What if Canada gets a permanent seat on the Security Council (instead of France)? What if the West Indies Federation joins Canada between 1953 and 1963) (as a condition for the seat)?
Edited
Edited
Last edited:
Canadian Caribbean and Permanent SC Seat
- Thread starter fortyseven
- Start date
Why would they get the permament seat? Canada had done sterling work during the war but still didn't hold the political clout the France did - economically, politically or militarily even if they had essentially lost the war. It simply did not have the population (around 13 million in 1949) to support such a claim as to be a geat power. If Canada got it, who else should deserve it?
As for the West Indes Federation - it didn't come into existance until 1958. There was some talk of a potential union but it failed to find much mainstream support - the West Indians disliking being ruled by white men over 2000 miles away and the Canadians unsure about brinings some 5 million black West Indians with serve economic problems into the Confederation - a population increase of some 30%. Many in government were unsure (and rightly so) how they would support such a burden.
Russell
As for the West Indes Federation - it didn't come into existance until 1958. There was some talk of a potential union but it failed to find much mainstream support - the West Indians disliking being ruled by white men over 2000 miles away and the Canadians unsure about brinings some 5 million black West Indians with serve economic problems into the Confederation - a population increase of some 30%. Many in government were unsure (and rightly so) how they would support such a burden.
Russell
It's kinda sad though when a person thinks about it, hindsight is 20/20. Imagine a "West Indes Federation" with the laws, healthcare system and government of Canada. Now in the 1940's and 50's tourisim/vacationing as we now know it wasn't around, but as the years passed I wouldn't forsee any of the islands having economic issues.
It's a beautiful thought, but it didn't happen for good reasons.
It's a beautiful thought, but it didn't happen for good reasons.
Perhaps the British simply decide the West Indies them to Canada in the 1950s and let them deal with the problem. St. Laurent or Diefenbaker would probably take it. That was about the time when the large Caribbean populations in Canada began appearing, so while Canada would have to deal with the problems for a while, by the 1970s Canada's economic growth would probably raised the living standards of the region. The West Indies Federation and the Bahamas become three provinces of Canada - the Bahamas (including the Turks and Caicos Islands), Jamaica (including the Cayman Islands) and Trinidad and the Lesser Antillies. As air travel becomes common in the 1960s and 1970s, these islands are soon filled with tourists, and young job seekers from the islands migrate to Toronto and Montreal in big numbers. The civil unrest that hurt most of the islands in the 1960s and 1970s here wouldn't happen. They would likely be the poorest three provinces of Canada, but they would be way ahead of their OTL positions.
Those islands being part of Canada would force the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Merchant Marine to expand quite substantially, to watch over the new territories. In the 1950s, this wasn't much of a problem, but it would force Canada to not so substantially cut back its Navy and Air Force in the 1960s and 1970s. This would substantially change many cultural developments, too. Canada with a major Caribbean tinge could no longer be the "Great White North" if we own two fifths of the Caribbean, could it? At first, there would be a great many new arrivals in Canada, people from the islands looking for work. The islands weren't the best economically, but there is a fair number of industries there, and the Canadian government would certainly be aiming to fix the problems of the territories.
Those islands being part of Canada would force the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Merchant Marine to expand quite substantially, to watch over the new territories. In the 1950s, this wasn't much of a problem, but it would force Canada to not so substantially cut back its Navy and Air Force in the 1960s and 1970s. This would substantially change many cultural developments, too. Canada with a major Caribbean tinge could no longer be the "Great White North" if we own two fifths of the Caribbean, could it? At first, there would be a great many new arrivals in Canada, people from the islands looking for work. The islands weren't the best economically, but there is a fair number of industries there, and the Canadian government would certainly be aiming to fix the problems of the territories.
archaeogeek
Banned
Because Jamaica-Trinidad-Lesser Islands tensions broke the federation
Although splitting provinces I'd go
- Bahamas
- Leewards
- Windwards
- Jamaica
- Trinidad
and either independent or as-provinces Belize and Guyana
But it still puts Canada nowhere near to France power-wise; I'd feel even Yugoslavia makes more sense than Canada in 1945.
Geography and demographics, mainly. The Bahamas are north of Cuba, Jamaica and the Caymans are south of it, Trinidad and the Lesser Antillies are on the far east edge of the Caribbean. There is a considerable distance between them. Jamaica and Trinidad have a population of 1 million - 1.5 million each (bigger than Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan at the time) and each have their own cultural differences, and the Bahamas are different again. If you lumped them together, they'd fight over who gets what, and the Bahamas would be sidelined because of its smaller population.
Because Jamaica-Trinidad-Lesser Islands tensions broke the federation
Although splitting provinces I'd go
- Bahamas
- Leewards
- Windwards
- Jamaica
- Trinidad
and either independent or as-provinces Belize and Guyana
Too complex, and you'd have territories too small to be provinces on their own.
I agree. You'd need more people in Canada to allow it to have the greater economic size and political clout.
archaeogeek
Banned
Also I feel the perception would be negative at the thought of having two seats going to the British Empire; a push to get Poland a permanent seat would probably have the same reaction wrt the Soviets.
Other "could have been" I've thought might be Brazil, but I think it would be a very very weak case.
So maybe they just go for more permanent seats? Canidates would be (by order of likelyness IMO):
-Brazil (+: big, South America gets represented, -: contributed not that much to the war effort)
-South Africa (+: economic power, Africa represented, most troublesome dominion -> Brits might want to pat their ego, -: overrepresentation of the Brit. Empire)
-Poland (+: communist [Stalin might want a more balanced SC], essential a soviet puppet so doesn't make politics more complicated, popular in the west, -: does not really look like a important power)
-Canada (+: dominion most active in the war, -: would be the third anglo saxon and the second north american nation)
-Yugoslavia (+: helped liberate itself, -: Would Stalin want to encourage the only communist nation not completly under his control)
-Australia (+: makes SC geographically more balanced, -: small population)
-Netherlands (+: Still one of the more important european nations back then, -: sucked in the war)
-Sweden (+: Still one of the more important european nations back then, -: neutral and at times close to Germany)
-Mexico
-Ethopia
-Egypt
-Italy
-Ukraine (Stalin smuggled them into the UN as a seperate country in OTL, they were an elected SC member for a time +:SC more balanced toward communism -: totally redundant)
-Brazil (+: big, South America gets represented, -: contributed not that much to the war effort)
-South Africa (+: economic power, Africa represented, most troublesome dominion -> Brits might want to pat their ego, -: overrepresentation of the Brit. Empire)
-Poland (+: communist [Stalin might want a more balanced SC], essential a soviet puppet so doesn't make politics more complicated, popular in the west, -: does not really look like a important power)
-Canada (+: dominion most active in the war, -: would be the third anglo saxon and the second north american nation)
-Yugoslavia (+: helped liberate itself, -: Would Stalin want to encourage the only communist nation not completly under his control)
-Australia (+: makes SC geographically more balanced, -: small population)
-Netherlands (+: Still one of the more important european nations back then, -: sucked in the war)
-Sweden (+: Still one of the more important european nations back then, -: neutral and at times close to Germany)
-Mexico
-Ethopia
-Egypt
-Italy
-Ukraine (Stalin smuggled them into the UN as a seperate country in OTL, they were an elected SC member for a time +:SC more balanced toward communism -: totally redundant)
Last edited:
archaeogeek
Banned
If people are debating France, I can honestly not see Italy, a fully willing Axis power, in.
This are the nations that could be added to the OTL members by descending likelyhood.
I put Italy on the list as they switched sides before the end of the war and as a result were treated better than G & J: Their own goverment right from the start and allowed to keep It. Somalia as a UN mandate for some time.
And in economic power and demographics it is just far more important than some other nations on my list.
I don't think that Britain can get away with that post WW2 - it's not the imperial age anymore and Britain can't just get away with handing the sovereignty of its colonial possessions to other countries, even Canada, without their peoples consent. The West Indian people were not in favour of such a union. Such a move would not be fitting in the post war model of decolonisation and would raise eyebrows in the UN.
Such a move would destroy the Chief. The WI were draining money away from Britain by the 50's - they made more loss than profit. All it Dief would really achieve is leaving Canada in an even worse financial state than OTL, along with the resentment that goes along with.
Russell
I was merely showing what could have been. I agree that the locals in the West Indies wouldn't like it, and that the Canadian electorate probably wouldn't be too impressed, either.