It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:42 PM

How the US Planned to Destroy Britain Just a Few Years Before World War II

Invasion of Canada. Bombing raids on British industrial interests. Naval blockade. Chemical weapons. Six million troops fighting on the Eastern seaboard. This wasn't a crazy Nazi plan. It was the United States' strategy to destroy Britain as a world superpower

It was very real. Its name was War Plan Red.

it was approved by the US Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy in May 1930.
In fact, it was active until Hitler decided to invade Poland with his bloody pal Stalin
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:42 PM

the US Congress approved $57 million for War Plan Red

Now how friggin crazy is that??????

What would have happened if there were no Hitler, people often say there would have been so many lives said.

Well.... maybe not..

Destroying Britain and invading Canada, that's pretty nuts.

Imagine how different the world would be today if that actually happened?

What do you guys think, how would the world be today if this plan actually went into execution?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
Wow, that is pretty crazy. Guess there's always going to be war no matter how you try to cut history.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:46 PM
WWI was stupid.
and the Great Depression sucked.

id be angry too.

damn canadians!!

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Sounds familiar.

We're friends as long as it's convenient. We'll trade, give you weapons, and even fight together. Until we decide you're not worth it, or maybe you have something we want.

Where was Hitler for Iraq and Afghanistan?

(No, I am advocating the presence of a "new Hitler". I just want to know why we always need a common enemy to get along with anyone.)

edit on 21-9-2011 by Nurv47 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:49 PM
Even after WW2 USA was determined (as was USSR too) to kick out British influence from the its Empire. They forced us out of much of our interests, Suez being the nail in the coffin for the British (and French) Empire. All the USA wanted was to replace us overseas- Afghanisatan and Iraq, Palestine/Israel, Saudi Arabia etc lol.

Now why do UK follow USA today after all that like lap dog

Now today China is taking over Africa- is that better for USA than French and British rule?

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:52 PM
That's crazy, but not surprising. In fact, I suspect that the US has war plans drawn out to attack every country on the planet. It would be unwise not to, as you never know when your next enemy will emerge; especially when they seem friendly or harmless. Plans never hurt anyone, it's the execution of the plan that does.

Cool story OP!

edit on 21-9-2011 by Aggie Man because: spelling

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I have often preferred Hilter and Stalin to nearly all of the US presidents and their offices.

NO joke. At least Hitler had a vision and was not a coward.

I have more respect for Hitler and Stalin than for most of the US presidents. Plus I am not Jewish so Hitlers offenses have never really offended me, although they do draw a raised eyebrow. But the US is even worse behind the scenes.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:00 PM

The assumption was that Canada would represent the primary theater of operations.

Makes my stomach turn imagining a war in my homeland.

Vancouver could be easily attacked overland from Bellingham, Washington, and Vancouver Island could be attacked by sea from Port Angeles, Washington

The British Columbia port Prince Rupert has a rail connection to the rest of Canada, but a naval blockade is viewed as easy if Vancouver were taken.

They were serious. And i'm glad we knew of the threat.

Defence Scheme No. 1 was a plan created by Canadian Director of Military Operations and Intelligence Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown, for a Canadian pre-emptive invasion of the United States.

According to the plan, Canadian troops stationed in Pacific Command in Western Canada would immediately be sent to seize Seattle, Washington; When resistance stiffened, the Canadians would retreat to their own borders, destroying bridges and railways to hinder American pursuit. The purpose of the invasion would be to allow time for Canada to prepare its war effort and to receive aid from Britain, or to limit the American invasion before the US government opted to discontinue the incursions.

"Defence Scheme No. 1 demonstrated the foresight of such an operation, especially in that it was prepared before War Plan Red was researched."

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:00 PM
definately crazy

amazing that all the presidents of that time period all knew about that plan and not a single one did anything about it.

never in my life have ever hated england hell came from there like most of us now and even then looking back throughtout history pick any enemy of the past not so much of one now knew who the enemy was

pick to day cant tell friend from enemy

crazy crazy crazy.

waiting for the comment that says the cia invented hitler

edit on 21-9-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:02 PM
These are contingency plans and all war college students have written them. Mainly, they are training exercises. Money advanced for air bases does not mean that the plans would have been carried out, just that airfields were desired. The Northwoods plan was another contingency plan that is brought up on ATS that was never in danger of being carried out.
In another life, I designed invasions and takeovers of various countries that are completely innocuous and threaten no one. The exercise was to assess defenses and key targets, apply the principles of war, and defeat the country with minimal losses. Small countries are used for these exercises because they are more practical classroom projects.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:24 PM
I wouldn't read too much into this, the US apparently still has such plans on the books and pretty much has them for almost every possible scenario. It keeps the planners in a job, after all!

But what was said earlier about the US aiming to replace Britian as the superpower was true, much of the aid in WW2 was conditional. For example, we asked to purchase a bunch of obsolete WW1 destroyers for convoy duty so we could release our better destroyers for ASW and as well as a cash price being asked, the US asked for our Carribbean colonies! Of course, Churchill said go swing..

There is the Tizard mission, where we gave the US all of our secret tech, from radar, jet engines to nuclear weapon research, without which the US would have had to play catch-up. The US also stiffed us on the nuclear weapon research after the War when, despite the massive UK and Canadian contribution to the Manhattan project, we got shut out and had to basically start from scratch with our own. Didn't do to badly on that front as we tested our first fission weapon in 1952 and the first Thermonuclear device in 1957, not too long after the Russians or Yanks.

Then there is the UN, formulated by the US, which had within it demands for decolonisation so the US could gain access and eventually hegemony over our colonial markets. We had no choice but to dismantle the Empire as we had neither the financial or political will to fight for it after the carnage of WW2.

There is plenty more...

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:28 PM
WOW! I have never heard of these rainbow war plans before, very very interesting. Looks like the U.S. was looking for a fight. Not entire sure why they would target Great Britain.

Star and Flag to you sir! Good find...

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:34 PM
I will also point out that the Candaians had their own plans too. It just shows that all countries planners will envisage any possible scenario, because you just never know. Better to be prepared and not need it, than to need it and not be prepared.

Defence Scheme No. 1

Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red called Defense Scheme No. 1 on April 12, 1921.

Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With no hope of holding these objectives, the idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for Imperial allies to arrive with reinforcements. Defence Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton in 1928, two years prior to the approval of War Plan Red.

Here is a link to a nice Wiki article about the US rainbow plans

edit on 21/9/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:36 PM
It's not surprising something like this existed. England, (and when I say England I mean England, not the rest of the UK: i.e. Scotland, Ireland and Wales, forcefully conscripted into England's plan for world domination.) specialized in throwing their weight around and invading and claiming countries all over the globe just because they could, destroying entire cultures without any attempt to assimilate as even the a-hole Romans did.

Until the Nazi's came along England was the worlds biggest bully. If I was America back then, I'd definitely be making plans to stomp those eejits if they tried anything !

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by Nurv47

that is the nail on the head
americas interests
not economicaly viable
what a set up

ww1 was my subject

what a set up for the domino

credit where due

the americans during ww1 dramaticly cut the time to build ships
the propaganda i actually thought was interesting
not like our british propaganda to our own people

What did you do in the great war daddy?

some of you know the poster im on about
propaganda#e at its best

Ferdinand's death...what a setup
ww1 a massive murder on a scale unimaginable even by todays standards
ive been all along the front, even pulled out grenades and small shells
some of the documented stories are heartbreaking
stale m8 like a chess move

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:40 PM

edit on 21-9-2011 by angus1745 because: double post

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by angus1745

I think you really shouldn't look at history through your tinted glassed...

Scotland wasn't "forcible conscripted", they asked to join the Union. That's like saying Texas was forced to join your union.

Ireland, at the time, was actually independant.

Wales was never a country and had been part of England since the 11th century.

Also, you seem to be ignoring the French, Spanish and Belgian empires which were a damned site more brutal to the indigineous populations than we were. And, of course, your own countries colonisation of the N American continent (Manifest destiny) and subjugation of the Natives that, annoyingly, were on the land you coveted.

In short, in that period of history, it was the norm and to single out one country for special criticism when everyone else was doing it (and worse) is short sighted and ignorant. By and large, the British Empire was born out of accident. The vast majority of our "colonial ventures" were actually to stop the others from gaining an advantage. These others being ones that had been out to destroy and subjugate the English/British for hundreds of years prior to the 19th and 20th centuries.

posted on Sep, 21 2011 @ 04:52 PM
You'll better start to learn History 2.0

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in