What is the most feasible way to get an American invasion and annexation of Canada in the 20th century? A C.P. USA? A Fascist leader during WWII? An Anglo-Japanese war in the 1920/30s? Some falling out from Venezuela?
What is the most feasible way to get an American invasion and annexation of Canada in the 20th century?
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
Usa goes batshit nuts...
Some super great depression
Or have england somehow piss off and alienate the usa enough that canada is an option.
As is.. Its just not feasable. Most presidents are of british descent, britian is for better or worse our best friend. We had 2 sibling fights.. Neither liked it.
So the only plausable way would be to make germany a victim in ww1 and have the usa lean in their favour.
You could start earlier, mkre prussian support during the revolution.. Have tge Germans back the north with out queation..
Brits back the south
Or brits object to Louisiana purchase, then press harder in 1812 making a harder foe of the usa after who wants vengance.
Honestly invading canada is like invading your brothers house to rob him.. So its just a massive hard sell unless you get the us and Britain at odds
Some super great depression
Or have england somehow piss off and alienate the usa enough that canada is an option.
As is.. Its just not feasable. Most presidents are of british descent, britian is for better or worse our best friend. We had 2 sibling fights.. Neither liked it.
So the only plausable way would be to make germany a victim in ww1 and have the usa lean in their favour.
You could start earlier, mkre prussian support during the revolution.. Have tge Germans back the north with out queation..
Brits back the south
Or brits object to Louisiana purchase, then press harder in 1812 making a harder foe of the usa after who wants vengance.
Honestly invading canada is like invading your brothers house to rob him.. So its just a massive hard sell unless you get the us and Britain at odds
It's just barely possible that a Royal Navy commander could manage to out-stupid Charles Wilkes and bring the United States into co-belligerency with the Central Powers, which would allow a POD during WWI itself. Canada wouldn't be fully independent for another seven decades, so if the British somehow weren't able to smooth over the problem (and they would do virtually anything, given how much of the Allied war materials were sourced from the United States) then an invasion of Canada would ensue.
There's roughly a year between the declaration and the United States being able to conduct more than small border operations, though, so you'd need idiocy on par with the Russian Baltic Fleet in 1905 to have a snowball's chance.
There's roughly a year between the declaration and the United States being able to conduct more than small border operations, though, so you'd need idiocy on par with the Russian Baltic Fleet in 1905 to have a snowball's chance.
History Learner
Banned
The Cuban Missile Crisis goes hot and Air Defense Command intercepts a few dozen Soviet bombers over Canada. I'd imagine a Canada that loses Ottawa, Toronto, etc would be supine for annexation.
If by "another seven decades" you mean the 1980s and the repatriaton of the Constitution, I don't think the fact that Canada's constitution was housed ln London was an inflluence on how the UK viewed Canada strategically or jurisdictionally.
If the US invades in 1979, the reaction from the UK(whatever it is) is going to be more-or-less the same as it would be in 1983.
I think it's quite possible to get the U.S. on the Central Powers given the right circumstances. But the PODs can't be too far in the past because then that might butterfly the war altogether.
This is an interesting question, and one way to approach it is to look at why the United States did NOT wage an expansionist war against Canada after the Napoleonic Wars.
Until the World Wars, the reason was that this would have meant war with the British empire, which was too powerful to take on. Afterwards, it was the adoption of a Wilsonian/ Rooseveltian internationalist policy, so the USA is not trying to grab more territory, and Canada was an ally that usually did anything DC wanted.
The most direct way to get this is a fascist USA that allies with Germany against Britain, during the World Wars. That means a non-internationalist foreign policy, and Britain can not protect Canada.
Until the World Wars, the reason was that this would have meant war with the British empire, which was too powerful to take on. Afterwards, it was the adoption of a Wilsonian/ Rooseveltian internationalist policy, so the USA is not trying to grab more territory, and Canada was an ally that usually did anything DC wanted.
The most direct way to get this is a fascist USA that allies with Germany against Britain, during the World Wars. That means a non-internationalist foreign policy, and Britain can not protect Canada.
If Wilhelm II isn't as big of a lout or dies tragically young, Bismarck stays around, who knows what might happen to world geopolitics? It's entirely possible Bismarck's "last act" is to play the US and UK off each other to try to take another bite off France and Poland.
Last edited:
Cuban Missile Crisis goes hot. Soviets and the Communist Bloc get destroyed, as does Western Europe (including the UK). The United gets hit a few times but survives due to the lack of Soviet ICBMs.
Global Trade routes are utterly destroyed which means self sufficiency is the name of the game in post WW3 economics. While trying to rebuild it's nation, the US extracts almost the entirety of its surface level natural resources while not investing in the technology to extract deeper resources in the earth's crust. Because of this, the US is forced to look north and annex Canada for is "virgin lands" and untapped natural resources.
Global Trade routes are utterly destroyed which means self sufficiency is the name of the game in post WW3 economics. While trying to rebuild it's nation, the US extracts almost the entirety of its surface level natural resources while not investing in the technology to extract deeper resources in the earth's crust. Because of this, the US is forced to look north and annex Canada for is "virgin lands" and untapped natural resources.
There's no real reason to think that Quebec would follow France in that regard.
Deleted member 94680
OTL the main reason the Royal Navy thought they could end up in a shooting war with Americans was over a “trade incident” going hot. It was never seriously considered (outside a few... enthusiastic individuals) but worried glances were thrown Washington’s way by a few Admirals in the ‘20s.
In a war, it was assumed, Canada would be lost almost certainly in trade for the American’s trade being wiped from the seas. Canada would be, it was assumed, regained at the resultant peace talks at the end of the War.
In a war, it was assumed, Canada would be lost almost certainly in trade for the American’s trade being wiped from the seas. Canada would be, it was assumed, regained at the resultant peace talks at the end of the War.
Reciprocity Treaty passes, certain elements of Canada do not like their gradual economic conquest by the US or comments by congressmen that begins conspiracy theories of American annexation leading to a civil war. The US moves in to protect their investments.
Britain goes communist/fascist in the '20s or '30s, after (for example) a defeat in the Great War. The British Isles are riven by civil war and this spreads to Canada, perhaps with the flight of the British aristocracy. The US starts to intervene after border issues and eventually invades to "restore order".
Most feasible is likely to either have the US side with the central powers in WWI or some variation on Catsmate's suggestion above.
Considering that the Great Depression might have led to serious changes in the US if FDR is truly tested in the 1936 election, I would not discount the US moving towards an anti-British policy as part of a revenge mentality among the rural poor and radical progressives in the country, who deem the British as having interfered in US political processes. Even in the days leading up to the war and in its wake, certain people from the left made mention of the idea of a 'true war' to be held against capital monied interest in the US. This monied interest may be composed in the minds of the people as supported by and buttressed by the victors of WWI, who 'duped' the US into entry and the US still lacking their payment of war veterans can be used to increase this hatred.
In total, the US may devolve into a serious anti-British and anti-Versailles government as a result of the Great Depression. This does not mean and alliance with Germany or the USSR, but it certainly entails extreme tension with the British Empire and a movement towards war, which the poster wishes to see. Once said war is to begin, the US will ensure the British would submit to the Germans in Europe, thus permitting a land war between France and others against Germany, whose trajectory is little changed. As a result, we see any number of scenario.
For one, I am not sure that the Czechoslovak republic would be as willing to surrender land to Germany if the British are not willing to convene and are preoccupied with the US and its newfound aggression. However, it may be the case that the British as a result of the US aggression attempt to cozy up to Germany, likewise France may have to do likewise in such a scenario, considering their war exhaustion. Though, I am not sure the extent to which either could afford a good relation with Germany or a serious revision of Versailles.
I suspect the US would win this war, however more miraculous things have occurred than a British upset.
In total, the US may devolve into a serious anti-British and anti-Versailles government as a result of the Great Depression. This does not mean and alliance with Germany or the USSR, but it certainly entails extreme tension with the British Empire and a movement towards war, which the poster wishes to see. Once said war is to begin, the US will ensure the British would submit to the Germans in Europe, thus permitting a land war between France and others against Germany, whose trajectory is little changed. As a result, we see any number of scenario.
For one, I am not sure that the Czechoslovak republic would be as willing to surrender land to Germany if the British are not willing to convene and are preoccupied with the US and its newfound aggression. However, it may be the case that the British as a result of the US aggression attempt to cozy up to Germany, likewise France may have to do likewise in such a scenario, considering their war exhaustion. Though, I am not sure the extent to which either could afford a good relation with Germany or a serious revision of Versailles.
I suspect the US would win this war, however more miraculous things have occurred than a British upset.
Have Champ Clark not die, and become president in Wilson's place.
Clark was very keen on taking Canada
Clark was very keen on taking Canada