In 1942, fifteen thousand American soldiers and civilian laborers poured into Alberta, British Columbia, and the Yukon to construct a highway stretching from mainland United States to Alaska overcoming obstacles of climate, terrain, and manpower shortages (see Figure 1). The construction of the Alaska Highway serves an illustrative episode where Canadian and American interest in northern development and continental defense became intertwined. There has been a tendency in the historiography to over-emphasize the threat that American presence on Canadian soil brought to Canadian sovereignty. This paper aims to temper this dominant belief in the historiography by examining the strategic priorities of Canada throughout the Second World War and
…show more content…
A dominant debate within the historiography is related to the idea of sovereignty, and to what extent the construction of the highway threatened Canadian sovereignty. Historians have used the Alaska Highway to discuss American presence in the Canadian Northwest, frequently leveraging it as a case study for the dubious nature of the American government’s intent in the region. Peter Pigott argues that the battle of sovereignty in the north was one that pitted Canada against the United States, as Canada watched while the United States bulldozed (metaphorically and physically) its way through the North, the detritus of which can still be found today. He argues that the United States Government’s “impinging” on Canadian sovereignty began in many ways with the planning of the Alaska Highway. ND Bankes, went so far to say that his article on the Canadian North following the Second World War should be titled “Enemy Within,” arguing that “during the last 40 years the greatest practical threat to Canadian aspirations in the Arctic has been posed, curiously enough, by its formidable ally to the south, the United States of America.” Richard Diubaldo and M.V. Bezeau have developed a similar arguments, where the American Government had used the Alaska Highway as an opportunity to develop a control of the area to establish itself for the post-war era. Yet as suggested by Galen Perras, as a junior alliance partner Canada was not defenseless in situations where it could be under pressure from the United States, and frequently is able to use such a partnership to protect and develop its own national interests. Within in this spirit, Kenneth Coates and Shelagh Grant have added a counter narrative to this debate respectively. Grant has argued that it was not American bullishness that created a potential for American extra-territoriality, but instead
A dominant debate within the historiography is related to the idea of sovereignty, and to what extent the construction of the highway threatened Canadian sovereignty. Historians have used the Alaska Highway to discuss American presence in the Canadian Northwest, frequently leveraging it as a case study for the dubious nature of the American government’s intent in the region. Peter Pigott argues that the battle of sovereignty in the north was one that pitted Canada against the United States, as Canada watched while the United States bulldozed (metaphorically and physically) its way through the North, the detritus of which can still be found today. He argues that the United States Government’s “impinging” on Canadian sovereignty began in many ways with the planning of the Alaska Highway. ND Bankes, went so far to say that his article on the Canadian North following the Second World War should be titled “Enemy Within,” arguing that “during the last 40 years the greatest practical threat to Canadian aspirations in the Arctic has been posed, curiously enough, by its formidable ally to the south, the United States of America.” Richard Diubaldo and M.V. Bezeau have developed a similar arguments, where the American Government had used the Alaska Highway as an opportunity to develop a control of the area to establish itself for the post-war era. Yet as suggested by Galen Perras, as a junior alliance partner Canada was not defenseless in situations where it could be under pressure from the United States, and frequently is able to use such a partnership to protect and develop its own national interests. Within in this spirit, Kenneth Coates and Shelagh Grant have added a counter narrative to this debate respectively. Grant has argued that it was not American bullishness that created a potential for American extra-territoriality, but instead