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

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

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/cq4f8c2c38.jpg[/atsimg]

Hey all,

Last night I came across a rather interesting documentary shown on the BBC here in the UK detailing a certain interesting finding from the National Archives by a reporter for the Washington post by the name of Peter Carlson, a finding of what was once regarded as one of the most secretive set of documents in all of America, perhaps even the world It claimed. Their secretive plans for a potential war with Great Britain and also their closest friend to the north, Canada. With writing this thread here and now I want to try and take this opportunity to discuss and hopefully bring to light this another fascinating chapter in American history that people don't really seem to know very much about yet, but one they certainly should, in my humble opinion..

The plans for war, nicknamed "War Plan Red", Red in reference to the enemy which was seen as Britain at the time, were, I believe, first made around the immediate aftermath of the failed 1927 Geneva Naval Conference, a Conference which was initially set up to ironically discuss and attempt to quell any future war's such as what was seen in World War 1. The first conference in 1922 was attended by Great Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy and resulted in the Five Powers Treaty, or the Washington treaty as it's also known as, and was a treaty to specifically limit naval construction and prevent an arms race of those who were victorious in the wake of the first World war.

In the 1927 Geneva conference however, only Great Britain, Japan and the United States attended, resulting in a major disagreement between the three nations and instead of creating a disarmament agreement as was planned, they actually inadvertently created an arms race between America and Great Britain in particular, as Britain, who had more of a need for light cruisers at the time, as opposed to heavy, proposed a "limitation on the production of heavy cruisers while including more freedom for building those in the lighter class." Great Britain also felt that since Lighter cruisers were useless in battle against heavy cruisers, the Unites States also had to build the lighter variety as opposed to the heavier. As well as this they also proposed a limit of 70 ships and 600,000 tons requiring the United States to quit literally build as many as thirty new heavy cruisers just to keep up with them. *

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/av4f8c46e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Britain put forth what was known as the “doctrine of requirements", which said that the size of a nation's naval fleet should be based on what it required to defend its territory, an idea in opposition of the American preference that the size of the fleet required should be proportional to the size of the navies of other nations in the world. For America to agree with Britains plans they would have to start a massive building program to catch up, something they, as well as Japan, disapproved of. Talks eventually failed and no new treaty was made. *

History between the United States and Great Britain is a far cry from what is seen today with the "special relationship" as it's commonly known as. Many conflicts have been fought between them over time and America, around the time of the 20's and 30's in particular here, portrayed Britain as hugely ungrateful due to their postponement of paying back America's $14 million dollar debts. Britain in turn portrayed America in a rather bad light in reply causing tensions between the two to slowly rise over time and to the point where war actually seemed like it could be certainly possible and would've been more than accepted by some. With this America already feared Britain and it's power and believed that their imperial reach would eventually bring itself to America's shores resulting in a war between the two powers, and with the tensions surrounding the Naval arms race, America set about creating extremely detailed plans for a future war, a war which would firstly result in the invasion of Canada by American forces and was even approved in 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy. A at first far-fetched sounding idea it would seem, but an idea we know today as fact as the plans were officially declassified in 1974, being openly discussed only briefly since then it would seem.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/xi4f8c4882.jpg[/atsimg]

(Professor Mike Vlahos looking through the declassified documents)

The plans became extremely detailed through the mid 30's and by the year 1935, the United States was going as far as detailing an invasion route and even strike plans on Canada, firstly taking the port city of Halifax, thus cutting the Canadians off from their British allies, Britain being the main target in these entire series of plans but taking Canada proving to be the best way to truly strike Britain, then taking Canadian power plants near Niagara Falls, and finally invading Vermont from South Dakota and then further travelling to take Montreal and Quebec all the while blockading other ports in Canada and eventually Britain. The use of "Chemical warfare" was even considered it seems.

The Americans imagined a conflict between the United States (Blue) and England over international trade: "The war aim of RED in a war with BLUE is conceived to be the definite elimination of BLUE as an important economic and commercial rival."

In the event of war, the American planners figured that England would use Canada (Crimson) -- then a quasi-pseudo-semi-independent British dominion -- as a launching pad for "a direct invasion of BLUE territory." That invasion might come overland, with British and Canadian troops attacking Buffalo, Detroit and Albany. Or it might come by sea, with amphibious landings on various American beaches -- including Rehoboth and Ocean City, both of which were identified by the planners as "excellent" sites for a Brit beachhead.

The planners anticipated a war "of long duration" because "the RED race" is "more or less phlegmatic" but "noted for its ability to fight to a finish." Also, the Brits could be reinforced by "colored" troops from their colonies: "Some of the colored races however come of good fighting stock, and, under white leadership, can be made into very efficient troops."

"Blue intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained," Army planners wrote in an appendix to the war plan. "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace."

(Source)

In the great 1935 update of war plans, not only did they choose to solely plan routes and strike targets for an invasion, but amazingly it was found that plans were even taken seriously enough to warrant the approval of $57 million by US Congress in order to build three military airfields near the Canadian border and actually disguise them as civilian airports, plans for which were accidentally leaked to the press at the time resulting in outrage from the Canadian government.

The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935 plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified invasion plan available from the US archival sources. Centered pagination is that of the original document. The spelling and punctuation of the original document are reproduced as in the original document, even when in error by present-day norms.

In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a civilian airport and was to "be capable of dominating the industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula" from p. 61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

(Source)

As mentioned before, Canada were outraged at the leaking and were reassured repeatedly that no such invasion plans were ever being taken seriously by the American government, this however, despite the fact that in August of 1935 36,000 troops arrived near the Canadian border of Ottawa, and another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania, in what was an incredibly large war game actually acting out the invasion of Canada. "The war game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue forces, but eventually to lose "outnumbered and outgunned" when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the Army's pamphlet "Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers: The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History" (p.2)." According to the above linked source.

According to the plans however, America assumed the position of the underdog, assuming that the British Empire was by far more powerful than themselves. Due to this they planned a war with a defensive attitude, choosing to offense against Canada in an effort to eventually defend itself against the much more powerful British forces. Choosing also not to attack the powerful British naval fleet, which was much more powerful, and instead "choose to stay in the western North Atlantic to block British-Canadian traffic. The navy would wait for a good opportunity to engage the British fleet, and if successful would then attack British trade and colonies in the Western Hemisphere."

In all reality America planned a huge invasion of Canada and planned for an an all out war with Great Britain, planning on blockading them at one point, starving them financially and even the possible use of "Chemical warfare" against them, as well as the planning of war with other nations at the time also, and as recent as the mid 30's in fact. Although it was known that such plans were unlikely and improbable still, that we know. But nonetheless the war with Britain and Canada in particular appears to have been taken very seriously, millions and millions of dollars even being spent on it by building bases on the Canadian border. Whether it would've happened or not who knows for sure. If so, the world today would've been very, very different something all can agree on I'm sure.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/tl4f8c5757.jpg[/atsimg]

In a odd twist of fate, Nazi Germany quite literally forced the world to pay attention, including America and Great Britain, forcing them to also fight side by side resulting in the shelving of any and all war plans between the two nations, for the time being anyway. It would seem that no matter what, the world was going to be changed by the mid 40's though, whether it be through a world war with the Germans, or a huge war between the British Empire and America resulting in the invasion of Canada by America Forces most probably resulting in a world war anyway.. A sad state of affairs indeed.

But anyway, thanks to all those who took the time to read this thread. This is a rather interesting part of American history I thought and one that, In my opinion, shouldn't really be forgotten about..

War Plan Red

The military has war games for just about every situation imaginable - probably even have plans for an Alien Invasion.

Just because they have plans and ideas, does not mean they will follow through with them.

Britain, and Canada are some of the U.S.'s closest friends - we need them, and they need us. You will never see a war between these countries unless someone comes into power who tries to wipe us out, invade us, or damage us.

There is no money in it, nor security in it.

irrelevant
self edit

reply to post by Rising Against


Turns out it was easier just to buy out all of the corporations in Canada, and then take parliament hill over from the bottom up, using lobbyists (isn't it always?) Funny thing is we have blame heaped on us over the tar sands debacle, and yet the corporate interests responsible are all American, with authorization being given from politicians that have been bought and paid for by American and European corporate interests. The only difference between us and the States is that our government loves money even more than yours does, it would seem, and we seem to be alot better at keeping things under wraps. This post just proved that lol.

reply to post by Rising Against


Good stuff RA!

Will be back later after a thourough read. For now,
found this and thought you may be interested.

The Special Relationship, and how it was tied to FDR.
www.rooseveltinstitute.org...

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


You posted minutes after me. Please at least read the thread before posting.

Also, if you did read the thread, you would know I in fact already mentioned they were mere plans.. Although plans that were taken seriously enough to warrant the American Government spending close to $60 million dollars in building bases on the border of course.

Edit: Let's also not forget that this was in the mid 30's as well. The "special relationship" wasn't so special in those days at all..

Very interesting thread. Also quite timely as 2012 is the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812 between Britain and America.

During the 1930s the United States had one of the smallest militaries in the world. It wasn't the huge machine that it became in mid 1940s, so it's interesting to speculate what the outcome would have been.

I shall watch the documentary later. It looks good.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle


Yes but the topic at hand isn't about present day. It's about the 1930s, which is why considering the relationship of the countries today, it's fun to speculate on.

I did read the post - and I realize what year it is, and this was written for the past. I also am not saying Obama has a good relationship with them, but the government does. Obama is not the government - he is a figure head.

This is a conspiracy forum the last I checked. Unless you are giving a history lesson, a conspiracy is implied in this matter, is it not?

Therefore, I say again, there should be no worries here.

However, if you are simply giving a fancy history lesson, then my hat's off and I appologize to you for misreading your intended subject.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


HAHAHA, sounds like someone is mad that the UK used to rule the world and now sadly they are nothing more than a sinking Island. Maybe you're mad that the USA kicked your countries arse in Revolutionary war or is it we have military bases on your sinking Island right now and you don't have jack S&%# on our land. If the USA never got involved in WW2 Britain could not have defeated the combined Germany and Italy in Western Europe and Mediterranean/North Africa area. Germany and Italy would have defeated Britain.

Maybe you should be thanking us Yanks for saving your sinking Island instead of wishing it ill will.

This September will mark the 229th anniversary of the end of the American Revolutionary War. I guess some wounds never heal. This weekend, the Britain's National Army Museum voted George Washington the greatest military enemy ever to face Britain.

Historian Stephen Brumwelll said it best "the American Revolutionary War was the worst defeat for the British Empire ever,"

Every time you sip some earl grey you should be thankful that the USA will protect your sinking island.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by MentorsRiddle

 

Closest friends ? Special Relationship ? I think not.

Obama can't even say "The Falkland Islands are British". That's not a real friend, that's a fairweather friend.

80 years ago and the USA was still that. And ever will be. They look out for number 1, always have, always will and everyone who gets in their way gets trampled underfoot.

Until China came along ... I wonder that THEIR war plans include ?

Yay for China.

You are also describing British history are you not? You forget places like India perhaps? Or the US who had to fight to free themselves from the Monarchy to be Free?

As to Obama, he is not the US and of all Presidents to compare to the US, you could not have picked a more inappropriate example.

Yay for China? You approve of a slave population without the Freedoms we take for granted both here and in the UK? You think it's cool that China has a population, half of which lives on under $2 a day? It's OK they have no Free Press or Speech?

I think you miss the point that this is history from a different time multiple generations ago. It would be very wrong to attempt to apply it to today's reality. Dig through the documents in the UK and I'm sure you will find similar plans about many of the UK's Allies as well.
____________________________________________

On topic-

Interesting historical note, but irrelevant now. I'm positive our military has plans regarding all nations, just as I'm sure your government does the exact same thing. If our military's did not do so, they would be incompetent boobs.

reply to post by Blaine91555


He has a point. The U.S does treat Britain quite disgracefully as an ally.

I agree, they are a fair-weather friend. Friends only when it suits them.

reply to post by Rising Against


I posted somthing similar about war plan red a while back, probably having watched the same documentary. I did some reading about it at the time and got to wondering what secret war plans are currently being kept by tptb. I definitely think Iran is on the horizon for the US, to be truthful I thought it would have heated up more than it has by now.

But - the Falklands. As a UK resident, I think it's ridiculous that our government can claim we 'own' the Falklands - although I see their reasons for doing so, especially now that there has been oil discovered nearby!

reply to post by IPEEINTHESHOWER


Also you owe the French a great deal of debt in respect of the War of Independence.

But your too ignorant and ungrateful to acknowledge that. I imagine you're more likely to denigrate the French and their military history. Cue all the old jokes about surrendering.

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. I certainly hope they do. Obviously some scenarios are more probable than others, and I'm sure they have those scoped out as well.

After all, it's not as if we haven't been at war with our "cousins" before. There was that nasty revolution that started everything, then the War of 1812, plus, during the War Between the States Great Britain, while bemoaning slavery, helped the South to keep those cotton exports going. Southern Navy ships were built in England. Plus, there is evidence that the Southern secret service used Canada as a staging ground for the plot to kill Lincoln.

In today's world I hope the chances of another conflict are very very small, but let us not delude ourselves into thinking the status quo will hold. 35 years ago Iran was a client state of the US. Things change.

reply to post by MentorsRiddle

I did read the post

Well, I'm sure you can understand my skepticism. You did post a couple of minutes after I posted after all and with the time it took to read properly and then write up a post.. well, seems as though you never read it at all, or if anything skimmed through it. But anyway, I won't dwell on it, people not reading before posting is just a real pet peeve of mine you see, that's why I brought it up in the first place.

This is a conspiracy forum the last I checked. Unless you are giving a history lesson, a conspiracy is implied in this matter, is it not?

The conspiracy being discussed is that a foreign nation, in this case America, secretly planned war with other nations as well as an invasion of another nation, in this case Canada. That's the conspiracy I brought up.

And yes I do like history as well. I find it fascinating and I think we can all rally learn a lot from history. If you read through my threads you'll find most of them are from sometime in the past, usually around the 60's. I write them because I find them important, and I think our history is not something we should forget but instead learn from. That's my view of it.

reply to post by IPEEINTHESHOWER



You don't have any military bases in the UK, you have tenant units, as we have in the US.

Could correct every "point" you've made, but the confusing use of British lexicon leaves one to conclude you are just a troll...

reply to post by schuyler


You most probably are right - Today, most, if not all, nations will have some sort of plan in case war broke out between who they deemed a friend, an ally etc. Especially those who they deem an enemy. With writing this thread though I have to admit I was surprised about "War Plan Red", I found reading about it fascinating - That's the main reason why I wrote this thread in fact. It is fascinating, it is interesting and so on. In my opinion anyway.

From what I know they, America and GB I mean, came relatively close to war at one point (in the 1930's) as well, something which I imagine is quite surprising today. I imagine the plans being drawn up, including the actual invasion of Canada which makes these sets of plans in particular stand out from the rest, closer than one would think they were.