If you mean Canadian loyalists, I think this is unlikely. For all its flaws, the USA is still a democracy. It would be very difficult for them to round people up and expel them. This is the Soviet Union, Maoist China or Nazi Germany we are talking about.
WI: U.S. vs U.K., WW1
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
If you mean Canadian loyalists, I think this is unlikely. For all its flaws, the USA is still a democracy. It would be very difficult for them to round people up and expel them. This is the Soviet Union, Maoist China or Nazi Germany we are talking about.
How about the Roman model?
Everything West of Ontario is annexed, northern Ontario and Quebec and Labrador is annexed, the rump Canada retains its independence, but is bound by treaty to the US, basically it would by an 'ally', would provide troops to the US when the US went to war, and the US would basically control it's foreign policy.
Canadian citizens could freely move and settle inside the United States and automatically become US citizens. And US citizens could do the same in Canada. Both could retain their citizenship if they wish to, and their children would have dual citizenship.
Canadians would have the rights of American citizens in the US, with equal standing with Americans before the law with regard to private matters. And the US citizens would have the same rights in Canada. Canadians in the US would be considered for all intents and purposes US citizens without the right to vote. The same for Americans in Canada.
The rump individual states could apply for admission as states in the future if they wish to.
The United States and Canada would have no tariff barriers with each other, but Canada must have the same tariffs with the rest of the world as the US.
That would satisfy the United States eager for a gains, and Canada would formally remain independent.
I See the Problem
So the problem you guys have as I see it is that the USA loses too much.
So let's go through what they lose once more.
1. The Pacific Islands up to Hawaii. This is split between all three of the main fighters in the war.
2. It loses it's claim Puerto Rico and any influence it has over Cuba.
3. It is forced to pay reparations in Billions to that of the Canada, Britain, Germany, etc.
In my TL, I don't skirt around this issue, within two years of the war being declared Canada is occupied by the USA, at least in the Cities. I do stress that there is are strong resistance groups set up across Canada, that even go as far as striking US facilities in the Northern States. My point being that Canada does not want to be part of the USA, and the USA had to keep a large chunk of it's troops there to stop the resistance fighters.
Secondly the USA is fighting for a reason. That reason being it's alliance with Russia. By the end of the 6th Year, Russia has surrendered in the face of mounting losses and the realization that it will lose eventually. The USA's whole reason to fighting becomes void from that point on. How do you convince the US people who have seen nothing but casualty lists for the last 6 years to keep fighting when they are the only ones left. You can't. The people won't want to, even more so when the Canada is causing the death of more and more troops.
Look I'm not suggesting that the Imperial Forces could successfully invade the USA. I'm just saying that USA would not want to fight, as it becomes obvious they have no reason too. The problem being for the USA they have invested far too much in the war. The Imperial's will want something in return otherwise this war could go on longer, cost more lives and in the end the USA will still lose. I can not beat the combines industrial might of most of the European Nations and their colonial ones.
Otherwise the USA becomes a bigger version of North Korea. Isolationist and stuck while the rest of the world tries to ignore it.
The USA would have to surrender in these circumstances.
So the problem you guys have as I see it is that the USA loses too much.
So let's go through what they lose once more.
1. The Pacific Islands up to Hawaii. This is split between all three of the main fighters in the war.
2. It loses it's claim Puerto Rico and any influence it has over Cuba.
3. It is forced to pay reparations in Billions to that of the Canada, Britain, Germany, etc.
In my TL, I don't skirt around this issue, within two years of the war being declared Canada is occupied by the USA, at least in the Cities. I do stress that there is are strong resistance groups set up across Canada, that even go as far as striking US facilities in the Northern States. My point being that Canada does not want to be part of the USA, and the USA had to keep a large chunk of it's troops there to stop the resistance fighters.
Secondly the USA is fighting for a reason. That reason being it's alliance with Russia. By the end of the 6th Year, Russia has surrendered in the face of mounting losses and the realization that it will lose eventually. The USA's whole reason to fighting becomes void from that point on. How do you convince the US people who have seen nothing but casualty lists for the last 6 years to keep fighting when they are the only ones left. You can't. The people won't want to, even more so when the Canada is causing the death of more and more troops.
Look I'm not suggesting that the Imperial Forces could successfully invade the USA. I'm just saying that USA would not want to fight, as it becomes obvious they have no reason too. The problem being for the USA they have invested far too much in the war. The Imperial's will want something in return otherwise this war could go on longer, cost more lives and in the end the USA will still lose. I can not beat the combines industrial might of most of the European Nations and their colonial ones.
Otherwise the USA becomes a bigger version of North Korea. Isolationist and stuck while the rest of the world tries to ignore it.
The USA would have to surrender in these circumstances.
Yes, but the US has a population of 100 million in 1920, could field 2 million troops in a years' time, and in a total war war, could field up to 6 or 7 million (in WWII, the US has 12 million soldiers in its armed forces).
If say, 500,000 soldiers and sailors are lost in the islands (since the US won't be able to reinforce them due to the RN), one million would remain in the continental US to guard against invasion remaining five million will go to Canada. Guess what's Canada's population in 1920? 8.5 million. That's right. For every 9 Canadian man, woman and child, there would be 5 US soldiers armed. And that's not counting the Canadian soldiers who died during the invasion, were captured and wounded, etc.
With such a ratio, Canada could be easily held.
OTL the British Empire did not mobilze to the degree other nations did.
In an all out war where the Empire must hold a vast front on their own the degree of mobilisation would be much higher. Especially india with a population of 315+ millions could contribute way more than OTL during WWI.
OTL INdia mobilized 1.4 Million Men and had casualties around 140.000 -
UK mobilized 6,2 Mill. of a population of 45,4 Million (casualties 2,6 Million)
If you asssume that India mobilizes not 0,44% (OTL) but 1,3% (one thenth of Britains mobilisation rate) it gets around 2.8 more Soldiers
Canada had a population of 7.2 Mill and mobilized 630.000 (8,8%)
The United states mobilized 4.4 Mill out of a population of 92 Mill (4,8%)
Overall the Empire could mobilize more troops than the US, so I woudl assume overrunning Canada is a difficult task. Especially as the US lacks a large standing army (expanding id hard) True Britain had the same problem (a rather small professional army), but it had more recent combat experience and could potentially draw on a larger Officer and NCO reserve (Colonials + Dominion).
In addition there is the French problem.
I assume the US (Allied to FR + R) must ship some troops to europe to hold FRance in the war - THE BEF while small was nonetheless essential to hold the line, if we assume teh BEDF goes initally to Canada instead of France the Germans are in a better position than OTL while France is worse off.
If the US neglects France it will probably lose an ally of 40 Mill soon while at best it might knock out an enem,y of 7.2 Mill
In an all out war where the Empire must hold a vast front on their own the degree of mobilisation would be much higher. Especially india with a population of 315+ millions could contribute way more than OTL during WWI.
OTL INdia mobilized 1.4 Million Men and had casualties around 140.000 -
UK mobilized 6,2 Mill. of a population of 45,4 Million (casualties 2,6 Million)
If you asssume that India mobilizes not 0,44% (OTL) but 1,3% (one thenth of Britains mobilisation rate) it gets around 2.8 more Soldiers
Canada had a population of 7.2 Mill and mobilized 630.000 (8,8%)
The United states mobilized 4.4 Mill out of a population of 92 Mill (4,8%)
Overall the Empire could mobilize more troops than the US, so I woudl assume overrunning Canada is a difficult task. Especially as the US lacks a large standing army (expanding id hard) True Britain had the same problem (a rather small professional army), but it had more recent combat experience and could potentially draw on a larger Officer and NCO reserve (Colonials + Dominion).
In addition there is the French problem.
I assume the US (Allied to FR + R) must ship some troops to europe to hold FRance in the war - THE BEF while small was nonetheless essential to hold the line, if we assume teh BEDF goes initally to Canada instead of France the Germans are in a better position than OTL while France is worse off.
If the US neglects France it will probably lose an ally of 40 Mill soon while at best it might knock out an enem,y of 7.2 Mill
But with the US being blockaded by the RN, and the USN at the bottom of the ocean, how would the US reach France? They can't! So where would all those troops go to? Canada!
And in a total war with the UK, it could mobilize much more. In WWII, the US has 132 M people, and has 12 M in it's armed forces. That's about 9% mobilization. In 1920, it has 100 M people, so it could mobilize 9 M men.
ManintheField
Banned
In a word: Yes. By 1914 the US was the 1200 pound gorilla of the global economy and a US that mobilizes for war in 1914 can and will outproduce its opponents.
This topic seems to be based on a fantasy of a UK which retains its early 19th century advantages well into the 20th century. A US which is involved in alt-WWI from the beginning against the UK will dominate the Western Hemisphere without much issue and seriously contest both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.
Numbers don't count for everything.
The cannot mobalise 12 million people. That's a fact. Not unless you want all civic services, all industry, all manufacturing services and all research divisions.
It's simply does not make sense. Then you have to pay them. 12,million people who could be be better off doing something else. You have to pay the, arm them, train them and feed them. What money do you have to do this when everyone of fighting age is not in the factories or farms, but in your army. Even if you do that what do you do next? You can send them to fight the Canadian if you want, but then what else? They aren't going to leave the US any time soon, and enemy sure as hell aren't going to invade.
You have 12 million people trained to fight and no one to fight. The economic situation is plummeting, who do you think people are going to be angry at?
Stop using population figures as if they were accurate. That's how many people could fight, does not translate to how many we could actually send to fight.
If that what you want to think then fine. You are free to ignore Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Turkey, Italy and Japan.
More power to you bub.
The USA loses this war. It has to accept the penalties, because other than paying reparations everything that it loses it lost already. The reason the USA has to pay is that if it wants to join the rest of the worlds economy it will. Otherwise, they will just refuse to embargo, and lets be honest. By the 1920's no modern nation was self-sufficient any more. They all needed imports of some sort.
The cannot mobalise 12 million people. That's a fact. Not unless you want all civic services, all industry, all manufacturing services and all research divisions.
It's simply does not make sense. Then you have to pay them. 12,million people who could be be better off doing something else. You have to pay the, arm them, train them and feed them. What money do you have to do this when everyone of fighting age is not in the factories or farms, but in your army. Even if you do that what do you do next? You can send them to fight the Canadian if you want, but then what else? They aren't going to leave the US any time soon, and enemy sure as hell aren't going to invade.
You have 12 million people trained to fight and no one to fight. The economic situation is plummeting, who do you think people are going to be angry at?
Stop using population figures as if they were accurate. That's how many people could fight, does not translate to how many we could actually send to fight.
If that what you want to think then fine. You are free to ignore Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Turkey, Italy and Japan.
More power to you bub.
The USA loses this war. It has to accept the penalties, because other than paying reparations everything that it loses it lost already. The reason the USA has to pay is that if it wants to join the rest of the worlds economy it will. Otherwise, they will just refuse to embargo, and lets be honest. By the 1920's no modern nation was self-sufficient any more. They all needed imports of some sort.
12 million was the actual number of soldiers the US fielded in World War II. A 9% mobilization rate. Check the numbers and show me where I'm wrong.
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/us-military.html
That war showed the US can mobilize that much people. In a total war with the UK in 1920, the US has a population of 100 million, and using the mobilization rate of World War II, it would be able to mobilize 9 million soldiers, more than the entire population of Canada.
The majority of the army would sit in Canada to wait for the counterattack. If it doesn't come, it would simply annex it and dare the UK to eject them. The rest would be in the continental US, waiting for the invasion that would never come, and if it came, would be swiftly ejected.
And you know what? In that scenario, the US army won't have many casualties. It would be the US navy that would be gutted, but that won't affect what happens in the north.
There is a big difference between WW1 and WW2.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html
Puts the US WW1 mobilesd force to that of under 4.5 million.
What makes you think the USA want to annex Canada, at most they would prefer a government loyal to them. Outright annexment will never work. Numbers aside that hasn't worked yet in any place other than the ones that felt a cultural affinity.
Annex Canada and the USA will eventually have to give it up. This is not like the CSA or Mexico.
The US did not fully mobilize it's strength as it was only in the war for over a year. If it was at war for four or five years, it could reach 9 million, a 9% rate.
If the UK won't give back its gains in the Pacific and Carribean, then the US would not give up Canada. The Confederate States did not want to be part of the US too, you know. Neither did the Philippines.
Or it could simply annex the West, the northern part of Ontario and Quebec, and make the rump Canada a protectorate. Either that or continued occupation.
Basically, the UK cannot force the US out of Canada, and as long as the US has it, it won't feel defeated no matter the overseas losses.
Either way, the UK won't be able to do anything about it.
Except give up everything they had gained in the war to get Canada back.
Last edited:
I agree that Britain/Germany/Japan etc will be unable to do anything. The issue I have is with the annexation of Canada by the USA
Why would it want to annex Canada. This is 1970 where oil has been discovered and there is a lot of heavy industry in Ontario. This is the early 1900s. The West is a backwater. There is nothing there.
Fine, let's say the USA wants so more farmland, ok. It takes the West. But why would it go any further? A prolonged insurgency will not go over well with the electorate. And a prolonged insurgency is exactly what they will get.
Why on earth would the US want Quebec. French Canadians hate Americans more than they hate Anglo Canadians. That's why they joined Confederation. They don't want to be swamped by a Protestant, Catholic hating America.
Again, this isn't Hearts of Iron.
I really am getting fed up with the USA, USA, USA, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER ONE.
I thought we were better than that here. If anyone here thinks that the US is the best there ever was ever is and ever will be, I feel very sorry for you, just go back to watching Fox!
I thought we were better than that here. If anyone here thinks that the US is the best there ever was ever is and ever will be, I feel very sorry for you, just go back to watching Fox!
It might not annex everything. Here is what I proposed.
Everything West of Ontario is annexed, northern Ontario and Quebec and Labrador is annexed, the rump Canada retains its independence, but is bound by treaty to the US, basically it would by an 'ally', would provide troops to the US when the US went to war, and the US would basically control it's foreign policy.
Canadian citizens could freely move and settle inside the United States and automatically become US citizens. And US citizens could do the same in Canada. Both could retain their citizenship if they wish to, and their children would have dual citizenship.
Canadians would have the rights of American citizens in the US, with equal standing with Americans before the law with regard to private matters. And the US citizens would have the same rights in Canada. Canadians in the US would be considered for all intents and purposes US citizens without the right to vote. The same for Americans in Canada.
The rump individual states could apply for admission as states in the future if they wish to.
The United States and Canada would have no tariff barriers with each other, but Canada must have the same tariffs with the rest of the world as the US.
That would satisfy the United States eager for a gains, and Canada would formally remain independent.
How does this sound?
Bavarian Raven
Banned
You're assuming said Canadians want to be part of the US, and the US won't be suffering from years of continued resistance? Honestly, the US would be best to make Canada a republic and give them their freedom, and keep them in the US sphere of influence over britain. Much easier to control Canada that way then outright annexing it imho.
But Canada would remain independent, well a rump Canada. The uninhabited parts would be annexed, as well as the sparsely inhabited West. Southern Quebec, Southern Ontario and the Maritimes would comprise this independent Canada.
Only they are bound by treaty to let the US manage its Foreign policy, and contribute troops to the US when it goes to war. And tariff union of course.
Again, why Quebec? French Canadians are less likely to like the US than Anglo-Canadians. Taking Quebec makes no sense.
Why would the Americans want a large population of people who hate them (Anglo Canadians and Franco Canadians) to be part of their country. Remember, this will be the third invasion of Canada, not to mention the various Fenian invasions.
They can be as nice as they want (although I doubt that any American occupation would be as nice as you suggest), but you can't ignore the fact that Canada's very existence was to combat American expansionism.
I think that US negotiators would let Canada have its independence. Why go through all the trouble (money and lives) to hold onto a place that doesn't want you. In return, the US would likely get reparations from Canada and possibly Britain. Canada would probably have to demilitarise and may have to allow US use of Halifax Naval base. It would make far more sense for the Americans to treat the Canadians with respect, try and wean them away from Britain, than destroy their country and expect them to want to be Americans.
Only as a last resort should the Americans annex Western Canada. And even then, I would leave Manitoba and everything East as rump Canada. Remember that at this time, Manitoba is pretty much little Ontario.
Why would you annex useless land? It doesn't make any sense. Why would you force a country into an alliance it doesn't want. That is not good realpolitik
I mean northern Quebec, not the populated southern one.
Why annex the west and uninhabited portions?
Well, to satisfy the people in the US who mourned the loss of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. To let the US say that they won the war even if it lost all it overseas territories and it's navy is at the bottom of the ocean. Unless Britain gives those back, I'd say the US would want to annex something.
Why annex the west and uninhabited portions?
Well, to satisfy the people in the US who mourned the loss of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. To let the US say that they won the war even if it lost all it overseas territories and it's navy is at the bottom of the ocean. Unless Britain gives those back, I'd say the US would want to annex something.
It would make more sense to get those back in a peace treaty than force them away from another country.
"Yes, we know that thousands of Americans died, but in return we have thousands of acres of rocks, muskeg and snow."
I am sorry, but it just doesn't make very much sense.