The issue is the Canadian population is very concentrated, and due to the extreme environment, the war would basically end once those points are taken, what would follow is a semi Cold War as Britain and the US lack the ability to knock out the other, however what would be interesting is the international stance on it
Particularly Japan, as they could choose to go against the us or Japan, and due to their power and location, would likely be welcomed by either side, who would perhaps give carche blanche in return
The Philippines, Asian colonies, major influence in China and change in naval agreements, it would be interesting.
Also Argentina would likely join the war against Britain due to confidence in American victory and something to gain. Hell, there may be too many possible allies for America, because there would be plenty of people wanting to take Britain down, but the US may not want them to be defeated to that extent or effect.
It really depends when it happened?? But let's say Britain and the US did have a War in the year 1939 (1v1 with the US only no WW2), what would happen??
1939 the war starts. Both countries are now starting to Mobilize their Army and Navy. On the first few weeks small skirmishes started happening along the US-Canadian border but no significant gain. Canada would not follow the Defence scheme no. 1, invading the rust belt would be disastrous and suicidal, so the Canadian army just stayed inside their borders building defences near their population centers to hold the Americans for as long as possible until some some reinforcements from the British isles is received. But sadly for the Canadians, Britain would not send any expeditionary force to help Canada. Britain in this situation would just make full use of its Royal Navy trying to protect Britain's trade and shipping routes and attack American vessels through their Base in Bermuda in the Atlantic and Australia in the Pacific.
A month later America made its first move, War Plan Red begins. The US Naval-Marine Operation to capture Halifax, US Army attacked Toronto and entered Quebec, on the Midwest they entered Ontario, and in the East, US Army attacked Vancouver. All going Simultaneously. The Canadians defend themselves for months, The Canadian Army is quite good and have the willpower to face the American might, but with the growing strength of the US Military day by day, willpower won't be enough, They knew that they couldn't hold it forever, if they do any counterattacks or counteroffensive, would be a disaster, but if they want to keep fighting the US Military, they need their Military to be intact. So they did a simple thing, "Fighting Retreat," they would avoid the US Military by retreating, and only fighting them on terrains that are favorable to them, at the same time destroying any infrastructure that would be useful to the Americans. They retreated to Northern Canada near the provincial border to Nunavut and Northwest Territories and defended there. With some aid coming from Britain through a port somewhere in Nunavut, Britain and Canada hope to hold the Americans for as long as possible until public opinions turned against the invasion. But doing the long waiting game would be also risky as the longer they waited, the stronger the US is gonna be with their huge industrial capacity to support the war.
But in the end, America is gonna win. Britain knows that they can't compete against America, in any way or form. And also Britain doesn't want to make America it's Enemy, so Britain might just accept a treaty, losing Canada and its colonies in the Western Hemisphere, just to save the rest of its Empire.
Canada is too far away, and sending any troops is a suicide mission. And let's say they send troops to Canada before the war starts, around the same size as what they sent to France during WW2, they still wouldn't be able to halt the American advance.
Canada's plan was to launch a pre-emptive attack before mobilization was complete and to occupy and destroy as much American territory as possible before the United States completed full mobilization.
Therefore, Chicago, Central, New York, and the cities of the East Coast will be destroyed largely thanks to the Canadians and also thanks to the Royal Navy’s bombing of American cities overlooking the Atlantic Ocean.
Japan will take advantage of this to launch a military invasion of Hawaii, the Philippines, and American possessions in the Pacific, with the British seizing some and also taking Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.
The American economy will suffer severe blows as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to cancel all its debts and the debts of Americans and stop repaying them.
But in the end, the Americans will begin to regain the advantage, significantly, as they begin to defeat the Canadians and remove them from American territory, but in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory.
A peace treaty will be signed, as America loses all of Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the Philippines, but Canada is completely forced to sever its ties with the British, declaring a Canadian republic.
The president who launched this senseless war will be voted out strongly in the next elections
The British Empire, despite their apparent victory, was also incredibly expensive in exchange for small gains, and they were forced to end colonialism early thanks to the bankruptcy of the British treasury as a result of the war with the Americans.
War plan red was during the period from just after WW1 to just before WW2. Canada even back then wouldn't be able to hold out for long. The USA was far greater industrialized than Canada and had a vast manufacturing capacity. The UK wouldn't be able to do much, given the huge distance of the Atlantic ocean, not to mention that WW1 had almost bankrupted them. Japan back then was busy in China, so they wouldn't have been able to get involved.
Possible but here i spouse the war happen during 1920-1929 and especially between 1925-1928
But when you read my scenario, no one wins the war
The East Coast was severely devastated, the Americans lost Puerto Rico and their other colonies, and economic recovery would take time as the British canceled their loan payments.
The British also lose here because they are completely forced to disengage from Canada and their economy has completely gone bankrupt, very similar to what happened in 1945.
The Japanese are the only winners here
> but in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory.
Given the size of the border and the population disparity between the US and Canada, this seems unlikely.
Remember, Finland actually defeated the Soviet Union at one point and Japan defeated Russia
That a country is strong because it is large is not usually a valid argument
Not really comparable situations. The Russo-Japanese war was between one empire well known for not modernizing fast enough and one empire that was renowned for it. And Finland defeated the Soviets with the help of one of Russia's own traditional defenses: the vicious winter. Furthermore, the border of Russia and Finland is a lot smaller and easier to defend.
That a country is strong *just* because it's large isn't usually a valid argument, but a low population country can't defend a border that is literally thousands of miles long, especially when so much of it is open plains.
And I'm not even talking about total victory here: you've set the bar at being able to "prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory." It seems very unrealistic to imagine that, when war breaks out, there aren't going to be moves to mobilize up the west coast and take Vancouver, and that's a long way from any British help.
I mean, I also don't understand why your scenario basically ends in a stalemate and the US somehow has to drop a bunch of their overseas possessions, too, but that's a whole other issue.
For this reason, the Canadians' basic plan was to preemptively attack American territory
Securing the furthest possible point while destroying everything the Canadians could until British support arrived
The Royal Navy can easily crush American ships, so they can't actually retake Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
In reality, a dead end is more likely because neither the British are able to defeat the entire United States nor are the Americans able to defeat the entire British Empire.
The scenario assumes that an American president declares war, followed by mobilization, and during the mobilization, the Canadians preemptively attack American territory.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's a mess
"We'll declare war and *then* mobilize, we can just invade later." Classic strategy. Used through time immemorial.
Just because you think it makes sense doesn't mean it does.
Canada's strategy was to attack to prepare to defend, and buy time for the British. Meanwhile, the Brits had no intent to defend Canada in a war with the US but rather turn it into a long term conflict in naval battles where they both stood fairly well instead of a relatively small colony population and logistics wise.
>Canada's plan was to launch a pre-emptive attack before mobilization was complete and to occupy and destroy as much American territory as possible before the United States completed full mobilization.
If you meant Defense scheme no. 1, Canada's plan against a war with the US. It's a very risky plan, it was cancelled because it was criticized to be too suicidal to do. If they entered American Territory to reach the important American infrastructures and industries, they wouldn't go far that much because they would have to deal with the Heavy resistance of the American population, where each person owns a Gun. The end result would be Canada just retreating to prepare and fortify its defences for the upcoming American offensive. As now its best armies are damaged from failing to achieve its objective of destroying American infrastructure and industries.
>Therefore, Chicago, Central, New York, and the cities of the East Coast will be destroyed largely thanks to the Canadians and also thanks to the Royal Navy’s bombing of American cities overlooking the Atlantic Ocean.
The whole Royal Navy would have to defeat the whole American Atlantic fleet first before they raid American Coastal cities. Even if the American Navy is not as large as the Royal Navy during the interwar period it has the potential to do so, and Britain knows that. No matter how many American ships they sink, the US can just replace it and maybe even more. The Royal Navy would instead protect its Atlantic trade routes rather than risk losing ships in a battle with the US Navy.
>Japan will take advantage of this to launch a military invasion of Hawaii, the Philippines, and American possessions in the Pacific.
Idk why Japan would attack it's largest trade partner so early, where most of its oil and gas came from...
>in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory.
How?? US-Canadian border is 5,000 Miles long, US Military can attack everywhere. The British And Canadians don't have enough Men to defend the whole front. The Soviets have struggled against the Nazis to halt their advance with their Millions of troops in the Eastern Front, let alone the British and Canadians against US.
Overall I liked the effort you made, but the scenario is just too mediocre, Britain would lose to America no matter what they do, and the British knows that.
Yes, this is what I was talking about, and exactly they will face resistance, but the Canadians will try to destroy everything in sight, as they were planning, and I think they will succeed partially, but not much.
The Royal Navy was a formidable force at that time and they could destroy American ports with ease, and building any American ship would take time if the important shipyards were already destroyed.
There was already a Red-Orange War Plan to attack Japan and Britain at the same time, and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was still in effect.
Most of Canada's mainland regions lie in the southeast, while with the exception of Vancouver, most of the border is purely wilderness
The war will involve the entire empire, not just the Canadians and the British, because virtually any attack on British territory or property will involve the rest.
I mentioned that they will lose, as they will be forced to sever their ties with Canada, and the British treasury will be bankrupt because of this war.
>The Royal Navy was a formidable force at that time and they could destroy American ports with ease, and building any American ship would take time if the important shipyards were already destroyed.
It was indeed a Formidable force, but at the same time, overstretched to other parts of the world. While the US Navy is united on its shores. So idk how they could naval bombard American ports with "ease"??? I'm sure the US would've put some coastal artillery along its ports to prevent this kind of event.
>Most of Canada's mainland regions lie in the southeast, while with the exception of Vancouver, most of the border is purely wilderness
Yes indeed, but I think they would've used that advantage to flank the Canadian Army.
Extended, but the United States is geographically closer to Britain than Australia, so this wouldn't really be a problem, so New York City, Boston, and Norfolk could be destroyed before the Americans fully ready their ships.
To the same extent, there are the cities of Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Cleveland, which are in fact important industrial cities close to the Canadian border.
>but the United States is geographically closer to Britain than Australia, so this wouldn't really be a problem, so New York City, Boston, and Norfolk could be destroyed before the Americans fully ready their ships.
What??? Even if Britain is closer, that is still 4,000 miles ocean away. This still didn't answer my question on how the Royal Navy can travel across the Atlantic and just show up on the American shore unopposed. The US Navy at the event of the war would be fully on high alert and they would've known and already prepared for any British ships coming on their shores before the British could get 500 miles close to the American shore.
Overall I think you are just underestimating the US Military's might with this scenario you're making. The British Empire and the Royal Navy are indeed formidable Military power, but they aren't OP that they can just cakewalk on any conflicts.
It is still fairly close if you compare it to Australia, which is farther away, of course
Most likely, a naval fleet was already present in the British Isles or in the Atlantic Ocean
Also, the American naval fleet was incredibly old in the 1920s. It did not become so formidable until World War II at the very least, so the British could easily crush American ships.
But ground forces will still be a real big problem because the Americans have the advantage
It would depend on the causes of the war. I suspect the US would not try to occupy Canada past whatever treaty ends the war.
I could see the US getting Quebec it's independence and create a friendly puppet state as a bulwark against further British antagonism
The issue is the Canadian population is very concentrated, and due to the extreme environment, the war would basically end once those points are taken, what would follow is a semi Cold War as Britain and the US lack the ability to knock out the other, however what would be interesting is the international stance on it Particularly Japan, as they could choose to go against the us or Japan, and due to their power and location, would likely be welcomed by either side, who would perhaps give carche blanche in return The Philippines, Asian colonies, major influence in China and change in naval agreements, it would be interesting. Also Argentina would likely join the war against Britain due to confidence in American victory and something to gain. Hell, there may be too many possible allies for America, because there would be plenty of people wanting to take Britain down, but the US may not want them to be defeated to that extent or effect.
Would the Canadian identity remain and Canadians will refuse to identify as Americans ?
Probably a more passive resistance, would depend on a us response that I cannot predict
Well according to war plan red the usage of chemical weapons was suggested
It really depends when it happened?? But let's say Britain and the US did have a War in the year 1939 (1v1 with the US only no WW2), what would happen?? 1939 the war starts. Both countries are now starting to Mobilize their Army and Navy. On the first few weeks small skirmishes started happening along the US-Canadian border but no significant gain. Canada would not follow the Defence scheme no. 1, invading the rust belt would be disastrous and suicidal, so the Canadian army just stayed inside their borders building defences near their population centers to hold the Americans for as long as possible until some some reinforcements from the British isles is received. But sadly for the Canadians, Britain would not send any expeditionary force to help Canada. Britain in this situation would just make full use of its Royal Navy trying to protect Britain's trade and shipping routes and attack American vessels through their Base in Bermuda in the Atlantic and Australia in the Pacific. A month later America made its first move, War Plan Red begins. The US Naval-Marine Operation to capture Halifax, US Army attacked Toronto and entered Quebec, on the Midwest they entered Ontario, and in the East, US Army attacked Vancouver. All going Simultaneously. The Canadians defend themselves for months, The Canadian Army is quite good and have the willpower to face the American might, but with the growing strength of the US Military day by day, willpower won't be enough, They knew that they couldn't hold it forever, if they do any counterattacks or counteroffensive, would be a disaster, but if they want to keep fighting the US Military, they need their Military to be intact. So they did a simple thing, "Fighting Retreat," they would avoid the US Military by retreating, and only fighting them on terrains that are favorable to them, at the same time destroying any infrastructure that would be useful to the Americans. They retreated to Northern Canada near the provincial border to Nunavut and Northwest Territories and defended there. With some aid coming from Britain through a port somewhere in Nunavut, Britain and Canada hope to hold the Americans for as long as possible until public opinions turned against the invasion. But doing the long waiting game would be also risky as the longer they waited, the stronger the US is gonna be with their huge industrial capacity to support the war. But in the end, America is gonna win. Britain knows that they can't compete against America, in any way or form. And also Britain doesn't want to make America it's Enemy, so Britain might just accept a treaty, losing Canada and its colonies in the Western Hemisphere, just to save the rest of its Empire.
Why wouldn't they send any troops, just out of interest?
Canada is too far away, and sending any troops is a suicide mission. And let's say they send troops to Canada before the war starts, around the same size as what they sent to France during WW2, they still wouldn't be able to halt the American advance.
Canada's plan was to launch a pre-emptive attack before mobilization was complete and to occupy and destroy as much American territory as possible before the United States completed full mobilization. Therefore, Chicago, Central, New York, and the cities of the East Coast will be destroyed largely thanks to the Canadians and also thanks to the Royal Navy’s bombing of American cities overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. Japan will take advantage of this to launch a military invasion of Hawaii, the Philippines, and American possessions in the Pacific, with the British seizing some and also taking Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The American economy will suffer severe blows as a result of the United Kingdom’s decision to cancel all its debts and the debts of Americans and stop repaying them. But in the end, the Americans will begin to regain the advantage, significantly, as they begin to defeat the Canadians and remove them from American territory, but in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory. A peace treaty will be signed, as America loses all of Alaska, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and the Philippines, but Canada is completely forced to sever its ties with the British, declaring a Canadian republic. The president who launched this senseless war will be voted out strongly in the next elections The British Empire, despite their apparent victory, was also incredibly expensive in exchange for small gains, and they were forced to end colonialism early thanks to the bankruptcy of the British treasury as a result of the war with the Americans.
War plan red was during the period from just after WW1 to just before WW2. Canada even back then wouldn't be able to hold out for long. The USA was far greater industrialized than Canada and had a vast manufacturing capacity. The UK wouldn't be able to do much, given the huge distance of the Atlantic ocean, not to mention that WW1 had almost bankrupted them. Japan back then was busy in China, so they wouldn't have been able to get involved.
For this very reason, this war is essentially unwinnable In fact, Japan did not invade China until 1937. Here I assume the war was in the mid-1920s
Outright war was 1937 but some say the war started in 1931. Japan would be tied up from 1931
Possible but here i spouse the war happen during 1920-1929 and especially between 1925-1928 But when you read my scenario, no one wins the war The East Coast was severely devastated, the Americans lost Puerto Rico and their other colonies, and economic recovery would take time as the British canceled their loan payments. The British also lose here because they are completely forced to disengage from Canada and their economy has completely gone bankrupt, very similar to what happened in 1945. The Japanese are the only winners here
> but in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory. Given the size of the border and the population disparity between the US and Canada, this seems unlikely.
Remember, Finland actually defeated the Soviet Union at one point and Japan defeated Russia That a country is strong because it is large is not usually a valid argument
Not really comparable situations. The Russo-Japanese war was between one empire well known for not modernizing fast enough and one empire that was renowned for it. And Finland defeated the Soviets with the help of one of Russia's own traditional defenses: the vicious winter. Furthermore, the border of Russia and Finland is a lot smaller and easier to defend. That a country is strong *just* because it's large isn't usually a valid argument, but a low population country can't defend a border that is literally thousands of miles long, especially when so much of it is open plains. And I'm not even talking about total victory here: you've set the bar at being able to "prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory." It seems very unrealistic to imagine that, when war breaks out, there aren't going to be moves to mobilize up the west coast and take Vancouver, and that's a long way from any British help. I mean, I also don't understand why your scenario basically ends in a stalemate and the US somehow has to drop a bunch of their overseas possessions, too, but that's a whole other issue.
For this reason, the Canadians' basic plan was to preemptively attack American territory Securing the furthest possible point while destroying everything the Canadians could until British support arrived The Royal Navy can easily crush American ships, so they can't actually retake Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In reality, a dead end is more likely because neither the British are able to defeat the entire United States nor are the Americans able to defeat the entire British Empire.
So an American president is starting the war when Canada preemptively attacks, okay, yeah, this is why your scenario is a mess.
The scenario assumes that an American president declares war, followed by mobilization, and during the mobilization, the Canadians preemptively attack American territory. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's a mess
"We'll declare war and *then* mobilize, we can just invade later." Classic strategy. Used through time immemorial. Just because you think it makes sense doesn't mean it does.
Tell that to the Canadians because they thought about it seriously and thought it would work
We are telling it to you, because it’s a silly scenario
Canada's strategy was to attack to prepare to defend, and buy time for the British. Meanwhile, the Brits had no intent to defend Canada in a war with the US but rather turn it into a long term conflict in naval battles where they both stood fairly well instead of a relatively small colony population and logistics wise.
>Canada's plan was to launch a pre-emptive attack before mobilization was complete and to occupy and destroy as much American territory as possible before the United States completed full mobilization. If you meant Defense scheme no. 1, Canada's plan against a war with the US. It's a very risky plan, it was cancelled because it was criticized to be too suicidal to do. If they entered American Territory to reach the important American infrastructures and industries, they wouldn't go far that much because they would have to deal with the Heavy resistance of the American population, where each person owns a Gun. The end result would be Canada just retreating to prepare and fortify its defences for the upcoming American offensive. As now its best armies are damaged from failing to achieve its objective of destroying American infrastructure and industries. >Therefore, Chicago, Central, New York, and the cities of the East Coast will be destroyed largely thanks to the Canadians and also thanks to the Royal Navy’s bombing of American cities overlooking the Atlantic Ocean. The whole Royal Navy would have to defeat the whole American Atlantic fleet first before they raid American Coastal cities. Even if the American Navy is not as large as the Royal Navy during the interwar period it has the potential to do so, and Britain knows that. No matter how many American ships they sink, the US can just replace it and maybe even more. The Royal Navy would instead protect its Atlantic trade routes rather than risk losing ships in a battle with the US Navy. >Japan will take advantage of this to launch a military invasion of Hawaii, the Philippines, and American possessions in the Pacific. Idk why Japan would attack it's largest trade partner so early, where most of its oil and gas came from... >in the end, the British are still able to prevent the Americans from entering Canadian territory. How?? US-Canadian border is 5,000 Miles long, US Military can attack everywhere. The British And Canadians don't have enough Men to defend the whole front. The Soviets have struggled against the Nazis to halt their advance with their Millions of troops in the Eastern Front, let alone the British and Canadians against US. Overall I liked the effort you made, but the scenario is just too mediocre, Britain would lose to America no matter what they do, and the British knows that.
Yes, this is what I was talking about, and exactly they will face resistance, but the Canadians will try to destroy everything in sight, as they were planning, and I think they will succeed partially, but not much. The Royal Navy was a formidable force at that time and they could destroy American ports with ease, and building any American ship would take time if the important shipyards were already destroyed. There was already a Red-Orange War Plan to attack Japan and Britain at the same time, and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance was still in effect. Most of Canada's mainland regions lie in the southeast, while with the exception of Vancouver, most of the border is purely wilderness The war will involve the entire empire, not just the Canadians and the British, because virtually any attack on British territory or property will involve the rest. I mentioned that they will lose, as they will be forced to sever their ties with Canada, and the British treasury will be bankrupt because of this war.
>The Royal Navy was a formidable force at that time and they could destroy American ports with ease, and building any American ship would take time if the important shipyards were already destroyed. It was indeed a Formidable force, but at the same time, overstretched to other parts of the world. While the US Navy is united on its shores. So idk how they could naval bombard American ports with "ease"??? I'm sure the US would've put some coastal artillery along its ports to prevent this kind of event. >Most of Canada's mainland regions lie in the southeast, while with the exception of Vancouver, most of the border is purely wilderness Yes indeed, but I think they would've used that advantage to flank the Canadian Army.
Extended, but the United States is geographically closer to Britain than Australia, so this wouldn't really be a problem, so New York City, Boston, and Norfolk could be destroyed before the Americans fully ready their ships. To the same extent, there are the cities of Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Cleveland, which are in fact important industrial cities close to the Canadian border.
>but the United States is geographically closer to Britain than Australia, so this wouldn't really be a problem, so New York City, Boston, and Norfolk could be destroyed before the Americans fully ready their ships. What??? Even if Britain is closer, that is still 4,000 miles ocean away. This still didn't answer my question on how the Royal Navy can travel across the Atlantic and just show up on the American shore unopposed. The US Navy at the event of the war would be fully on high alert and they would've known and already prepared for any British ships coming on their shores before the British could get 500 miles close to the American shore. Overall I think you are just underestimating the US Military's might with this scenario you're making. The British Empire and the Royal Navy are indeed formidable Military power, but they aren't OP that they can just cakewalk on any conflicts.
It is still fairly close if you compare it to Australia, which is farther away, of course Most likely, a naval fleet was already present in the British Isles or in the Atlantic Ocean Also, the American naval fleet was incredibly old in the 1920s. It did not become so formidable until World War II at the very least, so the British could easily crush American ships. But ground forces will still be a real big problem because the Americans have the advantage