US invasion of Canada in 1936 ?

Without a doubt, if reinforcements from the commonwealth were unable to arrive because the ports were occupied by US forces, Canada would be defeated quickly and forced into guerilla warfare.
 
Wild Card

Another interesting question is , would Japan enter some kind of alliance with the British, in exchange for Britain recognising their claims over the Phillippines and island chains accross the Pacific ?

Thank you for asking exactly the right question. As I see it though, both sides will be courting Japan, and the U.S. will have more to offer. For example, the U.S. can recognize Manchukuo, and promise to look the other way regarding any future Japanese war with China. Britain, even if it went along with Manchukuo (doubtful), would object to Japanese domination of the rest of China due to Hong Kong and other places, in addition to the proximity of western China to India. The U.S. can offer Japan guarantees of a future absence of American armed forces from the Philippines, which, since 1935, will be on schedule for independence in 1945. Britain could not and would not be able to make Japan any guarantees regarding the Philippines due to its own interests on Borneo and in the Dutch East Indies, assuming Australian objections would not torpedo such plans on the part of Britain alone. Furthermore, the U.S. can make it a matter of poliy that Asian countries should have Asian rulers. Britain cannot do that.
 
Thank you for asking exactly the right question. As I see it though, both sides will be courting Japan, and the U.S. will have more to offer. For example, the U.S. can recognize Manchukuo, and promise to look the other way regarding any future Japanese war with China. Britain, even if it went along with Manchukuo (doubtful), would object to Japanese domination of the rest of China due to Hong Kong and other places, in addition to the proximity of western China to India. The U.S. can offer Japan guarantees of a future absence of American armed forces from the Philippines, which, since 1935, will be on schedule for independence in 1945. Britain could not and would not be able to make Japan any guarantees regarding the Philippines due to its own interests on Borneo and in the Dutch East Indies, assuming Australian objections would not torpedo such plans on the part of Britain alone. Furthermore, the U.S. can make it a matter of poliy that Asian countries should have Asian rulers. Britain cannot do that.
It was the US tat was the most adamant of keeping Japan out of China though wasn't it? The Americans were the ones sending large numbers of aircraft and volunteers. The Brits would be far happier to see an old ally brought back in to the fold with someone else's land while the Americans would continue their confused "anti-imperialism" morality.
 
It was the US tat was the most adamant of keeping Japan out of China though wasn't it? The Americans were the ones sending large numbers of aircraft and volunteers. The Brits would be far happier to see an old ally brought back in to the fold with someone else's land while the Americans would continue their confused "anti-imperialism" morality.

Here though, the U.S. has other priorities while Britain is waging a war to preserve its empire. Any concession made by Britain to Japan threatens the Empire. And concession the U.S. can make to Japan won't be popular with the China lobby, but does threaten the British Empire.
 
I've weighed in on this topic before and just let me add my two cents.

Firstly with a POD post WW1 and 1936 this isn't going to happen. Britain and America are too close and they like each other too much. No reason whatsoever for them to fight.

Now if we change history a bit and have no WW1 or a different one then there are two broad scenarious I will outline.

1. Early Entente victory which shows off the power of that Alliance and more imporatantly, the strength of the British Empire. In this scenario America is certainly not going to attack the British Empire. The Americans may be a sleeping giant but they certainly don't know this at the time, nor will the idea of attacking a victorious Empire really appeal to them. If they do attack it is tantamount to suicide. An inexperienced army and navy would be slaughtered as they ran into trenches (which have been used in a defensive manner before and were an excellent strategy already known) and machine guns and artillery. The Americans would have no experience with this and they would simply be unwilling to pay the butchers bill in the end.

2. Central Powers victory. The Entente is spent and unable to continue. The US wouldn't even need to invade Canada. But let's say they do. The Canadians have just fought a long war with England but England cannot think of starting another war barring major economic turn around after the war. Or ironically German help. Though the fact remains that in this scenario the US is still inexperienced, but barring some massive foreign intervention outright war is unlikely. Canada might put up a fight but in this case they are on their own. There will be a sharp war with Canadians using the same tactics they used in the war but numbers will be against them and they will lose. Guerilla's will plague the US for ages and the US will eventually just not find it worth it or outright annex them.

Now obviously I haven't talked about a general stalemate or outright American isolationism and the war playing a normal course in which case it would be a status quo anti-bellum type deal barring some phenominal changes. This is basically a Central Powers victory but with both sides economically bashed and war weary. The US could almost walk in, in the (Unlikely) event they decide to invade.
 
2. Central Powers victory. The Entente is spent and unable to continue. The US wouldn't even need to invade Canada. But let's say they do. The Canadians have just fought a long war with England but England cannot think of starting another war barring major economic turn around after the war. Or ironically German help. Though the fact remains that in this scenario the US is still inexperienced, but barring some massive foreign intervention outright war is unlikely. Canada might put up a fight but in this case they are on their own. There will be a sharp war with Canadians using the same tactics they used in the war but numbers will be against them and they will lose. Guerilla's will plague the US for ages and the US will eventually just not find it worth it or outright annex them.
I would have to say that a British Empire that lost the Great War might be desparate not to lose any part of the Empire, especially the largest chunk.
 
another interesting point would be that Canadian soldiers could 'blend into' the northern states, behind american lines and cause havoc. that would always be fun to see :eek: (not that a war like this would be fun, mind you, but if Canadian forces begin causing havoc as far south as Oregon, etc, it would certainly hurt the american moral...

Well, I clearly remember seeing Canadian military officers having lunch at a Godfather's Pizza in Duluth, Minnesota back in the early 1990s. :)
 
It was the US tat was the most adamant of keeping Japan out of China though wasn't it? The Americans were the ones sending large numbers of aircraft and volunteers. The Brits would be far happier to see an old ally brought back in to the fold with someone else's land while the Americans would continue their confused "anti-imperialism" morality.

Britain only ever allied with Japan for convenience in the Pacific, and Japan played a role in the Pacific Front of WWI (yes it existed) by snatching up German colonies in the area, that was pretty much the extent of Japanese involvement in the war.

By the time of the 30's, it's clear that Britain has resources the Japanese are looking to take from them, notably in British Malaya, the capture of which by the Japanese put some serious hurt on the West's supply of natural rubber. As Wendell said, Britain giving up anything to Japan is going to look like a retreat from empire no matter how the British portray it. Hell, the invasion and occupation of European colonial possessions in Asia and the Pacific was probably the single largest factor that hastened the demise of colonialism in Asia. It's not just a that of a bunch of old men on Downing Street can't stand the thought of Britain's empire falling apart (though that was certainly part of it), it's that making concessions would make Britain look weak in the eyes of its colonial subjects whereas Japan would look stronger, not to mention it creates this feeling that when the going gets tough the British will abandon their colonies rather than stick it out, none of these things are conducive to a supportive or pro-British populace in the Asian colonies.
 
There is no faster and surer way for Canada to commit national suicide than launching a surprise attack upon the United States. What's even stupider is that Canada is utterly dependant upon the US for its raw material, and once that trade stops its economy goes into the tank.

Britain is only prolonguing the subjugation of Canada if it intervenes. For one, it needs not only naval ships but huge merchant convoys that would be hideously vulnerable to submarines. Once the US can cut off the St Lawrence straits, that's the end of all British logistical support to Canada. Furthermore, the US can hit British naval ships with land base aircraft, and after about a couple of years the US will utterly dwarf the Commonwealth forces in aircraft carriers.
 
There is no faster and surer way for Canada to commit national suicide than launching a surprise attack upon the United States. What's even stupider is that Canada is utterly dependant upon the US for its raw material, and once that trade stops its economy goes into the tank.

Britain is only prolonguing the subjugation of Canada if it intervenes. For one, it needs not only naval ships but huge merchant convoys that would be hideously vulnerable to submarines. Once the US can cut off the St Lawrence straits, that's the end of all British logistical support to Canada. Furthermore, the US can hit British naval ships with land base aircraft, and after about a couple of years the US will utterly dwarf the Commonwealth forces in aircraft carriers.

Pretty much, and when British drydocks are in Jaimaica and Newfoundland while the US has the convenience of fighting with its own supply network right nearby... Britain's in trouble.

It's a really bad scenario for the Commonwealth almost no matter how it works out, in the short-term the British have to mobilize the entire empire for war against a far-off enemy fighting from its homeland, in the long term, the United States will gain the naval advantage and dwarf anything the British or Canadians can put on land.

Not to mention for Defensive Scheme No. 1 to be moderately successful it has to be a sneak attack, the kind of sneak attack that by its very nature makes Pearl Harbor look like a polite tap on the shoulder. It's an attack by a foreign enemy against American soil, to repeat, an attack on the mainland of the United States, something that has not occurred since the War of 1812. 1 year or 10, it really doesn't matter, the United States is going to run over Canada, and will indisputably continue the war against the British Empire elsewhere. Bases forming the network of British defenses in Canada and the Atlantic will slowly be swallowed up, the United States need not attack tough, well-defended targets like the Suez Canal or Australia, much easier to knock out British merchant shipping and keep on chipping away at the small but vital outposts of the empire until Britain is ready to talk peace.

A peace that involves the loss of Canada's Pacific coast, any oil or resource rich regions, and Britain's possessions in the Americas and the Atlantic on the way to North America.

So all in all, a very stupid situation for Canada to get itself into.
 
A. In this case, however, the US is not armed to full capacity, and its army is woefully low in numbers as well as equipment. Major industrial regions being close to Canada doesn't help much either. Those two factors will very much help the Canadian war effort. A preemptive strike will mean that Canada would probably focus on destroying these areas, not holding them, and this will severely damage the US capability to produce weapons and things that will help them in the long run.

B. The RN will no doubt blockade the US, and the naval bombardment of those ports will keep the advantage on Britain's side.

C. Fair enough, but capturing Hawaii would indeed be an important asset, and there is a reason why Japan attacked it OTL. If a concentrated attack can be made against a resting Pacific Fleet, it can push the odds heavily into the Commonwealth's favour.

D. Mexico would not be a curbstomp, not if there are better supplied Canadian soldiers attacking major US centres of industry. They will indeed pose a viable threat in this scenario.

67th Tigers? Is that you?

More seriously though:

A: The same applies to Canada, as nearly all of Canada's major industrial centers are within 100 miles of the US border. If the Canadians were to completely remove the gloves and use chemical warfare upon Detroit for instance, then you'll do a bit of damage to the US Industry in the Great lakes for a while. Of course, that only means the US will respond in kind...

Furthermore, the US is Canada's biggest trading partner and without access to US raw materials Canada's economy goes into the tank, and this is without US retaliatory bombing action.

The US also has the largest rail network in the world and can quickly shift its centers of Industry. How do you expect the Canadians to hit places like Los Angeles, St Louis, San Francisco, or anywhere that isn't 50 miles from the Great Lakes region? Does Canada have any heavy bombers that are even capable of inflicting that kind of damage?

Again, a pre-emptive Anglo-Canadian strike that does anything substantial to US Industry would only guarantee that the US will not negotiate for a status-quo antebellum and that they'd want to fight for the long haul.

One other thing. How many troops are the British willing to commit to Canada? Remember that they have colonial commitments everywhere. They can't afford to remove troops from India, or it'll immediately sense an opportunity in rise up in revolt. In WWII, even with the Japanese on the doorstep in Burma, India was actively protesting against British colonial authorities. Also, this risks Soviet encroachment into Central Asia. Do you also divert troops away from Europe when Hitler and Mussolini are actively re-arming for a showdown?

B: So the US navy is just chopped liver? The US has at least naval parity with the British when fighting close to its own waters, and furthermore the British have to deal with land based US fighters. Seriously, have you seen a map of the US Eastern Seaboard, and the number of effective ports it has? You don't think that each of these ports will be brimming with naval mines and coastal battery guns?

Furthermore, how long will it take for the British to mobilize a fleet that is scattered all over the world to be in a position to blockade the port? What prevents the US fleet from transferring ships via the Panama Canal? How do the British prevent the US from sailing ships from the Gulf of Mexico and neutralizing the few port facilities, rather, the ones that are actually capable of repairing and refueling battleships and carriers, from US naval action? How do the British put a stop of naval production coming out of the Pacific coast? Britiain will also need to maintain huge merchant convoys to continously supply Canada, which will come under US submarine action sooner or later. As mentioned before, once the US can block up the St. Lawrence, then there's no more way that the British can send significant reinforcements to Canada.

C: As previous posters mentioned, the Pearl Harbor attack was hardly the decisive blow that the Japanese intended. And who is to say that the British will be willing to get the Japanese involved anyhow? Their attention will be focused on China. Furthermore, what message does this send to Australia in New Zealand by fostering Japanese expansion in the Pacific? Again, if you have a pre-emptive attack on the Pearl Harbor fleet you'd have the outrage that only guarantee's US resolve to fight it out to the finish.

D: That worked very well for Pancho Villa didn't it? Besides, US relations with Mexico were actually pretty good during the 1930s because of the Bracero program, which allowed Mexican immigrant workers to make money in the US. Why would the Mexicans give that up in exchange for vague British promises for territory in the Southwest US. The minute that a Mexican president even thinks about war with the US, you can be sure that a coup will follow. It also doesn't help that the US can completely blockade Mexico whenever it feels like it.

We can switch the situation and point out that the US, with its large American-Irish population, might also try and send clandestine agents to Ireland to cause trouble for the British. If the Irish stage some kind of revolt, it'll be a running sore that the British are obligated to deal with, and assuming that the US can maintain naval parity in the mid Atlantic, they can insert a few Irish-American agents into the Emerald Isle to cause some trouble.

As for supplies, the Canadians have their initial stock, but sooner or later they'll need to be re-supplied.
 
Last edited:
Top