|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 15, 2017 14:42:25 GMT -6
Canada earned greater diplomatic and independent status following WW1 right? For example they were given their own seat at the League of Nations independent of Britain. If WW1 never happened, what would Canada's response have been to a war between the USA and the UK. Would they have automatically had to go to war on the side of the UK? Could they have remained neutral if they wanted to, Assuming the USA didn't invade first? This is in the RTW's time frame so just before War Plan Red was written but I would assume that many of the same concepts would apply. I'm trying to play out a reasonable scenario in my current game where I'm the USA at war with England, it's 1923 and the Army wants funds for an offensive event just triggered. It seems kind of weird for the USA and Canada to be at war but see absolutely no signs of it in the game so is it possible considering Canada's status at the time that they could remain neutral?
If the offensive is successful (I get victory points for it) I'm thinking of a scenario where I send troops into the Bay of Fundy to occupy the bottleneck between Nova Scotia and the rest of the Canadian mainland to cut off Halifax. I can't actually take Halifax because that would require and actual invasion event in game.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Feb 15, 2017 16:25:42 GMT -6
Canadian politics is necessarily complex and this is a question where I cannot see any particularly reasonable answer.
The Ministry of Militia and Defence actually had plans to deal with an invasion of Canada by the United States. That said, the prospects of successfully resisting an invasion were clearly negligible and everybody in the Permanent Force knew it. The 1911 federal election resulted in Sir Wilfred Laurier's Liberals being defeated by Sir Robert Borden's Conservatives and the latter against Liberal sponsored trade reciprocity with the USA and the Naval Services Act of 1910 that created the Canadian Naval Service, which would become the Royal Canadian Navy. On the surface the election was a triumph of old-style imperial solidarity but in reality it opened the door to Canadian nationalism.
However, the Conservatives did have a more nationalist agenda than might be supposed and several members of Borden's cabinet were pro-American and wanted to wean the Dominion away from those aspects of the British North America Act (BNA) that placed Canada's international destiny entirely in the hands of Whitehall. In 1921 the Conservatives lost to William Lyon Mackenzie King, a staunch Liberal and Canadian nationalist. A Prime Minister King (probably after taking counsel from his dead mother and his dog - seriously) would likely have kept Canada neutral in a war between the British and the United States. The evidence for this is his actions in the Chanak Crisis of 1922 where he kneecapped British Prime Minister David Lloyd George by refusing Canadian military and political support for the Empire over a crisis caused by the Turkish civil war. Later in the King-Byng affair he would undermine the authority of Governor General Sir Julian Byng, a hero to many Canadian Great War veterans. The ensuing constitutional crisis, where King won but is now seen by most constitutional scholars to have been in the wrong basically made the GG a rubber stamp of Parliament. Nationalists loved it.
Then there's the problem of Quebec. French Canada has certain political guarantees under both the 18th Century Quebec Act and the 19th Century BNA. Quebec nationalism, at this time manifested in the person Henri Bourrassa was anti-Imperial but keeping Canada united was seen as the best defence for French language, culture and the primacy of the Roman Catholic church. Ottawa was seen as the lesser of two evils and absorption by the USA was unthinkable. The Quebecois could look at Louisiana, part of New France settled even before much of Quebec where American English dominated and the French language had become a quaint curiosity. Regardless of the governing party, Quebec would have resisted going to war with the USA for fear of invasion and conquest. If war did come they would likely fight hard for Quebec, side by each with English Canada. But realistically, the idea of Canada surviving an American invasion in the early 20th Century was pretty unlikely.
Of course the politics above where largely a consequence of the changes wrought throughout Canada by the Great War. The war, in addition to all the nationalist fervour created by pride in Canada's war effort, inextricably linked the Canadian economy with that of the United States. Up to 1914 Canada was an agrarian backwater under the protectionist policies of Empire but by 1918 it was far more industrialized and looking away from Britain and towards other markets.
So my best guess is that a Liberal government would telegraph London and say "Count us out of this one, sorry" and opt for neutrality while a Conservative PM would probably dutifully follow the "mother country" (Britain) to war in the faint hope of getting real Imperial protection.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 15, 2017 17:37:39 GMT -6
Canadian politics is necessarily complex and this is a question where I cannot see any particularly reasonable answer. The Ministry of Militia and Defence actually had plans to deal with an invasion of Canada by the United States. That said, the prospects of successfully resisting an invasion were clearly negligible and everybody in the Permanent Force knew it. The 1911 federal election resulted in Sir Wilfred Laurier's Liberals being defeated by Sir Robert Borden's Conservatives and the latter against Liberal sponsored trade reciprocity with the USA and the Naval Services Act of 1910 that created the Canadian Naval Service, which would become the Royal Canadian Navy. On the surface the election was a triumph of old-style imperial solidarity but in reality it opened the door to Canadian nationalism. However, the Conservatives did have a more nationalist agenda than might be supposed and several members of Borden's cabinet were pro-American and wanted to wean the Dominion away from those aspects of the British North America Act (BNA) that placed Canada's international destiny entirely in the hands of Whitehall. In 1921 the Conservatives lost to William Lyon Mackenzie King, a staunch Liberal and Canadian nationalist. A Prime Minister King (probably after taking counsel from his dead mother and his dog - seriously) would likely have kept Canada neutral in a war between the British and the United States. The evidence for this is his actions in the Chanak Crisis of 1922 where he kneecapped British Prime Minister David Lloyd George by refusing Canadian military and political support for the Empire over a crisis caused by the Turkish civil war. Later in the King-Byng affair he would undermine the authority of Governor General Sir Julian Byng, a hero to many Canadian Great War veterans. The ensuing constitutional crisis, where King won but is now seen by most constitutional scholars to have been in the wrong basically made the GG a rubber stamp of Parliament. Nationalists loved it. Then there's the problem of Quebec. French Canada has certain political guarantees under both the 18th Century Quebec Act and the 19th Century BNA. Quebec nationalism, at this time manifested in the person Henri Bourrassa was anti-Imperial but keeping Canada united was seen as the best defence for French language, culture and the primacy of the Roman Catholic church. Ottawa was seen as the lesser of two evils and absorption by the USA was unthinkable. The Quebecois could look at Louisiana, part of New France settled even before much of Quebec where American English dominated and the French language had become a quaint curiosity. Regardless of the governing party, Quebec would have resisted going to war with the USA for fear of invasion and conquest. If war did come they would likely fight hard for Quebec, side by each with English Canada. But realistically, the idea of Canada surviving an American invasion in the early 20th Century was pretty unlikely. Of course the politics above where largely a consequence of the changes wrought throughout Canada by the Great War. The war, in addition to all the nationalist fervour created by pride in Canada's war effort, inextricably linked the Canadian economy with that of the United States. Up to 1914 Canada was an agrarian backwater under the protectionist policies of Empire but by 1918 it was far more industrialized and looking away from Britain and towards other markets. So my best guess is that a Liberal government would telegraph London and say "Count us out of this one, sorry" and opt for neutrality while a Conservative PM would probably dutifully follow the "mother country" (Britain) to war in the faint hope of getting real Imperial protection. Totally agree with you Randomizer, I also feel that the French-Canadians might see this as a golden opportunity to get away from the English government and become independent. It only makes economic and geopolitical sense. The British had trouble helping France in the First World War, what chance are they going to have to stop the US. I think the US could convene a meeting with the Canadians and just try to show that we are willing to help them develop their economic and industrial power to make them self-sufficient. I think they are rational and would probably believe that this is the wisest policy.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 15, 2017 18:22:46 GMT -6
Thank you both for taking the time to respond. It certainly makes sense that Canada would be in an unenviable position if that kind of conflict would have occurred. Especially taking out the effects that WW1 had on Canada since it never happened in game. It ended up being much harder to game out in my head than making up a scenario for an army offensive during a conflict with Germany without any contiguous border at all.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Feb 15, 2017 22:54:26 GMT -6
Disagree entirely.
One should not conflate Quebec resistance in Canada's two conscription crisis' to a desire to leave Canada. The 1917 crisis had little to do with sovereignty and much to do with the colossal bungling of Canada's national mobilization in 1914 by the anti-French, anti-Catholic, WASP bigot Sir Sam Hughes MP, PC, Minister of Militia and Defence 1911-16. Hughes succeeded in alienating French-speaking Quebec by deliberately excluding them from the first Canadian Contingent and marginalizing them until he was dropped from cabinet. Here in Canada, many confidently assert the Quebecois rejected the Great War but reality was that in 1914/15 Hughes rejected French speaking volunteers and never mobilized any of the French language militia regiments where Quebecois soldiers could serve using their mother tongue.
Quebec sovereign nationalism did not really morph into separatism until the 1960's after Premier Maurice Duplessis' Union Nationale party was replaced by Liberal Jean Lesage, whose "Quiet Revolution" served to empower the Francophone majority to overcome the wealthy English minority that controlled much of the provincial economy from West Montreal. The real separatist movement begin with the Front Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) who were politically Marxist and intended to take Quebec out of Confederation through violence.
Before the FLQ there was no incentive to separate because the economy was largely in the hands of the Anglophone minority and there were significant economic benefits to remaining part of Canada. The Quiet Revolution changed the political dynamics in the province and eventually opened the way to Bill 101 in the 1970's which established the primacy of the French language in Quebec. The federal Liberals under Pierre Trudeau created the Official Languages Act making the country and the Federal civil services entirely bilingual, which served to to put a damper on separatism for a time, particularly since the the murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre LaPorte and kidnapping of British diplomat James Cross by the FLQ did much to discredit the movement particularly in the urban centres. Trudeau's implementation of the War Measures Act in the October Crisis of 1970 put separation on the road to legitimacy as the Parti Quebecois under Rene Levesque became a force in the National Assembly, Quebec's provincial legislature.
Separation would have been a non-starter until Premier Lesage de-linked the Catholic Church from the Quebec body politic and the political power of the West Montreal Anglophone elites had been broken. For what it's worth, my roots are in Quebec and I can see both Federalist and Separatist political points of view, even if I am a die-hard federalist.
As I wrote above, Quebec derived many benefits from Confederation and needed the political changes brought about by Duplessis and Lesage to reasonably go it alone. Before the 1950's separatism was a non-starter for the vast majority of Quebecois with the exception of fringe groups at both extremes of the political spectrum and it was not until the 1970's and 80's that it became a mainstream, legitimate political movement.
|
|
|
Post by RNRobert on Feb 16, 2017 6:44:23 GMT -6
During the American Revolution and again during the War of 1812, the US launched unsuccessful invasions of Canada in an attempt to make it part of the US (When I visited the Halifax Citadel in 2006, we were told the primary purpose of it was to defend against an American attack). So, I suppose if there was a war between the US and UK in the RTW timeframe, the Yanks might again try to snatch Canada away from the Brits.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2017 8:48:20 GMT -6
Disagree entirely. One should not conflate Quebec resistance in Canada's two conscription crisis' to a desire to leave Canada. The 1917 crisis had little to do with sovereignty and much to do with the colossal bungling of Canada's national mobilization in 1914 by the anti-French, anti-Catholic, WASP bigot Sir Sam Hughes MP, PC, Minister of Militia and Defence 1911-16. Hughes succeeded in alienating French-speaking Quebec by deliberately excluding them from the first Canadian Contingent and marginalizing them until he was dropped from cabinet. Here in Canada, many confidently assert the Quebecois rejected the Great War but reality was that in 1914/15 Hughes rejected French speaking volunteers and never mobilized any of the French language militia regiments where Quebecois soldiers could serve using their mother tongue. Quebec sovereign nationalism did not really morph into separatism until the 1960's after Premier Maurice Duplessis' Union Nationale party was replaced by Liberal Jean Lesage, whose "Quiet Revolution" served to empower the Francophone majority to overcome the wealthy English minority that controlled much of the provincial economy from West Montreal. The real separatist movement begin with the Front Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) who were politically Marxist and intended to take Quebec out of Confederation through violence. Before the FLQ there was no incentive to separate because the economy was largely in the hands of the Anglophone minority and there were significant economic benefits to remaining part of Canada. The Quiet Revolution changed the political dynamics in the province and eventually opened the way to Bill 101 in the 1970's which established the primacy of the French language in Quebec. The federal Liberals under Pierre Trudeau created the Official Languages Act making the country and the Federal civil services entirely bilingual, which served to to put a damper on separatism for a time, particularly since the the murder of Quebec cabinet minister Pierre LaPorte and kidnapping of British diplomat James Cross by the FLQ did much to discredit the movement particularly in the urban centres. Trudeau's implementation of the War Measures Act in the October Crisis of 1970 put separation on the road to legitimacy as the Parti Quebecois under Rene Levesque became a force in the National Assembly, Quebec's provincial legislature. Separation would have been a non-starter until Premier Lesage de-linked the Catholic Church from the Quebec body politic and the political power of the West Montreal Anglophone elites had been broken. For what it's worth, my roots are in Quebec and I can see both Federalist and Separatist political points of view, even if I am a die-hard federalist. As I wrote above, Quebec derived many benefits from Confederation and needed the political changes brought about by Duplessis and Lesage to reasonably go it alone. Before the 1950's separatism was a non-starter for the vast majority of Quebecois with the exception of fringe groups at both extremes of the political spectrum and it was not until the 1970's and 80's that it became a mainstream, legitimate political movement. I appreciate your educating all of us on that subject. However, correct me if I am wrong but in 1885 Metis was executed due to protests in Quebec because of perceived persecutions due to religion and language. There was a protest movement under Honore Mercier. This was a nationalist movement with a desire for more power for Quebec. Could a war with the US have triggered a greater request for independence by the French-Canadian's? I understand about the Quebec Sovereignty Movement of the 1960's but there is still a possibility that a war between the US and GB might have triggered such a movement earlier in the century. I believe that after the 1900's French-Canadians were more preoccupied with economics than nationalism. I also remember that there was a conscription crisis in 1917 when French Canada massively refused compulsory military service overseas, and it occurred again in WWII. The possibilities are there.
|
|
|
Post by randomizer on Feb 16, 2017 11:20:28 GMT -6
The execution of Metis leader Louis Riel in 1885 had little or nothing to do with Quebec as he led the Red River Rebellion in Manitoba and what was then the Northwest Territories. There was (and still is) a significant Francophone diaspora around Winnipeg and the creation of the Province of Manitoba served to marginalize the Metis, who were generally descendants of Quebecois traders and Indigenous peoples who had settled throughout the Hudson Bay Company's (HBC) land holdings that encompassed most of what is now Canada. When Britain purchased all of this land from the HBC to create Canada, the new Anglophone governments tended to wreck the status quo in the interest of opening the country to settlers and the railroads. The Northwest Rebellion had many root causes but Quebec politics were not on that list.
Mercier, he has a bridge named after him now, was certainly a Quebec nationalist but his version of nationalism was less about taking Quebec out of Confederation and more about improving Quebec's political position viz a viz the rest of Canada (usually abbreviated TROC). His support of Riel seems to have been mostly for internal political gain since all Canadian premiers have enhanced their domestic profiles by calling out Ottawa and in siding with Riel he also could play the language card and garner lots of political capital with his constituents. Before the Partie Quebecois era, Quebec Nationalism did not automatically equal Quebec Separatism, something that is often difficult for Anglophone Canadians to understand.
The post above discussed (briefly) the 1917 Conscription Crisis and the Federal Government and Ministry of Defence retained French language units in the inter-war period and rolled the battle honours from the few Francophone numbered battalions of the CEF into the Quebec militia units that traced their lineage back to the time of Louis XV and that were re-established after demobilization in 1919-20.
The situation in WW2 was entirely different. A succession of Union Nationale governments had begun the process of politicizing rural Quebec and in general the province had become decidedly right-wing, anti-Semitic and conservative. Hitler was not seen as any threat to Quebec or Canada and so war just benefited Imperial Britain and the Anglo industrial barons who owned much of the heavy industry in and around Montreal and the Eastern Townships. Also the men of military age at the beginning of the Second World War were generally the sons of the men who had been marginalized and shut out of World War One thanks to the bigoted anti-French policies of the Hughes regime in 1914-16. It is really easy to see why they felt that this was not their fight. Although France and Quebec share the French language, there was no cultural linkage to the former and most Francophones saw themselves as a culturally unique society and still do. They were not alone in opposition to war either and since the Statute of Westminster (11 December 1932) finally granted Canada and the rest of the white dominions full control over their own foreign policies, Parliament had to vote on any declaration of war and there was spirited debate against war from Quebec MP's and socialist CCF members from the Prairies. Mackenzie King got the declaration of war that he wanted but it was war on Canada's terms and that meant no more Somme's or Passchendaele's for the Canadian Army. The 1944 Conscription Crisis should be considered in that light and not as a manifestation of virulent Quebec nationalism or separatism but with that said, it did add to the list of grievances for those who saw separation as the political path ahead.
Until Lesage's Quiet Revolution secularised Quebec in the 1960's and removed the influence of the Catholic Church that had controlled most aspects of French Canadian life, particularly in rural Quebec, a pluralistic US style republic was unthinkable and the US constitution specifically forbids the sort of linguistic centred society that is the foundation of Quebec since the Quebec Act of the 1760's. The vast majority of Quebecois reside within 200 km of the St Lawrence River and do you really think that in a war between Canada and the United States, this waterway with the adjoining industry and infrastructure would not have been a military and political objective for Washington? Are you prepared to assert that the United States would just allow some fractious third-party to control the major waterway between Chicago and the Atlantic? Not likely and so the only reasonable American action would be annexation.
It is really difficult to imagine that the United States, victorious in a war against Canada would just give away the St Lawrence to an independent Quebec. Occupation by the US would probably sound the death knell for the French language in North America; educated Quebecois knew this and also knew that as flawed and seemingly unfair as the BNA and Confederation with TROC may have been, incorporation into the United States melting pot would have meant cultural suicide. The Quebec Act, provisions of which are still the law of the land in the 21st Century with its guarantees for the French civil legal code, the Catholic faith and French language deeply offended America's own founding fathers and was one of the British laws that helped send the 13-colonies on the road to revolution.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2017 11:50:29 GMT -6
The execution of Metis leader Louis Riel in 1885 had little or nothing to do with Quebec as he led the Red River Rebellion in Manitoba and what was then the Northwest Territories. There was (and still is) a significant Francophone diaspora around Winnipeg and the creation of the Province of Manitoba served to marginalize the Metis, who were generally descendants of Quebecois traders and Indigenous peoples who had settled throughout the Hudson Bay Company's (HBC) land holdings that encompassed most of what is now Canada. When Britain purchased all of this land from the HBC to create Canada, the new Anglophone governments tended to wreck the status quo in the interest of opening the country to settlers and the railroads. The Northwest Rebellion had many root causes but Quebec politics were not on that list. Mercier, he has a bridge named after him now, was certainly a Quebec nationalist but his version of nationalism was less about taking Quebec out of Confederation and more about improving Quebec's political position viz a viz the rest of Canada (usually abbreviated TROC). His support of Riel seems to have been mostly for internal political gain since all Canadian premiers have enhanced their domestic profiles by calling out Ottawa and in siding with Riel he also could play the language card and garner lots of political capital with his constituents. Before the Partie Quebecois era, Quebec Nationalism did not automatically equal Quebec Separatism, something that is often difficult for Anglophone Canadians to understand. The post above discussed (briefly) the 1917 Conscription Crisis and the Federal Government and Ministry of Defence retained French language units in the inter-war period and rolled the battle honours from the few Francophone numbered battalions of the CEF into the Quebec militia units that traced their lineage back to the time of Louis XV and that were re-established after demobilization in 1919-20. The situation in WW2 was entirely different. A succession of Union Nationale governments had begun the process of politicizing rural Quebec and in general the province had become decidedly right-wing, anti-Semitic and conservative. Hitler was not seen as any threat to Quebec or Canada and so war just benefited Imperial Britain and the Anglo industrial barons who owned much of the heavy industry in and around Montreal and the Eastern Townships. Also the men of military age at the beginning of the Second World War were generally the sons of the men who had been marginalized and shut out of World War One thanks to the bigoted anti-French policies of the Hughes regime in 1914-16. It is really easy to see why they felt that this was not their fight. Although France and Quebec share the French language, there was no cultural linkage to the former and most Francophones saw themselves as a culturally unique society and still do. They were not alone in opposition to war either and since the Statute of Westminster (11 December 1932) finally granted Canada and the rest of the white dominions full control over their own foreign policies, Parliament had to vote on any declaration of war and there was spirited debate against war from Quebec MP's and socialist CCF members from the Prairies. Mackenzie King got the declaration of war that he wanted but it was war on Canada's terms and that meant no more Somme's or Passchendaele's for the Canadian Army. The 1944 Conscription Crisis should be considered in that light and not as a manifestation of virulent Quebec nationalism or separatism but with that said, it did add to the list of grievances for those who saw separation as the political path ahead. Until Lesage's Quiet Revolution secularised Quebec in the 1960's and removed the influence of the Catholic Church that had controlled most aspects of French Canadian life, particularly in rural Quebec, a pluralistic US style republic was unthinkable and the US constitution specifically forbids the sort of linguistic centred society that is the foundation of Quebec since the Quebec Act of the 1760's. The vast majority of Quebecois reside within 200 km of the St Lawrence River and do you really think that in a war between Canada and the United States, this waterway with the adjoining industry and infrastructure would not have been a military and political objective for Washington? Are you prepared to assert that the United States would just allow some fractious third-party to control the major waterway between Chicago and the Atlantic? Not likely and so the only reasonable American action would be annexation. It is really difficult to imagine that the United States, victorious in a war against Canada would just give away the St Lawrence to an independent Quebec. Occupation by the US would probably sound the death knell for the French language in North America; educated Quebecois knew this and also knew that as flawed and seemingly unfair as the BNA and Confederation with TROC may have been, incorporation into the United States melting pot would have meant cultural suicide. The Quebec Act, provisions of which are still the law of the land in the 21st Century with its guarantees for the French civil legal code, the Catholic faith and French language deeply offended America's own founding fathers and was one of the British laws that helped send the 13-colonies on the road to revolution. This is one of those alternate histories that is not based on any real facts, but more one some fantasy, in my opinion. Now, while I agree that all those events in the actual historical sequence would lead us to believe that French Canada would not break away, I feel that it might be difficult over one hundred years later to really understand and sequence how this action might occur. I find it hard to believe that the US would invade Canada but simply try to persuade them that it was in their best interest to stay neutral but I can't provide evidence of it. Now while I respect your obviously better knowledge of Canadian history, sometimes we can be too close to the forest to see the trees and that a fresh look from a distance might be more useful. This is not criticism just experience talking. Just because the US had a Joint War Plan Red does not necessarily mean that we had planned to invade but would, as you well know from your military experience, have to develop plans for coordination of forces and deployment. As I stated, I believe this alternative history is fantasy, and to my knowledge not based on real historical evidence.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2017 12:06:22 GMT -6
To All:
In order to educate myself better on this issue, I have purchased a Kindle book titled "War Plan Red; The United States Secret Plan to Invade Canada and Canada's Secret Plan to Invade The United States." One book will not make me an expert, but it will help me to understand the whole geopolitical situation. Maybe it will provide some good sources of Information.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 16, 2017 18:12:46 GMT -6
Ok, so here are a couple border wars after the War of 1812 between Canada and US. The first one was the Pork and Bean's War. Most lumberjacks in the early 19th century were served a special meal on Sunday. Yep, it was pork and beans. Now, due to decades of arguments about who owned the dense forests on the border of New Brunswick and rights to cut them down, the Maine legislature send a posse of volunteers to confiscate the equipment of the lumberjacks in the area. The Canadians did the same and captured the Maine militia and transported them in chains to a barracks in Woodstock, New Brunswick. Finally, the US Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to redraw the border to give more land to the States than Canada. Silly. This war was the only war in history between an American state and a foreign nation.
Another silly war was the Pig War, where the two nations squabbled over a dead pig. Seems that pig was found eating the potatoes in his garden. The pig was owned by the manager of a ranch owned by the Hudson's Bay Company. This stupid conflict escalated until someone realized how really idiotic it was to fight over a dead pig. Trust me, there are more.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Feb 16, 2017 22:29:03 GMT -6
The British, French and Americans thought a war with each other was possible but they didn't know what sort of conflicts the start of the century would bring. The next big war turned out to be a mass struggle for European hegemony with some ideological motivations to boot. With that geopolitical paradigm, there was no chance for one of the three liberal democracies to fight another. But for all they knew the next big European war would be an imperialist struggle like the Spanish-American War. A modern American should be able to sympathize with this uncertainty since we recently went through something like it ourselves.
Back in 2000, how much money was the US spending to be ready for a war against China? Quite a lot. Back in 2000, how much money was the US spending to be ready for "The War on Terror"? Very little.
While there are plenty of disagreements about the War on Terror, I think everyone can agree that without the 9/11 attacks, it wouldn't have happened. So the conflict happened because there was a sudden change in what Americans (and some other countries) considered worth fighting over. I think that a war between the liberal democracies in the early 19th century would have required a similar shift of priorities. For some reason a WWI style conflict doesn't look viable and instead a different kind of war is back on the table.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 17, 2017 13:19:00 GMT -6
For your reference:
There were two plans by the US and Canada: Defense Scheme No. 1 circa 1921 and War Plan Red circa about the same time with changes over time.
|
|