanks etc, on a cash and carry basis, but won't supply combat troops) and none of Canada’s other traditional allies will come to their aid. I will also assume that the US is prepared to threaten to use nuclear weapons against any nation that nukes Canada, and is not prepared to accept the Canadians developing their own nukes.
As a point of departure assume an isolationist US combined with a Canadian government that for example sinks a foreign ship in the North west passage, or uses deadly force to stop foreign fishing fleets from fishing in Canadian waters and matters escalate to the point were another nation invades Canada.
Assume the Canadians are prepared to introduce conscription, move to a war time economny, sell assets to buy arms etc.
My sense is that so long as the US sells Canada arms, the Canadians would be able to keep on fighting for years but eventually they would run out of money and man power, but who knows maybe they could inflict enough damage on the attacker to force them to give up. (Ie. buy bombers from the US and hit their home land ?)
Thoughts ?
Having just explained why this isn't possible, I'll now present a scenario for it.
POD - 1963. In the wake of the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets provide greater aid to the North Vietnamese.
OK, 1965 rolls around, and the Americans are ramping up their deployment to Vietnam. The North Vietnamese decide to strike before the Americans arrive in force, and launch a Tet-equivilent. Unknown to the Soviets, North Vietnamese agents managed to purchase a small quantity of mustard gas on the black market using a semi-rogue KGB liaison group and some of the extra aid from Moscow.
The attack comes, and is an overwhelming success, with only Saigon and Cam Rahn Bay holding out due to direct American aid to the South. The gas is used exclusively on Southern Vietnamese troops. However, video of the horrific attack gets out, which makes it to the US media. It is broadcast, and world learns of it.
All - even the Soviets - are quick to condemn the gas attacks. The American public - fully behind the war - support a more rapid build up of troops. Canada also sends a small contingent - specialists in dealing with gas.
The US builds up and then strikes out from its bases in the South, and wins some impressive victories, largely destroying the Viet Cong as the latter tries to fight in the urban areas it had seized. However, the countryside is a different matter, and Vietnam quickly decends into the National Nightmare it was from our timeline.
The threat of gas attack, coupled with the Pearl-Harbor like 'sneak' attack of Tet polarizes US society to even greater degree than in OTL. The horrific images of the gas attack compel much greater 'draft-dodging' immigration to Canada (which withdraws its small component after a short stay - heightening a sense of anger in the US toward Canada). The end result of this is a cooling of relations between the US and Canada.
By 1971, with an alt-Watergate blooming and 70K+ casaulties, the US has had enough. America leaves - 'peace with honor' - and by 1973 Vietnam is Communist as the north seizes Saigon.
This alt-Vietnam was even more horrific than in OTL, and the alt-My-Lai's and other scenes (some taken completely out of context and some not) cool relations further between the US and Canada. There is no pardon of the Draft Dodgers, and many remain in Canada. There, they use Canada's own free speech laws to thunder their political views across the border, making Canada even worse in American eyes.
A democrat is elected in 1972 after alt-Watergate sinks Nixon. The Soviets meanwhile, fresh from their victory in Vietnam, pick a new place to antogonize the Americans - the Middle East and its oil. They start arming various revolutionary groups in Egypt, Iran, Syria and Algeria. The OPEC oil shock, coupled with a cyclical downturn domestically and foreign disasters (the Fall of Saigon and the overthrow of the Shah in 1975) make for a terrible recession and a Republican rout in 1976 bringing Ronald Reagan to power.
Reagan embarkes on an ambitious military build up and the Soviets find their Middle East strategy backfiring - the Shah's replacement is a theocratic state in Iran and the Israelis defeat the Soviet clients in a short war in 1977. A close US-Israeli relationship develops.
The Soviets decide to double-down on the Middle East. Abandoning the Shia in Iran, the Soviets embark on an ambitious program of advisors and aid to Iraq, Pakistan and Algeria. The Iraqis and Pakistan start a war against the Shia in Iran, while Algeria attacks Morrocco. The US funds Iran (no hostage crisis here) covertly, and the Europeans fund the Moroccans.
All this plays out in a series of brutal sectarian wars and bitter cease fires across the Middle East. The USN assures that the oil flows through the Gulf, but the Middle East is even worse off than in OTL.
None of this saves the USSR, which collapses in 1990, almost as OTL. By then, much of the Middle East resembles OTL Afghanistan. The rise of radical groups, some trained by the USSR, some by the USA and some by the Europeans continues, with the attacks of 9/11/1991 bringing things to a head. Islamic terrorists pilot planes into Picadelly Circus in London, the Palace in Rome, NATO HQ in Brussels and the Brandenberg gate in Berlin. This is coupled with direct terrorist ground action throughout Europe in the form of small groups of armed Islamic youths - many of them residents and citizens of the countries they target - attacking targets of oppurtunity.
The response is immeadiate. NATO mobilizes, and attacks Algeria (the putative 'source of the attacks'). While military victory is rapidly achieved, the occupation is a nightmare, and culminates in the 'Massacre of Oued El Alleug'. In 1994, in that town, NATO forces are pursueing suspected insurgents when they are ambushed by a large group of former Algerian Army equipped with some armor and heavy infantry weapons. 24 Canadian troops are killed, 56 wounded, and the town flattened by repeated NATO air strikes.
The massacre killed over 400 civilians in addition to the NATO troops lost. Canada, already unhappy with the course of the '9/11' war, withdraws its troops from the area, and withdraws from NATO. The anti-Americans in Canada - draft dodgers, extreme liberals, and the like become anti-European as well.
Canada becomes seens as a comfortable refuge from the West for all kinds of people. The US and Canada still have extensive trade activities, and there is no overt hostility between them. Still, Canada becomes known for its counter-culture and bitter anti-militarism.
The European focus of the Alt-9/11 causes the Europeans to maintain a much better military than in OTL. The economic and demograohic issues facing the continent do not change, but the European Union is stronger and Britain is more integrated.
So, as 2000 rolls around, we have a more militant Europe, a more liberal Canada which is out of NATO, and a USA that while not hostile to Canada is not especially friendly to it either.
What do people think of this so far?
Mike Turcotte