Why would the US attack a neutral Canada?
&
@Jim Smitty
I did not mean a war would break out, just that it is how the negotiating would be going on. Instead of three main powers negotiating independently with the other two getting what they can, you have 2 major powers and 2 parts of the major power negotiating as a united front, while the other major naval power finds itself with no supporters and negotiating alone, while the two minor naval powers and other parts of the Empire are basically relegated to the sidelines.
It's not that a neutral Canada would be attacked immediately, but that a Canada that does not openly align itself with the US when the US is opposing the UK will be viewed with heavy suspicion (being the only land border with a major power does make its security paramount, not to mention the location of Canada in relation to the industrial sector of the country).
But agreed on the US as viewing the British Empire as a unit - it was definitely a concern that the British would farm out second line units to the dominions (
Australia was an
Indefatigable class battlecruiser as it was, so precedence is there) in order to free up tonnage for Britain. While it may not have been economically feasible for the Dominions, the US was at a period of economic growth and projected its own capabilities, scaled down, upon others.
-
But here, there are three main issues which seem to be arising from TTL
- The resumption and continued existence of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance
- The participation of various minor constituents of the British Empire as separate entities with their own limitations
- The completion and near completion of a multitude of new battleships which upsets potential balance
- Say, up to 4 complete/virtually complete for Japan, 4 Colorado +12BB/CC for the US, and at least 2 G3s being built...
Makes me wonder how it will all balance out in the end...
Also: what of the deal made to offer the Brazilian government a new build of warships, including 70k tons of BBs, 60k tons of cruisers, 15k tons of destroyers and 6k tons of subs? That was in 1924 as well...
One last note: Secretary of State is Charles Hughes, the man who failed to negotiate the Washington Naval Treaty TTL (this assuming everything else is equal). While opposed to the expansion of Naval Arms (being the one who cancelled the aforementioned Brazilian sale), this project was personally his, and with the Japanese crawling back to the table in a position of weakness, I don't foresee him being willing to give up more than before. I don't have my source on me (I'll try to dig it up later), but in the OTL Coolidge administration, while hopeful about further arms reductions at the Geneva Naval Conference, was apparently exasperated and unwilling to compromise with the British one bit and considered the British desire to impose their standards in Naval Construction on the US to be overly stubborn and shortsighted. As such, the conference fell through.
-
Anywho, enough rambling. This will be interesting to see what happens...