Projected power level of a Canada that possesses both Alaska and Greenland?

This would likely require a pre-1900 POD but I'm more interested in 20th century impacts. Let's assume by pre-WW2 Canada is in possession of both those region. We would assume this was related to purchases the United Kingdom made some decades earlier.

So Canada enters WW2 with both those regions. Canada IOTL finished WW2 with the third largest navy in the world, a physically larger even more nautically spread nation would likely have had an even larger navy.

By the start of the Cold War, Canada would be in a middle ground between the USA and USSR even more with essentially full control of the western hemisphere Arctic.
 
Last edited:
What effect would this have on terminology? IE "Eskimo" vs "Inuit"? My understanding is that the Yupik and Aleut of Alaska don't like being referred to by the term, "Inuit," and that even among the Alaskan Inupiat, the term is controversial.
 
What effect would this have on terminology? IE "Eskimo" vs "Inuit"? My understanding is that the Yupik and Aleut of Alaska don't like being referred to by the term, "Inuit," and that even among the Alaskan Inupiat, the term is controversial.
Hasn't all been, see the Eskimos CFL Football team 1949 to 2020. If there were significant numbers of "eskimos" in Canadian territories, who wanted to be called that, there would be no widespread stigma of that name.

-edit I think I misread your reference to controversial, but my point still stands
 
Last edited:
It mostly depends on the strategic importance of these regions. Alaska has plenty of natural ressources and depending on the circumstances Greenland can be an important stopover point between europe and the americas. The problem ist that both of these regions are not very densly populated and are in this scenario not that likely to be much more so than IOTL.
In history population levels and the manpower ressources associated with them have always played an important roll in a nations actual power, independant of the value of the land the nation actually controls. So your hypothetical Groß-Canada is definitly going to be more powerfull and richer than IOTL but not neccesarily to the level of a proper great power.
 
This would likely require a pre-1900 POD but I'm more interested in 20th century impacts. Let's assume by pre-WW2 Canada is in possession of both those region. We would assume this was related to purchases the United Kingdom made some decades earlier.

So Canada enters WW2 with both those regions. Canada IOTL finished WW2 with the third largest navy in the world, a physically larger even more nautically spread nation would likely have had an even larger navy.

By the start of the Cold War, Canada would be in a middle ground between the USA and USSR even more with essentially full control of the western hemisphere Arctic.
in 1950, Greenland had a population of 23,000, Alaska 135,000 and Canada 14M
Canada didn't need more howling wasteland that had more untapped natural resources
 
The main impacts of such a change would probably be that Canada would have more oil, and that that oil would benefit from more foreign investment then OTL as America comes to need foreign oil more without Alaska providing a major domestic source.
 
The later 21th century consequences would be far more interesting, imo. The possible Canadian claims on the arctic shelf would be enormous. The way the Northern route could develop would be interesting as well. There would be an essential Russo-Canadian duopoly on the Arctic. Would this lead to rivalry or cooperation? A bit of both?
 
The main impacts of such a change would probably be that Canada would have more oil, and that that oil would benefit from more foreign investment then OTL as America comes to need foreign oil more without Alaska providing a major domestic source.
There would be a lot more friction between Quebec and the far East and West provinces
The November 1974 Canadian federal budget terminated the deduction of provincial natural resources royalties from federal tax. According to Roy Romanow, this move kicked off the "resource war", a confrontation between Pierre Trudeau's federal government and the prairie Provinces over the control and revenues from natural resources extraction and energy production.[3]

Following a rapid increase in the price of oil between 1979 and 1980, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program (NEP), which intended to increase Canadian ownership in the oil industry, increase Canada's oil self-sufficiency and redistribute the wealth generated by oil production towards the federal government.[4] The program was extremely unpopular in the west,[4] where most of Canada's oil is produced, due to the resulting economic devastation which rivaled the great depression.
 
There would be a lot more friction between Quebec and the far East and West provinces
The November 1974 Canadian federal budget terminated the deduction of provincial natural resources royalties from federal tax. According to Roy Romanow, this move kicked off the "resource war", a confrontation between Pierre Trudeau's federal government and the prairie Provinces over the control and revenues from natural resources extraction and energy production.[3]

Following a rapid increase in the price of oil between 1979 and 1980, the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced the National Energy Program (NEP), which intended to increase Canadian ownership in the oil industry, increase Canada's oil self-sufficiency and redistribute the wealth generated by oil production towards the federal government.[4] The program was extremely unpopular in the west,[4] where most of Canada's oil is produced, due to the resulting economic devastation which rivaled the great depression.
It's important to point out that last line "resulting in economic devastation..." has no citation (the wiki article reads "failed verification"). The 1980s recession was GLOBAL. I'm amazed that Pierre Trudeau could cause that with the NEP
 
in 1950, Greenland had a population of 23,000, Alaska 135,000 and Canada 14M
Canada didn't need more howling wasteland that had more untapped natural resources

Alaska nor Greenland's value was never in the size of their populations but their resources and strategic locations.
 
It's important to point out that last line "resulting in economic devastation..." has no citation (the wiki article reads "failed verification"). The 1980s recession was GLOBAL. I'm amazed that Pierre Trudeau could cause that with the NEP
Overnight Alberta unemployment doubled, bankruptcies doubled, and Alberta lost over $900 billion in lost GDP. And then it got hit with the global recession afterwards.

I doubt it affects Canadian power projection though, unless Alaska gets provincial status along with Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 and tries to build up a permanent population independent of Ottawa. This seems unlikely to me, but not impossible, especially if northern BC gets attached to Alaska instead of British Columbia. Canada just doesn't care about anything that doesn't immediately benefit outside the Great Lakes and the other provinces don't have the clout to change it.
 
This would likely require a pre-1900 POD but I'm more interested in 20th century impacts. Let's assume by pre-WW2 Canada is in possession of both those region. We would assume this was related to purchases the United Kingdom made some decades earlier.

So Canada enters WW2 with both those regions. Canada IOTL finished WW2 with the third largest navy in the world, a physically larger even more nautically spread nation would likely have had an even larger navy.

By the start of the Cold War, Canada would be in a middle ground between the USA and USSR even more with essentially full control of the western hemisphere Arctic.
Assuming WW2 and the resulting cold war and post WW2 alliances occur more or less as IOTL, Canada will then likely need / want to "secure" these territories from possible Soviet encroachments. I suspect Canada might have been reluctant to accept substantive foreign help in terms of "boots on the ground" to secure those areas in peace time. Eventually I suppose resource revenues may helped offset the costs but I suspect the initial post WW2 period might have seen Canada having to cut other historical programs to fund a viable defense (at least in peace time) of those territories or accept substantive foreign help (ie. foreign forces patrolling Canadian territory in peace time..)
 
Assuming WW2 and the resulting cold war and post WW2 alliances occur more or less as IOTL, Canada will then likely need / want to "secure" these territories from possible Soviet encroachments. I suspect Canada might have been reluctant to accept substantive foreign help in terms of "boots on the ground" to secure those areas in peace time. Eventually I suppose resource revenues may helped offset the costs but I suspect the initial post WW2 period might have seen Canada having to cut other historical programs to fund a viable defense (at least in peace time) of those territories or accept substantive foreign help (ie. foreign forces patrolling Canadian territory in peace time..)
Are you hinting at no universal healthcare if Canada had to shoulder more military burden?
 
Are you hinting at no universal healthcare if Canada had to shoulder more military burden?
As a founding member of NATO, I'm sure military assistance would be as plentiful as it was for West Germany, but unlikely to drop as low as OTL levels below
1641697763968.png
 
Are you hinting at no universal healthcare if Canada had to shoulder more military burden?
Not really, but no Canadian air and land contributions to NATO on the Central front in Europe seems possible as a starting point in that context. I'm not really sure what the overall requirements would look like for the Canadian military in this context.

Perhaps if during a cold war a perception emerged that there was a Soviet desire to annex / reclaim Alaska as part of a major East / West conflict then you might see a major debate in Canada about spending on expensive non military programs being diverted to pay for defending Alaska and or perhaps there would be a debate about asking for US / NATO forces to be stationed there in peace time. I expect a lot would depend on how Canada came to poses Alaska, what the historical threat assessment was, and how much emphasis Canada had placed on defending Alaska pre WW2.

All of this is really just speculation about a fictional alternate time line.
 
Last edited:
As a founding member of NATO, I'm sure military assistance would be as plentiful as it was for West Germany, but unlikely to drop as low as OTL levels below
View attachment 709329
Sorry I'm not quite sure what the graph shows.

That being said I have my doubts that a Canada that was on the winning side of WW2 would want to subsequently accept a similar solution to what West Germany had during the cold war (ie. substantive foreign forces from numerous nations on Canadian soil) in peace time, if there was a practical Canadian only solution to that issue (at least in peace time.) IMHO a post WW2 Canada that had to ask allies to help defend its own territory in peace time might result in a lot of butterflies vis a vis the IOTL post WW2 Canada that deployed forces overseas to help defend other nations in peace time.

This is really just speculation on my part in the context of an alternate time line.
 
Sorry I'm not quite sure what the graph shows.
Canadian defense spending, in both overall adjusted Dollars, and percent of Budget
Spending would likely be around 4%, like the USA, rather than a bit more than 1%, like most other NATO members
 
Top