Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?

The whole scenario is ridiculous, either Canada would declare strict neutrality to avoid invasion or Britain would never join the Entente because it has no hope of winning a war against both Germany and the USA.

If there is a war, 90% of the fighting takes place from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the Ontario peninsula and Canada has fallen by 1916.

But why is Britain wearing the dunce hat in this scenario? How does British policy remain exactly the same when a major peer competitor is about to join the fray? Britain would tell France and Russia in no uncertain terms that she wouldn't get involved if there was a potentially hostile America afoot. This is the same Britain that wouldn't cansider an alliance with Russia until they got thumped by the Japanese. If there's a hostile America it's probably Britain moving closer to the CP to shore up its European commitments.

 

As I have only just started reading this thread I thought that I might have my two bobs worth. OK, this is the scenario then. Germany invades France and Belgium. The United States invades Canada. The British Empire, not committed to the Entente by any treaty, has a choice to make. Does it send troops to France or Canada? Anyone taking bets on this? The Royal Navy, the most powerful navy in the world at this time, to my mind would soon be steaming across the Atlantic looking for that part of the the USN based on the Eastern seaboard. Anyone taking bets on the outcome of that fight?

 

I guess I'm just curious why Britain started a war and stopped it so quickly. Did they secure more land out west for Canada? Why were they satisfied? It would be in their best interest to negotiate a peace that keeps an independent CSA, as this would provide them with agricultural goods at a much cheaper price than OTL.
Why do they stop fighting the war?

 

Because I didnt want to create another proto-TL-191 thread.

 

Because their justification was securing reparations for the Trent, the US has no stomach for an extended conflict and will just pay the demanded bribe, while Britain dosen't want to take on the burden of yet another large area of the world she has to watch against ecroachment by rival powers? They already has to guard against Russian incursions into the Balkans, the sovergeinity and neutrality of the low counteries, consolidating and securing India from Russian centeral Asian expansion and internal disdent, keep the Egyptian situation stable, retain her dominance in the Eastern Pacific, AND insure the balance of power on the Continent isen't allowed to be thrown off kilter to the point a major rival emerges. Adding the US to the list of pots that needs to be watched risks overextension to the point multiple crisis risk breaking out at the same time an London dropping multiple balls, to say nothing of removing a vital vent for British investment capital to turn a profit (Oh, and add Mexico to that list if Nappy 3rd locks that into the French sphere. Far better to just take a little bit that the US will forgive for the sake of the Imperial policy as a whole.

 

Fair points.

 

That still doesn't explain why America holds the grudge for the next sixty years though, or that Britain is dumb enough to antagonize them for sixty years. What does either side gain from that?

 

What's this about a "MUCH MORE brutal Reconstruction"? What was so brutal about the OTL Reconstruction: giving ex-slaves and other people of color the vote? Allowing them to run for public office? Providing them with a modicum of economic opportunity and education? Sending in troops to control Ku Klux Klan violence? Historians have reexamined Reconstruction over the past few decades, and the myth of the Lost Confederacy no long has much credibility. Still, given the premise that the Union cracked down on southern whites especially hard, how would this affect the willingness of the southern majority to develop enthusiasm for the Kaiser's war against Britain, France and Russia a half century later? And would the British in 1862 really have wanted to take Union territory permanently, and thus leave an open sore that could only cause huge problems in the future? And even if they were so foolish, by the end of the Civil War, the U.S. had the largest battle hardened land forces on this planet. Ulysses S. Grant or William Tecumseh Sherman could have swept through Maine in a few weeks, and who could have stopped him? Relations between the U.S. and Britain would have gotten back on an even keel, U.S. manufacturers would have gotten rich off providing weapons and provisions to the British and French in the early years of World War One, and would have entered the war near the end to protect their loans to Britain. I don't see how many Americans would have been willing to rush to war in 1914, especially not having a tradition of universal military service or conscription, and not having the paranoia about foreign powers that the cheek by jowl nations of Europe did. Finally, Teddy Roosevelt, assuming his Presidency was not butterflied away by the vast earlier changes in history, was simply too smart to join the super-aggressive kaiser (and the Kaiser's decrepit lapdogs in Austria and Turkey) against the number one naval power Britain, against British dominions with which the U.S. was friendly, against traditional U.S. ally France (we wouldn't have won our independence without French support, as historian Roosevelt well knew) and against Russia, also a friendly nation. And given especially the naval situation, what could the Kaiser do to provide help to the U.S.? Still, if someone could explain in detail how the proposed scenario could be made plausible, I have to agree that Canada would be toast.

 

Yah, that confused me too. Britain isent in position to prioritize both North America and North Europe as zones of threat. But it's possible there's a misinterpreting of American acceptance as a sign the Latin America market is open (Maybe Britain swallowed the bitter pill and agreed for the sake of good relations with France to slip in American reputation of Juarez and a crack down on the smuggling of guns and raising of volunteers/capital by the Liberals as a section of the treaty) and so as America comes into her own she's getting agrivates by European messing about in her backyard

 

I.e. South under military occupation, no Jim Crow, Union hit hard southern whites, physically eliminates KKK, promoting blacks into public office, CSA flags are outlawed, defending Confederacy is outlawed, and South have no right to vote until 1895,although military occupation formally ended in 1881, let's say.

 

Ahh. So by 1925 both the new Northern and the old Southern states hate the middle's guts.

 

Two fucking words : AL. France was angry for almost 50 years until they retook it.
And Maine is bigger than AL

 

But the British are unlikely to take more than the northern less inhabited portion of Maine and then only to add strategic depth to the link between Canada proper and the Maritimes.

Also your contention earlier about other investors than the British, whom do you mean? The Dutch were already as historically committed as they likely could manage, which really leaves the French and France was usually able to convince its citizens and banks with money to lend to do so according to the strategic interests of the Republic.

Look I am alright with this concept if you are willing to entertain there are countless variations as to how it could go but you are seemingly determined to produce only one outcome and that is rather odd seeing as how you are trying to start by showing history as we know could be derailed.

 

I think in such a scenario, the Brits would try to offer to sell the land back to the US for a very low price to avoid the two-front war. They'd know they couldn't win such a war. The US would do a heavy naval building program in the 1880s and 1890s, and would do better at it than the Germans.

I suspect the Brits would learn how angry the American are the hard way over the Venezuela Crisis. I would not be shocked if a status quo ante bellum Naval War pops up over that crisis, or the Brits get involved in the Spanish-American war. If those things happen, I could see the US sticking the war out or fully allying with Germany. If that happens, WWI might be quick or even averted, as Italy would stay with the CP. (My guess is Venezuela Crisis would be a draw, and Spanish-American War would be fairly limited but US would hold its own)

If those things don't happen, the US would be bought out of the war fairly easily. Quebec separatism would not be much of a thing, as the US might not be trusted due to anti-French sentiment.

I don't see the RN being able to effectively fight a fully mobilized US Navy and German HSF, at least not without a stronger French and Russian Navy.

If Britain gets crushed, I suspect the peace would be the US gains most of Canada, but Quebec gets independence (and Brits keep Newfoundland), but US gets some Caribbean colonies like Bermuda. Britain gets its navy capped. Canada does eventually get pacified, as US rule would be fairly light.

Another possible knock-on. Socialists support the war, or at least oppose it less knowing the reality of the situation, and don't get suppressed. Throw in the new Canadian citizens, and it's possible the US has a 3-party system after the Depression. I don't see the US going fascist at all. (It's also likely Taft and Wilson get butterflied out)

 

Alsace Lorraine was more economically and strategically important, with the attachment of humiliating terms and an almost absurd indemnity by the invading Germans. Some sparsely populated territory in Maine would never hold the same weight in the public's mind. It's like saying the US would go to war if they hadn't gotten all of the Alaska panhandle.

 

given the fact that communications in this era went by the British owned transatlantic cables it would have been good luck keeping communications secret unless they are hand delivered. secondly if the US is openly building a larger army and a navy to compete with the UK its not that easy to hide.

 

funny how the American view is always their patriotism is valid but no else is allowed to have any..

 

If you think Candian patriotism will bridge a population, numbers and industry gab literally hundreds of times bigger, I have some Southerners who got thier asses kicked by the Union who want a word with you because they thought the same thing.

And mind you, the gap between the CSA and USA was only 1:5.

With Canada, it's 1:100.

You don't win against numbers like that.

 

I dont think that's fair. Canadian Patriotism would exist, the question is if that fire burns intensly enough to overpower the other motivations of enough people to reach a critical, self supporting mass. Remember, the normal wellspring of any society's militiant patriotism (young men) has already taken a serious knock from casulties (both physical and psychological) from the actual campaign of Canadian defense, with the most dedicated having self-selected themselves into that group by volunteering and traveling to join the main Canadian defense units. Other folks have attachments and responsibilities that have to be weighed against taking a rifle and heading into the hills to wage a gurilla resistance: families, communities, property, ect. which are all put through hardship and risk by that choice. Even if they have patriotic sentiments, to use an example, a father might swallow them for the sake of providing a better life for his children. Then there's the fact American civilian settlers are going to be coming into the region in fairly substantial numbers, rather than the only experience with the Americans being an extended military occupation. This interaction with non-soldiers, given the commonality of language, apperance, culture ect. (Armies are by their nature always alien to civilians, but civilians are not) will make it hard to strongly go them as alien/dehumanized, reducing further the number of people who will be willing to impliment violence against them, while maintaining the standard of living of a pre-war Western society will require communities generally reconciling with integration into the American commercial system, forcing further interaction and assimilation.

Now, you have social pressure pushing the remaining rebellious souls in the opposite direction of further resistance. Their neighbors have something to lose if the situation grows violent enough to drive commerce out of the region and convince the Americans that marshal law (even temporary) for the area must replace local civil law that gives them a voice in their own affairs.

 

Yeah, it will be a cakewalk . A divided America that spent half a century occupying and pacifying a rebellious south, a much poorer America which has had curtailed investment from Britain and a much larger military spending because of two generations of sabre rattling. I'm sure Americans will be streaming to the colours to fight a war started in Europe over a patch of territory in northern Maine that has more moose than people.