• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America planned for an attack on Britain in 1930

Graffias

Graffias

Rogue
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
924
Reaction score
309
Location
Midwest U.S
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army are today revealed for the first time.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain's trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.

Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.

The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.
In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.
Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.

While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s - a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.
Click to expand...

Read more: How America planned to destroy BRITAIN in 1930 with bombing raids and chemical weapons | Mail Online
 
The Heil is just picking up on a Channel 5 Programme shown a couple of nights ago. The WaPo reported on War Plan Red 4/5 years ago. Interesting though.
,
America's Planned War On Britain: Revealed | Revealed | Channel 5

They war-gamed the naval aspects of the plan and it came out a draw. (The Royal Navy was still the largest then, before WW2.) The American empire didn't overcome the British until after the war.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with planning for contingencies. 1930 was the start of the great depression and countries were vulnerable than ever to radical takeover. Having a plan is crucial if a war starts, and costs you nothing if it doesn't. I don't mind generals working for their pay. One should get worried when politicians start laying the groundwork for justifying the conflict.
 
Just heard about this from Alex. Doesn't surprise me a one bit. Our system has become so corrupt that it's ridiculous. They don't have to worry about us attacking them now though as they all discuss and plan things in secret anyhow. What you see is rivalry, but behined the scenes they're all having a good time together.

That's politics for ya.
 
spud_meister said:
Yeah, look how much all the empires expanded. :lol:
Click to expand...

Both World Wars were about the competition between different empires. Just because they resulted in the massive destruction of capital and ultimately the decline of many great powers does not mean that this was their intention. Also, the US benefited enormously from WW2 and the destruction of the British empire.
 
I bet we have war scenarios ready for most major nations. And probably very detailed ones for China, Korea, Iran, Pakistan. So what? Its called "being prepared".
 
I bet we have war scenarios ready for most major nations. And probably very detailed ones for China, Korea, Iran, Pakistan. So what? Its called "being prepared".
Click to expand...

Except they weren't actively funded or implemented like War Plan Red.
 
scourge99 said:
I bet we have war scenarios ready for most major nations. And probably very detailed ones for China, Korea, Iran, Pakistan. So what? Its called "being prepared".
Click to expand...
Well of course we do, and if we didn't our entire DoD ought to be fired.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Except they weren't actively funded or implemented like War Plan Red.
Click to expand...

Now you are just making **** up. There were many other war plans including ones with mexico, australia, south america, china and japan.

And even if we didn't. So what? War scenarios do not equate to policy.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks. There will be consequences is they continue.
 
Now you are just making **** up. There were many other war plans including ones with mexico, australia, south america, china and japan.

And even if we didn't. So what? War scenarios do not equate to policy.
Click to expand...

$56 million was appropriated by congress to build military bases near Canada disguised as civilian airports, which was only foiled when NYT exposed the plot.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
$56 million was appropriated by congress to build military bases near Canada disguised as civilian airports, which was only foiled when NYT exposed the plot.
Click to expand...
Nothing i can find supports your claim that 56 mlion was appropriated. There supposedly was a bill REQUESTING fhe money, but thats it.

Do you have any idea how many bills are rejected?

Furthermore, its known that Canada had their own scenarios to invade the US. So what?
 
If there was ever any serious plan for America to attack Great Britain it was most likely under the hypothetical premise of Britain somehow falling in league with the Fascists on continental Europe.

Given the fact that Great Britain had finally conquered America with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, Plan Red (if it ever existed) was more likely drawn up as a plan to recapture Britain in the event of a hostile takeover by a Fascist regime.
 
War Plan Red was a reaction to the notion that the British Empire might come into conflict with the aspirations of a growing USA. Given the fact that it was declassified in 1974, it is a matter of record that it definitely existed. Amongst other things, it advocated a first strike poison gas attack on Halifax, followed by occupation, to deny access to the harbour and links to Britain.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It's not surprising, really. WW2 was about conquest and not a heroic fight against fascism.
Click to expand...

true.hitler ascended to power on american dollars.in the 30's american middle class parents were sending their kids to nazi summer camps all over the us.prescott bush,grandfather to our "beloved" w,was one of it's most ardent and vocal supporters.when hitler didn't play ball,the plan changed.......conspiracy theories have a way of baiting u in the as...don't they?
as for how u make a country go to war....hermann goering answered that at the Nuremberg trials.a copycat of it happened in us then and it's happening again now.
Göring spoke about war and extreme nationalism to Captain Gilbert, as recorded in Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[
Hermann Göring - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
peace.
 
Sig said:
If there was ever any serious plan for America to attack Great Britain it was most likely under the hypothetical premise of Britain somehow falling in league with the Fascists on continental Europe.

Given the fact that Great Britain had finally conquered America with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, Plan Red (if it ever existed) was more likely drawn up as a plan to recapture Britain in the event of a hostile takeover by a Fascist regime.
Click to expand...

Actually, the majority of war plans are more like "thought experiments" rather than based on any actual plans or suspicions.

The truth of war plans like these is that they are strategy plans developed by cadets and junior officers in order to get them to understand how to deal with various strategies and logistics. How one wages war against a country like Great Britain is vastly different how one wages a war against a country like Russia which is vastly different how one wages a war against a country like Columbia.

However, the key word here is like. For example, a war plan to invade a country like Great Britain can be easily retasked to invade a country like Japan. Both are island nations. Both have economies based on colonies. Likewise, a war plan to invade a country like Russia can be easily retasked to invade a country like China. Both have similar climates. Both are primarily massive landmasses.

And what the Pentagon wants its junior officers to do is to recognize the differences of strategies and logistics that different types of countries require. There is no "one size fits all" mindset that can apply to military doctrines. Different areas demand different skillsets and different types of equipment. The skills and equipment needed to invade a country in the African Sahara is different from the skills and equipment needed to do peacekeeping in the East Asian jungle.

So there's no controversy here whatsoever. Our military officers need to understand all these different things. And the only way to give them a variety of scenarios is to include current allies as well as current hostiles. To tie their hands in this way is absolutely detrimental to our warfighting capabilities.

After all, those plans to invade Britain that were drawn up in 1930 may have been of actual use should the Nazis had invaded and occupied Great Britain and it would have been up to the United States to liberate it. In this way war plans for military campaigns against the lands of our allies would be of use should our allies fall to our mutual enemies.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Actually, the majority of war plans are more like "thought experiments" rather than based on any actual plans or suspicions.

The truth of war plans like these is that they are strategy plans developed by cadets and junior officers in order to get them to understand how to deal with various strategies and logistics. How one wages war against a country like Great Britain is vastly different how one wages a war against a country like Russia which is vastly different how one wages a war against a country like Columbia.

However, the key word here is like. For example, a war plan to invade a country like Great Britain can be easily retasked to invade a country like Japan. Both are island nations. Both have economies based on colonies. Likewise, a war plan to invade a country like Russia can be easily retasked to invade a country like China. Both have similar climates. Both are primarily massive landmasses.

And what the Pentagon wants its junior officers to do is to recognize the differences of strategies and logistics that different types of countries require. There is no "one size fits all" mindset that can apply to military doctrines. Different areas demand different skillsets and different types of equipment. The skills and equipment needed to invade a country in the African Sahara is different from the skills and equipment needed to do peacekeeping in the East Asian jungle.

So there's no controversy here whatsoever. Our military officers need to understand all these different things. And the only way to give them a variety of scenarios is to include current allies as well as current hostiles. To tie their hands in this way is absolutely detrimental to our warfighting capabilities.

After all, those plans to invade Britain that were drawn up in 1930 may have been of actual use should the Nazis had invaded and occupied Great Britain and it would have been up to the United States to liberate it. In this way war plans for military campaigns against the lands of our allies would be of use should our allies fall to our mutual enemies.
Click to expand...

oh silly me...i i was concerned there for a moment.ty.i'll go back to sleep now.(dreaming the american dream)
in the 20's and early 30's,the german persuation was the american infatuation of choice.look it up.
yes war scenarios are played out all the time, but sometimes there is a reason beyond the madness.
peace.
 
samsmart said:
After all, those plans to invade Britain that were drawn up in 1930 may have been of actual use should the Nazis had invaded and occupied Great Britain and it would have been up to the United States to liberate it. In this way war plans for military campaigns against the lands of our allies would be of use should our allies fall to our mutual enemies.
Click to expand...

Doubtful that the US would have lifted a finger if the UK had fallen. After all the only one that backed the UK over Nazi Germany was Roosevelt... most in the US Congress did not care or sided with what they saw as the "victor".. aka Nazi Germany. Add to that policy and economic ties and you have a no brainer. Lets just thank god the US was wise enough to elect a man like Roosevelt who had the balls to say STFU to the political and economic elite of the US at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom