War Plan Red – America’s Secretive plans for war..

Wow, I just looked at the flag count. 92 flags? Really? This is a complete non-issue. People really believe that we plan to attack the UK and Canada, or that we use this as blackmail to make them do our bidding? You know, this site does get a bit nut-so at times.

So, if I want to get flags, all I need to do is find some benign document and then spin it in a way that makes the US look evil and give it a flashy title and viola? License to print flags?

Funny. Sad, but funny.

If the USA didnt have current, up to date as of current technology, working plans for all military avenues towards all major nations, if not all nations, I would be highly surprised and in fact dumb founded.

Its interesting none the less this article and I thank the OP for the effort and the story. I didnt know this myself, living in Canada, so again thankyou for the history lesson.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
reply to post by fedster187

 

If I had my way, Canada would no longer be a colony of not-so-Great Britain. The UK couldn't protect themselves, let alone anyone else in a free-for-all war scenario. It's high time we divorced the queen anyway, this feudal relationship is getting old and tired. Actually, I can't think of one country or colony in the world that doesn't need to shake up its political systems and redefine who are actually allies and who are not.

What do you call the UN, the monarchy, the vatican, Wall street and the IMF on the bottom of the ocean?

A good start!

Cheers - Dave

What do you call a Canadian come to that, last time I was over they were mostly sitting on the street with a cardboard sign saying please give money for beer.

First off, I drink Rye, Canadian Club or Crown Royal and I do that rarely. We don't all drink beer, but our microbreweries do make some of the finest ;-)

Why do you have to set the level so low, don't you know we could all bicker about each others countries all day? Do you really want me to come out with some garbage such as at least with you having the Queen as a commonwealth leader at least that means sometimes you actually make global news when she visits? No? Ok, I won't then.

I don't really care for monarchy or people who wish to be famous for being famous or rich or greedy or stupid or back to the case of the monarchy for being inbred. I think people make jokes about that when it comes to we, the "peasant" class. But the monarchy seems to get away with the all up in the back of the short bus special (ed) stuff, go figure.

What has any of your point got to do with a very interesting topic raised by the OP? Sheesh, I'm used to this from (a very small set of sub educated who really know nothing about history apart from HBO) Americans, but do you really need to go the same route?

Oh, uneducated...hmmm. Let's see, I'm an engineer and physicist with 38 years of experience, patents, copyrights, worked for government, the universities, military in special weapons programs, CI/MI, national security infrastructure, etc. No, I don't know sh*t, but I did just put in more patents a few days ago for EMF weapon countermeasures. BTW, I rarely watch TV, it's garbage, I'd rather read a good novel or a technical manual on RiSC processors rather than suffer most TV. Hope we have that out of the way too.

Now excuse me, but Canada is a colony, it is not a country. History? Check the 1947 Letters Patent of King George assigning the Governor General as the Monarch's Viceroy. Do we have a Governor General, well golly gee, we do. So does Australia and New Zealand and any other colony of the UK. Consequently, none of these colonies can be on the UN (Useless Nation) security council. Can you imagine the noise over the UK with 2 or 3 votes, France and the US would be quite pissed off. So I hope we have that out of the way.

The point will follow, eventually.

Sorry, I know I should probably also write this post in French in case your are in the Quebec area, but I really can't be bothered.

Nope not French, but I have lived overseas for years at a time while working for the military and others.

The point, I was responding to a comment by fedster187 who had made a comment singing the praises out our inglorious feudal system and city of london oligarchy controlled by dysfunctional and inbred monarchy or maybe it's the other way around. I'm really not sure who the meat handlers and the meat puppets are anymore. Obviously there are problems, otherwise all of our countries wouldn't be in debt up to the ying yang, we'd be using social credit of some rational form. So, there is not a lot of thinking obviously going on at the "top."

Yes, the OP does have an interesting thread. I actually read the revised CIA plan that was produced in 1964 to take over Canada via economic terrorism. I read that in 1982 I think it was and confirmed the document with people I know in the intel community (which isn't really that trustworthy, but, hey you go with what you have at the time). So, now that the older documents have been declassified it does give some weight to what I examined way back in the 80's. It's very interesting that the US would have planned this kind of insurgence considering for the majority of the time (sans 1812 era) we've been on pretty good terms.

BUT, the US have fallen into a thoroughly corrupt quagmire (not the one on Family Guy) by unscrupulous "people" who know no borders. These people are also involved with the monarchy in the UK, so obviously if I see a group of individuals acting in concert to destroy everything that has potential, in favour of greed, I'm going to say something.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by IPEEINTHESHOWER


What a interesting name. I just love the way you try to belittle him and incite him to come back at you. If thats not trolling i do not know what is. I see it on youtube alot so do others here as well. Heres the thing though. If we stop responding to you and all of us ignore you what then? This will be my only response toward you so do not bother.

Ah the secret american plans to attack britain. Not so secret if they are out now id wager. Or actually would have been kept secret after newer strategies were created. All countries do this sort of thing though. Hell British intelligence has assasination plans for the presidents of almost every country on the planet including its own.

reply to post by Rising Against


What makes you think they have stopped preparing for this apparent plan? makes me think if the west created Hitler in order to prevent unforeseeable war, to create an illusion sense that America is best friends with Britain.

Remember when they planned for with Libya? that was odd.

reply to post by Rising Against


Well, Mr Kennedy, you never disappoint. Pardon me if I really know you best by your avatar, but the depth and sheer professional quality to your posts fit the image so well, it's the only way I've thought of it.


I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned. Talk about a chapter of the history book someone completely forgot to write, let alone include. Then again, just how would a history class tell an American or British child of today's world that America was in advanced planning stages to annex Canada and destroy the British Islands? The poor kids on both sides would never look at Washington the same again. Yikes.. maybe I DO see why I never learned this.

Thank you for sharing this though! It's from nearly a century ago so I'll resist my ATS instinct to see connections and conspiracies into present times. Some things really are history, right? Your thread here puts a whole different dimension to the way I think of the 20's and on into the mid 1930's though.

Imagine that...as you say..The United Kingdom and Europe as a whole may actually owe their very survival to Hitler......right before they had to destroy him to survive. What a wacky world this is sometimes and truth *IS* stranger than fiction. No Doubt!

America should have gone to war with Great Britan. In WW1.

American's were no great fans of the British back then and had stronger ties with Germany. There was a higher % of American's with German ancestory than anything.

A nazi sub actually was welcomed in America after WW! had already begun. America was a better place back then. Good working people just like the good working Germans.

The elites have been fooling us all for far too long.

Germany was for the people. Britan for the oligarchy.

They had to fool the American public into wanting war by sending a ship filled with passenger's into German waters where they knew it would be sunk. The American government murdered its own people so they had an excuse to enter the was.Surprise surprise.

The 'good guys' never actually are.

World War I, 1914-1918: A U-boat torpedo hit ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, the Britain and the France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship.

www.911review.com...

The German Embassy in America actually took out full page ad's in newspapers warning people not to board because they could see what was going on.

Oligarchs

The US passed an act in 2002 giving them permission to invade Holland.

Time to Dump That Bush-Era Law Permitting an Invasion of Holland to "Rescue" U.S. Soldiers

Congress passed a law in 2002 enabling the military to storm into Holland to rescue U.S. soldiers held for war crimes. The Dutch want it revoked.

Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.

As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, "I wouldn't overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol."

In 2002, Dutch diplomat Harold DeWitt wrote to colleagues: "We are quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able to notify my superiors … prior to any invasion."

Alternet.org

Being a superpower, the US tries to plan for every eventuality. The problem is, as soon as a plan is made, it can take on a momentum of its own, as was demonstrated in the OP when the US started to build air fields to attack Canada.

Another good example is the Japanese plan to bomb Pearl Harbour which was used as a training scenario when training Japanese navy officers during the 1930s.

The Japanese naval officers quickly tended to see the scenario of bombing Pearl Harbor not as a theoretical scenario but as a plan of future intent.

Originally posted by Germanicus
America should have gone to war with Great Britan. In WW1.

American's were no great fans of the British back then and had stronger ties with Germany. There was a higher % of American's with German ancestory than anything.

The USA declared war on Germany in response to the Zimmerman telegram in which the German embassy in the US approached Mexico in 1917 with a plan support of Mexico invaded the Southern USA.

The telegram instructed Ambassador Eckardt that if the U.S. appeared likely to enter the war, he was to approach the Mexican Government with a proposal for military alliance, with funding from Germany.

Mexico was promised Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

Wikipedia

After the telegram was widely reported in the US press, the US declared war on Germany two days later.

Go Skippy.

They needed the public behind them. The Lusitania was key in that.

When I was studying foreign policy as part of my public administration major in college, one of my foreign policy professors was a former commanding officer of the contingency planning unit at Offutt Air Force Base south of Omaha, Nebraska. The professor told us that the U.S. government has plans for every possible scenario that could play out. The example he used was for the invasion of Grenada. When the decision was made to take military action, the plans were retrieved, and a U.S. Marine expeditionary force that was already underway in the Mid-Atlantic in route to the Mediterranean for a training deployment was redirected to Grenada. From the time the decision was made to the time units were reroute was less than two hours.

These plans are an attempt to reduce reaction times in the event that something happens. Today it’s even worse since governments have to react quickly due to the nature of 24 hour news cycles and the internet. It’s not an indication of a nation being close to war so much as an indication of the fluid nature of global politics. I know from my time working in government that there are plans in place for every potential problem you can think of.

The funny thing is that these types of plans are meant to instill a sense of security within the population of the nation developing them. These kinds of plans always tend to leak out at some point. Yet, as displayed in the responses to the OP, it often has the opposite effect. Military leaders don’t generally put much faith in these plans since battle plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy.

reply to post by Glassbender777

"We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. "

I agree and i think Churchill's speech was one of the greatest of the 20th century

Originally posted by Germanicus
Go Skippy.

They needed the public behind them. The Lusitania was key in that.

There have been allegations that the Lusitania was in fact carrying munitions. The evidence however has been somewhat inconclusive.

It should also be remembered that while the Lusitania was sunk by a U-boat on 7 May 1915, the US didn't enter WWI until 2 April 1917.

Hence, if the Lusitania was a plan to encourage the USA to enter the war on the allied side, it appears to have been a largely unsuccessful one.

On the other hand, it can't be ignored that Germany's willingness to sink passenger ships did help to turn US public opinion against Germany.

The real tipping point was when the German ambassador to the US sent a telegram to the Mexican government (The Zimmerman telegram, see Wikipedia) promising German aid if Mexico invaded the USA.

The US declared war two days later.

i live in montreal and its an island. what would they want with it . what would its strategic value be?

reply to post by Bakatono

Wow, I just looked at the flag count. 92 flags? Really? This is a complete non-issue. People really believe that we plan to attack the UK and Canada, or that we use this as blackmail to make them do our bidding? You know, this site does get a bit nut-so at times.

So, if I want to get flags, all I need to do is find some benign document and then spin it in a way that makes the US look evil and give it a flashy title and viola? License to print flags?

Funny. Sad, but funny.

With all due respect but that post from you just comes across as a thinly veiled expression of jealousy at the fact that this thread happened to garner a sizable amount of flags... now that is what is quite sad as, and I'm sorry to break it to you, but they're not important at all. Stars too I'm afraid. If you don't like the content however and expressed your distaste at that, then that's fair enough, no problem at all.. because at least you would be focusing on something that truly matters here. Not stars and flags which do not.

Also, in regards to the "nut-so" comment.. Well, with writing this thread I came across an interesting documentary about a finding in the National Archives about War plan red. Simple. It is truth and it is fact. Deal with it already. I know my country isn't perfect and I'll be the first to admit it, but I at least wouldn't go to the length of just completely dismissing something because I didn't like what I heard. That's just counter productive to what we're all supposed to be doing here..

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm stunned. Absolutely stunned. Talk about a chapter of the history book someone completely forgot to write, let alone include. Then again, just how would a history class tell an American or British child of today's world that America was in advanced planning stages to annex Canada and destroy the British Islands? The poor kids on both sides would never look at Washington the same again. Yikes.. maybe I DO see why I never learned this.

Thank you for sharing this though! It's from nearly a century ago so I'll resist my ATS instinct to see connections and conspiracies into present times. Some things really are history, right? Your thread here puts a whole different dimension to the way I think of the 20's and on into the mid 1930's though.

See, that's the point really and I thank you for it.

Some have been complaining that I chose to post about this but you just summed it up there.. This is History. For those complaining this is even some of their own history. Why shouldn't this be something they, or even I as a Brit, learn about? We should all understand our world history in my opinion, it's important, it's how we learn about the future and avoid our past mistakes and so on.

This is just another chapter that's been swept under the rug it seems, one forgotten about. And it's only at our potential cost that we forget about our past actions and history..

Imagine that...as you say..The United Kingdom and Europe as a whole may actually owe their very survival to Hitler......right before they had to destroy him to survive. What a wacky world this is sometimes and truth *IS* stranger than fiction. No Doubt!

See, that's the thing that really got me thinking and made me take a step back too. And once again you sum it up better than I could.

Originally posted by schuyler
I don't find this surprising. In fact, it ought to be seen as mundane. If the military does not have a war plan for every conceivable contingency, then they are incompetent and not doing their job and whomever is responsible ought to be fired. My guess is that the military today has a contingency plan for conflict with any nation or groups of nations on the planet.

That's a great point. From a strategic point of view, that would make a lot of sense.

I'd love to see the U.S.'s strategy for a war with us in Australia. It could probably be sent to the top brass in U.S. military via text message! We've not bent over backwards for the U.S., we'll bend at whatever angle is requested.

That's not a war........

As a side note, Skippy's looking buffed. The roos would probably knock off a few unsuspecting yanks in said "war". Our fauna are not all as cute, cuddly and harmless as often portrayed.

reply to post by ollncasino


Its still key. It was what started turning public support behind the war. It may have been two years later but without it being sunk,the American public would not have been in favour.

And it wasnt Germany's fault they had to sink passenger ships.

Look into that too. Because Germany was winning the battle of the sea. Churchil decided to break the rules. Germany did stop passenger ships at the start and in a gentlemenly manner. But when the tide turned he changed the rules. Passenger ships were not allowed to surrender and were ordered to ram the German's He also armed some passenger ships in attemp to fool the Germans. Churchil was dispicable. Germans had honour.

From the outset of hostilities, Churchill, as head of the Admiralty, was instrumental in establishing the hunger blockade of Germany. This was probably the most effective weapon employed on either side in the whole conflict. The only problem was that, according to everyone's interpretation of international law except Britain's, it was illegal. The blockade was not "close-in," but depended on scattering mines, and many of the goods deemed contraband for instance, food for civilians had never been so classified before. But, throughout his career, international law and the conventions by which men have tried to limit the horrors of war meant nothing to Churchill. As a German historian has dryly commented, Churchill was ready to break the rules whenever the very existence of his country was at stake, and "for him this was very often the case."
The hunger blockade had certain rather unpleasant consequences. About 750,000 German civilians succumbed to hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition. The effect on those who survived was perhaps just as frightful in its own way. A historian of the blockade concluded: "the victimized youth [of World War I] were to become the most radical adherents of National Socialism." It was also complications arising from the British blockade that eventually provided the pretext for Wilson's decision to go to war in 1917.
Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear. A week before the disaster, he wrote to Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade that it was "most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hopes especially of embroiling the United States with Germany." Many highly-placed persons in Britain and America believed that the German sinking of the Lusitania would bring the United States into the war.

www.lewrockwell.com...
You are only reading text books and 'reliable' sources and a 'victor's history.. You need to read between the lines.

It is the U.S. Militaries Job to WAR PLAN for every possible scenario. Now Days....we have Super Computers running War Games 24/7. They literally plan for every possible scenario....so this does not surprise me even though it was a plan decades ago.

I am quite sure...we still have plans like this set by computers against allies that could turn hostile...it is only prudent. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Every year or so IBM used to build super computers with the name Blue in them, Deep Blue springs to mind. This is a multi-million dollar, state of the art, fastest in the world thinking piece of kit. It could run physics simulations, discover the cure for cancer or brute-force (possibly) the toughest encryption around in a matter of minutes. Instead they tune it to play chess against a human. Just about every time, it gets beaten. That's not to say it is easy to beat, they invite people like Gary Kasparov to play. But it does lose.

I think my point is, a computer is never a good General, just a cold statistical analyser of possibilities and likelihoods.

ETA Props to da OP.