westvirginiarebel
Junior Member
I have been banned from alternate-timelines.com?
Posts: 50
|
Post by westvirginiarebel on Feb 6, 2018 2:49:37 GMT
WI Canada had gotten Alaska instead of the US, and they had been the ones to discover gold and oil there?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Feb 6, 2018 9:57:19 GMT
WI Canada had gotten Alaska instead of the US, and they had been the ones to discover gold and oil there? Not a massive difference I suspect as Canada has a hell of a lot of resources itself. Probably the main factor, in the late 19thC would be less tension between the two as you would have removed an excuse for expansionists in the US talking about taking over British Columbia to 'connect up' the two parts of the US. Might also, if you still get the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, have a level of tension between them and Canada as they dispute Canada holding 'Russian' territory, probably a bit more than OTL given that they probably see Canada as weaken and more vulnerable to pressure than the US. On the other hand for at least the 1st few decades Canada can call on the UK to help it out against any threat from the Soviets. Later on the US is likely to be less than happy with the idea of a communist presence in N America so would probably step into the big brother role if the UK declines as OTL.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 15, 2018 23:45:46 GMT
WI Canada had gotten Alaska instead of the US, and they had been the ones to discover gold and oil there? Not a massive difference I suspect as Canada has a hell of a lot of resources itself. Probably the main factor, in the late 19thC would be less tension between the two as you would have removed an excuse for expansionists in the US talking about taking over British Columbia to 'connect up' the two parts of the US. Might also, if you still get the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, have a level of tension between them and Canada as they dispute Canada holding 'Russian' territory, probably a bit more than OTL given that they probably see Canada as weaken and more vulnerable to pressure than the US. On the other hand for at least the 1st few decades Canada can call on the UK to help it out against any threat from the Soviets. Later on the US is likely to be less than happy with the idea of a communist presence in N America so would probably step into the big brother role if the UK declines as OTL. When did the U.K. stop defending Canada?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 16, 2018 10:46:22 GMT
Not a massive difference I suspect as Canada has a hell of a lot of resources itself. Probably the main factor, in the late 19thC would be less tension between the two as you would have removed an excuse for expansionists in the US talking about taking over British Columbia to 'connect up' the two parts of the US. Might also, if you still get the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, have a level of tension between them and Canada as they dispute Canada holding 'Russian' territory, probably a bit more than OTL given that they probably see Canada as weaken and more vulnerable to pressure than the US. On the other hand for at least the 1st few decades Canada can call on the UK to help it out against any threat from the Soviets. Later on the US is likely to be less than happy with the idea of a communist presence in N America so would probably step into the big brother role if the UK declines as OTL. When did the U.K. stop defending Canada?
Initially when the US stopped being a real threat to its independence. More recently the fact Canada can stand on its own two feet and has protection from a friendly US coupled with Britain's own decline in power and in recent decades turning inwards towards the EU.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 18, 2018 0:20:37 GMT
When did the U.K. stop defending Canada?
Initially when the US stopped being a real threat to its independence. More recently the fact Canada can stand on its own two feet and has protection from a friendly US coupled with Britain's own decline in power and in recent decades turning inwards towards the EU.
Makes sense. BTW, I wonder if Britain will focus more on the Anglosphere after it leaves the EU.
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 18, 2018 8:53:54 GMT
Initially when the US stopped being a real threat to its independence. More recently the fact Canada can stand on its own two feet and has protection from a friendly US coupled with Britain's own decline in power and in recent decades turning inwards towards the EU.
Makes sense. BTW, I wonder if Britain will focus more on the Anglosphere after it leaves the EU.
Depends on if we actually escape and also whether we can get a competent government, which looks extremely unlikely at the moment as there doesn't seem to be any responsible options at all!.
|
|
|
Post by futurist on Oct 27, 2018 0:03:27 GMT
Makes sense. BTW, I wonder if Britain will focus more on the Anglosphere after it leaves the EU.
Depends on if we actually escape and also whether we can get a competent government, which looks extremely unlikely at the moment as there doesn't seem to be any responsible options at all!. I don't see why Britain wouldn't escape from the EU. As for a competent government, do you genuinely not have any competent politicians?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Oct 27, 2018 19:55:41 GMT
Depends on if we actually escape and also whether we can get a competent government, which looks extremely unlikely at the moment as there doesn't seem to be any responsible options at all!. I don't see why Britain wouldn't escape from the EU. As for a competent government, do you genuinely not have any competent politicians?
Not at the moment or for quite a while. I used to have hopes for the Lib Dems, who I supported for several decades but the alliance with the Tories in 2010-15 and the sort of policies they supported ended that. Plus their increasingly illiberalism on the question of Europe of course. [That's been a long running sore but I was hoping for them doing something decent domestically until 2010.]
As I say it was clearly a bad sign when May allowed the EU to make the UK responsible for finding a way to preserve the open border with Ireland in the face of EU opposition. Can't get more stupid than that.
Still fearing that they will agree some sort of 'compromise' that basically meets the EU demand to have the UK effectively still under EU control. I.e. having to compile with all EU laws and economic controls, giving EU citizens special privileges over British citizens, being unable to make our own treaties and still having to pay large subsides, which was the earliest EU demand of course.
Aprt of the problem is that with the 1st past the post system its very difficult to get real reform in politics. It took 30 years hard grind for the Lib Dems to get to a position with ~70 MPs and a chance of a coalition then they blew it with their failure in the alliance and since then their suicide pact in demanding Britain stays in the EU
|
|