» Fri May 27, 2011 2:53 am
It's important also to look at what kind of country Canada was during the 50s.
For most of the decade Canada was ruled by the Liberals under Louis St. Laurent, a French Canadian from the Eastern Townships. He was heavily internationalist; he was an important signee of NATO's creation and a staunch supporter of the creation of a United Nations Emergency Force (Peacekeepers). He worked with Lester B. Pearson to solve the Suez Canol Crisis and, some believe, helped avert a nuclear confrontation there (though Pearson would eventually get most of the credit). Economically he was very progressive. He established reforms which eventually led to the creation of universal healthcare, education, and social security. He helped continue Canada's enormous economic growth witnessed by most post-WW2 nations. Lastly, St Laurent also introduced the first amendment to the Canadian Constitution in decades, which, among other things, drove to form a more independant Canada and sever some ties with the UK. He also transformed judicial law in Canada, making the Supreme Court of Canada the highest judicial body in the country, whereas before courts in the UK had prominence.
Ironically, St Laurent's Liberals were defeated in 1957 by a majority Progressive Conservative government who attained 112 seats (42% of the House) to the Liberals 104 seats (39%). Despite the PC's win in the House, the Liberals actually attained more of the popular vote (41% for the Liberals and 39% for the PC). St Laurent thought about forming a new government despite the electoral loss by forming an alliance with another party (just like what's going on today!). In the end St Laurent decided not to, believing that Canada had firmly decided his party wasn't wanted anymore, atleast not as leaders.
St Laurent was replaced by John Diefenbaker. True to his Conservative leanings he issued a snap election just one year later to try and grab a majority in the House. Surprisingly, he got it -- and more; the 1958 election proved to beat St Laurent's record for the largest majority government in Canadian history (until Mulroney in the 80s). Diefenbaker is infamous for cancelling the Avro Arrow project, which was a development of an immensely advanced supersonic interceptor designed in and for Canada to defend against the Soviets. Instead, Canada sought to fill the role by purchasing American-made aircraft, a view largely seen as being based on pressure from the US.
Later, in 1962, Diefenbaker was highly critical of John F. Kennedy for what he felt was "keeping him in the dark" about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I don't really buy that Canada would have remained more loyal to the Brits and less to the US. Unfortunately the split in the timeline occurs in the 50s; it would have been much "easier" if it had occured in the 60s and 70s during the reign of Trudeau (famous for his friendliness towards Fidel Castro and nosing-up a lot of American foreign policy sentiments) and Pearson. But Canada during the late 40s and 50s was strongly supportive of the "liberalization" of the British Commonwealth, relaxing its controls, allowing Commonwealth nations (namely Canada, South Africa, India and Australia) more independance.
I think its more likely that the tradition carried on by Pearson and Trudeau to form a more "third positionist" Canada, removing itself from the "two-camp" Cold War, would be a more likely cause for annexation (likely the original Fallout writers drew inspiration for the annexation of Canada based on US-Canada troubles during the 60s). With hostilities growing alarmingly between the US and China, Canada's "backseat" position would largely be viewed as quite annoying and worthy of military annexation. For instance, if St Laurent hadn't lost that election, production on the Avro Arrow continued, and a more "economically and socially independant" Canada continued to form, it would've made for a more unfriendly relationship with the US. Not only was Canada refusing to capitulate fully with America's global security plans, their development of independant military projects and unwillingness to face America's enemies, and the proximity to occupied Alaska, would have been all the provocation a paranoid US military would need.
An annexation, though, probably wouldn't have been all too violent. Quebec would certainly have been a major hot-seat of resistence. Just as today, Canada would have its fair share of conservative-minded people who would openly support American "aid" coming to Canada, and the formation of a conservative proxy government at America's behest. Think of the Nazi occupation of Austria; it was largely bloodless, and although there was some resistence, nay-sayers were quickly removed from their posts and replaced with submissive yes-men, and most of the population was largely somewhat apathetic. Similarly, resistence in Canada would probably have been low-key, mainly official, with lots of activists but little action, save for pockets of hardened resistence and underground organizations agitating for resistence. The Canadian military would probably have remained, albeit with most of its leadership replaced with pro-US officials.
