Hardcore History Podcast with Dan Carlin

[James Arryn]

42 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 And even Canada did attempt to expand into the U.S. at one point. Perhaps at the behest of their Imperialist masters, I suppose. But yeah, point taken. What do you think accounts for the lack of Imperial/Expansionist ambition in regards to Canada?

Sorry, Canada attempted to expand into the U.S. when? I hope you don't mean 1812, which would be wrong in both respects, ie not Canada and not aimed at expanding. 

I don't think Canada is as unusual as you seem to, either. As you say, ANZ, but also most South American countries, many Northen European countries, etc. 

As to why, several. At it's base is the distinction I noted, especially within the advantageous timeframe of having been birthed in a largely post-colonial age To a degree you can argue that Britain and France had done the heavy lifting for us, allowing us the benefits while keeping our hands clean.

The US more recently has made us at least somewhat secure in our own territory, thus not necessitating the 'first step' towards expansionism, ie adopting a militaristic culture. There are counter arguments to these points too, and it still wouldn't account for our post-war attitude of automatic disarmament. Some people think that Canadian/Australians having such high degrees of land/person accounts for it somewhat, but again there are counters both ways, and in particular our urban densities aren't at all unusual. 

My more sincere take us that the US is more the exception for post-colonial representative powers, and that this is in part due to it's unusual emphasis on personal material acquisitiveness translating to national behaviour, in part due much greater emphasis on martial culture/military solutions to diplomatic/social questions (bit of a chicken/egg thing here). Think slavery; pretty much every western nation got rid of it, almost entirely before the US, and only one needed a war to do it. This is not a shot, but rather I'm attempting to look at an internal situation to try and isolate cultural norms. I know Americans think this is explained by the south being unusually dependant, but again this was also true if other areas which did not require war to expunge, and again, chicken/egg to a degree.

(Edit: another more sympathetic illustration might be that the US achieved independence through war, ANZ/Canada through diplomacy, which possibly sets the tone.)

Another factor, not so much causing as allowing US imperialism is the unusual degree to which America is inward looking, which thereby makes people more prone to buying self-serving rationale/rhetoric and less prone to hearing/crediting foreign perspectives. The 2 party system also helps, as most issues are reduced to D vs. R and therefore where they overlap, it is assumed that inherent rightness must somehow be present, and there's always a lot of overlap when it comes to US vs. X. And, as Carlin points out, by now the US economy is such that it might not even be able to afford peace. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Oops, my bad. I was under the mistaken impression that you guys were more directly involved with the British as far as the war of 1812 goes. Turns out that was us attacking you.  

[James Arryn]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Oops, my bad. I was under the mistaken impression that you guys were more directly involved with the British as far as the war of 1812 goes. Turns out that was us attacking you.  

Lol, no worries. 1812 is much more a part of Canadian lore than American for obvious reasons.

[red snow]

these last few posts have reminded me why I have a few books on the Northwest territories/ early north america and why Dan should give the era a pop. Given his knowledge of other parts of north american history I'd be surprised if he didn't know about things up to the civil war.

A canadian friend of mine told me a couple of years back (after a day of drinking in his brewery) that Canada could have become a military superpower after WWII stating they had the resources and arguably one of the most experienced in terms of soldiers/marines who'd seen action. He sort of lamented that they didn't seize it and more or less left it to the united states. Although I guess if Canada and the US had had similar size military complexes trouble would have inevitably ensued - even with the communist threat uniting them?

What's the name of the accord/mantra of the USA that basically won't tolerate any other major power in their hemisphere (Carlin mentions it fairly often)? Maybe that would have extended to Canada too?

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, red snow said:

these last few posts have reminded me why I have a few books on the Northwest territories/ early north america and why Dan should give the era a pop. Given his knowledge of other parts of north american history I'd be surprised if he didn't know about things up to the civil war.

A canadian friend of mine told me a couple of years back (after a day of drinking in his brewery) that Canada could have become a military superpower after WWII stating they had the resources and arguably one of the most experienced in terms of soldiers/marines who'd seen action. He sort of lamented that they didn't seize it and more or less left it to the united states. Although I guess if Canada and the US had had similar size military complexes trouble would have inevitably ensued - even with the communist threat uniting them?

What's the name of the accord/mantra of the USA that basically won't tolerate any other major power in their hemisphere (Carlin mentions it fairly often)? Maybe that would have extended to Canada too?

You're either thinking of Manifest Destiny or more likely the Monroe Doctrine.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, James Arryn said:

You're either thinking of Manifest Destiny or more likely the Monroe Doctrine.

Yeah, I was going to say Monroe Doctrine. Sprinkle in a little White Man's Burden while you're at it.

[Maithanet]

11 minutes ago, red snow said:

A canadian friend of mine told me a couple of years back (after a day of drinking in his brewery) that Canada could have become a military superpower after WWII stating they had the resources and arguably one of the most experienced in terms of soldiers/marines who'd seen action. He sort of lamented that they didn't seize it and more or less left it to the united states. Although I guess if Canada and the US had had similar size military complexes trouble would have inevitably ensued - even with the communist threat uniting them?

I feel like this is dramatically overstating Canada's military in 1945.  At the end of the war they were definitely in a strong position for a country their size, but nowhere near the level of the USA or USSR.  For example, Canada had 1.1 million men serve in their armed forces in the war, compared to ~20 million Americans and ~30 million Soviets.  So if Canada were going to try and embrace a more muscular foreign policy, they would have still been a second tier power at best, and well behind that of the two postwar superpowers.   I suppose they could have used their navy to get some favorable labor terms for Canadian companies in central/south America?  But I'm not sure that really would have made that much of a difference. 

With the benefit of hindsight, cutting military expenditures and instead investing that money domestically was obviously a good move for Canada.  After all, Canadians have health care.