Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:28 PM   #11

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,167

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
Waiting out the British Empire was not an option.

1. The US did NOT have superior industry to the vast British Empire.

2. Assuming the Americans could hold the Great Lakes the bulk of Naval Construction at that point was on the Eastern Seaboard which was a prime target for British wartime planners.

3. The American fleet would never have been able to beat the Royal Navy let alone fight them to draw. But lets assume that they could fight the Royal Navy to draw. It would be Jutland all over. The American fleet would flee to southern ports and leave the northern ports to be blockaded and the great cities to be bombed by aircraft from Halifax and the Royal Navy.

4. The British Caribbean Fleet would be waiting for them when they tried to hide in the Southern ports

5. A drawn out war would have gone against the Americans, the longer the war went the more time the British would have to mobilize millions of troops from across the vast width of their Empire.

Someone earlier in post said it was poorly researched as an overall plan. which is indded incorrect. The American general staff did it's due diligence but the overall assumptions made were more well wishes then reality in wartime planning.

The assumption that Canada would have declared neutrality was debunked when Defense Scheme 1 came to light showing that the Canadians under Brigadier General Brown were doing extensive wartime planning and had well laid plans for the yanks.
Wow! And they say we're overly nationalistic.
diddyriddick is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 22nd, 2012, 04:38 PM   #12
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddyriddick View Post
Wow! And they say we're overly nationalistic.
There are a few remaining old imperialists you'll run across from time to time on the internet that put the most jingoistic, flag-waving, red-blooded hill-billy to shame.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether he's seen any statistics at all about relative manufacturing output in the early 20th century or if he's just assuming it must be true, because his first point is one of the most blatantly false statements I've ever seen. Both the US and Germany had surpassed Great Britain in manufacturing output by the late 19th century, let alone the early 20th. I think the US had already hit its traditional figure of a quarter of global output by 1910.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:06 PM   #13

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

I wont lie, I don't know of this "red plan". Perhaps someone could kindly brief me?
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:42 PM   #14
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,620

War_Plan_Red War_Plan_Red

1930 US plan for war with Britain. Finally conquering Canada. The US had two plans for war allied with Britain and France, one for war against Britain, and another for war against Britain and Japan both allied together.

Don't see what the big deal is. Already had two wars with Britain. Had plans for wars against Germany, France, Japan, and Mexico too.
betgo is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 05:55 PM   #15

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 6,094
Blog Entries: 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
War Plan Red - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1930 US plan for war with Britain. Finally conquering Canada. The US had two plans for war allied with Britain and France, one for war against Britain, and another for war against Britain and Japan both allied together.

Don't see what the big deal is. Already had two wars with Britain. Had plans for wars against Germany, France, Japan, and Mexico too.
Thank you, kind sir!

Most interesting, if a bit ambitious, I might add.

Not entirely illogical to make such plans, even against allies.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 06:20 PM   #16

Paragonrex's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 410

Lol,

Indeed gentlemen, I am an unrepentant Imperialist but I am not a citizen from the U.K. or Commonwealth. I am 100% American born and raised in the great state of Missouri. And while I am grateful for all the perks of being born in the U.S. I lament for Empire lost. I mourn for a world where the British are anything but the unchallenged rulers of the waves. I genuinely shed a tear during the British hand back of Hong Kong. I know no ones perfect but my blood boils at the thought of the sheer arrogance of the American war planners including one Douglas MacArthur to think that they could give battle to history's greatest Empire.

And I will indeed retrieve the stats for the comparable industrial output of the U.S. vs. the British Empire. Many times people make the mistake of thinkgin of the industrial output of England or the core U.K. nations, they forget about the rest of the Empire, like Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong.
Paragonrex is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 07:44 PM   #17
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Thank you, kind sir!

Most interesting, if a bit ambitious, I might add.

Not entirely illogical to make such plans, even against allies.
Britain was an ally in WWI and WWII but it wasn't really an ally in 1930. The US had plans for war against every likely enemy, France, Britain, Japan, Germany, and Mexico, plus plan for interventions in the Americas, revolt in the Philippines or the US and so on. This stuff got declassified 50 years later, but I would assume that most countries have/had similar contingency plans.
betgo is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 12:46 AM   #18
Scholar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 669

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragonrex View Post
And I will indeed retrieve the stats for the comparable industrial output of the U.S. vs. the British Empire. Many times people make the mistake of thinkgin of the industrial output of England or the core U.K. nations, they forget about the rest of the Empire, like Canada, Australia, India, Hong Kong.
None of which were relevant at the time. They're the difference, IIRC, between 15% for the British Empire in terms of total output of 15.5% or 16%. Colonization and the Empire were never more than an animus on the Home Islands.
MAlexMatt is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 07:44 AM   #19
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,715

War Plan Red conerned two main operational objectives: 1) the Canadian Maritimes and 2) the rail junctions at Winnipeg.

Control of the first would cut off Canada from Britain, control of the second would isolate both the industrial area from Windsor to Toronto, and also the west coast.

The St. Lawrence Valley would be cut off as a route to the interior by control of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Control of Winnipeg would cut off transport of raw material to Canadian industry.

IIRC, there was also intent to secure Vancouver and Vancouver Island. That would deny the RN a port, but that is so remote from Great Britain it was of less importance.

Incidentally, Lt. Colonel Brown had formulated "Defense Scheme No. One" some years before War Plan Red came to be. The Canadian plan was to divert US forces by moves on Seattle and Minneapolis until Britain could mobilize troops and materiel. The General Staff nixed it.

Frankly both 'Red' and 'Scheme' were harebrained. You can almost imagine staff planners grinning at them over drinks at the Officers' Club.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 10:54 AM   #20
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,620

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
Frankly both 'Red' and 'Scheme' were harebrained. You can almost imagine staff planners grinning at them over drinks at the Officers' Club.
Yeh, reasonable to have contingency plans for a war with Britain, but the invasion of Canada and the ways of going about it seem pretty weird.
betgo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
fail, plan, red, war


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fail EMPORORK Speculative History 2 April 14th, 2012 11:59 AM
Was there a D-Day Plan B? Apicius War and Military History 24 February 24th, 2012 06:53 AM
Has any military plan gone 100% according to plan? forEVERLONGshot General History 5 January 10th, 2010 10:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.