US Grant invades Canada

Awesome. An advance through Canada shortly after independence would be a quick U.S. victory. The Canadians would be barley prepared, and the U.S. would win within a year or two. But, the guirrrella fighting...:(

Do you ever bother to think before opening your mouth?

We've just had three pages of discussion about how hard it would be for the USA to successfully invade Canada in the face of Candian and British resistance and you just ignore all that and steam in with another idiotic Ameriwank.

Let me clue you in on something. The United States of America did not spring forth fully formed from George Washington's head in 1776. It did not stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it did not possess a million man army ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 48 hours notice, it was not, repeat not, a superpower until after the year 1945.

If the USA had tried to invade Canada in 1870, a year when the population of America was less than twice the size of the population of Britain, let alone the population of Britain and Canada, and when the Royal Navy was larger than any other navy on Earth, the USA would not have won quickly, it would have gotten bogged down in vicious fighting in Eastern Canada and been defeated when British reinforcements arrived.

The only people who think otherwise are hormonal teenages.
 

General Zod

Banned
A rough way to look at UK-US wars;

Pre 1860; No contest. It just comes down to how much Britain wants to hurt the US
1860-1880; The US puts up a good fight but is still very much on the defensive.
1880-1918; The US takes Canada but loses at sea. Very even. Perhaps British victory.
1918-1940; As above but swaying more towards the US than UK.
1940-1970; UK puts up a very good fight but is truly on the defence.
1970 onwards; How much does the US want to hurt the UK? Its their choice.

Sorry, your table shows an exaggerated pro-British bias.
Pre 1860: correct... unless the British are engulfed in a major conflict elsewhere (a more successful Napoleon in 1812-14 comes to mind).
1860-1880: essentially correct, but mostly because the USA have still to fully recover from the effects of the ACW. If the ACW had been somehow avoided, the same amount of effort they poured in the ACW could have been used to conquer Canada instead.
1880-1918: the USA takes Canada but loses at sea... unless it prepared for the conflict and spent some years building up its Army and Navy; the Gilded Age and even more so, the Progressive Age USA had the potential to build a Navy much better than the one they owned, and if they did, the RN would be in a hell of a fight. Therefore, a draw if the USA is unprepared, a USA victory if they have prepared. Also, if the USA can get a good European alliance (Germany and/or Russia come to mind), or they enter WWI on the CP side, the UK is in a world of trouble.
1918-1940: As above but leaning towards a decisive USA victory more and more every year. If the USA cares to raise a decent Army and Navy, it is guaranteed of an eventual victory, after the 1920s its industrial potential can simply outcompete anything the British can come up with in the long term.
After 1940: The USA say "I want Canada" and the UK answers "Do you fancy a gift wrap ?".
 
Last edited:
Do you ever bother to think before opening your mouth?

We've just had three pages of discussion about how hard it would be for the USA to successfully invade Canada in the face of Candian and British resistance and you just ignore all that and steam in with another idiotic Ameriwank.

Let me clue you in on something. The United States of America did not spring forth fully formed from George Washington's head in 1776. It did not stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it did not possess a million man army ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 48 hours notice, it was not, repeat not, a superpower until after the year 1945.

If the USA had tried to invade Canada in 1870, a year when the population of America was less than twice the size of the population of Britain, let alone the population of Britain and Canada, and when the Royal Navy was larger than any other navy on Earth, the USA would not have won quickly, it would have gotten bogged down in vicious fighting in Eastern Canada and been defeated when British reinforcements arrived.

The only people who think otherwise are hormonal teenages.
Really sorry. Really. should really think more about these things.:(
 
Really sorry. Really. should really think more about these things.:(

Don't sweat it to much, you'd be messing with the laws of nature if you were mature and a teenager. Just remember, never start a post with the word awesome unless it's about Batman beating up Darth Vader.
 
Wasn't there a plan to invade Canada in the likelihood of war with the United Kingdom in the 1920's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

Found it! Though don't trust Wikipedia (its the devil).

Kind of an interesting subject.

Would that have even worked though? The UK was still the dominant naval power at that point and the plan is maddenly vague on the details.

Liked this part --

Rudmin also learned about an American plan from 1935 to build three military airfields near the Canadian border and disguise them as civilian airports. The secret scheme was revealed after the testimony of two generals in a closed-door session of the House Military Affairs Committee was published by mistake. When the Canadian government protested the plan, President Franklin Roosevelt reassured it that he wasn't contemplating war. The whole brouhaha made the front page of the New York Times on May 1, 1935.

Ok--I now have a new goal. I must use my google-fu powers to dig up a copy of that page...
 

General Zod

Banned
The UK was still the dominant naval power at that point

Only insomuch as the USA do not bother to outbuild the UK. The GDP of America was already three times the one of UK, with the divide growing higher every day, and the Washington Naval Treaty gave them naval parity with the UK. If it had come to blows in the 1920s-1940s, the USA industrial potential would have simply swamped the British Empire in men and equipment much as it did with Germany and Japan. And the American economy had grown so big and basically self-sufficient that the threat of a British blockade has essentially become a paper tiger, somewhat painful but wholly liveable if the USA are caught unprepared, and only for a couple years at worst until American shipyards raise a fleet that the British cannot ever match without bankrupting themselves.
 
Sorry, your table shows an exaggerated pro-British bias.
Pre 1860: correct... unless the British are engulfed in a major conflict elsewhere (a more successful Napoleon in 1812-14 comes to mind).
I disagree.
And you're playing very loose with the rules of AH.
1860-1880: essentially correct, but mostly because the USA have still to fully recover from the effects of the ACW. If the ACW had been somehow avoided, the same amount of effort they poured in the ACW could have been used to conquer Canada instead.
No. The ACW helps boost US strength. Thats the height of British power though. And also see below.

1880-1918: the USA takes Canada but loses at sea... unless it prepared for the conflict and spent some years building up its Army and Navy; the Gilded Age and even more so, the Progressive Age USA had the potential to build a Navy much better than the one they owned, and if they did, the RN would be in a hell of a fight. Therefore, a draw if the USA is unprepared, a USA victory if they have prepared. Also, if the USA can get a good European alliance (Germany and/or Russia come to mind), or they enter WWI on the CP side, the UK is in a world of trouble.
1918-1940: As above but leaning towards a decisive USA victory more and more every year. If the USA cares to raise a decent Army and Navy, it is guaranteed of an eventual victory, after the 1920s its industrial potential can simply outcompete anything the British can come up with in the long term.

Thats just stupid though and ignores the way alternate history and the world as a whole works. Of course the US could win if it prepared for year. But by the same token Britain would also do better if it prepares for years.


After 1940: The USA say "I want Canada" and the UK answers "Do you fancy a gift wrap ?".
Of course. The UK itself though will be a tougher nut.
 

General Zod

Banned
And you're playing very loose with the rules of AH.

Which definitely allow multiple PoD, if so defined.

No. The ACW helps boost US strength. Thats the height of British power though.

The height of UK power was in the 1850s, by 1870s and beyond they are losing relative power to Germany, USA, and Russia every year.

Thats just stupid though and ignores the way alternate history and the world as a whole works. Of course the US could win if it prepared for year. But by the same token Britain would also do better if it prepares for years.

But the big point is, US industrial and manpower potential since ca. 1900 was bigger than UK one, so if they both prepare or if the war gets any prolonged and the US grit their teeth through any initial UK naval blockade, the Yankee shall eventually outbuild anything the British already have or may build on their own.

Of course. The UK itself though will be a tougher nut.

Yes, however the point of the thread was the US conquering Canada despite UK opposition, not the British Isles themselves.
 
Absolutely, you would need some POD to make Roosevelt a real Warhawk and probably weaken the British before this could go down. But consider the time, convincing the public was no hard task if you got the newspapers behind it.

When I was talking about "Liberation" it was recognizing that the US could probably assimiliate western Canada at some point. But holding Ontario and Quebec would be decades of passive to guerilla war. So play like the Spainish-American war, have the press hype up some incident (another POD) that makes the British cruel overlords for Quebec and Ontario and liberate them (like Cuba in SAA) and keep some of the other spoils (Western Canada).

All I think it would take is Parliment imposing a harsh tax on Canadians to pay for the war and Roosevelt having a taste for greater imperialism to get this done.

Ruschurch

I don't know if Parliament ever impose a harsh tax on anyone in N America. Definitely not after 1867 when Canada became independent. A suitably jingoistic and expansionist US can probably find some pretense for further imperial expansion but their not going to fool many people outside the US. Definitely not the British or Canadians who will probably win through in the end. As other posters have said people tend to fight harder when defending their homes and families and while some yanks might be tempted by the idea of loot they will quickly find their bitten off more than they choose.

Steve
 
The height of UK power was in the 1850s, by 1870s and beyond they are losing relative power to Germany, USA, and Russia every year.

True but its still damned powerful and a lot of that relative decline can be avoided, especially if there's a strong incentive.


But the big point is, US industrial and manpower potential since ca. 1900 was bigger than UK one, so if they both prepare or if the war gets any prolonged and the US grit their teeth through any initial UK naval blockade, the Yankee shall eventually outbuild anything the British already have or may build on their own.

Provided they can find the will for a hell of a tough fight and the manpower to sustain the effort. There is Boney's famous understimation about the relative strength of moral and material. Huge superiority in material can overcome weaknesses in moral and quality but its by no means a certain thing.

Steve
 
Top