What if the British sold Canada to the U.S. in ww1?

[usertron2020]

there is one big change to the OTL: Germany wins.

No WWII?

I myself lived in Vancouver for years, I had nothing against Canada and liked the city and the people, but I never felt particularly Canadian and certainly wouldn't take up arms for the country. as suspects?

Vancouver may be a bad example. Isn't it the most Americanized place in Canada outside of Alberta?

<snip> the agitation of 1911 was simply an attempt--and a successful one!--by shrewd Americans to frighten the Canadians into rejecting reciprocity.)

Reciprocity?

Canada isn't a colony, it's a Dominion (a self governing state that shares a head of state). Let me repeat THE UK DIDN'T OWN CANADA DURING WW1. The whole conception is flawed, it can't be traded for debt or whatever, it's like the Spain trying to sell Mexico.

Um, Mexico's relationship with Spain is a little more distant than that of Canada and the UK.

Oh, but it is still true that THE UK DIDN'T OWN CANADA DURING WWI[SIZE=-4]just sayin'[/size]

Yeah, that'll improve the chances of a successful purchase no end.
And Belgium could sell Flanders to Germany too.
Why didn't anybody think of that at the time?

Because the Germans figured "Why buy what you can take?"

Which book was it?

Night Probe! One of his absolute worst. What an Anglophobe he must be.

It was called Night Probe! and it remains the book that enraged me to the point of throwing it away, retrieving it, stamping on it and then throwing it away again. It showed me that Cussler has not a clue how the world outside the USA works, especially Britain. The premise of the plot was pure ASB-level wish fulfilment on the part of Cussler. Not his best work.

I fear that some young Britons may have read that excrement and come away with the idea that Cussler's ideas represented those of "Mr. Average American". If so, that could explain to some degree the number of Britwank/Ameriscrew ATLs seen in AH.com? Payback for Cussler and Harrison? I guess I can understand that.

However if the Americans (unlikely in my view) started acting like dicks and treated the Canadians like Israelis treat Palestinians, then you are correct in saying that there would be a lot of unrest.

I think its inevitable. One reason the RCMP was so successful at its birth was that the Mounties could not be formed with anyone from west of Ontario. So the RCMP came into the western territories and provinces from Ontario and all point to the east. They simply lacked the problems of the bitter race hatreds to be found in the US Army patrolling the Plains.


The US Army according to the US Constitution could not sift through its members and send east soldiers from west of the Alleghenies. The worst massacre against Natives ever committed on US soil was the work of the so-called "3rd Colorado", a "volunteer" regiment only called up from the local populace two days before. With predictable results.

I wouldn't want to think of US Marines and soldiers from the Texas National Guard raising hell in Quebec City or among the Natives in the Yukon. Not considering what both of those Canadian populations were used to in terms of treatment by authorities.

Why on earth would the UK want to sell Canada to the U.S. There is no way on gods green earth that we would do that and as for the U.S. Invading that fine you must remember that the British Empire was still around at that time and I am sure it would rally the troops.

America may have had 1 million men under arms for a year but the empire had a lot more and they were battle hardened.

Well, in WWI the Empire had its hands full and the USN had finally begun to reach near-parity with the RN. Tack on the threat of the German High Seas Fleet as a fleet-in-being, and there can hardly be a setting for any Trafalgar level "Battle of Prince Edward Island" ITTL.

T
And where are they going to get their arms to fight the American War Machine? Likewise the Frozen North is not the greatest of safe havens if there is no food supply...

2nd Amendment. Two howitzers in every garage.

Well Quebec could be granted independence or the Americans attempt at running the place themselves, although how they would do it is another matter. One might think though that if the Quebecers accept bilingualism then perhaps they might end up staying once something like a Quiet Revolution comes about ITTL.

I think the US Supreme Court would have something to say about that. Even English isn't the "official" language of the USA AIUI, but this...

If they're part of the US now they can just buy them - 2nd Amendment & all that. Or I it restricted to only 'Real Americans'?

True, but I don't think it applies to Tanks or Fighter Jets. Unless they have a creative enough legal team to define weapons such as these as "arms", besides it would not stop the US Government passing something like the National Firearms Act over this like it did with organised crime.

How about AT missiles and shoulder-held SAMs stolen from National Guard armories? Christ, we had the problem IOTL of sympathetic National Guard officers handing over weapons (or providing training advice) to the Militia Movement!

Other than that, the only other opportunity would be for Britain to sell the sparsely populated Rupert's Land and Northwest Territory some time before 1870.

The US was Dead Broke post-ACW, and pre-ACW no way in hell do the Southerners allow so many new Free States into the country in one big gulp.

Over the course of the 'troubles' in NI the UK maintained an average of 9k troops there. About half of these could be seen as controlling the Unionists so that leaves 4.5k for the Republicans. The Catholic population was about 400k throughout this period (growing) and support for the armed struggle went up and down but was about 50% of the Catholic population and a tiny % of the Protestants.

So an organization with approx. 300 active 'troops' supported by 200k civilians needed 4.5k regular army personal on the ground to control it. Given the links between the two countries I think this is the most comparable situation.

Current population of Canada is 35mil. I think we can safely assume that if incorporated into the USA without the consent of the Canadian people supporting a resistance (not volunteering) would be near unanimous, so you would need? I make it 875k troops on active service in Canada at any one time.

OK the British Army were operating as riot police most of the time and all the fighting was down with the proverbial 'one hand behind their back'> Since then in Iraq and Afghanistan both British and American troops have used very different tactics. I still think given the land border and the fact that most Canadians could wander the USA passing as Americans this is the most comparable situation and it suggests things would be very nasty.

The IRA did almost all their killing with simple firearms and home made bombs so cutting off access to those in NA is out.

2nd Amendment makes this a dystopia

Ya, outraged Nationalists, regardless of country, tend to be the Mayfly of AH.com

As in they live one day? BTW, where is Ian in all this?

 

[TFSmith121]

Um, not quite

The US was Dead Broke post-ACW.

Um, not quite...$7.2 million in cash would buy one a lot of Rupert's Land, if one was so inclined ... and there was a willing seller.

Best,

 

[David T]

Reciprocity??

"The Liberal Party went on to win the 1896 election, and some years later it negotiated an elaborate reciprocity agreement with the United States in 1911. However, in the 1911 election reciprocity again became a major issue, with the Conservatives saying that it would be a "sell out" to the United States. The Liberals were defeated by the Conservative party whose slogan was "No truck or trade with the Yankees."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(Canadian_politics)

In an old soc.history.what-if post I wrote, "Of course it might have helped [the treaty's prospects in Canada] if Champ Clark didn't give what William Howard Taft's biographer Henry Pringle once described as one of the most idiotic speeches in the history of the US Congress, explaining that he was for the treaty because it would ultimately lead to US annexation of Canada. On second thought, though, maybe Clark was being clever rather than idiotic. He expected to be the Democratic candidate against Taft in 1912 and may therefore have wanted to deny Taft any possible achievements, including the reciprocity treaty." https://www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/WI Laurier and Reciprocity Not Defeat in 1911.txt

 

[thekingsguard]

Putting aside any unlikelihood that he British selling Canada, or legally being able to sell Canada, the USA is fully capable of absorbing Canada at this point.

Let's be clear hear: the USA was fully capable of arming and equipping as many soldiers overseas in WWI as Canada had citizens. Even a fraction of that force would be more than capable of brushing aside any meager resistance Canada can muster.

As for Canadian resistance, how? We're not exactly talking about the Vietkong armed with AK-47s here. Where will this Canadian resistance be getting weapons and supplies from? Much less weapons and supplies in such numbers that they can go toe to toe with a nation just over the border that is more than capable of putting a soldier in every Canadian home?

This also ignores that a good chunk of Canadians might either shrug their shoulders or go along with it supportively. How much of Canada's economy was dependent on the USA at this point after all? The almighty dollar might be more convincing than American guns in the end.

Let's be honest Canadians - if America really wanted to absorb Canada at this point, Canada has as much a chance of preventing it as Denmark would at stopping Germany. Less, given unlike Germany and Denmark, there is a shared language and culture, and any nation capable of stopping it is on the wrong side of the North Atlantic.

More likely though? The Canadian general population settles in under the reasonable amount of autonomy allowed under the American system (case in point - Quebec would have no issues being French as an American state, just ask Louisiana) - and economics and shared culture do what bullets can't in uniting the cultures.

Give it a few decades and Canadians will be as much a part of the United States as the South - regionally distinct, quite proud of its past, but nonetheless, as American as apple pie, though they might insist on bringing something slathered in gravy to the table.

 

[Tovarich]

BTW, where is Ian in all this?

Ian finds the topic irrelevant ever since he personally took control of the entire North American continent.

 

[Clandango]

Southerner could probably just add it to yet another deal they broke on the expansion of slavery if it was pre-Civil War. As it is for WWI, though... Perhaps add some Me Ian states since the U.S. had invaded that country?

 

[Maine]

Quebec would have no issues being French as an American state, just ask Louisiana

Yeah, because Louisiana is soooooo francophone today... What happened to the French language in Louisiana is what the Anglos want for Quebec. The WASPs did it in Maine, in Louisiana, in Nova Scotia, etc.

 

[Clandango]

Plus Louisiana was built up by the Spanish. The mixed race portions of the population with French parentage were hardly welcomed by the Southern elites.

 

[Maine]

Plus Louisiana was built up by the Spanish. The mixed race portions of the population with French parentage were hardly welcomed by the Southern elites.

Louisiana was administered by the Spanish but the elite was just French-speaking...

 

[Saphroneth]

Picture the US selling Britain Maine and Michigan in return for British assistance in the American Civil War, perhaps. That may actually be more likely.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

What if the U.K sold Canada to the United states to get them in ww1? How does this effect the war and Post war Canadian life?

There was no chance of this ever happening. By the start of the 20th century, nobody in the US would be interested, the British would never sell it, and the Canadians would be vehemently opposed to it.

 

[Clandango]

Picture the US selling Britain Maine and Michigan in return for British assistance in the American Civil War, perhaps.

Selling two Northern States? And why would they even consider it? What the British needed was American grain. They had no reason to assist, and the Americans had no reason to accept. All this would do was cause Copperheads to revolt. Might as well sell California to Mexico or Missouri to France.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Selling two Northern States? And why would they even consider it? What the British needed was American grain. They had no reason to assist, and the Americans had no reason to accept. All this would do was cause Copperheads to revolt. Might as well sell California to Mexico or Missouri to France.

I think that's his point. The idea of the UK selling Canada in 1914 to get the US involved in the war is as silly as the US selling a couple of its sparsely populated states to get the UK's help in one of our wars.

 

[Clandango]

Louisiana was administered by the Spanish but the elite was just French-speaking...

Ended up with it mostly being the lower classes who kept traces of it. Could be mistaken of course.

 

[Clandango]

I think that's his point. The idea of the UK selling Canada in 1914 to get the US involved in the war is as silly as the US selling a couple of its sparsely populated states to get the UK's help in one of our wars.

Thought it was in comparison to the selling of Eupert's land to the U.S. But yah, I don't think a single American here wishes for the U.S. to have annexed Canada, let alone think it is possible.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think that's his point. The idea of the UK selling Canada in 1914 to get the US involved in the war is as silly as the US selling a couple of its sparsely populated states to get the UK's help in one of our wars.

Yes, it was exactly my point. Moreover, they're the two states which have at various times been "the most British", so the comparison with Canada being sold is the most acute.

I would have said California, but that's got a bit too much gold value.

 

[Clandango]

Maybe we compare it to De Gaulle offering to sell the French possessions in the Americans and the Pacific Ocean if they gave him a billion dollars? When he didn't have any of them, of course.

 

[Saphroneth]

Maybe we compare it to De Gaulle offering to sell the French possessions in the Americans and the Pacific Ocean if they gave him a billion dollars? When he didn't have any of them, of course.

If the French possessions consisted of a chunk of land the size of Argentina, maybe. Canada's big and considered pretty important.

 

[Clandango]

And looking up the Rupeet's land thing, looks as if the Russians got four times as much money for Alaska as the Brits got for Rupert's land. It was as if they were deliberately trying to keep it out of American hands even when they weren't using it themselves. How petty.

 

[Alstein]

I can't see what your nationality is, but I'm seeing a lot of assumptions about what Canadians are like. We may look like Americans, we may sometimes act like Americans, but we are not Americans. And those differences have been growing for well over a hundred years. It may not end in the White House in flames, but any attempt by the American government to take over Canada will end with them realizing that it's not worth the trouble.

I'd expect a generation of resistance, but it would eventually subside. Americans wouldn't brutalize Canadians, and I doubt Canadians would do mass active resistance (passive most definitely)

I could see the passive working, but most likely once Canada got political rights, they'd just take over America that way and make it more like Canada.