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

Originally posted by stumason
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.

You can also note that Canada's was a 'defensive' plan...as opposed to the US's 'offensive' plan.

A subtle, but telling difference.

There were also nazi rallies on US soil, they thought Hitler would help them but Hitler wanted the UK to win.
They were also going to use chemical weapons on Canada and the UK too.

Canada had a plan to cross the border and do raids on infrastructure and then retreat. Eventually Canada would be taken but the UKs navy strength would have meant it would have turned into a stalemate after that.

It just summed up how mental the US military is, even way back then. They wanted it to happen but the president stopped it. It wasnt a "what if" plane, it was something they wanted to do right away,

reply to post by peck420


To a point, yes it was. But the plan was to strike deep into the North and mid west to distract the US Army long enough for the Brits, Ozzies, Kiwi's and Indians to pitch up, rather than try to fight a "traditonal" defensive war.

reply to post by stumason


Doesn't change the fact that it is a defensive plan.

It also doesn't change the fact that it is fits the stereotypical Canadian and American perfectly (for the respective plans)...maybe there is more to sterotypes than we think.

reply to post by peck420


Everyone had war plans - if you didnt' think you had enough forces to invade then you had a "defesive" one, if you had enough forces you might plan an invasion.

The war plan is not the political document that decides whether or not a country is at war - it is the military figuring out what it can do if that contingency actualy happens.

the British had war plans for bombing the USSR in 1941 and its own considerations for a war with the USA (albeit no-one thought it would happen!) and (in)famously had several plans for war with Japan revolving around singapore.

I'd venture everyone still has plans for how to deploy troops to likely "trouble spots".

That is the nature of het military - they aer SUPPOSED to have plans....so the plans can fail to survive contact with the enemy! :

Not having any plan at all is infinitely worse than having a plan that then has to be modified, however heavily.

How could the U.S have gone up against a developed industrialised nation "with allies" and won? have a real close look and think about if the U.S had of fought either of the two world wars and on its own would it have won. have a real close look. You'll see that in major conlficts the U.S is never on its own and if it was the outcome would have been different.

See the great ussumption by the U.S is that the U.S won both world wars on its own and the fact is it didn't and couldn't.

Originally posted by angus1745
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 !

And yet every country claimed by England is a wealthy developed country and has the freedoms for people such as yourself to bag them. Hey the wholeof north America could have very well ended up spanish and right now you'd probably be to busy begging on the street or dying of some easy to treat illness like they do in Mexico to worry about dumping on the England of a few hundred years ago.

reply to post by steveknows

I thank God every night that the United States is a former British colony. I firmly believe that had the Thirteen Colonies been French, Dutch, or Spanish that we would not have become what we are today. Alot of people don't know this but Long Island where I live was once a Dutch colony before the British came along. New York City was known as "New Netherlands" which is where names like Brooklyn, Bed-Stuy, Staten Island, New Utrecht, and Harlem come from. We became a British colony in 1664 and became New York (after the Duke of York), learned to speak English, got the concept of English Common Law, the idea of a trial by a jury of ones peers, adopted the British style bicameral legislature (elected lower house, appointed upper house - until the Senate was "reformed" in 1913 under the 17th Amendment), divided ourselves into counties, etc - all these are legacies of British rule that still exist in the United States today.

The British influence remains strong and 41% of living Americans can trace their origins to a country that was once under British rule (ie: Ireland and Jamaica are the big ones along with the UK itself). Without the British we would be like the Dominican Republic or Haiti.

reply to post by ChrisF231


Indeed and had our Parliament and King at the time possessed a little foresight, we could have avoided the whole nasty mess of the Revolutionary War altogether. After all, you only wanted representation!

The irony is that, less than 100 years after you guys broke away, we voluntarily gave colonies like Canada and Australia more and more independance, representation and respect. Why then did we not do it for you guys?
Although I suppose had it not been for you guys throwing perfectly good tea into the sea, we might not have been so favourable to the Canadians or Ozzies.

The crime of throwing tea away in itself should have been cause for war, however

reply to post by stumason

Yes indeed, if Lord North had been a little less obtuse their is a very good chance that Queen Elizabeth II would also be holding the title of Queen of the United States. I think the parliamentary system would have worked alot better than what we currently have.

Your 14 remaining colonies (termed 'overseas territories' in PC speak) still do not have representation in Parliament, though I hear Mr. Cameron is pushing to change this. Apparently it is proposed that each territory will send a non voting delegate to the British Parliament and eventually this would pave the way for full voting members of the House of Commons.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by stumason

 

Your 14 remaining colonies (termed 'overseas territories' in PC speak) still do not have representation in Parliament, though I hear Mr. Cameron is pushing to change this. Apparently it is proposed that each territory will send a non voting delegate to the British Parliament and eventually this would pave the way for full voting members of the House of Commons.

Given that they all have their own laws, their own legislatures, can operate their own currencies (only 3 use the Pound Sterling - and 2 of those have no permanent population - British Antarctic Territory, & South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands), and pay no taxes to the UK, would this mean they would start paying taxes, and would have to give up their local Govt & laws & currencies??

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Yes indeed, if Lord North had been a little less obtuse their is a very good chance that Queen Elizabeth II would also be holding the title of Queen of the United States. I think the parliamentary system would have worked alot better than what we currently have.

What an interesting world that would be, hey?

Originally posted by ChrisF231
Your 14 remaining colonies (termed 'overseas territories' in PC speak) still do not have representation in Parliament, though I hear Mr. Cameron is pushing to change this. Apparently it is proposed that each territory will send a non voting delegate to the British Parliament and eventually this would pave the way for full voting members of the House of Commons.

That is true, but they all have their own local legislatures and are largely self-governing, with the UK looking after foreign affairs and defence. It would be good, however, if they could participate in the UK Parliament and become full members and not "dependancies".

That said, Bermuda seems to be on the US crosshairs and they have been working for quite some time to water down our influence there are build up their own. The case of the Guantanomo detainess being shipped there without Obama even notifying, let alone actually asking, the UK Government caused quite a stir.

The Premier of Bermuda got a massive dressing down for this as she should have consulted the UK Government as it was a matter of Foreign affairs. She and her party favour "independance" (not sure how much they would get though, because as soon as they get it, the US will be kicking in the door) but by and large, the population reject this idea. The last referendum was soundly beaten in 1995.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ChrisF231

 

Indeed and had our Parliament and King at the time possessed a little foresight, we could have avoided the whole nasty mess of the Revolutionary War altogether. After all, you only wanted representation!

The irony is that, less than 100 years after you guys broke away, we voluntarily gave colonies like Canada and Australia more and more independance, representation and respect. Why then did we not do it for you guys?
Although I suppose had it not been for you guys throwing perfectly good tea into the sea, we might not have been so favourable to the Canadians or Ozzies.

The crime of throwing tea away in itself should have been cause for war, however

It was the Eureka stockade that got Australia its right to be self governed in 1859 even before Australia was a nation, the colonies , which were in effect states as they had thier own laws and sytem of government as where colonies don't, were given the right to be self governed. England had two choices, try to put down the uprising and have Australia go the same way as the U.S which it didn't want as the logistics involved in fighting across the Atlantic were bad enough but to have to do it in the South pacific would have been a nightmare England couldn't afford, Or give the the colonies the right to be self governed and maintain Australia as an Ally. The self governed states then voted for union and federaton was finalised on the 26th January 1901.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Not really... As the article pointed out the US did not view Britain as a close ally prior to WWI and after. We still have plans on the books for an invasion of Canada should something major go wrong between our 2 countries.

I am sure if we search through British / Canadian archives we will find their equivelants.

Originally posted by steveknows
It was the Eureka stockade that got Australia its right to be self governed in 1859

The survivors who wrote about it pointedly said they were rebelling against the licence fee - and that was mainly immigrants - the locals considered them as greedy exploiters unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes and and considered themselves completely loyal to the crown.

This thread is a bit light on their history. Britain was ready to go to war with the U.S. in about 1927-8. Churchill squashed that idea. But Churchill had an American mother. My dad's cousins had moved to Canada and had grain depots. When the continent shuddered under the results of the Wiemar hyper inflation, they tried to run the British blockade to Belgium. The Royal Navy intercepted their ship, confiscated their grain, and even tried to charge them for the rest of the voyage. This sunk them in more ways than one. They wandered back to Minn. nearly starving. They scrounged potatoes and my grandfather poached a deer to get them some meat. One younger son, by the name of Orris Keehr, later returned to Canada, joined up, fought as a lieutenant at Dieppe in 43. He saved a bunch of Cannucks there, and later became the most decorated Canadian Soldier, and the youngest Brigadier General thereof in the Second World War. Kind of a Cannuck Audie Murphy. Churchill was right! That war plan would have been the greatest disaster the Brits ever stumbled into. The people were so inter related, that they would have thrown the instigators out of N. America, posthaste. Later, Churchill and FDR worked to keep the lid on, while supplying Britain with critical airplane parts like variable pitch propellers, that just happened to bolt on to both of our models of fighter planes. And as for the Manhattan Project, it was a turncoat Brit, Klaus Fuchs, who stole the American uranium floor sweepings, and funneled them to Stalin. So, if Stalin got the bomb, from a turncoat Brit, then the Brits must have had a pretty good handle on the science also, IMHOl And they never helped pay the freight for Hanford or Oak Ridge either.

reply to post by Aggie Man


I am not sure. Intentions (plans) influence our world. In a world where everyone plans for war, it's likely war is created by those very plans.

Had this plan gpone ahead, I wonder if the Japanese would have taken the chance to attack the US?
Would Germany have sided with the British and Commonwealth? What would Russia's stance have been?

I think that the Americans would have ended up fighting on several fronts. Additionally, they would not have had the research material from Britain's nuclear programme, the plans to which were secretly sent to the US in 1940 due to fears of a German invasion.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


Heck why not? Japan was already upset with the US because we wouldnt supply them with some of the resources they needed, as well as not accepting their invasion of countries in Asia to secure resources. If we dont support that, its viewed that we dont support Japan and its policies at the time, which means trouble down the road.

The only stumbling block in that scenario would be the exact same one that popped up for Japan in the actual war - The ability at the time for the US industrial base to churn out a lot of military supplies. Add in the resource base (material / supplies / manpower / room) the US has and it moves the war into a war of attrition, which the US would win.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


"It was very real. Its name was War Plan Red. Developed during the 1920s, 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."

This is obviously a bunch of bull dung. Hitler didn't invade Poland with his pal Stalin. Hitler and Stalin were mortal enemies. Hitler hated communism as much as he hated the Jews. Secondly, back in those days the president didn't invoke his executive privilege to start wars. It would have taken an act of congress (literally) to set aside $57 million for a war with Britain. FDR, one of the greatest presidents this country has put in power thought attacking British interests was a good idea? Right after the great depression? Come on, this story has about as much leg as the Illuminati colluding with reptilians to enslave the human race to mine gold.