War Plan Red
Spencer Ackerman recounts some thinking about the prospect of leaked plans for a U.S. military effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal:
I had a conversation yesterday with a U.S. official who shared with me the gossip that shpilkis roiled the lower intestines of other officials who were awaiting Sy Hersh’s newest New Yorker piece. Huh, I said, what’s it about? My interlocutor hadn’t seen it yet, but rumors traveled: it seemed to concern possible U.S. plans to secure Pakistani nuclear weapons.
My source sighed in frustration. Why was Hersh writing this stuff, if he was in fact writing it? We probably have plans to invade, I don’t know, Canada, my interlocutor continued, since we plan for fucking everything on the planet, and so reporters of Hersh’s stature ought to be able to distinguish between what’s purely hypothetical and what’s real. And now what do we do? We have to say WE HAVE TOTAL CONFIDENCE IN THE PAKISTANIS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR NUKES when no sane human being has *total confidence*. But if they don’t hear that, all this ill will built up from the Kerry-Lugar-Berman missteps and the Waziristan operation and the drones and all the rest will boil over, and we’ll be digging ourselves out of this for weeks…
This turns out to not really be what Hersh’s piece is about. That said, this seems like as good a time as any to talk about War Plan Read, the 1920s-vintage US military plan for an invasion of Canada:
The scenario envisioned involved the U.S. going to war with Britain, and thus attacking Canada as the most realistic short-term way to damage the empire. The important thing was to seize the ports in Atlantic Canada to prevent re-enforcement from Britain of Canadian forces, or resupply of Britain by resource-rich Canada. In probably the most exciting scenario, the Red-Orange plan, we were fighting a British-Japanese alliance. Canada in turn had “defense scheme one.”
Harry Turtledove’s American Empire series envisions a world in which Confederate victory in the Civil War leads to a geopolitical order in which the rump United States is aligned with Germany against a Britain/France/Confederacy/Japan alliance in two world wars.
47 Responses to “War Plan Red”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 9th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Ackerman loves him some Pentagon cock.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Given that map, I’d say attack that little red spot next to Europe first. I doubt they would even notice it’s gone.
November 9th, 2009 at 8:56 am
“The scenario envisioned involved the U.S. going to war with Britain, and thus attacking Canada as the most realistic short-term way to damage the empire.”
Well, no.
The “war with Britain” section of the plan had us invade Canada to pre-empt the British from using Canada to invade us.
November 9th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Perhaps the US could settle everything with a swap: Buffalo and Detroit in exchange for Toronto.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Perhaps the US could settle everything with a swap: Buffalo and Detroit in exchange for Toronto.
Ewwwwwwwwwww.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Two things.
1) Canadians always believe they will defeat the US.
2) Take it from me, in alternate history circles, American Empire is widely considering to only get worse as it goes along.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Don’t laugh.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-03-nwpassage-debate_x.htm
“As ice melts, debate over Northwest Passage heats”
November 9th, 2009 at 10:21 am
From http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/051222211330.6zvnkcbb.html
“Conservative leader Stephen Harper said Thursday he would assert more strongly Canada’s northern territorial claims following reports that a US submarine recently traveled unannounced through Canadian Arctic
waters.
In remarks made during an election campaign stop in Winnipeg and posted on his party’s website, Harper said he would increase surveillance and deploy more troops, icebreakers and military aircraft over the Canadian Arctic region if elected prime minister….
“As prime minister, I will make it clear to foreign governments — including the United States — that naval vessels traveling in Canadian territorial waters will require the consent of the government of Canada,” Harper said. “
November 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Imagine what an integrated Canada would have meant for the liberal-conservative balance of power in the US. Probably would have had universal healthcare (probably not single payer) decades ago. Also, a lot more Winter Olympics medals.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Matt was doing just fine until he degraded a simple, serious story by bringing in Turtledove’s neo-Confederate fantasies.
So, yeah, the War Department/Defense Department has had plans for various war scenarios with various countries ever since it was created 200 plus years ago. That’s its job. A military high command is supposed to plan for various war scenarios.
While the United States more or less gave up on conquering Canada after 1814, the British Empire remained on top of our list of potential opponents right up until the 1930s, when it became painfully obvious that the British weren’t up to the job of being an empire anymore. War plans involving Britain after that involved a possible fascist coup in Britain or an alliance with or conquest by the Nazis.
If this scenario seems far-fetched to a lot of Americans, remember that any large-scale foreign attack on the United States was far-fetched after 1814. As the fumbling British effort in two wars had shown, conquering a large, well-armed country on the other side of an ocean was a ticket to failure and bankruptcy.
This doesn’t mean that various foreign powers didn’t consider going to war with the United States after 1814. Most traditional wars don’t involve conquering big chunks of territory, just doing enough damage to force a favorable peace settlement. Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia all had occasion to seriously consider attacking the United States between 1814 and 1945. The American War Department presumably had plans to deal with these threats, and plans to strike back at them.
The “invade the little red dot” bit Rich mentions was not considered an option because competent staff work would have shown American planners that putting together a viable trans-oceanic invasion force to deal with a modern power would take years of effort and the full mobilization of all our resources towards war, a flagrant violation of American traditions and values.
To date, only one trans-oceanic invasion on this scale has ever been accomplished. Even with the support of the British Empire, the Soviets, and the Chinese, it still took the Americans three years and two atomic bombs to settle their quarrel with Militarist Japan.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:59 am
In the 1920s, the Canadian military made plans in case of war with the United States. You can look up: the scenarios they sketched out are in the archives.
Canada’s plan was to leverage our relatively larger Prairie population to capture North and South Dakota and Montana. Canada would then hold this territory, waiting for Britain to defeat the United States. Our plan was for Britain to rescue us. Then Canada would trade these captured Western States for the territory it would have inevitably lost in Central Canada.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
@ wsam;
Its nice to know that even when drawing up war plans Canadians remain very friendly. Of course our war strategy would be to invade basically unpopulated areas. Otherwise someone could get hurt!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@aqua regia
Also it is a little surprising that anyone would imagine that the United States would notice, in 1920 especially, if North Dakota was no longer a state.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:43 am
A serious realist should still see Canada as one of the biggest threats for the United Staates. I bet there are are enough out there to make sure there are current war plans against about anyone from Canada to France or Japan somewhere deep hidden in the Pentagon.
And while i am no big fan of that military games in any context, i kind of agree with the realist standpoint insofar as small poor hostile countries are much less of a potential threat than big rich ones, even if they are very friendly. Poltical climate towards Canada is at least a little more likely to miraculously change than say Cubas military capacities.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Two things.
1) Canadians always believe they will defeat the US.
To be fair, in the only war the two countries ever fought (1812), they did win the land war against what should have been an overwhelming American invasion.
2) Take it from me, in alternate history circles, American Empire is widely considering to only get worse as it goes along.
Is that a judgement on the quality of the alternate-history, or just on the quality of Turtledove’s writing? I’ve found the inner-leaf blurbs of the AE books enjoyable to read, and occasionally I’ll skim one in a bookstore. But I can’t read more than a few pages of Turtledove’s writing at one time.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
So was Poland’s. And Norway’s.
Not so much, as it turned out.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Our plan was for Britain to rescue us.
So was Poland’s. And Norway’s . . . Not so much, as it turned out.
They tried, dude, they tried. It cost the Brits tens of thousands of lives and years of misery, but they kept coming back.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
1) Canadians always believe they will defeat the US.
To be fair, in the only war the two countries ever fought (1812), they did win the land war against what should have been an overwhelming American invasion.
I would give more credit to the British regulars than the Canadian militia, but the point is well taken. It was an object lesson in starting a war without serious public support. In one battle half the American force got over the Niagra River and the other half suddenly remembered that their militia papers didn’t require them to leave American territory.
By late 1814, the Americans had finally gotten serious about the Canadian front and were planning to clean the British off the continent with ten or twenty thousand well-drilled troops. Fortunately for Canadian nationalism, both sides suddenly realized the war was a waste of time and they called it off.
November 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
It’s also highly unbelievable, since Turtledove gives pretty much every advantage to the Confederates, and has them as a serious political force in the early-to-mid twentieth century.
In reality, of course, an independent confederacy would have been a third-world shithole, particularly after the price of cotton collapses in the late 19th century as Egyptian and Indian cotton enters the market in full force. The South had precious little liquid capital (most of their capital was bound up in physical property, like land, slaves, farming equipment, etc), and there were rampant divisions and insurgencies in the South throughout the Civil War. My guess is that the South would have broken up, with its destitute states begging for re-entrance into the US one by one – assuming it doesn’t get into a war with a Union aching to kick the shit out of it and annex it first.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Re Midland at 18: “By late 1814, the Americans had finally gotten serious about the Canadian front and were planning to clean the British off the continent with ten or twenty thousand well-drilled troops. Fortunately for Canadian nationalism, both sides suddenly realized the war was a waste of time and they called it off.”
———-
Er..not quite. The war on the Canadian war was a diversion away from Britain’s real plan — to seize New Orleans, gain of control the mouth of the Mississippi, thereby gaining control of the economy of the Mississippi River watershed in order to support the split of that region from the 13 states on the Eastern Seaboard.
In those days, Mississippi River transport was essential — it was cheaper to ship a wagon load of corn down the Mississippi River then up the Eastern Seaboard to Philly via Sailboat than it was to transport the corn overland by wagon.
It was a damm near thing — might have worked if Andrew Jackson had not cobbled together a force of Kentucky and Tennessee hillbilly militia together with Louisiana pirates and exterminated the cream of Wellington’s troops , along with Wellington’s son-in-law.
If they won, the Brits would have set up a puppet government with Spanish spy James Wilkinson and Aaron Burr (google “State of Franklin”) , the North American Continent would have been fragmented in the same way Europe was kept fragmented and the British Empire’s Grand Strategy of Divide and Conquer then control key chokepoints would have triumphed yet again.
November 9th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
And the southern united states would have had government run health care. Ergo, Barack Obama is actually a secret agent for the British Empire attempting to finish what Alexander Cochrane could not!
November 9th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Most historians give more credit to British regulars for the defence of Upper Canada than the ‘Canadian’ militia. Lower Canada being a different story where the French Canadian militia proved themselves.
At the start of the war, it was expected a sizable minority of the settlers living in Upper Canada, many of whom were recent immigrants from the United States, would quickly join the American side. That this didn’t happen, and that many joined the militia, came as a surprise to both sides.
By 1814 the war was effectively over. The British had a million people in their military. The defeat of Napoleon strengthened the British to the point some contemplated retaking their American possessions. For example, the conclusion of Wellington’s Peninsula campaign meant British regulars began sailing directly from Spain to Upper Canada. These were experienced, battle-hardened, quality troops.
As well, British public opinion was strongly anti-American, viewing the United States, unsurprisingly, as having attacked Britain while she was in a desperate fight against the tyrant Napoleon.
One of Britain’s original bargaining positions was to turn Ohio into a British protectorate for her Indian allies. American harassment of the Indians there was one of the reasons behind the war (Indians, who, of course, in the end got nothing). Another position was to de-militarize the Great Lakes – this one actually happened.
Of course, the lengthy negotiations over the post-Napoleonic re-ordering of Europe prevented the British from pressing their advantage against the Americans. They were juggling too many other considerations to care deeply about the war in Canada, which was never more than a minor sideshow. In the end, they wanted the war completed.
The Americans approached the war completely backwards. They should have concentrated all their force in Montreal. That was the decisive point. Take Montreal and you’ve split the British forces in half. Upper and Lower Canada would have been severed. Then, it would have been a matter of time before the British forces in southern Ontario and on Lake Ontario surrendered. Instead, the Americans attacked Niagara-on-the-Lake and stole all the books in the local library.
That mistake was what really lost the war for the Americans.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
You do know that when the Battle of New Orleans was fought the war had been formally concluded for at least two weeks.
That means positions had already been negotiated and settled.
Most of the fighting happened in Upper Canada because that’s where the US chose to invade. And the US invaded Upper Canada because powerful members of the US political elite wanted to include that piece of land into the United States of America. That was their goal. It wasn’t secret. This is basic history.
How does that equate with a secret British plan to take New Orleans? To fragment the continent.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Re wsam at 23:
1) The head of the Federal Army was General James Wilkinson — a spy in the employ of Spain (although that was not discovered until about 50 years later). You might look at how Wilkinson conducted the war against the Brits. As one historian noted, Wilkinson never won a battle or lost a court martial. hee hee
From here in Philly, of course.
2) Robert Remini –currently Historian for the House of Representatives — indicated in his book “The Battle of New Orleans (1999)” that the Brits would certainly have renegotiated the terms of the Peace Treaty if they had succeeded in taking New Orleans.
3) As the French noted, the Sun never set on the British Empire because the Lord didn’t trust the Brits in the dark.
November 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
PS There wasn’t anything secret about the British plan to take New Orleans — they launched a massive attack with the Royal Navy and 8000? of Wellington’s top troops.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Re James Wilkinson, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilkinson
Tried to overthrow George Washington’s command of the Continental Army and install Horatio Gates. Plotted with Aaron Burr to separate Kentucky from the US and ally it with Spain. Suborned several US politicans doing so , but testified against Aaron Burr to save his own butt when Jefferson discovered the plot.
Truly a Philadelphia politican. What wiki doesn’t mention is Wilkinson’s political philosophy “The World operates on self-interest and anyone who doesn’t realize that is a Fool”.
Also, some historians suspect Wilkinson might have assassinated Mad Anthony Wayne in order to gain command of the Federal Army.
The Spanish governor must have been amused when the USA sent Spanish spy Wilkinson to assume ownership of Louisiana.
This is one Founding Father that the school teachers don’t like to talk about, for some reason.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Your entire argument rests on the opinion of one historian who claims the British would have re-negotiated?!?!?! Wow. Does he have super-powers? He can read minds.
You know Spain was occupied by Napoleon. The same guy who sold Louisiana to the United States. How much damage could a spy working for an occupied country do?
But let me get this straight. Busy fighting Napoleon, who had occupied the whole of Europe, Britain manipulated a fledgling United States to attack Upper Canada and then Lower Canada in order to capture New Orleans, which is on the other side of the continent.
That makes no sense.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
…a world in which Confederate victory in the Civil War leads to a geopolitical order in which the rump United States is aligned with Germany against a Britain/France/Confederacy/Japan alliance…
I would have thought it far more likely that a Confederate state (one where slavery survived past 1865) would ally itself with the Nazis. Keep in mind that Hitler was a big fan of American segregation, taking it as a model for his own policies. Birds of a feather…
———————————–
re: War with Canada
Keep in mind that Canada is probably closer to having nuclear weapons than Iran.
We started building our first nuclear reactor way back in 1942; when it was completed in 1945, ZEEP was the first non-American reactor in the world. We are the world’s largest producer of uranium. Our 17 heavy water reactors could each be used to produce plutonium, and they are an excellent source of tritium. In fact, exporting the CANDU design seems to have greatly accelerated the Indian nuclear weapons program.
It’s important to stress that we don’t currently possess nuclear weapons, or so we say.
November 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
This map cannot possibly constitute any US plan to subdue Canada/defeat Britain militarily. First, Australia and Canada after the mid 1800’s were at best paying lip service to Great Britain and far from loyal jewels in the crown, as well as being separated geographically and politically from the home country. If war ever broke out with the US by 1930, its doubtful they would have entered the war on GB’s behalf since their geographical and economic interests were much closer to America’s – especially if you factor in Japan’s empire in the Pacific.
Second, what kind of plan to subdue Great Britain would ignore completely Iran’s oil reserves, the Suez Canal and Singapore. Those three locales were vastly more important to Britain’s survival in (an otherwise completely hopeless) war with the US. By 1930, no oil meant you were a dead duck – just ask Nazi Germany – and if the US managed to capture the Suez and Singapore, Britain’s naval advantage (nominal at best over the US even in the 30’s) would have evaporated.
Third, please stop bringing up Mr. Turtledove’s books. They’re speculative fiction that have a loyal following and have brought pleasure to many readers. That said, those books are porn for Confederacy-lovers. No way the Southern States would have ever defeated the North and even if they did, their economy was so dependent on the north, they never would have made any kind of anti-Union alliance with a third country going into the 20th century. It just would not have made sense.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Except, of course, as Matt pointed out in his original post, in 1921 Canada did consider the possibility of war with the United States and even went as far as planning what it would do. (Attack the northern Western states in the hope that would give us time until Britian rescued us).
British Empire nationalism remained strong in English Canada until the late fifties. There is no way Canada would have sided with the US against Britian. Or even remained neutral. That might have made sense. But too many English Canadians had deep ties to the United Kingdom and felt real affection for the British Empire.
How come there hasn’t been any mention of the Fenian raids? A terrorist organization allowed to form and train on US soil with the sole intention of hitting British targets, i.e. invading Canada.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
It’s important to stress that we don’t currently possess nuclear weapons, or so we say.
From the forties until the nineties, you did possess nuclear weapons.
Because we gave them to you, like we did with the Luftwaffe.
“Officially” Canada and Germany were nuke free, but those weapons would have been under RCAF and Luftwaffe control had the Big One ever happened.
And who else would you all or the Germans use nukes on, other than the Warsaw Pact or the Chinese?
Us? Hah!
November 9th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Re wsam at 27: “Britain manipulated a fledgling United States to attack Upper Canada and then Lower Canada in order to capture New Orleans, which is on the other side of the continent.
That makes no sense.”
So why did Britain provoke the US into war –e.g, by seizing US citizens off of US ships?
By the way, what do you think Napoleon DID with the huge sum he received from the Louisiana Purchase?
WHAT did Napoleon say was the long term implications of his real estate sale?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_purchase
[Although he felt that the US Constitution did not contain any provisions for acquiring territory, Jefferson decided to purchase Louisiana because he felt uneasy about France and Spain having the power to block American trade access to the port of New Orleans.
Napoleon Bonaparte, upon completion of the agreement, stated, "This accession of territory affirms forever the power of the United States, and I have given England a maritime rival who sooner or later will humble her pride."[4] ]
November 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
How come there hasn’t been any mention of the Fenian raids? A terrorist organization allowed to form and train on US soil with the sole intention of hitting British targets, i.e. invading Canada.
Because that wasn’t the real threat, the 69th New York Volunteer Regiment and the other regiments constituting the Irish Brigade were. The commander of the former, Corcoran, was actually under arrest at the beginning of the war for publicly dissing the Prince of Wales during his trip to New York.
Lincoln not only ensured he’d receive a full pardon, he raised asked Corcoran to help raise explicitly Irish regiments. Guess who Corcoran gave commissions to? If you said other dyed in the wool revolutionaries, like Thomas Meagher, you’d be correct.
This was one of the adroit political/diplomatic moves that made Old Pam very, *very* reluctant to intervene in the Civil War. He knew, unlike the many, many jerkasses in Parliament and outside it who wished they could help the slaveocrats crush the republic, that the one way the Union could have been completely united would have been for the ancient enemy to invade at its hour of greatest difficulty.
As Shelby Foote said, the Union fought the bulk of the war with one hand behind its back, largely for political reasons. When we finally brought out the other fist, the racist fucks got murdered.
And that, frankly, would have happened to the Brits.
The way the British were able to run their empire for so long was by pointedly staying out of major land wars – or by paying others to do the majority of the fighting on land.
The one time they tried otherwise, in 1914, they bankrupted themselves and gained only a temporary respite in return.
November 9th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Note that the USA was still paying off the Louisiana Purchase during the Pennisula War –about $650,000 per year to draw down the total loan of $11,250,000.
One incentive the Brits had for grabbing New Orleans was to remove the incentive Congress had to keep passing money to Napoleon.
See http://www.louisianapurchase2003.com/history/documents/treaty2.htm
November 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
“If war ever broke out with the US by 1930, its doubtful they would have entered the war on GB’s behalf since their geographical and economic interests were much closer to America’s – especially if you factor in Japan’s empire in the Pacific.”
Are you referring to Australia or Canada?
Australia you have a point, their view was that the winner ao an anglo-american war would be – Japan
Canada wouldn’t have had a choice, Plan Red called for a surprise attack on Canada using chemical weapons on civilian population centers followed by massive invasion, much of the planning went into crushing civilian resistance by copying the methods of the Spanish in Cuba and the British in the Boer republics – sort of a jazz age “shock-n-awe”
November 9th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
“. No way the Southern States would have ever defeated the North and even if they did, their economy was so dependent on the north, they never would have made any kind of anti-Union alliance with a third country going into the 20th century.”
Agreed, of course but this part:
”That said, those books are porn for Confederacy-lovers”
I don’t think so, he has written short stories that do show an independent CSA more realistically as an unimportant 3rd world basket case, but he wanted to write a story about the WWI Western Front being fought where the Civil War was fought, and in order to do that, you have to hand wave the south in 1914 into a modern industrial nation
I think its just a plot device rather then a political statement
November 9th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Jefft452:
Herein lies the problem with speculative fiction. History and wars never occur in a vacuum. A war between the US and Great Britain in 1930, short of some kind of crazy right wing fascist take over of the US government, was an impossibility. And further, had England had the stones to go to war with the US (as ridiculously daunting as such an undertaking would be) then they certainly would have put a re-militarizing German in its place and WWII never would have happened, at least in Europe.
I’d actually like to read the Turtledove series and I didn’t want to imply I was an enemy of the books. They must be good because they’re very popular and I LOVE speculative fiction.
Still; in a vacuum, I think Canada, looking at a war between the US and Britain, would have had a lot of factors to consider. If the US wins and they sided with GB, they’s certainly lose territory and perhaps their existence. If the war was a stalemate and they sided with GB, they’d have a pissed off neighbor to the south that dwarfed them in every demographic and was naturally, their largest trading partner by a country mile. There’s no conceivable scenario where GB would have triumphed in a war with the US.
If, however, war broke out between the US and GB and Canada stayed neutral, they’d have a pissed off mother country and probably a great deal of civil unrest; possibly even a rebellion. Still, option three, bad as that would be, would likely be the sanest course. Canadians, if they are anything, are level-headed, sane people. So no matter how crazy the world would have gotten, I think Canada would have told Great Britain, ’sorry aye, but we’re not aboot to git mixed up in this little dust up, you know.’
November 10th, 2009 at 12:15 am
”I’d actually like to read the Turtledove series and I didn’t want to imply I was an enemy of the books. They must be good because they’re very popular and I LOVE speculative fiction”
I have trouble recommending Turtledove, he CAN write well, and he CAN come up with interesting plots, but most of the time, he just plagiarizes his other books (hard to describe, I know that you cant plagiarize yourself, but if you read more then one of his books you start seeing the exact same book over and over again with minor changes)
His short stories tend to be better – the pair “21 counting up” and “41 counting down” are great
My larger point vis Canada was that the US didn’t plan on giving Canada a choice, War Plan Red envisioned Canada’s conquest and dissolution with no option for a Canadian neutrality, surrender, or negotiated peace. The joint planning board always made the assumption the US would be the aggressor in a war with Britain and would initiate any conflict
minutes of the joint planning board were published in the 60’s or 70’s – (they may still be available) if you like speculative fiction its worth trying to find them
the Army and Navy often had different concepts and conflicting strategies especially War Plan White (communist revolution in the US) and War Plan Orange (war with Japan), but crucifying Canada was something they both agreed on – centered around mustard gas attacks on civilian population centers
November 10th, 2009 at 12:17 am
N, Canada was not able to declare war independently until 1931. Therefore if war had broken out in 1930 between the United States and Great Britain, Canada would have automatically been at war with the United States the instant that great britain declared war.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:35 am
PS
The naval the Bureau of Construction was always run by rabidly anti-British Admirals, with the result that the USN was designed to fight the Royal Navy
This worked out well, if you build the Great White Fleet to fight Britain and you end up fighting Spain you’re in good shape, but if you build a navy to fight Argentina and you end up fighting Japan – well, you’re screwed
That war with Britain was considered a real possibility was the driving force behind the US goals in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1921, Japan was an afterthought
November 10th, 2009 at 9:25 am
If war ever broke out with the US by 1930, its doubtful they would have entered the war on GB’s behalf since their geographical and economic interests were much closer to America’s – especially if you factor in Japan’s empire in the Pacific.
A comment formed looking at maps, rather than people. Canadian fears about war with the United States were–and presumably still are–based on fears of American aggression.
Ultimately, the choosing of sides by the autonomous “white dominions” in a US-Britain conflict would have been based on the source of the conflict. If Britain went fascist, Canada most likely would have tried to avoid becoming a battleground. If the United States went fascist, Britain would have been Canada’s only hope for continued independence. If war had broken out over some petty squabble–as had almost happened a couple of times before World War I–it could have gone either way.
November 10th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Okay, I was somewhat on board until this. This is a silly red herring that’s actually taught in high school history books. The cause of the war was the election of a bunch of congressmen from the west (meaning Kentucky and Ohio and such) that wanted to go to war with Britain. Their issues were British support of Indians, by that time it was Tecumseh and his bunch, and a desire to conquer Canada.
The areas of the country most affected by the impressement of seamen weren’t in favor of going to war because even while they were busy with Napoleon the British Navy was able to gut American commerce. There was even talk that New England should secede and make a separate piece with Great Britain.
Believing that the War of 1812 was about impressement is the equivalent of believing the Iraq War just coincedentally happened in a country that has a lot of oil.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Okay, I was somewhat on board until this. This is a silly red herring that’s actually taught in high school history books. The cause of the war was the election of a bunch of congressmen from the west (meaning Kentucky and Ohio and such) that wanted to go to war with Britain. Their issues were British support of Indians, by that time it was Tecumseh and his bunch, and a desire to conquer Canada.
Oh, that’s certainly plausible. Two frontier states with 1% of the nation’s wealth and population somehow bullied the other 99& of the country into going along with a war. Without controlling the national broadcasting systems that didn’t exist in 1812.
November 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Uh if I recall correctly didnt much of New England NOT go to war in 1812?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Oh, that’s certainly plausible. Two frontier states with 1% of the nation’s wealth and population somehow bullied the other 99& of the country into going along with a war. Without controlling the national broadcasting systems that didn’t exist in 1812
yeah right! that would be like Max Baucus of Montana, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, and Chuck Grassley of Iowa being a “gang of 6″ to dictate if we have a public option in HCR
3% of the country? no way that could ever happen
November 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
The areas of the country most affected by the impressement of seamen weren’t in favor of going to war…
The areas most affected would have been Hampshire, Sussex, Kent etc
Propaganda aside, American Consuls in overseas ports had a considerable portion of their income from selling fraudulent citizenship papers to Royal Navy deserters
The British gov had no interest in grabbing random Americans, but as the US paid its sailors about 5 times what the British paid theirs, they had a lot of interest in preventing the flood of British sailors “jumping ship” for the decent pay and living conditions on American ships (comparatively, even being an American sailor still sucked by modern standards of course)
November 12th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
This thread highlights several important themes. The main one being just how very little the people posting here seem to know about the War of 1812. It’s really quite amazing.