What is the most feasible way to get an American invasion and annexation of Canada in the 20th century?

[NotedCoyote]

The problem with any scenario that relies on tension between America and the UK is that, from quite early in the 20th century, Canada was transitioning into an independent and sovereign nation that was well aware of the impossibility of it defeating the US in any serious conflict. It's conceivable, if unlikely, that you could have a UK stupid and arrogant enough to commit blunder after blunder until America has been so thoroughly alienated that war between the two countries becomes a possibility. What's harder to imagine is Canada sitting idly by and letting the UK drag it into a war that it knows it will be the front-line of.

Any time after WW1, Canada is much more likely to throw up in frustration with the UK and aim for neutrality rather than getting involved in an unequal contest that it will certainly lose. That will cause some political and legal headaches if it happens before 1931, but we'd be looking at a world where the relations between the UK and US were very different to begin with, and any change at that scale is going to mean a different Canada almost by default. It should go without saying that after Canada obtains its legislative independence from the UK, no amount of tension between the UK and the US is going to automatically bring Canada into the war. Whether that occurs in 1931 or earlier or later, at that point the cause of the war would need to exist between Canada and the US specifically.

An alternate WW1 is a better bet, but the UK losing WW1 hard is more likely to lead to a nominally independent Canada that's fully within the American sphere of influence than it is to an invasion and annexation. Why waste blood and treasure and international ire taking Canada by force? A WW1 where the US is part of the Central Powers and invades Canada during that conflict is a more sensible option for an invasion, but getting the US into the Central Powers is going to be tricky without changing things between the UK and the US so much in the 1800s that Canada as we know it might never form.

"Peaceful" annexation options have their own merits and flaws when it comes to plausibility, but don't seem to fit the OP's request for an invasion along with the annexation. It's not an invasion when you're invited it.

 

[alfredtuomi]

You forgot the charge of the angry moose.

Actually it might be the moose in heat looking for............

 

[alfredtuomi]

so when could this occur?
after ww2 if all goes as otl then US corporations have too much invested in canada to risk a war.even in the 30's GM, ford and chrysler had major investments in canada so prob not then either.
during ww1 if US stays neutral then it's feasible.
post ww1 if US stays neutral and the Canadian army has returned then I hate to crush your ego folks but the US army gets its ass handed to it.Think Soviet invasion of Finland but the Canadian army was the pointy end during the hundred days and was led by one of the best generals of ww1.
If ww1 goes as OTL why would you turn on one of your allies???
Prior to ww1 would you really want to invade territory of the UK who was the largest investor in your country,controlled the worlds trade routes,and was probably your most important trading partner.And besides you both spoke the same language and managed to resolve your differences by flapping your gums as opposed to shooting each other.

 

[Airborne2001]

1. The Central Powers win the First World War.
2. An incident happens early on in an alternate Second World War that causes Germany and the US to embargo Japan.
3. Japan and the UK reignite their alliance.
4. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US and Canada enter a major border war.
5. Assuming the Central Powers win again, the US will take land from Canada.
5b. However, them annexing all of Canada is doubtful, but this is the closest way I can see the US doing this.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Although Champ Clark really wanted Canada, seeing as his strategy in OTL was mainly to hope that market integration would make the Canadians amenable to annexation, you'd need more than merely putting him in the White House to get the USA to join the CP. I'd say something involving Britain and the Monroe Doctrine (like the two Venezuela crises) or have the Royal Navy do something stupid. Alternatively you could have tensions build between the USA and Japan since they were allied with Britain, although I think in that case, Britain would just throw Japan under the bus.

I've thought of Roosevelt because he visited the Kaiser pre-war and also because of his imperialist tendencies.

Roosevelt agitated for entering the war on the Entente side after the sinking of the Lusitania. It's not too farfetched for him to bring the USA in on the side of the CP. In OTL he was pretty upset about Britain's blockade - which included neutral ports. However, it would take more than simply having him in office.

 

[Bullmoose713]

The problem with any scenario that relies on tension between America and the UK is that, from quite early in the 20th century, Canada was transitioning into an independent and sovereign nation that was well aware of the impossibility of it defeating the US in any serious conflict. It's conceivable, if unlikely, that you could have a UK stupid and arrogant enough to commit blunder after blunder until America has been so thoroughly alienated that war between the two countries becomes a possibility. What's harder to imagine is Canada sitting idly by and letting the UK drag it into a war that it knows it will be the front-line of.

Any time after WW1, Canada is much more likely to throw up in frustration with the UK and aim for neutrality rather than getting involved in an unequal contest that it will certainly lose. That will cause some political and legal headaches if it happens before 1931, but we'd be looking at a world where the relations between the UK and US were very different to begin with, and any change at that scale is going to mean a different Canada almost by default. It should go without saying that after Canada obtains its legislative independence from the UK, no amount of tension between the UK and the US is going to automatically bring Canada into the war. Whether that occurs in 1931 or earlier or later, at that point the cause of the war would need to exist between Canada and the US specifically.

An alternate WW1 is a better bet, but the UK losing WW1 hard is more likely to lead to a nominally independent Canada that's fully within the American sphere of influence than it is to an invasion and annexation. Why waste blood and treasure and international ire taking Canada by force? A WW1 where the US is part of the Central Powers and invades Canada during that conflict is a more sensible option for an invasion, but getting the US into the Central Powers is going to be tricky without changing things between the UK and the US so much in the 1800s that Canada as we know it might never form.

"Peaceful" annexation options have their own merits and flaws when it comes to plausibility, but don't seem to fit the OP's request for an invasion along with the annexation. It's not an invasion when you're invited it.

I don't think a CP US is that tricky at all.

 

[Bullmoose713]

so when could this occur?
after ww2 if all goes as otl then US corporations have too much invested in canada to risk a war.even in the 30's GM, ford and chrysler had major investments in canada so prob not then either.
during ww1 if US stays neutral then it's feasible.
post ww1 if US stays neutral and the Canadian army has returned then I hate to crush your ego folks but the US army gets its ass handed to it.Think Soviet invasion of Finland but the Canadian army was the pointy end during the hundred days and was led by one of the best generals of ww1.
If ww1 goes as OTL why would you turn on one of your allies???
Prior to ww1 would you really want to invade territory of the UK who was the largest investor in your country,controlled the worlds trade routes,and was probably your most important trading partner.And besides you both spoke the same language and managed to resolve your differences by flapping your gums as opposed to shooting each other.

At no point is it feasible to say the Americans would get their asses handed to them from the Canadians. I don't care how experienced or good they were, the sheer difference in numbers would be overwhelming.

 

[Bullmoose713]

Although Champ Clark really wanted Canada, seeing as his strategy in OTL was mainly to hope that market integration would make the Canadians amenable to annexation, you'd need more than merely putting him in the White House to get the USA to join the CP. I'd say something involving Britain and the Monroe Doctrine (like the two Venezuela crises) or have the Royal Navy do something stupid. Alternatively you could have tensions build between the USA and Japan since they were allied with Britain, although I think in that case, Britain would just throw Japan under the bus.

Roosevelt agitated for entering the war on the Entente side after the sinking of the Lusitania. It's not too farfetched for him to bring the USA in on the side of the CP. In OTL he was pretty upset about Britain's blockade - which included neutral ports. However, it would take more than simply having him in office.

I agree

 

[Thomas1195]

I've thought of Roosevelt because he visited the Kaiser pre-war and also because of his imperialist tendencies.

OTOH, he sided with France during the Moroccan Crisis.

In addition, Roosevelt's imperialism if anything was more likely to pit him against Germany, given Kaiser Billy's imbecilic behaviour in South America during the late 1890s.

 

[Thomas1195]

Roosevelt agitated for entering the war on the Entente side after the sinking of the Lusitania

Actually some sources suggest that he was already clamoring against Germany during the "Rape of Belgium". In addition, most major foreign policy figures in his circle were Anglophile WASP Atlanticists.

 

[xie323]

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?

Fascist or Communist USA and Canada being on the other side. Or US joins the Central Powers and helping them win and then the Entente all somehow going Fascist before round 2.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Actually some sources suggest that he was already clamoring against Germany during the "Rape of Belgium". In addition, most major foreign policy figures in his circle were Anglophile WASP Atlanticists.

I think, at any rate I hope, I have rendered it plain that I am not now criticising, that I am not passing judgment one way or the other, upon Germany’s action. I admire and respect the German people. I am proud of the German blood in my veins. When a nation feels that the issue of a contest in which, from whatever reason, it finds itself engaged will be national life or death, it is inevitable that it should act so as to save itself from death and to perpetuate its life.

Teddy Roosevelt. "The World War: Its Tragedies And Its Lessons" Note, he had a lot more to say on the matter even in that very article and did disagree with the notion of blaming Belgium for the carnage. He was jingo definitely (on numerous issues). He started clamoring for war after the sinking of the Lusitania, not with the German occupation and invasion of Belgium.

 

[Bullmoose713]

Teddy Roosevelt. "The World War: Its Tragedies And Its Lessons" Note, he had a lot more to say on the matter even in that very article and did disagree with the notion of blaming Belgium for the carnage. He was jingo definitely (on numerous issues). He started clamoring for war after the sinking of the Lusitania, not with the German occupation and invasion of Belgium.

Well there you have it. Thank you.

 

[Draconis]

Prime Minister Marx takes charge of Canada. Shaken Canadians request rescue.

 

[Insane Ranter]

The Oka Crisis of 1900 instead of Quebec is in Niagara Falls. The "protesters" are pushed across the border into the United States. A large number of US citizens are killed. The UK/Canada muffs up the diplomacy and refuses to repay and apologize. The US sees this as an invasion and this spins off into a full out war in which the United States soundly beats the UK/Canada. Quebec is allowed independence and the rest of Canada is now part of the United States.

Probably ASB but best I could come up with.

 

[Ship]

A lot of the responses seem to depend on the belief that pre-1980s Canada was completely incapable of thinking or acting for itself.

Britain goes fascist? Guess we have to be fascist now, too.

France goes communist? So does Quebec despite the fact that Quebecers rioted twice against conscription in two wars that Canada fought largely to defend/liberate France. Quebec doesn’t care too much about what France does.

Britain does something stupid to provoke war with the US? Guess we’re at war with the Americans now. Much more likely that Canada repudiates Britain and works to smooth things over with the US.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Well there you have it. Thank you.

You still need more than just having him in office. I would say the POD should ideally be before McKinley's first term.

 

[Crowbar Six]

The most likely way would be a NAZI victory with a a UK Vichy like government. The US would likely annex Canada as a mean of preventing the Germans building bomber bases in Newfoundland and putting Panzer Divisions in Quebec and Ontario. In a situation like that the Canadians may well agree to either annexation or becoming a US territories. Of course Quebec would like still seek independence.

 

[Thomas1195]

You still need more than just having him in office. I would say the POD should ideally be before McKinley's first term.

Note that the whole Northeastern Republican political establishment were very pro-Entente - Cabot Lodge, Root, Knox, Stimson..., certainly more than the contemporary Democrats.

There were various factors dated back from the 1880s: trade war (US had zero problems with Britain in trade because Britain adopted free trade; but the same was not for Germany); Germany clamoring in Latin America and worse, denouncing the Monroe Doctrine which was the equivalent of modern China's One China policy...

Another underlying factor is that American opinion was also quite pro-France since the formation of the Third Republic. If you keep the Bonaparte, then things would change a lot.

 

[Bullmoose713]

A lot of the responses seem to depend on the belief that pre-1980s Canada was completely incapable of thinking or acting for itself.

Britain goes fascist? Guess we have to be fascist now, too.

France goes communist? So does Quebec despite the fact that Quebecers rioted twice against conscription in two wars that Canada fought largely to defend/liberate France. Quebec doesn’t care too much about what France does.

Britain does something stupid to provoke war with the US? Guess we’re at war with the Americans now. Much more likely that Canada repudiates Britain and works to smooth things over with the US.

Don't see how Canadians would do that in WW1 for example