Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by StealthyMarat, Feb 7, 2019.

  1. Blue cat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    The thing is Canada doesn't get to decide to play or not in this time frame. The UK does.
    Just to be clear.. In 1914 Canada doesn't get to decide if they want to play in the game or or not (ie. the UK gets to decide if Canada goes to war or not.) They do have some say as to how they will play in the game but they don`t get to decide not to play.
     
    RodentRevolution likes this.
  2. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    The US will attack Canada first since it's the most dangerous threat they face and the one easiest to take. Once Canada is done, the US will sit back, build up the Navy, and then take care of the British (and French) in the Caribbean, island hopping to Trinidad (key oil source). Bermuda will fall shortly after. The US will also ensure that the Germans do better in Africa and get their colonies back at the very least, no strings attached. Odds are good that the US Navy will eventually strike out into the Pacific and start taking British islands if given the chance, but I think that the British will be defeated by the point the US can launch a campaign there (and early on, the Anglo-Japanese alliance will keep the US and the small German Pacific squadron on the defensive, but I expect the Japanese will bow out given 2-3 US victories since they can't commit to a sustained war against a major power like the US at that point).

    After the war the British Empire is screwed since the US will make sure chunks of it are handed to Germany (Zanzibar, some West African colonies, etc.), some are given independence (Boers), and the US will annex quite a bit--all British and French Caribbean islands (I don't see the Germans getting any) and at the very least British Columbia. Canada is divided into three republics (Ontario+Prairies--assuming the Prairie Provinces aren't annexed too, Quebec, and the Maritimes), Newfoundland will become independent. Guyana will probably be handed to the US as well, while Belize is annexed by Guatemala. Brazil will likely annex French Guiana assuming they were allied to the US (Latin America in the early 20th century is very US influenced, but there's still a lot of British influence, so an Anglo-American War could easily spark a lot of conflict in Latin America).

    So yes, when Canada is gone, the rest of the British Empire is next. This TL's US Marines will be just as famous for their exploits in the Caribbean as OTL's US Marines are in the Pacific.
    So does the US, that larger army has wargamed this scenario and has a lot more officers able to make their voice. They have years of experience in guerilla warfare against the American Indians.

    True, we're talking about the same US which committed to the Aleutians Campaign, but resupplying any force in Churchill or any far north Canada port is simply pointless in the scheme of things. A US geared up to war production won't find much problem sending a few ships to patrol against the UK--or early aircraft. In the far north, icebreakers will be an interesting factor since the US will have experience with them during the campaign on the Great Lakes. Any amount of equipment or personnel lost at that point is replaceable.

    Japan has nothing to gain helping the British in the Western Hemisphere. They have little to gain at all once the US joins the war since once the US gears for war, Japan can be sure they won't gain a thing (since the US will try and help Germany out at the peace settlement against Japan) and could lose quite a bit (starting with the IJN). An invasion of Hawaii will almost certainly be defeated. The Philippines will be challenging to hold for the US, but if the US is seriously preparing for a war against Britain, then they've made plans for the Phillippines too which will make it very, very challenging for Japan to take (although could rely too much on local soldiers).

    Good luck at that, since it will send many Royal Navy sailors to their graves by 1915/1916 trying to relieve Halifax or the Caribbean. They'll take down a lot of Americans in the process, but between the lack of oil (oil-fired USN ships will dominate their coal-fired RN ships) and the distance the US Navy and the US Marines will win again and again in the Caribbean (in addition to the final defeat in Canada). It's enough to make Britain question why they're even fighting, when the German-American alliance is clearly dominating. Britain is not stupid--they will find a place in this new German-American world.

    Yes, the US holdings will be different, as in bigger at the cost of the British and French. Japan's half-hearted interest in the Great War means a solid defeat or two at American hands means they'll quit the war. Japan is not a solid ally for the Entente.

    The US cannot land many forces in Europe, unless Spain is allied to the CP. The GIUK gap ensures very few Americans will arrive in Europe, likely no more than a division at best. Instead, the might of the United States will be unleashed on the British Empire, starting with Canada. And this is very bad for the Entente. Not a single Canadian soldier will arrive in Europe. The UK will devote their resources toward supplying the war in Canada. Some pre-war Royal Navy buildup will go toward defending Canada, in a hopeless quest against the US buildup (US Great Lakes shipbuilding was dominant vs Canada's shipbuilding there and the US has no desire to let the Anglo-Canadians eclipse them there).

    After Canada comes the Caribbean, including Belize, Bermuda, and Guyana. Then the Pacific colonies of Britain and France. Then Africa--Liberia will get a shot in the arm.

    IJN can't be counted on IMO. And the Great Lakes will either result in early American victories, or early British victories (against all odds) followed by the Americans overwhelming the British through sheer industrial capacity.

    In the 1910s, Irish, German, and Italian Americans could be a potent anti-British force domestically, and I wouldn't be surprised that by early 1916, the global war will be looking very poor for the Entente side, and then in comes the Italians, having waited for this opportunity--Nice and Corsica will be their's by the end of things no doubt.

    I would love to see a "Channel Dash" type battle where the US sends a fleet through the English Channel to dock somewhere in occupied Belgium as a challenge to the Royal Navy, which causes a major sortie, which results in one side being dashed against the White Cliffs of Dover in utter defeat.
     
  3. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    Joined:
    May 14, 2017
    Dirty little secret of the American Industrial Revolution: a huge part of it was funded with British money. I once read, can't remember where do this may not be true, that getting British money out of the economy was a secondary goal of FDR during the lead up to US entry to WWII. Not meaning British purchases, but British investment and ownership. Which, if it is true, would really explain why he was so hard nosed about not offering credit until they really were broke.
     
    Goldkingy and RodentRevolution like this.
  4. ChadMachine999 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2018
    America might not have British money, but that wouldn’t prevent Industrialization. A more militarized America might even industrialize faster because they would be more willing to use state power to subsidize industrialization compared to OTL’s lazie-faire America.
     
  5. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    There is a huge difference between prevention and besides what is under discussion is the likely rate of growth. The issue here is that without as much British capital certain projects will happen more slowly. These include government projects, note both state and federal governments raised money from the British. Now the purpose of borrowing is to keep taxes lower. There is a fine (and to make things more awkward) constantly moving line marking the right balance between taxation and borrowing as a means of paying for government but getting it right has a lot of advantages. The main one being that in general governments recognise their citizens are the best advised as to how to spend their own money and that while government can provide some services more efficiently taking too much from private citizens is detrimental.

    The history of projects, not just government ones, is mixed but having lots of independent private projects is more likely to produce fast and effective results than a few grandiose government ones. cf the relative trajectories of the OTL USA who went the private enterprise route and Tsarist Russia which preferred a more state directed one.
     
    Goldkingy, TimTurner and SsgtC like this.
  6. Nephi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Canada outside of Quebec will be occupied and annexed.

    They might let the British keep Newfoundland but everything else will be retained.

    Quebec will be set up as a sister Republic (in reality a satellite state), it's non francophone population possibly expelled too.

    Quebec will have the border with Newfoundland if Britain keeps it settled back in their favor.

    Territory taken from Maine returned.

    I don't think Canada will be a harshly occupied place either, I think the US while flooding the country with settlers will do everything they can to win the hearts and minds of Canadians.

    Some borders are changed the Maritime provinces will probably be united as a single territory and future state.

    Each former province probably has a territorial government set up.

    British Columbia has a name change.

    Why not just call it Vancouver? Or maybe North Columbia.
     
    Deltax10 and thekingsguard like this.
  7. EnglishCanuck Blogger/Writer/Dangerous Moderate

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Location:
    The Commonwealth
    A British military which practiced conscription would be a different beast (and I suppose a nightmare from the German perspective) and could conceivably pour a good sized force into Canada upon the outbreak of war. I'm not sure that changes the outcome in North America though.

    The British Empire? Canada wasn't insignificant in terms of what it could offer, and realistically there would be some move to create a larger standing force in the event a hostile US to the south. Though they can't match the US man for man and ship for ship in the interior, there would be more than enough men willing to put their lives on the line for their homes. Remember, we're talking about a scenario where the US has invaded Canada three times in under a century here from 1775, 1812, and 1862, with probably the appropriate amount of saber rattling from then onwards. This is a scenario where the Canadians will be preparing for Round 4 in their eyes.

    This means that the Canadian Militia most likely fields 4-5 divisions upon the outbreak of war, plus whatever Britain manages to ship over.

    Make no mistake, I'm still saying Canada falls, but it fights. There's no reason to believe that a country which is still predominantly settled by fourth generation Loyalists and primarily British colonists would be willing to embrace Uncle Sam without a fight. Even the notoriously anti-conscription French would probably tolerate militarism in the face of an invading American army considering they've had four generations of clerical propaganda shoved down their throats.
     
  8. EnglishCanuck Blogger/Writer/Dangerous Moderate

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Location:
    The Commonwealth
    Nope, nope, and nope. There is no mythical French Fifth Column coming to help the Americans when they come charging across the border. The Quebecois have a history of mistrusting the Americans longer than they have of resenting the British. Remember, the government in London has been seen as traditionally protecting their rights since 1774 and 1840 when they were allowed to keep the rights and privileges of the clerical regime. The arguments over naval spending and military conscription historically all had to do with French sons dying on patches of British imperial territory across the sea, not spending their blood in defence of their homes. It would make a marked difference in terms of enlistment and conscription if the matter is about defending French rights at home versus British Imperial power abroad.

    Montreal and Quebec are the two vital lynch pins which the Americans need to occupy to seal up the St. Lawrence, the French fight and are occupied with the remainder of Canada. Maybe the are allowed to become a sister republic, but with Quebec controlling the mouth of the St. Lawrence and the overland route to the Maritimes, I doubt it.
     
    Rex Romae, Goldkingy, Dan1988 and 3 others like this.
  9. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    On of the problems seems to be we are looking at sans Trent War aka OTL USA all the time not Trent Intervention aka ITTL USA. That is going to have significant effects on US performance. Of course there are a huge range of outcomes and many of them do see the British Empire and Canada fall on their face but there are plenty of others. A US that rearmed too early might find itself rather like Italy in World War II sending its men out to die with equipment both its allies and enemies look upon as junk. A poorer America might simply not be able to fund the wunderheer of OTL 1917, it might be worth noting the M1917 after all was a rifle designed by the British and built in American factories paid for by the British. Not to say we would not likely see a larger and more robust looking US Army but it is no guarantee it is actually larger and better armed as regards OTL in regards the Canadian defence forces it must overcome and it is comparative strengths that matter.

    Further it should not be forgotten that the defence of Canada does not end at the Canadian shore. If the Germans fail to do their bit and in this scenario they might, then US trade goes into the woodchipper for the foreseeable. The biggest foreign carriers of US goods prior to OTL 1914 were the British and Germans and so with the British merchant marine refused them and their own and the Germans likely under attack America's ability to export and import and thus a key chunk of their economy goes out the window. Of course borne against this is the thought that a poorer America might find Canadian loot more of a compensation for its lost world trade than per OTL but the point is the future of Canada in such a scenario is potentially rather dark but not entirely lightless.

    I think if people want the walk over a lot of American posters are predicting they might instead be better off at looking to a 1920s Great War as it is somewhat (not entirely) inevitable that US power and might will grow in relative to Britain and indeed everyone else due to its access to such a wide span of resources. Of course on the Entente side Russia also should expect to do better in a 1920s war.

    Of course one of the interesting things to emerge from these alternate time line investigations is that the Americans quite clearly made an awful lot of the right choices OTL.
     
    Goldkingy, Dan1988 and Blue cat like this.
  10. Braden Anderson Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2017
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    How is the US going to win such a war? They'd be fighting the CSA (who now has aid from industrialized countries) on the Southern front, Canada on the Northern front, and the Royal Navy on the East Coast.
    Perhaps France gets involved against the British? French Mexico could attack the CSA from the south... trentWar.jpg
     
    Dan1988 likes this.
  11. StealthyMarat Ronald Reagan supporter Kicked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Location:
    Poltava, Ukraine
    1) Missouri was at Union hands as of January 1862. Maryland was at Union hands.
    2) US juggernaut was so powerful, that, citating one person : "Union fought with one hand tied at its back". @EnglishCanuck perfectly written how it could've went on his timeline "Wrapped in Flames: Great American War of 1862"
     
    thekingsguard and SsgtC like this.
  12. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    It is not looking like the Union are having an easy time of it over there.

    Still it is generally agreed the smartest move (though most politically fraught) in the event of the crisis turning into an intervention is to capitulate to the British as quickly as possible. What you do not seem to grasp is that every month the conflict lasts buys the CSA an additional month and perhaps more existence. It is that increased period of internecine destruction that hurts the US because when Sherman burns a railroad engine he hurts not just the rebels but the future US citizens the rebels will return to being, when a Union soldier dies of disease that is a working man not available to labour for the economic benefit of the USA and so on.

    A short Trent War on the other hand while it will hurt the British to some degree will hurt far less proportionally because one they are bigger; the British population plus Canada combined was bigger than that of the USA pre-Civil War and they have the bigger industrial base not to mention world trade and banking...two because the pain of the intervention goes on longer for the US as the Confederates receive a sudden infusion of weapons and other supplies above and beyond those that made it through the blockade of OTL thus increasing their period of resistance.

    While I have no doubt the Union would indeed prevail in the kind of scenario you outlined the pain would be a lot greater that OTL's Civil War.
     
    Dan1988 likes this.
  13. FillyofDelphi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Um... read the post you're quoting. The UK and US peace out after a VERY breif spat I which the US peaces out with a token financial and territorial concession to the Brits. This isent the UK aiding the Confederacy: it's them exploiting the US's disordered state and the threat of a serious conflict derailing the effort to stomp out the Rebs to get some disputes settled in her favor (IE oppritunist gunboat diplomacy). I'm sure the peace treaty that gives the UK what they want in money and Maine as a virtual bribe/protection racket payment involves them agreeing not to recognize or aid the rebels.
     
    Alternator and StealthyMarat like this.
  14. Alternator Devil's Advocate

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Location:
    New England
    So while one of their military rivals conscripts a million new reservists, the Germans do...nothing?

    Which British genius invented the long-range mind control device?

    Also, the United States is entirely capable of beating the British Empire in the 1910s, at least in the North American theater, so Canada is still hosed even if the Germans do strike an early peace.
     
    Dan1988 and SsgtC like this.
  15. RodentRevolution Chewer of Wires

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    Well the Germans were aware in the run up to World War 1 that they were short some 8 or so of the army corps needed to execute the Schliffen Plan but were reluctant to recruit more broadly because they feared this might dilute the loyalty of the Army to the Imperial regime. Also there was the conviction OTL right up to the last minute that the British could be dissuaded from intervening. Finally there was the issue of getting any extra German troops to the front line in time to have an impact whereas the German advance would carry their more out on a limb spearhead armies towards the arriving British reinforcements.

    The big problem for the US even were they take Canada in its entirety is the British are all too likely still in a position to interdict America's foreign trade and no it is not a given the US would be sufficiently stronger in this scenario for a quick overrun of Canada. The history of invading Canada is rather a poor one for would be attackers. This is not because of French or British or Canadian innate genius so much as the logistical constraints of the Canadian land and waterscape.

    Obviously there are countless variations where the US would win. Either due to its allies or by itself. It would just be nice if those who assume it would be so easy make the effort to extrapolate from actual history in a credible manner.
     
    Goldkingy, Dan1988 and Blue cat like this.
  16. ComradeDoge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2018
    The idea that the US wouldn’t do whatever it wants in a general war, on it’s home turf in the Western Hemisphere against an opponent that is vastly outpopulated and outproduced is laughable at best.

    US entry in the Cp means the UK and France get starved out within a year or two.
     
    Dan1988, Deltax10, SsgtC and 4 others like this.
  17. StealthyMarat Ronald Reagan supporter Kicked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Location:
    Poltava, Ukraine
    What would US do with Japan? Will we see OTL 1942-1944 in Pacific 30 years earlier?
     
  18. Evermourn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    There seems to be a widespread ignorance of the other Allied casualties at Gallipoli. I was unaware of it myself until a few years ago, perhaps because being Australian the focus here is on the ANZACs. In any case, the ANZACs were far from the majority of the casualties at Gallipoli, have a look at this https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/gallipoli-casualties-country Gallipoli was a screwup for sure, but the main price was paid by the UK troops, with the French not a long way behind the ANZAC troops.
     
    Goldkingy likes this.
  19. hipper Just running down the clock

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008

    you are assume the U.k. continues investing in the US through the 19th Century, hard to see if they are so hostile.
     
    Goldkingy likes this.
  20. StealthyMarat Ronald Reagan supporter Kicked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Location:
    Poltava, Ukraine
    There's plenty other investors...