Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if France did not get a Zone and Canada Did in Germany

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What if France did not get a Zone and Canada Did in Germany

    This is what if The French zone became the Canadian Zone and it borderd the Soviet Zones in Germany after WW2

  • #2
    I don`t think it would have made much diffrence. The Germans certainly would have felt better with Canadians stationed rather then the "hated French". I`m also certain they would have good relations with the Germans. But other then that, I really don`t see much diffrence. Canada has never gone against the policies of either the UK or the US.
    "Beneath its gilded beauty, though, there lies a poorly designed game which rewards the greedy and violent, and punishes the hardworking and honest; and if you think about it, that's a good representation of capitalism" - Nightfreeze about Eve Online

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tom Phoenix View Post
      I don`t think it would have made much diffrence. The Germans certainly would have felt better with Canadians stationed rather then the "hated French". I`m also certain they would have good relations with the Germans. But other then that, I really don`t see much diffrence. Canada has never gone against the policies of either the UK or the US.
      I agree with you on your assessment.

      But what effect on France if she was not given a zone of occupation? Resistance against accepting German surrender? Resistance against establishment of United Nations? Or resistance against establishment of NATO? Would France have been diminished as a world influence?
      Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

      Prayers.

      BoRG

      http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

      Comment


      • #4
        Canada would have had to bear so much more costs... but it woudl have been unlikely that happened.
        but if it did, france's De Gaulle would have been politically shunned... perhaps leading to the rightist government there not to be formed and a communist france to happen.... not nice.
        "Freedom cannot exist without discipline, self-discipline, and rights cannot exist without duties. Those who do not observe their duties do not deserve their rights."--Oriana Fallaci

        Comment


        • #5
          Historically Canada de-mobilized so quickly after WWII that force levels returned to almost pre-war levels within months. For example, HMCS Uganda (a cruiser) was employed in combat operations in the Pacific when the word came out after VE day that only volunteers would be deployed to fight Japan.
          The ship's company was asked to volunteer, less than half did, so the ship effectively voted herself out of the war and returned home. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Uganda_(C66)

          Had Canada been assigned an occupation zone, the country would have been forced onto the world stage.

          Major troop levels remaining in Europe means the navy, which eventually became an almost exclusively ASW force, must keep a more general purpose capability. The mission is to ensure supplies can be forced through any aggression by the USSR in the north Atlantic, maintain an amphibious capability and support for fleet operations. The air force, which focused on interceptors historically, must maintain ground strike and heavy lift capability in order to support the enhanced ground presence.

          Note that Canadian ground troops gain valuable experience dealing with a hostile population in their occupation zone.

          Historically, Canada was a huge proponent of NATO. In this scenario it is likely the country would have been an even bigger supporter of the alliance. If for no other reason than to try and lesson the costs of maintaining an "all purpose" military. Meanwhile, the French, who always resisted facets of NATO anyway, become even more marginalized in this situation. Canada becomes the third player in the alliance behind the US and the UK.

          When Lester B. Pearson invents UN Peacekeeping in the 50's, Canada has a world wide reach with its' navy and air force, and ground troops highly experienced in dealing with delicate situations.

          Historically, Canadian peacekeepers have been praised for their diplomacy in defusing charged situations. However, they have rarely had the ROE (and the military muscle) to force warring sides to back away if situations are deteriorating (exception - see the Medak Pocket: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medak_Pocket )

          So, in this "what if" we have a Peace Keeping force with some serious military capabilities led by a nation which now had international interests.

          Would Canadian Peace Keepers have withdrawn from their positions in 1967 when Egypt convinced the UN they should go? No. Would Canadian troops have been forced to stand by in Rwanda due to UN indecisiveness? no.

          There's the background I see from your idea, Generalpatton12, and just some of the possible things that would have changed. How does the 6 Day War play out with a significant Canadian force actively keeping both sides apart in the Suez? What about Cyprus, where Canada had a mission for many years? etc.
          Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics.

          Comment


          • #6
            The early cold War dynamics in Germany changes a lot. E n the form of the occupation zones is not set in stone. How those were hashed out is obscure but complex bit of history. I recomend reading up a bit on the subject before jumping to conclusions on any of this.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think the Canadians really wanted an occupation zone. They just wanted the war over. If they got a zone then they would have had to send troops over to it and i don't think they really would have wanted that. If France didn't get a zone it would have served them right. After WWI if the Treaty of Versillies wasn't so crappy WWII might not have happened. They also didn't kill Hitler in WWI when they had the chance.
              "All Glory is Fleeting"

              Comment


              • #8
                I personally think that France, with a population of 40m stationed right on Germany's border, is a better choice for control of an occupation zone than a colony of one of the other powers, whose population of around 12 million is separated by the Atlantic from its new mandate. Despite her humiliation at the hands of the Germans, France is still a world power, and too important to be left out of any settlement.

                Had Canada been given such an unexpected elevation into the sphere of world powers, however, I imagine that the Western Allies, and NATO- if such an alliance is ever formed- would have been very much an Anglo-Saxon club. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that you see a US-UK-Canadian military organisation and a separate Continental European alliance, involving France, Belgium and perhaps Holland. Such division, had the Soviets been inclined to play on it, might have been fatal to Western Europe.

                On a slight tangent, if France was relegated to a second-rank power without an occupation zone, what effect would this have had on the United Nations? Would she still have been allocated a permanent place on the Security Council? If not, would another nation have been given her place instead, or would there have been only 4 members on the Council?
                Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

                Comment


                • #9
                  Diplomatically, it would have been a huge setback for France, that's for sure. Occupying Germany was not only a question of prestige at the time, it was seen as the only way to keep Germany in line for a country that had had three wars with its neighbor in just 70 years.

                  I guess it could have been a viable option if the Western Allies had really wanted to isolate France. But it would have been costly both in terms of money (it costs less to deploy 100,000 French soldiers across the Rhine that a similar number of Candian troops across the Atlantic), diplomacy (shunned by the West, will France look East or just turn isolationnist ?), and of military power (no French nor German divisions to face Stalin's Russia until 1949 or so...).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
                    The early cold War dynamics in Germany changes a lot. E n the form of the occupation zones is not set in stone. How those were hashed out is obscure but complex bit of history. I recomend reading up a bit on the subject before jumping to conclusions on any of this.


                    http://www.workmall.com/wfb2001/germ...ion_zones.html

                    Well , I wouldn't classifiy Yalta and Potsdam as obsure, but your entitled to your own opinion.

                    HP
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This is a bit of a nationalist pipe-dream to say the least. Canada's contribution, while significant for a nation of its size, was far too small in global terms for such an event to ever be possible.

                      While much is made about the size of the navy it should be remembered that these were predominantly small ASW vessels of little combat value. The air force and army were also only a small percentage of the overall allied effort in Europe and not enough to matter politically (France contributed 8+ divisions by late late 44 to Canada's 5 + 2 brigades).

                      In short, Canada's combat power was declining throughout 1944 and 45 while that France was continually growing. Had the war continued the Canadian "Army" may have very well looked like a large corps when compared to France and its growing recovery.
                      The Purist

                      Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Roadkiller View Post
                        Historically Canada de-mobilized so quickly after WWII that force levels returned to almost pre-war levels within months.

                        I beg to differ.

                        Canada's contribution to the defence of western Europe immediately following the war was the 3rd (?) Canadian Division.

                        Far stronger than before the war.
                        Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tigersqn View Post
                          I beg to differ.

                          Canada's contribution to the defence of western Europe immediately following the war was the 3rd (?) Canadian Division.

                          Far stronger than before the war.
                          The 3rd division is actually deactivated in 1945, and all Canadian troops are repatriated by 1946. It's only in 1951 that they return: furthermore, it's solely in brigade, not divisional, strength. While the Canadian armed forces are larger in 1945 than in 1939, I'd put this down to pre-war neglect, rather than post-war attentiveness.
                          Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Canada didn't have the world standing to garner an occupation zone and being much weaker (in virtually every aspect) than either the UK or US, it wouldn't have been given a zone adjacent to the Soviets for that very reason. Canada was viewed as a Commonwealth partner and therefore 'part' of whatever agreement the UK would be participating in.
                            If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You have to remember, Canada in 1945 was still more colony than independent nation.

                              Pondering Canada having a zone, is like pondering Australia or New Zealand having a zone.

                              France was one of the main nations involved in the conflict, of course they had a zone.
                              Life is change. Built models for decades.
                              Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                              I didn't for a long time either.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X