Fate of Canada in case of Central Powers US?

[Dan1988]

What about Quebec? Would the Americans be able to get Quebecois nationalists to collaborate with them?

I'll stick my foot here and say, well, no.

At this point in time, what exists is not "Québécois" nationalism per sé as we know it. It's still French-Canadian nationalism, albeit scattered throughout Canada, New England, and the Midwest with Quebec as its main centre, and among the nationalist élites the focus is on la survivance, on resistance to assimilation (even if French-Canadians themselves were happy to migrate between both worlds, although in the dominant English-speaking world they would have occupied an inferior position in the class structure). Also, keep in mind that what was French-Canadian nationalism back in the early decades of the 20th century is modern English-Canadian nationalism and the Québec federalist movement now, during the early decades of the 21st century and the last decades of the 20th century. It's not as open and shut a case as one would think, influenced by what happened during the 1960s and after IOTL. As far as US attitudes towards French-Canadians towards this period (as well as English-Canadian attitudes outside of Quebec, which at this point in time "English-Canadian" would not be the preferred term used but instead British-Canadian - as if Canadians were just mere subsets of the British people), I'd say look at historical attitudes towards Jews and current attitudes towards "Mexicans" (read: Latin Americans in general) and you've got the traditional attitudes towards French-Canadians in the US. It also didn't help that other immigrant groups - Irish-Americans, for example - were not big fans of French-Canadians because at a time when other immigrant groups were demanding higher wages and better working conditions, French-Canadians were - from the point of view of employers - quite happy to work in dangerous conditions for very little if any pay, thereby undercutting any advancement that the labour movement would have made. It's no secret why groups like the KKK and the Technocracy movement thought that French-Canadians were "inferior peoples" who they thought would be much better off if they were exterminated and that the KKK had a very significant following in the US North. Faced with this, in the US Franco-Americans had to fight every step of the way so that the community could maintain its rights, and the same was true among French-Canadians in Canada (even though in the latter case the BNA Act and its predecessor laws specifically mentioned that French-Canadian linguistic and cultural rights were to be protected).

In a Central Powers US that conquered Canada, I'll just say that the position of French-Canadians in general would be rather ambiguous. As long as they are perceived to not created much of a fuss, then they would be OK. Smaller communities, i.e. Bonnie Doon near Edmonton, AB, or the Acadians in general, would face much more of a challenge towards assimilation (as was the case in New England, where Franco-Americans were up until the last decades of the 20th century the one Euro-American ethnic group most resistant to assimilation, or still the case now in Louisiana), while the greater one's connection to Quebec the greater the chance of potential survival, although their interactions with the outside world would be tinged with suspicion, discrimination, anti-Catholicism, Francophobia, and all that pizzazz. Fortunately, one of the great strengths that allowed French Canada to survive was its ability to adapt to surrounding circumstances while preserving the core of French-Canadian identity, and this was more so the case of ordinary people, so even if French Canada - which ITTL would just simply revert back to simply "Canada" without any qualifiers - had to fight for their rights, this time within a system much less conducive to what Americans would see as "special privileges" (and even more so ITTL when the US allies itself with the CP), it would still make out OK and somewhat still in one piece. If French-Canadians ITTL were smart enough and able to forge an alliance with Native American and Métis peoples, then French Canada - as an adjunct of this - would definitely benefit from the rise of the American Indian Movement (though as a largely European-origin people it would also have to have self-reflection of its own - which would be perfectly acceptable, since historically during the colonial era there were in general much better relations between the French and Native peoples than elsewhere in North America).

 

[Dan1988]

If offered an independent Quebec will the Francophones want to engage in partisan warfare against the USA?

Hmm, . . .

Depends on how it is set up. Historically, despite the 1917 conscription crisis, French-Canadians in general and Québec in particular did their part for the defence of the British Empire (even if the nationalists were ambivalent about it), and since an independent Québec - much like Vichy France IOTL during the Second World War - would basically be seen by both nationalists and ordinary people as a cheap joke and a transparent attempt to colonize their part of the (French-)Canadian nation à la Puerto Rico (not to mention also not well-liked by Anglophones as well, both English-Canadian and French-Canadian), you'd bet that there would be resistance to the collaborators, splitting the nationalist movement in half and without the seal of approval from the Vatican (who, of course, would counsel deference towards authority). Most likely though, if other US expansionist actions are any guide, Québec would be included along with any other areas of Canada that the US would annex, because it would only be English-speakers that would count - not Francophones - and both Washington and the local administration would do its utmost to try to ban the French language and French-Canadian culture, much like similar wartime efforts IOTL against the German language and German-American culture as well as similar attempts against Spanish in the Southwest and against French in Louisiana. Which would all be perceived as attacks contre la nation canadienne, which would therefore need to be defended at all costs - peacefully, of course. Therefore, once colonial liberation becomes a thing, you'd bet that all the OTL language in the '60s and '70s about French-Canadians as "les Nègres blancs d'Amérique" and all that would have much greater resonance ITTL.

 

[Dan1988]

That's ASB

Not as ASB as what Ottawa did to Ukrainian Canadians during WW1 much like what the US would do later on to Japanese-Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Canadian_internment

 

[Dan1988]

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.

Umm, it's not that cut-and-dried. (Regulation 17, anyone? Manitoba Schools Question, anyone?) French-Canadians in general - not just those in Québec - were basically mistrustful of anyone who would reduce their historic rights, no matter if French, British (despite the laws on the statute books), or American. This also applied to their cousins south of the border in New England as well (Sentinelle Affair, anyone?). Personally, I'd think Québec in particular and French Canada in general would take a wait-and-see attitude before eventually going against Washington - much like the same strategy that's used time and time again to ultimately prevail. With Québec in particular, its ambiguous attitude towards the US means that it can appropriate from the US when it felt like it (i.e. as part of the multi-ethnic coalition that was the Patriote movement back in the 1830s, or the massive exposure to US culture through the extension south to the textile mills of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, et. al.) and can distance itself from it at the same time (hence part of the ambiguity surrounding the American Revolution and the War of 1812, all of which were not necessarily dependent on the Catholic Church, as well as the various diatribes against Anglo-American capital controlling the Québec economy). Outside of Québec, of course, reactions would differ considerably based on pragmatic situations on the ground. Now, defending French rights at home? Sure, that could be used, but once you open up Pandora's box expect to deal with the consequences once it goes out of control.

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.

Agreed.

 

[sloreck]

An independent Quebec would of necessity be very closely tied to the USA economically, especially the USA would have all of Canada west of Quebec and possibly the Maritimes +/- Nova Scotia. A US military base or bases at the mouth of the St Lawrence can ensure control, and in any case there is no way Quebec could be a military threat to the USA - an alliance with anti-US entities simply won't be allowed. There is simply no need for the USA to physically incorporate Quebec if the rest of Canada with the possible exceptions noted is theirs. BY offering independence, the US splits the Quebecois - those who will take the opportunity may be a small percentage but not that small, and efforts among the "pro-Canada" Quebecois directed against the "pro-independence" Quebecois are efforts not directed against the USA.

 

[ReconGuy02]

Which former province would join Union first?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Umm, it's not that cut-and-dried. (Regulation 17, anyone? Manitoba Schools Question, anyone?) French-Canadians in general - not just those in Québec - were basically mistrustful of anyone who would reduce their historic rights, no matter if French, British (despite the laws on the statute books), or American. This also applied to their cousins south of the border in New England as well (Sentinelle Affair, anyone?). Personally, I'd think Québec in particular and French Canada in general would take a wait-and-see attitude before eventually going against Washington - much like the same strategy that's used time and time again to ultimately prevail. With Québec in particular, its ambiguous attitude towards the US means that it can appropriate from the US when it felt like it (i.e. as part of the multi-ethnic coalition that was the Patriote movement back in the 1830s, or the massive exposure to US culture through the extension south to the textile mills of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, et. al.) and can distance itself from it at the same time (hence part of the ambiguity surrounding the American Revolution and the War of 1812, all of which were not necessarily dependent on the Catholic Church, as well as the various diatribes against Anglo-American capital controlling the Québec economy). Outside of Québec, of course, reactions would differ considerably based on pragmatic situations on the ground. Now, defending French rights at home? Sure, that could be used, but once you open up Pandora's box expect to deal with the consequences once it goes out of control

Agreed, not that cut and dried. The precedent of the French Canadians looking out for French Canadian interests will always be there and it would be an issue of weighing the benefits of one side against the other. My argument boils down to one of looking at it from the perspective of protecting their current status vs any nebulous offers of a new status in the aftermath. Historically its been a case of finding a better deal with the devil you know vs the devil you don't and an overarching loyalty to the country they were born in by my reading.

The issue of French rights at home (or its perception at any rate) has always been a minefield in Canadian politics, though I think any Canadian/British government would bank on using it at need for propaganda purposes.

I've just found the trope of "French Canadians rise up to throw off the British yoke and help American invaders" painfully contrived in these kinds of discussions. Inevitably following with Quebec becoming a client state when its geographic position and the lack of historic sensitivity in Washington to those who have important strategic positions and their particular wishes about not being invaded or occupied.

 

[longsword14]

French Canadians rise up to throw off the British yoke and help American invaders

But that need not be the Americans' expectation.
French Canadians don't need to be an active fifth column. The Americans only have to create such a situation on the ground where the options would be a separate Francophone region that could be had by accepting the material reality, i.e. British Empire will face defeat, or a doomed war for Anglophone Canada.
As you say, they will look after their interests, none of which is to bleed needlessly for a worse outcome.

 

[Tehshudge]

I highly doubt the political willpower would exist for the US to engage on open warfare on its borders at this time. Americans were barely willing to allow a modest expeditionary force to be sent over to a war that was in the process of wrapping up - there would have been a revolt over a full blown conflict with Canada.

 

[longsword14]

. Americans were barely willing to allow a modest expeditionary force to be sent over to a war that was in the process of wrapping up

This wouldn't be WWI, would it ? AEF had more than a million troops, and had the war gone on it would have only gotten bigger.
And transporting things across water had its own challenges, which would not exists in a land war in N. America.

 

[Tehshudge]

This wouldn't be WWI, would it ? AEF had more than a million troops, and had the war gone on it would have only gotten bigger.
And transporting things across water had its own challenges, which would not exists in a land war in N. America.

Oh certainly, but that is a relatively small force compared to the aggregate of the war. The US got away with ~100K deaths from WWI. Several countries in the war lost more men than the entire size of the AEF. In any case, that amount (~117K) would likely be equivalent to a month or so of casualties from a North American theatre of war (not to mention civilian casualties would be a factor).

 

[longsword14]

In any case, that amount (~117K) would likely be equivalent to a month or so of casualties from a North American theatre of war (not to mention civilian casualties would be a factor).

Canadian casualties would definitely be worse proportionally and the ability to replace them in minimal.

Several countries in the war lost more men than the entire size of the AEF.

The US will not be taking that many casualties in North America, the opposition to do that does not exist.

 

[Blue cat]

There are also those Islands in the North Pacific, the Aleutians which in WW2 the Japanese decided would make a nice addition to their Empire, and staging points for an attack on Alaska. Not exactly what most people think of when they talk about Pacific Islands.

The dynamics between Russia and Japan would also be interesting. After the US declared war on the Entente in this scenario the Russians might decide to try and take back Alaska. One can speculate endlessly how this might play out and how the Russians, Japanese (if the Japanese join the war against the USA in this time line) and the UK might interact with each other in the Northern Pacific while prosecuting the war against the USA.

Again I just don`t see the logic in the US declaring war on the entire Entente if all they want is Canada. What do they possibly have to gain by declaring war on France and Russia (as well as the UK) but presumably if they do so their war aims are larger than simply taking Canada.

 

[Dan1988]

An independent Quebec would of necessity be very closely tied to the USA economically, especially the USA would have all of Canada west of Quebec and possibly the Maritimes +/- Nova Scotia. A US military base or bases at the mouth of the St Lawrence can ensure control, and in any case there is no way Quebec could be a military threat to the USA - an alliance with anti-US entities simply won't be allowed. There is simply no need for the USA to physically incorporate Quebec if the rest of Canada with the possible exceptions noted is theirs.

I'm going to work this bit backwards just so that I can get my point across. That point is simple - Québec would have to be included with the rest of Canada if the US were to annex the whole thing. By WW1 you have French-Canadian communities moving outside of Québec because of problems back home, with Ontario and across the border in New England as major areas where French-Canadian communities thrived. French-Canadian communities would be found as far west as Alberta, and particularly with Northern Ontario and the then-separate regions in Québec of the Abitibi (which since 1912 would be considered part of "Nouveau-Québec", as Québec's northern areas would be called until the 1970s IOTL) and the Témiscamingue, as well as the area around Chaleur Bay (separating the Gaspé from New Brunswick) things functioned as if there were no border, with the main railway going through several important Northern Ontario communities requiring going through Québec. Furthermore, Québec was comparatively speaking a lot more de facto bilingual, even in Québec City, by necessity and not by choice (and that's even with a largely unilingual Francophone majority). Québec is too interconnected with the rest of Canada at this point to try to isolate it, and for that matter had the border not been slammed shut during the Depression Québec would have been the same way with New England. The St. Lawrence in this case would be like the Panama Canal - if the US were to occupy Canada, the St. Lawrence would be too important not to leave into the hands of people who could be a little too independent for Washington's liking. As the St. Lawrence contains a good portion of Québec's major urban and economic centers (especially Montréal, which is very close to the border), then that would mean that the only way the US would feel secure is if it physically incorporated Québec with the rest of Canada - with a system tilted to favor Anglophones, of course. Now, I agree about the economic dominance of the US, as it was also in good part the case IOTL. The main reason is Québec's natural resources, which the mining regions of the north would provide a lot of, along with many other areas closer to home, such as for example the asbestos mines. Now granted, much of what Québec would have to offer here would duplicate natural resources elsewhere in the US, but for a region as sensitive as Québec it would be too important to leave it in the hands of an independent state, even if it was a client state. No, it would be incorporated into the US along with the rest of Canada as a state, with extra-ordinary efforts to enforce the English language and attempt to dismantle Québec's traditional institutions (including attempting to diminish the role of the Catholic Church). Much like what happened elsewhere every time the US occupied a region where another language was the majority. That would be easier for Washington to handle than an independent state on its border whose politics would be very unpredictable.

BY offering independence, the US splits the Quebecois - those who will take the opportunity may be a small percentage but not that small, and efforts among the "pro-Canada" Quebecois directed against the "pro-independence" Quebecois are efforts not directed against the USA.

I don't think the US would be that smart to go along with that, particularly for something that close to the border. Even more so as independence was not even a serious option until the question was raised during WW2 during the conscription crisis then, and again in the 1950s with the Alliance laurentienne. Before that - no, you rarely if ever see anything like bubbling towards independentist sentiment. What you see more of, particularly with people like Honoré Mercier and Taschereau, is moves towards provincial autonomy, though even here Québec would not be the only one as Ontario expressed very similar sentiments towards provincial autonomy in its dealings with Ottawa, and assisted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which always sided with the provinces in federal-provincial disputes. This would be one of those things where when dealing with the world outside of the parallel universe of the mental map of French Canada (which is larger than just Quebec) people would move in a bloc. They wouldn't be split that easily.

 

[Alternator]

On a tangent from the current argument, to achieve the OP's basic goals (broadly recognizable WWI, with assorted nations reasonably similar), would the most reasonable timeline look something like this:

After a worst Trent Affair (more British deaths, etc.) a Trent War breaks out, during which Britain cracks the Union blockade and the Confederacy is able to import supplies, lengthening the ACW somewhat. The Lincoln administration wants the British to go away ASAP, and agrees to lousy terms, including territorial concessions (in the western territories - he's not about to give away part of an existing state), harsh reparations, an official apology accepting fault, etc. The (OTL) goodwill between the Russian Empire and the American public deepens after the Russians serve as mediators and are perceived as favoring the Americans (whether true or not is irrelevant), providing one stable link to European diplomacy - not an alliance, but both countries consistently support the other in diplomatic issues.

The ACW is longer and bloodier, causing grudges in both North and South against Britain: in the North, for making the war last longer, and in the South, for abandoning the fight. Relations between the US and UK are peaceful, but always with an underlying tension; combined with the American-Russian friendship, this leaves an opening for Otto von Bismark to slowly ingratiate the German Empire with the American public, and to set up unfavorable PR for the French ("They invaded Mexico, what else might they try?"). Over time, the Germans come to be viewed as a friendly nation with compatible goals, helped by the huge German immigrant population in the United States.

Cue the alt-Venezuela Crisis, whose foundation already existed before our PoD. The tension between the UK and US, long dormant but never dead, quickly rekindles as events nearly spiral into a naval conflict. The German Empire manages to intercede and convince both sides to accept mediation, marking the start of a shift in public opinion toward the Germans as Our Buddies and the British as Those Bullies; add a few more incidents, and the American public comes to accept that the Europeans (mostly the British, but also the Spanish, French, and anybody else with colonial holdings in the Americas) just won't allow isolationism to continue.

Depending on the butterflies, the specific alliances could be interesting - the only one that's hard to avoid is French and German enmity. Anything from OTL's primary alliances (Italy isn't likely to jump sides, though, and the Ottomans might not get pulled in) to a Russo-German alliance (which probably requires Russia to either be shafted at some point, or the Ottomans to successfully reform and oppose Russia, in order for the Franco-Austrian axis to feel confident in their chances) is possible. In any case, the *USA has developed similarly enough to use OTL as a basis of comparison.