What are the most likely alternate fate of Canada?

Strategos' Risk

With a POD of after 1900, what is the most likely alternate Canada that could occur?

1. Canada missing Quebec

2. Canada missing Newfoundland

3. Canada missing Maritimes

4. Canada missing Western Canada

5. Canada with differently-shaped provinces.

No poll, because I don't even know which options to put down, and I want discourse not just results. Go to it!
 

Blade

Missing Newfoundland's probably the most likely. The vote for it joining Canada was a pretty close-run thing, IIRC.
 

loughery111

Banned
Blade said:
Missing Newfoundland's probably the most likely. The vote for it joining Canada was a pretty close-run thing, IIRC.
Click to expand...

It was eventually going to fall into either Canada's lap or America's. I figure even if they don't vote to join Canada initially they're going to do it eventually... no real reason to join the USA over Canada.

The most likely, in my mind, is the US managing to eek out a sort-of victory in the War of 1812, and offer to buy the vast western wastes of Canada between the Oregon Country and Ontario-to-be. If the Mississippi River Valley campaign went better than OTL, or got focused on over attempted invasions of the East, it might have gone well enough to convince the British to sell off their western territory at Louisiana Purchase-style prices or thereabouts. The US could likely afford it and the British are hurting for cash after the Napoleonic Wars, if I recall correctly. As far as they know, there are just furs, furs, and more furs there, so why not sell it, since they almost lost it in the war anyway and probably will if it continues.
 
Evilprodigy

Evilprodigy

Donor
well.... in 1900 canada owned all the land it does today minus newfoudland and labrador, so any loses what so ever would be the result of a lost war because at this time the trans canada railway was finished (I think) so we canucks would not want to sell it
 

Don Lardo

With a post-1900 POD, I believe a Canada with different shaped provinces is the odds on favorite with a missing Quebec as a distant second and a missing Newfoundland an equally distant third. The other options are very low percentage outcomes as they would involve Canada losing her integral territory both after 1900 and well after Confederation.

Speaking about the low odds options first, given a series of continual missteps on both sides, the Quebec question could have resulted in a that province's secession and the huge problems that would have followed. The topic has been discussed here before and, aside from the true believers, most recognize the scope of the disaster in the offing for Quebec.

As for Newfoundland, while the vote to join Canada was close, joining the US was never a real option. After WW2, let alone WW1, there's no way the US would even considered "taking" land from Britain or Canada no matter the outcome of any vote. If Newfoundland had turned down confederation with Canada, London would have simply forced another referendum while also taking certain financial steps to remind the Newfies that Britain wasn't going to be paying the bills anymore no matter how Newfoundland voted.

As for different shaped provinces, I've always wondered whether the creation of some sort of small First Nation province or provinces out of the existing provinces would be plausible. After South Africa's twisted use of the concept, the term "homelands" has many negative connotations but I'm wondering about something along roughly the same lines while also being far less cynical and/or evil.

As well as consisting of marginal lands, reservations are more often than not too small to be robust economic units. In the US, leaving aside casinos and tax free cigarette shops run by folks who suddenly "discovered" they were Native Americans, only the larger reservations, like those in the Four Corners region, even come close to providing enough economic activity for their inhabitants.

So, what if Canada created a certain number of First Nation "homelands" which were also either "full" provinces or federal territories like Nunavet is? The creation of these "super reservations", First Nation "homelands", First Nation-majority provinces, or whatever you want to call them could create different shaped provinces after 1900.
 

loughery111

Banned
Evilprodigy said:
well.... in 1900 canada owned all the land it does today minus newfoudland and labrador, so any loses what so ever would be the result of a lost war because at this time the trans canada railway was finished (I think) so we canucks would not want to sell it
Click to expand...

I was saying the US buys land that they were close to taking in an ATL War of 1812.
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

1. Unless everyone screws up royally as they nearly did in the 1990s, it ain't happening. Reabsorption within a decade once it becomes a Third World country.

2. You would need native issues to become politically relevant. Canadian governments, Liberal or Tory, were not interested in it at all until Diefenbaker/Pearson. No political reward, a lot of risk. Until the Indian Act with Chretien in the 1960s, things were left as they were in the 19th century. Most of this era is tied up with the economy and the world wars, as well as dealing with Quebec nationalism's resurgence during those wars. Laurier? The man who created the residential school system and was dependent on Clifford Sifton as his deputy. Borden? WWI, trade wars/Ameriphobia ("No Truck or Trade with the Yanks" in opposition to the proposed CAFTA 'reciprocity' of 1911) and dealing with the postwar fallout. Mackenzie King? Progressive in all non-racial/immigration issues, and assidously courted and won the West for the Liberals. PET pissed that away with his socialism and centralist view of the country. St-Laurent: doesn't give a crap.

Alternate PMs: not much of a chance either.

3/4: ASB with a post-1900 POD.

5: Depends on the gerrymandering in Ottawa.
 

RCAF Brat

1. Canada missing Quebec- Unlikely. even with even under the most favourable conditions imaginable, the separatists couldn't quite close the deal.

2. Canada missing Newfoundland- Possible but unlikely. Most likely if WWI and/or the great Depression are butterflied by the POD.

3. Canada missing Maritimes- So unlikely that it is ASB. Needs a pre-1867 POD to be possible.

4. Canada missing Western Canada- See #3.

5. Canada with differently-shaped provinces.- The most likely of the lot. The final bounderies of six provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland) weren't settled until sometime in the 20th century. Alberta and Saskatchewan entered confederation with their modern borders in 1905. Manitoba and Ontario only had their modern borders set that year, and Quebec's border with Newfoundland (Labrador actually) wasn't set until 1949. As the whole thing was political, it is a near certainty that a different government in 1905 would have have drawn the borders differently, and possibly given have the new provinces different names. Also anytime before 1949, the border dispute between Quebec and newfoundland could have been resolved more in favour of Quebec, not Newfoundland. Or it could have been resolved completely in favour of Newfoundland...
 

Andrew Hudson

Canada without Labrador as it only requires something not to happen and the referendum was fairly close and it would be least disruptive. The next most likely would be Canada without Quebeck. Newfoundland was on the verge of bankrupcy and under administration the alternative to union might have been incorporation into the UK
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

RCAF Brat said:
and Quebec's border with Newfoundland (Labrador actually) wasn't set until 1949. As the whole thing was political, it is a near certainty that a different government in 1905 would have have drawn the borders differently, and possibly given have the new provinces different names. Also anytime before 1949, the border dispute between Quebec and newfoundland could have been resolved more in favour of Quebec, not Newfoundland. Or it could have been resolved completely in favour of Newfoundland...
Click to expand...

Indeed, on official Québec maps, the official boundary with Labrador is still marked as "not definitive" and presents Québec's claims as the only legit border.
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

Well, considering the ongoing pissing match between Charest and Hurricane Dan over the renegotiation of Churchill Falls... :rolleyes:
 

Midas

1. Canada missing Quebec
Click to expand...
Fairly possible, almost happened twice and basically didn't happen last time because we probably fixed the vote (though a 50% majority referendum on separating from a country is ludacris).

2. Canada missing Newfoundland
Click to expand...
Like Quebec, fairly likely, but we like the Newfies for whatever reason so I'm sure we'd push for union if it doesn't happen.

3. Canada missing Maritimes
Click to expand...
A weird scenario. I can see some provinces holding off Confederation, perhaps even as long as Newfoundland did, but it seems like they'd eventually join us. Not historical inertia, not set in stone definitely just- like I say, it's likely the Maritimes would end up as part of a British North American state.

4. Canada missing Western Canada
Click to expand...
That would be odd. They wouldn't cede Rupert's Land without a fight for sure, I can't see the Crown just giving that up barring a total collapse on their side of the world. Perhaps a different Oregon border.

5. Canada with differently-shaped provinces.
Click to expand...
The most likely of the group. A National Capital Territory around Ottawa-Gatineau (now Hull), Cape Breton Island, different configurations of the Prarie provinces (from the megaprovince of Buffalo to the 4-part partition of Alberta/Saskatchewan/Assiniboia/Athabasca), British Columbia and Vancouver Island... as well as the possible partitions of the Northern Territories. It's quite possible our internal borders could look very, very different from any PoD in the late 19th/early 20th century
 
Last edited:

Andrew Hudson

Strategos' Risk said:
I am still convinced that the Canada-Newfoundland relationship is similar to Australia-NZ, and have yet to be dissuaded otherwise.
Click to expand...

Let's have a try then. Newfoundland voted for union narrowly but mainly becuase it was bankrupt and had been in administration. Newfoundland has little economic wealth, fishing and forestry and the Grand Banks are close to exhaustion. The only other possibility is the development of mineral wealth in Labrador. New Zealand has been fairly prosperous although the National Party left the country on the verge of bankrupcy in 1957 however New Zealand recovered. Newfoundland as far as I am aware was setlled by people similar to those who settled Nova Scotia. Are there are very few first nation inhabitants left whereas New Zealand has a considerable Maori population. However Australia has a considerable Irish population and less well known Welsh migrants whereas Pakeha New Zealand was initially Scots and to some extent Northern Irish presbyterians. Australia has an American type economy whereas New Zealand has had a social democratic tradition e.g the reform governments of Seddon and Savage.

I would say Australia-New Zealand is more akin to the United States and Canada than Canada and Newfoundland
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top