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

Originally posted by ModernAcademia


Imagine how different the world would be today if that actually happened?

There would have been no USA, Britain would have allied with most of Europe (including Germany) and the Soviets.
They would have then used Canada as a staging platform to sweep southwards and put the wayward colonies back under rightful European rule, thereby saving the world from a lot of the post WW2 conflict created by USA's aggression

Starred and flagged great thread,they say its just one nations super wealthy clans against anothers.
The intelligence agancies, the armies, the governments just their lackeys.
History bears this out time and time again.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

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.

Where did you get that? Peter Lalor who was one of the main players and who lost an arm in the battle was in politics. It was all over the unfare taxes put in place by the crown which lead to it happeneing and the reason it didn't turn into full rebellion at the time is because they'd learned thier lesson from what happened with the U.S. and had a different approach than they did with the U.S.


en.wikipedia.org...


en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.

I think perhaps Japan would have already been angry with the U.S from the time the U.S sent warships to Japan in 1854 to force the japanese to trade with the U.S. against their will, bullied them if you will.

afe.easia.columbia.edu...

Don't get me wrong as being an Aussie and hearing the war stories from my elderly relatives I have no love for Japan, at least not the Japan of the 40's, but as they say, what goes around comes around I suppose.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Found this:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I watched a programme about this the other day. American wargamers of the time decided we were equally matched and while the US planned to attack Canada before we got there the British instead were going to allow this and enforce a blockade on the east coast and force the US into making a deal with us British after we attacked the east coaseheavily (including civiallians, this was a brutal plan on all sides) Canada also had a great plan to invade the US as deep as possible and slow their counter attack/advance into Canada, not knowing however that us sneaky British intended Canada to be lost and a ruse to draw the US army away from the East coast.

IT was a very interesting thing to watch and showed the paranoia and craziness of the days warplanners.

For anyone interested there was a documentary on this in the UK the other night. I was only half watching, but it was quite interesting and shows how history could have turned out very differently.

I doubt this video will be available to members not in the UK,

www.channel5.com...

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Can't see it in Germany. Poo !!!

reply to post by ModernAcademia

New World Order.....1930's Style.

Don't forget that And the heir to the British Throne at the time, King Edward VIII was in communication with Hitler. Also that the House of Windsor, are in actuality, Germans.

Don't forget that in 1932 Smedley Butler was approached by the Elitist to lead a military coup d'etat against Roosevelt to takeover the US Military and Government as well as to later ally with Hitler and Mussolini.

This being due to Roosevelt's plan called the New Deal which would provide jobs to all Americans regardless of their race to help pull the US out of the Great Depression.

The Elitist aka Fascists were against this and were aligned with Hitler's racial purity ideologies and genocide of non white people. Not only Jews.

The plan to overthrow Britain and allying with Hitler's Germany, would have been the last obstacle to European domination....and with the Japanese to combat the Russians on the Russians Eastern front would have lead to World Domination.

It makes all the sense in the world because the Elitist had already initiated this global strife with the stock market crash of 1929 which initiated the Great Depression.....

Similar as today, and economic depression with millions of poor people with no jobs but the Military is aggressively hiring.....

Can you say New World Order ? 1930's style ?

In 1934 he (Smedley Butler) was involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists had approached him to lead a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt. The individuals that were involved denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations. The final report of the committee stated that there was evidence that such a plot existed, but no charges were ever filed. The opinion of most historians is that while planning for a coup was not very advanced, wild schemes were discussed.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I watched this program on channel 5 (UK) the other day, it was very interesting. They asked a variety of British, American and Canadian historians, amongst other professions, to help narrate it. They also went through what would have happened if war actually happened.

The long and short of it is, America would have taken over Canada, but they would have been held to a stalemate at sea because of how strong our navy was.

There was a good scene at the end. It said that it was "completely miraculous for one superpower (British Empire) to make way for another superpower (America) without any sort of conflict or war between the two; let's just hope for the world's sake that it is just as peaceful the next time a dominant superpower arises to take America's place" and then cut to a shot of Chinese people walking down the street

Here's the link to the program for anyone interested. I don't know if you can watch it outside of the UK though

This thread needs to be closed because the stupid contained here may in fact leak out and infect other threads and users.

First the Rainbow plans. There was an entire series of these plans put into place in case of war with all the major powers of the time. Italy, France, Germany, Japan all had a plan and color designation. Japan was Plan Orange, Germany was Plan Black so forth. In hindsight this seems controversial but at the time it was prudent planning. It is the job of military planners to ignor the political situation in regards to who is friendly and plan for all contingencies. This was not some early shade of American empire. You sound stupid when you judge the past with the values and knowledge of current times.

Now on to some of the other gems.
The historical genius that pronounced that Hitler and Stalin did not invade Poland. I would go into a long drawn out historical correction here but I just dont care to educate you that well. I will keep it simple. You are wrong Russian and German troops did infact invade Poland in 1939.

Steve apparently does not know enough about the US during the time frame to comment. You tell us all to look closely at the US and its participation in the wars of the time and how we did not go it alone but were always doing things with other countries. This is your logical retort to the idea that the US could have beaten the UK in a war. I will go into a good bit of detail here.
First look at Naval power yes the UK did have a strong Navy. I dont recall actual numbers from the time but I could get them. I will give the UK the benefit of the doubt here and give them the edge in capital ship numbers. Numbers however do not tell the tale of the tape so to speak. The UK ships were old and aging. Most were pre WW1 and even Pre-Dreadnaught. The UK Navy had performed poorly in WW1 in many of its engagements and its most likely that it only prevailed in a number of engagements due to the poor tactics of the Germans. Many UK ships proved to be poorly designed and exploded with very few hits. This trend continued into the more modern designs that were built in the interwar period (HMS Hood and HMS Repulse for instance). US ship designs did not suffer from weak armor but we may have had fewer of them so that is a factor. Had war broke out between the US and the UK no one would have signed the Washington Navy treaty which set limits on Ship numbers and gun sizes. The largets guns allowed on battleships post treaty were 16 inch guns. This was not due to any limits on capabilities but just an agreement. Go to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland and take a look at the 22inch Naval gun they have there. That gun was set to be installed on the newest US ships in the works until the Washington treaty was signed.
Lets look at industrial capacity.
UK is hands down outclassed here. Not even close. Had war broken out US industrial capacity would have very quickly outpaced the UK. During WW2 the US turned out ships at a rate of 1 every 3 days. The US built 40,000+ Sherman tanks (enough to supply the US army and the UK forces). There were several other tank designs fielded at the time in addition to the Sherman. Now if the war had happened in the '20s the UK would have been more on par in terms of armor as no army had fully fielded armored forces at the time. So it would have been largely a manpower war. That being said post WW1 the UK was spent in terms of manpower. The US had not lost near the men in WW1 as the British as US forces were not engaged for the length of time the UK was.
So what about the need for an ally?
During WW2 the US was only a part of the war in Europe and while we were a major contributor to the destruction of Germany were were not the only ones involved. You are correct here. However you seem to ignor the Pacific which is odd as you indicate that you are an Aussie. 90% of the combat against the Japanese was carried out by the US. This is in addition to the war in Europe. We fought in and won a two front war something that destroyed the Germans.
There is no doubt that the US could have fought and won a war with any single power in the world at the time. They would have been bloody affairs but it would have been victory. Thankfully we did not have thet type of thing in mind.

And the my dad can beat up your comments start.

Of course they know more that experts from 3 countries who all agree that it would have been a stale mate after Canada was lost.

reply to post by Six6Six


You've got to be kidding me.

Why not build a time machine so you too, can know what it's like to be a Soviet peasant in the gulags or a prisoner in Dachau?

I'm sure you'll have a grand 'ol time.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Before the Six Day War in 1967, we had a plan to fight Israel. France was still their patron at the time.

After the war though, France abandoned them, and we took them in as a close ally in the Cold War.

These kinds of plans are not uncommon. We have CONPLANs even today that cover fighting anyone and everyone.

To fail to plan is to plan to fail.

I just want to point out that I've always learned of the US's 20th century invasion plans of Canada as "Operation Crimson". It's not exactly new information, but this thread certainly points out the bigger strategic picture- namely deposing of Britain. I guess it's not hard to figure out where Orwell got his concept of the Oceanic Empire in 1984.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


In terms of strategic picture, it wasn't just the British Empire.

We had War Plan Red-Orange which envisioned fighting an alliance of the Japanese and British Empires.

Then at the top was War Plan Rainbow, a plan envisioning the defense of North America and total war against the entire planet.

reply to post by Flyer


Well yes actually I do know a bit about it I have been studying Military history for about 30 years. Particulaly WW2 and the interwar period. Do you think the makers of a TV show could maybe have hand picked their "experts" to give them the nice vanilla "stalemate" result?
I dont discount a stalemate if there was no desire on the part of the US to push for a greater result. I assumed a like response to WW2 in that the US would go on a total war footing and fight until a nation surrendered. Thats a resonable assumption based on a factual response at a later time.
If you make different assumptions then yes the results would change.
It depends on how factual your assumptions would be. If we assumed that given another year or two that Germany could have developed its jet powered high altitude bomber force and a nuke then we could say that Germany could have won the war. How likely was that assumption to happen? Given the allied strategic bombing campaign and its targeting of industrial facilities that assumption is very unlikely.

I find it odd that these plans were developed in the 1920s and recognized in 1930. Why? If you research who was pushing for the US to enter England’s side in WWI it was the Republicans, Charles Evans Hughes, William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt, and many others, they were all Anglophiles. The Democrats, such as Woodrow Wilson who did enter into the war, were harshly criticized for being anti-American because they were hesitant in joining the conflict.

Democrats were a party of heavily Irish, Austrian, and German ethnic groups here in the US. None of these groups supported England. Republicans were English and Nordic. During the end of the 19th century in America when we were still heavily Anglo-Saxons the people either considered themselves leaning more Germanic or leaning more English, since both were Anglo-Saxons. Ultimately Republicans viewed themselves more English and gradually grew apart from identification with the Germans, even the Democrats moved towards English heritage but at a slower pace. What this allowed for was a staunch defense of England because it was our motherland; the Anglophiles thought we had a moral obligation to fight on her side.

After the war it became even more divisive with America becoming even closer to English in heritage, at least their perception of heritage. The reason Republicans of the 1920s were different than the Republicans before is that they were more Germanic leaning than Anglophile. This is the reason Irish Catholics and Germans abandoned the Democrats in 1920 to side with Republicans, for the first time since the 1880s at earliest. Warren Harding ran on an isolationist platform because he feared that the British would run American foreign interests through the League of Nations, this created a deep hostility within the party against England.

Herbert Hoover, who was President when this plan was actually recognized in 1930, was also not an Anglophile. He leaned towards isolationism; this can be seen in the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. When FDR won in 1932 he ran a rather strange foreign policy program for a Democrat, he was an Anglophile.

I personally am more of a pro-English person than most. Not that I oppose the American Revolution but I see our two societies interconnected, America is rooted in English tradition. We are the offspring of Great Britain. Naturally we should be close and not enemies, that is why I find it sickening that we used the UN to destroy the British Empire. They brought far more peace and stability to this world than anyone before and anyone since. The English civilized many people. It began with a fight against the other colonial powers but they did so in a far more humane way than the Belgians or the French. This world forgets how much it owes England. Perhaps when the American empire finally ends and we become a Republic again the British will be able to reenter the global arena.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


We are still planning to....baby!

Usa usa usa

Originally posted by Dragoon01
This thread needs to be closed because the stupid contained here may in fact leak out and infect other threads and users.

Indeed, as I am about to illustrate..

Originally posted by Dragoon01
First the Rainbow plans. There was an entire series of these plans put into place in case of war with all the major powers of the time. Italy, France, Germany, Japan all had a plan and color designation. Japan was Plan Orange, Germany was Plan Black so forth. In hindsight this seems controversial but at the time it was prudent planning. It is the job of military planners to ignor the political situation in regards to who is friendly and plan for all contingencies. This was not some early shade of American empire. You sound stupid when you judge the past with the values and knowledge of current times.

I don't think one person even suggested what you're suggesting. Several posters, including myself, have stated quite clearly these were pretty standard (and still are) plans that every country would have had versions of.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
The historical genius that pronounced that Hitler and Stalin did not invade Poland. I would go into a long drawn out historical correction here but I just dont care to educate you that well. I will keep it simple. You are wrong Russian and German troops did infact invade Poland in 1939.

That "historical genius" you mention (if it's the one I am thinking of in this thread) diputed the claim Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland as "best buddies". This is blatantly false.

The Nazi's hated the Bolsheviks, but to try and lull them from attacking Germany as a result of their invasion of Poland, they signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which agreed to divide Poland between them and was a "non-aggression pact". This was of course a ruse by the Nazi's to buy time while they dealt with the UK and France.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
First look at Naval power yes the UK did have a strong Navy. I dont recall actual numbers from the time but I could get them.

What follows is a bold statement considering you admit to not actually knowing..........

Originally posted by Dragoon01
I will give the UK the benefit of the doubt here and give them the edge in capital ship numbers.

The UK had more than "an edge". They were, by far, the largest and most powerful Navy in the World in 1939 in both capital and escort ships.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
The UK ships were old and aging. Most were pre WW1 and even Pre-Dreadnaught.

Utter bollocks. Only the Battleships were WW1 and the rest of the Fleet was practically new, including the 5 'King George V' class BB under consturction and the 6 Fleet Carriers under construction. Destroyers and Cruisers were almost all post-WW1.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
The UK Navy had performed poorly in WW1 in many of its engagements and its most likely that it only prevailed in a number of engagements due to the poor tactics of the Germans.

Seeing as there were only a handful of actual Naval battels in WW1, all of which the RN won, this is an odd comment. The Gwermans had exc ellent tactics, which is how they survived Dogger Bank. Jutland was the same, the Germans managed to escpae the clutches of the Grand Fleet by fluke. Had they not, they would have been soundly defeated.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Many UK ships proved to be poorly designed and exploded with very few hits.

Again, utter bollocks. The fact you say this shows you know nothing. At Jutland, in WW1, the only reason the battlecruisers lost exploded in such a fashion was a disregard by the crews for the blast doors between the magazines and turrets, as it alowed them to load faster. A few hits on the turrets flashed into the magazines, causing the explosions. It had nothing to do with design whatsoever.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
This trend continued into the more modern designs that were built in the interwar period (HMS Hood and HMS Repulse for instance).

Hood was sunk because she went up against a German battleship and battlecruisers which ALL concentrated their fire on her and not the Prince of Wales or other capitals. Again, it looks like this bombardment, combined with blast doors being open contributed to a fire reaching the magazines.

Originally posted by Dragoon01
US ship designs did not suffer from weak armor but we may have had fewer of them so that is a factor.

Neither did RN ships suffer from "weak armour". In fact he RN nearly always went for more armour over speed.