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 23rd, 2012, 10:04 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,675

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
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.
Actually....chances of armed conflict between US and UK/Canada were almost nil, but the objectives of War Plan Red are strategically sound.

For that matter, the objectives of Def. Scheme #1 are also sound.

Neither could "conquer" the other. Objectives held or neutralized would have been temporary, pending negotiations IMO.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 12:02 PM   #22

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
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.
Well naturally. I would be surprised if most countries did not adopt this attitude. It's better to be prepared than not to be.

Although, one would only make complex plans if one expects confrontation of somekind in the future, imo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
Actually....chances of armed conflict between US and UK/Canada were almost nil, but the objectives of War Plan Red are strategically sound.

For that matter, the objectives of Def. Scheme #1 are also sound.

Neither could "conquer" the other. Objectives held or neutralized would have been temporary, pending negotiations IMO.
Yes, I do agree with this. Both plans would seemingly cancel each other out. Strategically Canada is key, as it has been in previous conflict and potential conflicts with USA and Britain.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 01:40 PM   #23

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,239

http://strategytheory.org/military/u...%20-%20Red.pdf


here is the original plan.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:31 PM   #24
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,675

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
The scope of operations assumed by the 1930 plan seems impossibly ambitious. I didn't read all of it, but it appears to call for a war on two sides of the world - with military operations conducted along a 3,000+ mile border area right next to the US.

Naval operations across the Caribbean plus Bermuda; defense of the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, the Canal Zone.....blah, blah.

In 1930 the US had neither enough army or navy to pull all that off. Not to mention the economic debacle that was about to overtake the US.

The plan seems to be one of "requisite military optimism." "We will do" all this stuff. It is like a business plan submitted to management. You gotta say you are going to do it whether the resources are there or not.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 03:39 PM   #25
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,561

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
The scope of operations assumed by the 1930 plan seems impossibly ambitious. I didn't read all of it, but it appears to call for a war on two sides of the world - with military operations conducted along a 3,000+ mile border area right next to the US.

Naval operations across the Caribbean plus Bermuda; defense of the Philippines, Hawaii, Alaska, the Canal Zone.....blah, blah.

In 1930 the US had neither enough army or navy to pull all that off. Not to mention the economic debacle that was about to overtake the US.

The plan seems to be one of "requisite military optimism." "We will do" all this stuff. It is like a business plan submitted to management. You gotta say you are going to do it whether the resources are there or not.

Right. War with Britain would put the US in a difficult situation. Therefore, there needed to be a plan for it.

There was another plan for a simultaneous war against Britain and Japan. Again, the US would have a problem if that happened. Therefore, there needed to be a plan for it.
betgo is online now  
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 10:59 AM
Was there a D-Day Plan B? Apicius War and Military History 24 February 24th, 2012 05:53 AM
Has any military plan gone 100% according to plan? forEVERLONGshot General History 5 January 10th, 2010 09:12 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.