|
Post by brygun on Oct 4, 2020 19:38:29 GMT -6
Canada is intensely tied to the British. Including repulsing the 3 American invasions of 1770s, 1810s and 1860s. When the UK has gone to war from the Boer war to the world wars Canada was there and the reverse is true. Canada is one of the balance points between the USA superpower the Europeans, a ground both have interests in. Being a Canadian we have a very strong national identity yet accept our times to the Old World. Its something of an American wish-list to absorb Canada but really we already fought wars to kept the USA in the south. I think a separate Canada from the UK in these time periods, or the decades ahead, would be a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 4, 2020 20:33:50 GMT -6
Canada is intensely tied to the British. Including repulsing the 3 American invasions of 1770s, 1810s and 1860s. When the UK has gone to war from the Boer war to the world wars Canada was there and the reverse is true. Canada is one of the balance points between the USA superpower the Europeans, a ground both have interests in. Being a Canadian we have a very strong national identity yet accept our times to the Old World. Its something of an American wish-list to absorb Canada but really we already fought wars to kept the USA in the south. I think a separate Canada from the UK in these time periods, or the decades ahead, would be a mistake. I assume you are aware of War Plan Crimson. It was tied to War Plan Red which was against the UK. In the event of war with the UK, the US would invade Canada. It was very popular in the interwar years.
|
|
|
Post by ieshima on Oct 4, 2020 20:44:50 GMT -6
Canada is intensely tied to the British. Including repulsing the 3 American invasions of 1770s, 1810s and 1860s. When the UK has gone to war from the Boer war to the world wars Canada was there and the reverse is true. Canada is one of the balance points between the USA superpower the Europeans, a ground both have interests in. Being a Canadian we have a very strong national identity yet accept our times to the Old World. Its something of an American wish-list to absorb Canada but really we already fought wars to kept the USA in the south. I think a separate Canada from the UK in these time periods, or the decades ahead, would be a mistake. I assume you are aware of War Plan Crimson. It was tied to War Plan Red which was against the UK. In the event of war with the UK, the US would invade Canada. It was very popular in the interwar years. That's partially because everyone thought that the next big war would be between Britain and the USA, most likely over something to do with Japan or over just who had the biggest fleet. The USA ended up winning the semi-cold war that had developed by pushing so hard for the naval treaties, which forced the British to scrap the massive Grand Fleet, which the USN couldn't compete with, and also forced them to trade Japan for the USA as an ally. The other reason was that the Inter-War USA military was downright paranoid that everyone was a potential threat, and made plans to defeat everyone.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 5, 2020 7:28:55 GMT -6
I assume you are aware of War Plan Crimson. It was tied to War Plan Red which was against the UK. In the event of war with the UK, the US would invade Canada. It was very popular in the interwar years. That's partially because everyone thought that the next big war would be between Britain and the USA, most likely over something to do with Japan or over just who had the biggest fleet. The USA ended up winning the semi-cold war that had developed by pushing so hard for the naval treaties, which forced the British to scrap the massive Grand Fleet, which the USN couldn't compete with, and also forced them to trade Japan for the USA as an ally. The other reason was that the Inter-War USA military was downright paranoid that everyone was a potential threat, and made plans to defeat everyone. The British government was very happy about the Washington Naval Conference and the subsequent treaty. First the UK was morally, physically and psychologically spent after WW1, the US was not. Our total dead in that war was less than the British losses at Ypres. Second, we were the UK's greatest market and source of earnings, we dominated the Caribbean and most importantly we were its greatest creditor during the war and after. Third, the UK's superiority in numbers over the world, was in either aging, first-generation dreadnoughts or battlecruisers all of which were worn out and obsolescent. The UK had ten battleships and four battlecruisers that were armed with 12 inch guns and they were ten years old. Their armor, armament, etc. and speed, were all old and the problems of building them and absorbing the cost were enormous. The British people were not going to allow another race that would bankrupt the country and especially with a nation that they owed so much money for WW1. You never bite the hand the hand that feeds you.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 5, 2020 14:45:40 GMT -6
I wanted to add one more item about the Washington Naval Conference and it does have much to do with controlling costs and allowing trade lanes to be free and open. The Conference and treaty promoted Anglo-American parity and moved the world away from British Naval superiority. It eliminated possible conflicts between the two superpowers of the Interwar period and put both in a position to assist and fight together against any common foe along with saving costs in their finances. This of course was to the detriment of Japan, Germany and Italy who would pay the ultimate price for this change.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 6, 2020 9:06:37 GMT -6
One more issue and I don't think this is relevant to the game, but it might be. Arms control treaties like the Washington Naval Agreement should link military and non-military together. In other words, there is a political aspect and a military aspect. The treaty should not only provide military control but provide national security and economic security. The Naval Arms Control agreement of the interwar period occurred over fifteen years, six major treaties and five great powers. They tried to regulate political, military and economic relations amongst the five great powers. They tried to extend it to the whole world by balancing Pacific and European forces. It was not successful in the Far East because it did not provide Japan with economic security since they wanted to be a world power but did not have the economic natural resources to execute this. They had to go to Korea, Manchuria and China proper, to do this. This was the failure of the treaty. It failed to account for the imperial nature of the Japanese society and its aggressive nature. It would take a war to solve this issue but a strong alliance between the UK, US, France, and Russia might have had some effect on this. I am still researching and reading about this. I don't know if the game enters this realm but it would be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 7, 2020 13:06:48 GMT -6
Re: War Plan Red/Crimson
Every, and I mean EVERY, nation should in its military be evaluating the possibility of any of its neighbors becoming a source of conflict. That's just basic security. Even a modern day condo guard considers how thieves, burglars, drug dealers and violent persons >might< come into the property including by climbing over a neighbors fence.
Its never freaked me out at all that such US attack Canada or Canada attack US plans exist.
Especially since public speakers in USA do at times talk about talking province X or Y. Not that they ever would. The dumbest one I heard is how Alberta has a type of oil that could be piped into the States but the same speaker said the US doesn't use that oil much at all. So... yeah... literally "pipe dreams".
So yeah.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 7, 2020 13:17:37 GMT -6
I wanted to add one more item about the Washington Naval Conference and it does have much to do with controlling costs and allowing trade lanes to be free and open. The Conference and treaty promoted Anglo-American parity and moved the world away from British Naval superiority. It eliminated possible conflicts between the two superpowers of the Interwar period and put both in a position to assist and fight together against any common foe along with saving costs in their finances. This of course was to the detriment of Japan, Germany and Italy who would pay the ultimate price for this change. So... game affect? Perhaps while your military budget as a % of your nation goes down the rate of economic improvement for the involved countries goes up. That is with the treaty allowing a reduction in military spending (navy, army and air force) the nations rate of economic improvement goes up. To give numbers as a guide maybe before a treaty your navy is 10% of a $3M/year nation thus $300,000 per year. When the treaty goes in your % of your nation drops to say 9% thus $270,000 per year. Your nation gets a +% each month of the treaty though. So say after a few years your nation is now a $3.3M/year nation and if you go to war with your 9% now being $297,000 per year. Almost the same as before. If you nation goes to a war footing and 10% naval budget you would be at $330,000/year which is higher than before the treaty.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 7, 2020 14:56:55 GMT -6
I wanted to add one more item about the Washington Naval Conference and it does have much to do with controlling costs and allowing trade lanes to be free and open. The Conference and treaty promoted Anglo-American parity and moved the world away from British Naval superiority. It eliminated possible conflicts between the two superpowers of the Interwar period and put both in a position to assist and fight together against any common foe along with saving costs in their finances. This of course was to the detriment of Japan, Germany and Italy who would pay the ultimate price for this change. So... game affect? Perhaps while your military budget as a % of your nation goes down the rate of economic improvement for the involved countries goes up. That is with the treaty allowing a reduction in military spending (navy, army and air force) the nations rate of economic improvement goes up. To give numbers as a guide maybe before a treaty your navy is 10% of a $3M/year nation thus $300,000 per year. When the treaty goes in your % of your nation drops to say 9% thus $270,000 per year. Your nation gets a +% each month of the treaty though. So say after a few years your nation is now a $3.3M/year nation and if you go to war with your 9% now being $297,000 per year. Almost the same as before. If you nation goes to a war footing and 10% naval budget you would be at $330,000/year which is higher than before the treaty. Where is the figure for percentage of national budget of $3 million dollars. I know my UK naval budget in January 1902 is 227,800 dollars.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 7, 2020 23:24:42 GMT -6
Where is the figure for percentage of national budget of $3 million dollars. I know my UK naval budget in January 1902 is 227,800 dollars. Those were sample numbers for easy examples. It may be that the fleet size you pic affects you economy. Not sure on that but in my games GER, GB and USA in 1920s have naval budgets of over $600,000 twice the figure you list. Might be due to my playing on large or very large fleets.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2020 7:10:04 GMT -6
Where is the figure for percentage of national budget of $3 million dollars. I know my UK naval budget in January 1902 is 227,800 dollars. Those were sample numbers for easy examples. It may be that the fleet size you pic affects you economy. Not sure on that but in my games GER, GB and USA in 1920s have naval budgets of over $600,000 twice the figure you list. Might be due to my playing on large or very large fleets. Here is some information that might help. The actual British Expenditures and Budget. I have more data in my books to capture. I am still trying to locate German, Japanese, US, Italy, AH and some others. No worries, I always find what I am looking for.
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Oct 8, 2020 13:35:03 GMT -6
No worries, I always find what I am looking for. Of these we have no doubt and are blessed for it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2020 14:19:08 GMT -6
No worries, I always find what I am looking for. Of these we have no doubt and are blessed for it. Thanks, that was nice of you to say. I actually have much of the data in graphs but I am trying to find real good tables for each nation, its national budget and its naval budget and possibly the costs of each ship. News at 11:00 PM.... hopefully.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 8, 2020 17:46:58 GMT -6
Here is some data that might shed some light.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Oct 9, 2020 0:11:32 GMT -6
Quite interesting. Especially if we can compare what Navies had in 1914. Especially France compare to Germany.
|
|