Canada wank - how plausible?

So, how plausible would You call a Canada that includes Alaska, Maine, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and probably bought Greenland from Denmark?

What consequences would such a big Canada have on history, let`s say as from 1880?

20140112 huge canada.png
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Not Maine; that ship had sailed in 1783

So, how plausible would You call a Canada that includes Alaska, Maine, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and probably bought Greenland from Denmark?

What consequences would such a big Canada have on history, let`s say as from 1880?


Not Maine; that ship had sailed in 1783.

Alaska - if the Anglo-French expedition against Petropavlovsk in 1854 had gone to North America, rather than East Asia; more likely if someone other than Price is in command. The French will have to get something if the British get Canada; presumably, given the time frame, that could be concessions in Southeast Asia - perhaps British support for a French "protectorate" over Siam/Thailand;

Saint-Pierre and Miquelon - throw it into the Anglo-French settlement after the 1854-55 war; the trade here could be something in the Caribbean or Pacific where the British and French have conflicting claims; the New Hebrides comes to mind, although the 1850s is early for there to be much concern over them; somewhere in the West Indies seems more likely - maybe the British Virgin Islands, since control is already fragmented with the Danes.

Greenland - a British purchase in the 1860s in the aftermath of the Prusso-Danish war seems obvious, given the inability of the Danes to defend any of their overseas possessions; have the British "buy" the Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland, and the Danish Virgin Islands, and then transfer the DVI to France as a (belated) "final" installment on the St.P&M 'trade" mentioned above.

After Confederation, Alaska and Greenland each have territorial status within the Dominion; St.P&M becomes a county within Newfoundland, which presumably goes through its historical "colony-dominion-colony-province" evolution.

None of these territories are going to attract the European emigrants who went to NW Ontario and the Prairie Provinces historically in the post-Confederation era, so they remain largely empty in terms of Western settlement, beyond the trading factory-type; there are Canadian-government sponsored exploration and surveying efforts, and token (very token) garrisons of British/Canadian military and police/magistrates. One impact is the Canadian military and navy will have to develop into something more than a militia somewhat earlier than historically.

In the 1890s, the various gold rushes in Alaska and the Yukon are part and parcel of a single extended event that leaves a residue of "Canadian" national authority in place (commissioners, the RCMP/NWMP, etc.); in addition, the Dominion will get serious about having to maintain control of its frontiers, given the tens of thousands of miners and others flooding into these districts. The NWMP/RCMP vs the likes of Soapy Smith will become something of a national myth...

If there are not additional butterflies, in 1914-1918, the extractive industries will be developed as much as possible; there may be a token company of "Alaskan Rangers" or a section of "Greenland Scouts" in the CEF's order of battle, but not much more than that. The RCN will have a post-war mission of soveriegnty patrol and rescue/weather, more like the USCG in this era; the various civilian maritime agencies may all be folded into the RCN, since it (sort of) has a potential peacetime mission in this era.

The Depression will be tough in all these areas (as it was in Newfoundland) and there will be those in Canada who wonder why they bother. There may also be a series of public employment infrastructure development projects, particularly in Alaska, to create analogues to the Alcan Highway and the Alaska Railway project.

In 1939-45, the defense of Canadian Alaska and Greenland will be responsibility of the Dominion government, rather than the US; as such, this may actually lead to a smaller Canadian deployment overseas, since Alaska alone will require a substantial (in Canadian terms) garrison and naval and air forces worth the name, especially if the Japanese take a shot at the Aleutians; Greenland will be a focus of the RCN, not (as historically) the USCG.

The Canadian 1st Army of two corps and five divisions (historically) may only be the Canadian I Corps of four divisions in this scenario, which means it probably goes into action as part of the British army-level headquarters.

After the war, with Newfoundland's accession to the Dominion, events will probably transpire more or less historically in Greenland and Alaska; Cold War era defense spending, close ties to the US (US forces may be based in "Canadian" territory in this situation, unlike in reality), and in terms of economics, natural resource extraction (fishing, mining, lumber, etc.) until the energy boom of the 1970s, with the North Slope being developed in parallel to Alberta. Alaska probably gets provincial status in the 1960s or 1970s.

So, not huge differences, but significant.

Bonne chance
 

Rstone4

Banned
So, how plausible would You call a Canada that includes Alaska, Maine, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and probably bought Greenland from Denmark?

What consequences would such a big Canada have on history, let`s say as from 1880?

Ok, So, lets say the Hartford convention goes differently and new england secedes from the USA in the 1820s. the Democrat party is fine with that as it wipes out a huge support base for the Rump Republicans soon to be whig party.

These federalists eventually join the dominion of Canada. This changes the whole course of USA history, which causes the Russians to lose Alaska to the UK in the Crimean war, why, well, um, redcoats, that's why (I just made that part up) .

Then Somehow, they get greenland. Maybe something to do with the 7 weeks war?
 
Maine is easy enough, just have the Brits not pussy out at Ghent. It was already long under British control then, and the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia wanted to keep it.

To get Alaska there needs to be an Anglo-Russian Entente much earlier, before gold is discovered. This is the hardest, as the Great Game was in full swing prior to the Gold Rush and wouldn't end until long after the Gold Rush had. I suppose it could be conquered during the Crimean War, but at that point it wasn't much but an icebox and there is no reason I can think of for the British to not return it afterwards.

St. Pierre and Miquelon isn't something the French would give up easily, not until the collapse of the Newfoundland cod fishery. I suppose the best bet here would be for the Saint-Pierrais to vote for it in the 1990s. The island are too small in population to be their own unit, and they likely get folded into Quebec.

Greenland is probably easy enough to accomplish. Denmark wanted to offload it, we just need a reason to buy. I just can't think of what that reason could be. Perhaps to prevent the Yanks from getting it?

The impact of these from 1880? By 1880 Canada already extends from Nova Scotia to the Queen Charlotte Islands, and it was in 1880 that the jurisdiction over the Arctic Islands was passed on to Canada. Maine (renamed New Ireland) would have been one of the founding provinces, and it's economy would be very much like New Brunswicks'. I don't think the others could be Canadian by 1880.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
1812-15 ended as status quo antebellum for a reason

Maine is easy enough, just have the Brits not pussy out at Ghent. It was already long under British control then, and the Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia wanted to keep it.

1812-1815 ended, by definition, as status quo antebellum in terms of the borders, as directed by no less an authority than Wellington.

Good luck with your biography of the Iron Duke.

Best,
 
1812-1815 ended, by definition, as status quo antebellum in terms of the borders, as directed by no less an authority than Wellington.

Good luck with your biography of the Iron Duke.

Best,

Only because Britain didn't control any major American territory at the time of the treaty. If she had, Wellington wouldn't have said what he did.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You may want to do a little more reading

Exactly. Had he and the others in charge not wussied out, Maine would be back in British hands.

Wellington had other things on his mind in 1812-15; when he was asked by Liverpool to consider the American command in November, 1814 (typo), Wellington's response was that the British had nothing to bargain with, because they could win nothing...

As Cobbet said: "Think of the expense of such a war! We conquer nothing, we capture nothing, and almost every action is followed by a retreat."

Best,
 
Last edited:
Wellington had other things on his mind in 1812-15; when he was asked by Liverpool to consider the American command in November, 1814 (typo), Wellington's response was that the British had nothing to bargain with, because they could win nothing...

As Cobbet said: "Think of the expense of such a war! We conquer nothing, we capture nothing, and almost every action is followed by a retreat."

Best,

It's not like we need Wellington to go conquer Maine, Sir John Sherbrooke had already done so in the summer of 1814, and Maine would remain in British hands until the end of the war. All that is needed to keep it, or at least up to the Penobscot, is for the negotiators at Ghent to take a slightly harder stance. A USA teetering on the brink of financial collapse (which as Dathi pointed out in the other thread, it was) isn't going to argue the point that much, as they're getting what they want everywhere else and need a peace treaty as soon as possible.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
A more favorable border settlement in Maine is plausible - OTL's boundaries includes some territories that border Canada and speak Acadian French, as they did at the time the border was being drawn. Along with a lot of empty land. The Aroostook territorial dispute could've been settled differently, Britain could've done better in the war of 1812 and pushed some cessions of the disputed area.

But them grabbing the whole state is not going to happen - there wasn't any sort of "we made a mistake" sentiment after the ARW, and it was part of Massachusetts (i.e. the colony the whole war started over) during the ARW, so detaching it then doesn't work either.
 
So, how plausible would You call a Canada that includes Alaska, Maine, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and probably bought Greenland from Denmark?

What consequences would such a big Canada have on history, let`s say as from 1880?
1) with a PoD that late, Maine is doubtful, as mentioned.

Getting the other bits would likely require Canada to be much stronger, or for Britain to be much more zealous on behalf of Canada. Which would be a major PoD right there...

2) if youre willing to go back to 1812, or preferably even earlier, Canada can end up even bigger than that - check out my tl.

3) are you Ukrainian? And why the ö?
 
Top