WI: U.S. vs U.K., WW1

[IndefatigableRN]

As I posted above, this would be my suggestion for American negotiators:

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.

 

[Tonifranz]

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.

True, but only if the UK would give it back. If the UK refuses to give back the Philippines, Puerto Rico, give reparations, etc...

And it's not as if the US did not annex uninhabited territory before. The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, Alaska were all empty. Those empty Canadian places would be annexed for the same reason that New Mexico and Kansas, all relatively empty places, were annexed. The fact that they were empty would encourage people to annex it!

But if the UK gives American territory back, then I agree that the US maybe would leave Canada.

But would the UK give those back in those circumstance?

 

[Sevarics]

How long do you think Canadian resistance would actually last if annexed at the end of WW1? There aren't exactly many differences to keep then distinguishable from Anericans that will be moving into the area. There are the linguistics of Quebec but they could just do the cliche and free the Republic of Quebec. Heck I'm sure with what happened to France in this scenario, many Frencgmen would then move to Quebec anyway and bring their pro-American inclinations with them.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

True, but only if the UK would give it back. If the UK refuses to give back the Philippines, Puerto Rico, give reparations, etc...

And it's not as if the US did not annex uninhabited territory before. The Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican Cession, Alaska were all empty. Those empty Canadian places would be annexed for the same reason that New Mexico and Kansas, all relatively empty places, were annexed. The fact that they were empty would encourage people to annex it!

But if the UK gives American territory back, then I agree that the US maybe would leave Canada.


But would the UK give those back in those circumstance?

Remember, this isn't the 19th century anymore and there are people (white people, remember this was important back then) living in Western Canada. Also, manifest destiny is no longer a US goal, so they don't need the extra territory.

Yes, the UK has no need of these territories. In fact, the UK might give up some Caribbean holdings in return for an independent Canada.

 

[Tonifranz]

Remember, this isn't the 19th century anymore and there are people (white people, remember this was important back then) living in Western Canada. Also, manifest destiny is no longer a US goal, so they don't need the extra territory.

Yes, the UK has no need of these territories. In fact, the UK might give up some Caribbean holdings in return for an independent Canada.

Then if that is the case, the UK cannot win a war with the US, since all it's gains could simply be reversed by the need to rescue Canada.

That is the real reason in OTL that the UK become very conciliatory towards the US after the Venezuela dispute.

If the UK decided to go to war with the US, it must decide that the gains elsewhere in the world must compensate for the lost of Canada. I assume that the premise of this thread that the UK has some interest in the world that would be important enough to lose Canada over.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

How long do you think Canadian resistance would actually last if annexed at the end of WW1? There aren't exactly many differences to keep then distinguishable from Anericans that will be moving into the area. There are the linguistics of Quebec but they could just do the cliche and free the Republic of Quebec. Heck I'm sure with what happened to France in this scenario, many Frencgmen would then move to Quebec anyway and bring their pro-American inclinations with them.

Oh I expect that a Canadian resistance would be considerable. Remember that is the height of 'British Canada.' The country was set up to counter American influence and to bring the colonies of BNA together to protect themselves from the Americans. Not to mention, this is the height of the Canadian militia myth: Loyalist Canadians bravely fighting off the American invaders not once, but twice (obviously it was mostly British regulars, but that's what myths are). A third invasion would simply lend more credence to these myths. Canadians have gone out of their way, and still do, to distinguish themselves from Americans.

Yes, Quebec could be independent, but this is before there were massive falling outs with Anglo Canada. Quebec before the conscription crisis was quite happy in Canada because there were a lot of safeguards in place to protect their religion and the French language. Independent, Quebec has no way to guard against American expansion (as they see it). No longer is Britain there to safeguard their interests. Also, very few French people have moved to Quebec ever, most of the population growth has been natural since the 1600s. Why would French people move now?

 

[IndefatigableRN]

Then if that is the case, the UK cannot win a war with the US, since all it's gains could simply be reversed by the need to rescue Canada.

That is the real reason in OTL that the UK become very conciliatory towards the US after the Venezuela dispute.

If the UK decided to go to war with the US, it must decide that the gains elsewhere in the world must compensate for the lost of Canada. I assume that the premise of this thread that the UK has some interest in the world that would be important enough to lose Canada over.

You are correct. Britain has no reason to go to war with the US. And to be honest, the US has no reason to go to war with Britain.

I generally find these threads about US vs Britain very silly. Without a POD going a long way back, it simply does not make sense. Trade, political and cultural relations between the two countries were simply too great. Most US investment for railways and industry came from Britain. Most of its trade came by British ships. Most British grain came from the USA.

Yes, things could deteriorate, but I think that both British and US politicians were smart enough to realise that both countries were better off not at war with one another.

 

[Tonifranz]

Oh I expect that a Canadian resistance would be considerable. Remember that is the height of 'British Canada.' The country was set up to counter American influence and to bring the colonies of BNA together to protect themselves from the Americans. Not to mention, this is the height of the Canadian militia myth: Loyalist Canadians bravely fighting off the American invaders not once, but twice (obviously it was mostly British regulars, but that's what myths are). A third invasion would simply lend more credence to these myths. Canadians have gone out of their way, and still do, to distinguish themselves from Americans.

Yes, Quebec could be independent, but this is before there were massive falling outs with Anglo Canada. Quebec before the conscription crisis was quite happy in Canada because there were a lot of safeguards in place to protect their religion and the French language. Independent, Quebec has no way to guard against American expansion (as they see it). No longer is Britain there to safeguard their interests. Also, very few French people have moved to Quebec ever, most of the population growth has been natural since the 1600s. Why would French people move now?

Assuming that the US annexed them, what do you think would be the relationship of the native English speaking Canadians to settlers from the US? And fifty years later, could you even distinguish the descendants of the English speaking Canadians who lived there before annexation, and the descendants of Americans who settled after annexation, and immigrants from Europe who settle in Canada after annexation?

How would that play out?

 

[Nassirisimo]

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!

As if it is any better than BRITAIN, BRITAIN, BRITAIN uber alles!

By the 1900's, the US has a population beyond any European power besides Russia. In addition to this, her industrial output is well beyond that of any other power. The USA had a real and large economic advantage over the UK.

While the population of the British Empire is larger, not all of this is available to be mobilized. Many Indians are more concerned with securing their independence rather than protecting Canada, and conscription is unlikely to be popular there. While the Brits will definitely have an advantage over the Americans for the short term, they will ultimately be crushed by the weight of what America can mobilize.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

Assuming that the US annexed them, what do you think would be the relationship of the native English speaking Canadians to settlers from the US? And fifty years later, could you even distinguish the descendants of the English speaking Canadians who lived there before annexation, and the descendants of Americans who settled after annexation, and immigrants from Europe who settle in Canada after annexation?

How would that play out?

I expect that over time, Anglo Canadians would become Americans, just as Brits, Irish, Germans, etc. became Americanised in OTL.

The problem of course would be getting to that point. First, there would be a least two generations of hatred towards USA. There would be people who would get on with their lives, of course. Most people just want to live and raise their kids. But for those two generations, there would be bloodshed. I expect it would be easier in the West since there are fewer people and more ex-Americans around, but even then, it won't be easy.

It would cost a lot for the US to garrison and police the annexed territories. Hence, I don't think the US would annex any of Canada. I can't imagine they would enjoy American boys getting killed in Sudbury or the Yukon.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

As if it is any better than BRITAIN, BRITAIN, BRITAIN uber alles!

By the 1900's, the US has a population beyond any European power besides Russia. In addition to this, her industrial output is well beyond that of any other power. The USA had a real and large economic advantage over the UK.

While the population of the British Empire is larger, not all of this is available to be mobilized. Many Indians are more concerned with securing their independence rather than protecting Canada, and conscription is unlikely to be popular there. While the Brits will definitely have an advantage over the Americans for the short term, they will ultimately be crushed by the weight of what America can mobilize.

Agreed, although I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the great European alliance will invade the continental USA.

The issue is that despite America's wealth and power, it would be very difficult for them to defeat and annex Canada while also defeating a European alliance of Britain and Germany.

I agree that it is doubtful we will see conscripted Indian troops fighting in Saskatchewan, but certainly, if the British work with the Indian liberals and promise Home Rule (and actually go ahead with it), I think we might see more Indian support for the war.

 

[Tonifranz]

I expect that over time, Anglo Canadians would become Americans, just as Brits, Irish, Germans, etc. became Americanised in OTL.

The problem of course would be getting to that point. First, there would be a least two generations of hatred towards USA. There would be people who would get on with their lives, of course. Most people just want to live and raise their kids. But for those two generations, there would be bloodshed. I expect it would be easier in the West since there are fewer people and more ex-Americans around, but even then, it won't be easy.

It would cost a lot for the US to garrison and police the annexed territories. Hence, I don't think the US would annex any of Canada. I can't imagine they would enjoy American boys getting killed in Sudbury or the Yukon.

I think it's unlikely, but the Americans 20 years earlier suffered horrific casualties to subdue the Philippines, a place most Americans never heard of, and caused untold misery to the Philippines during the time it took to pacify them.

If the US could endure the killing of American boys to subdue a bunch of islands that doesn't want to become part of the US, and most of which they were ignorant of, just because McKinley decided to take it, then they could certainly endure the cost of lives in occupying Canada. They forcibly took the country! In this timeline, the Canadians would be associated with the traitorous Brits, and would be seen as the enemy.

But I agree a war with the UK is very unlikely! The UK in OTL sided with the US in every American-Canadian dispute there is! (Like the Alaska boundary dispute, etc.)

 

[Tonifranz]

Agreed, although I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the great European alliance will invade the continental USA.

The issue is that despite America's wealth and power, it would be very difficult for them to defeat and annex Canada while also defeating a European alliance of Britain and Germany.

I agree that it is doubtful we will see conscripted Indian troops fighting in Saskatchewan, but certainly, if the British work with the Indian liberals and promise Home Rule (and actually go ahead with it), I think we might see more Indian support for the war.

The US can't help in Europe since the RN will blockade the US and sink her navy. So where would the US army go to hurt the UK? The US won't even think to go to Europe until the RN is swept off the seas, and thus, concentrate it's efforts north.

The UK knew how indefensible Canada is to the US, that is why they became friendly after the Venezuela incident. What would change that would make the UK think that Canada is defensible? The BEF is just as small even if slightly bigger than the American peacetime army, so it would be a matter of mobilization. I repeat, the US can mobilize an army larger than the entire population Canada at that time (which was 8 million).

 

[IndefatigableRN]

I think it's unlikely, but the Americans 20 years earlier suffered horrific casualties to subdue the Philippines, a place most Americans never heard of, and caused untold misery to the Philippines during the time it took to pacify them.

If the US could endure the killing of American boys to subdue a bunch of islands that doesn't want to become part of the US, and most of which they were ignorant of, just because McKinley decided to take it, then they could certainly endure the cost of lives in occupying Canada. They forcibly took the country! In this timeline, the Canadians would be associated with the traitorous Brits, and would be seen as the enemy.

But I agree a war with the UK is very unlikely! The UK sided with the US in every American-Canadian dispute there is! (Like the Alaska boundary dispute, etc.)

Well remember that casualties were not actually that high in the war in the Philippines. Also, that was a long way away and involved the fighting of non-white people (remember, this isn't the 21st century). Most Americans had no idea what was going on. Even then, almost immediately, the American government was looking at ways to give independence to the Philippines. Granted, it took until 1934 for actual self-government, but the process was underway by the early 1900s.

Here, you have fighting going on against fellow 'white anglosaxon protestants' just over the border. I think casualties will be higher andthe backlash will be stronger. Obviously, in the end the Americans will win, but will it be worth it? I expect most Americans at the time would say no.

 

[Tonifranz]

Well remember that casualties were not actually that high in the war in the Philippines. Also, that was a long way away and involved the fighting of non-white people (remember, this isn't the 21st century). Most Americans had no idea what was going on. Even then, almost immediately, the American government was looking at ways to give independence to the Philippines. Granted, it took until 1934 for actual self-government, but the process was underway by the early 1900s.

Here, you have fighting going on against fellow 'white anglosaxon protestants' just over the border. I think casualties will be higher andthe backlash will be stronger. Obviously, in the end the Americans will win, but will it be worth it? I expect most Americans at the time would say no.

Probably, but as long as the UK is at war with the US, I assume that the US will bear it. After all, the US and CS endure god awful casualties during the Civil War against fellow Anglo saxon protestants, and in many cases they literally killed their brothers!

It's after peace is signed and there are continued casualties will it matter. If there is death of American boys in Canada after peace was signed, then I agree with you that there would be serious agitation.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

The US can't help in Europe since the RN will blockade the US and sink her navy. So where would the US army go to hurt the UK? The US won't even think to go to Europe until the RN is swept off the seas, and thus, concentrate it's efforts north.

The UK knew how indefensible Canada is to the US, that is why they became friendly after the Venezuela incident. What would change that would make the UK think that Canada is defensible? The BEF is just as small even if slightly bigger than the American peacetime army, so it would be a matter of mobilization. I repeat, the US can mobilize an army larger than the entire population Canada at that time (which was 8 million).

Ok, the USN will be defeated, or at least kept in port. There is no way it can defeat the combined British and German navies. So, the destruction of the USN will leave the US coasts vulnerable. I am not suggesting that the Europeans will land troops, they won't, but they can certainly shell coastal cities and make life miserable. Remember, this is not WWII, British and German shipyards are still more capable of mass producing warships than US drydocks. So the US is on the defensive.

As for land forces. The Germans army is way better than the Americans, but they will be busy in Europe. Yes, the BEF is quite small, but remember that it was a very professional force, probably the best in Europe (although I am sure some will disagree with me) after the Haldane Reforms post Boer War. The US army at the time was tiny and under equipped and under funded. Straight up fight between the two, would not go well for the US Army.

Now, you are correct, the US can mobilise a lot more men. But that takes time to train and equip them. In OTL, the British had to equip a lot of the first American soldiers coming over to France because they didn't have anything to fight with. Sure the Americans could mobilise millions. But they would have to pay for them and feed them and equip them. Yes, they could defeat Canada. I don't think it would be easy, but within 2 years, I expect most Canadian cities would be occupied. But then what? The US would pay to maintain a massive army that is basically on garrison duty, all the while they are getting attacked by partisans.Conscripts generally do not do well at counterinsurgency warfare.

So yes, the Americans can mobilise millions, but they have to pay for that. Sure, they can put them all in Canada, but as I have been saying, this isn't a game of Hearts of Iron, where you just strategically redeploy to Ottawa and leave them on anti-partisan duty

 

[IndefatigableRN]

Probably, but as long as the UK is at war with the US, I assume that the US will bear it. After all, the US and CS endure god awful casualties during the Civil War against fellow Anglo saxon protestants, and in many cases they literally killed their brothers!

It's after peace is signed and there are continued casualties will it matter. If there is death of American boys in Canada after peace was signed, then I agree with you that there would be serious agitation.

Yes agreed, during the war is one thing. Post-war will be more difficult for the politicians to defend. Hence why I think the US would rather let Canada go then face a long counter-insurgency. Obviously, they would defend reparations from Canada (and probably Britain), plus naval bases (Halifax, Esquimalt, St. John's) and probably demilitarisation

 

[Tonifranz]

Ok, the USN will be defeated, or at least kept in port. There is no way it can defeat the combined British and German navies. So, the destruction of the USN will leave the US coasts vulnerable. I am not suggesting that the Europeans will land troops, they won't, but they can certainly shell coastal cities and make life miserable. Remember, this is not WWII, British and German shipyards are still more capable of mass producing warships than US drydocks. So the US is on the defensive.

As for land forces. The Germans army is way better than the Americans, but they will be busy in Europe. Yes, the BEF is quite small, but remember that it was a very professional force, probably the best in Europe (although I am sure some will disagree with me) after the Haldane Reforms post Boer War. The US army at the time was tiny and under equipped and under funded. Straight up fight between the two, would not go well for the US Army.

Now, you are correct, the US can mobilise a lot more men. But that takes time to train and equip them. In OTL, the British had to equip a lot of the first American soldiers coming over to France because they didn't have anything to fight with. Sure the Americans could mobilise millions. But they would have to pay for them and feed them and equip them. Yes, they could defeat Canada. I don't think it would be easy, but within 2 years, I expect most Canadian cities would be occupied. But then what? The US would pay to maintain a massive army that is basically on garrison duty, all the while they are getting attacked by partisans.Conscripts generally do not do well at counterinsurgency warfare.

So yes, the Americans can mobilise millions, but they have to pay for that. Sure, they can put them all in Canada, but as I have been saying, this isn't a game of Hearts of Iron, where you just strategically redeploy to Ottawa and leave them on anti-partisan duty

True, but think, with the blockade, where would the US army go to?

I'm thinking that the US would use Canada as a bargaining chip to get the UK to give up it's conquests overseas and pay the US reparations for the loss of it's navy etc. It would only actually annex something if the UK would not give the US anything. So it would depend on how stubborn the British are.

As for paying for it, they could just sell war bonds to it's citizens, and pay for it with the aftermath of war. They could force the UK to pay reparations in exchange for Canada. The US is a very wealth country, and it propped the UK and France with it's financial power in OTL's World War I. In this war, the US will prop itself.

 

[Admiral Halsey]

Why does everyone assume that British would just wipe the floor with the US navy? Sure they'd outnumber the US at the start but a crash naval building program and while they may not be able to outnumber them in dreadnoughts or battlecruisers they'd be able to catch up quite quick. Plus the US dreadnoughts were of a far more practical design and had better armor protection. As for Canada they'd probably hold elections afterwards with two options on the ballot. Independence or join the USA.

 

[IndefatigableRN]

True, but think, with the blockade, where would the US army go to?

I'm thinking that the US would use Canada as a bargaining chip to get the UK to give up it's conquests overseas and pay the US reparations for the loss of it's navy etc. It would only actually annex something if the UK would not give the US anything. So it would depend on how stubborn the British are.

As for paying for it, they could just sell war bonds to it's citizens, and pay for it with the aftermath of war. They could force the UK to pay reparations in exchange for Canada. The US is a very wealth country, and it propped the UK and France with it's financial power in OTL's World War I. In this war, the US will prop itself.

Of course, my point is simply that it costs a lot to maintain a large army. The Americans can pay for it, but the average person may not want to.

Yes, it is likely that the US would occupy Canada and hope to get something in return from the UK.

Why does everyone assume that British would just wipe the floor with the US navy? Sure they'd outnumber the US at the start but a crash naval building program and while they may not be able to outnumber them in dreadnoughts or battlecruisers they'd be able to catch up quite quick. Plus the US dreadnoughts were of a far more practical design and had better armor protection. As for Canada they'd probably hold elections afterwards with two options on the ballot. Independence or join the USA.

Yes, American dreadnaughts were excellent. But at this point in time, the RN still has more. Plus, in this scenario, the RN is backed by the German Navy and the Japanese. That is already the top 2 navies in the world plus another in the top 5 (give or take).

I don't think the floor would be wiped with the USN. I think it would do a lot of damage to the joint Anglo-German fleet, but in the end I think it would lose.

Remember British and German shipyards were more geared towards mass building of dreadnaughts. This isn't WWII when the US had developed all the improved production techniques, etc. If the war lasted 10 years, sure the US could out build Britain and Germany, but not in the short term.

And see above, I do not think the US would want Canada to join. A vote would be decidedly against annexation by the US, so I think Canada would be given its independence.