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.
It's not surprising, really. WW2 was about conquest and not a heroic fight against fascism.
Yeah, look how much all the empires expanded. :lol:
Yeah, look how much all the empires expanded. :lol:
Bush's fault.Well dont forget the Soviet one.
The Marshall Plan was about the Cold War.The Marshall Plan gave the U.S. a lot of power over Europe. History 101.
spud_meister said:Yeah, look how much all the empires expanded. :lol:
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".
Well of course we do, and if we didn't our entire DoD ought to be fired.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".
If you had a point, I figure you'd have made it by now. I mean come on, my clothes are going out of style.Except they weren't actively funded or implemented like War Plan Red.
Except they weren't actively funded or implemented like War Plan Red.
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.
Nothing i can find supports your claim that 56 mlion was appropriated. There supposedly was a bill REQUESTING fhe money, but thats it.$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.
It's not surprising, really. WW2 was about conquest and not a heroic fight against fascism.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?