Korean Job Discussion Forums

[le-paul]

Source - Daily mail 14/4/2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039453/How-America-planned-destroy-BRITAIN-1930-bombing-raids-chemical-weapons.html

Details of an amazing American military plan for an attack to wipe out a major part of the British Army are today revealed for the first time.

In 1930, a mere nine years before the outbreak of World War Two, America drew up proposals specifically aimed at eliminating all British land forces in Canada and the North Atlantic, thus destroying Britain's trading ability and bringing the country to its knees.

Previously unparalleled troop movements were launched as an overture to an invasion of Canada, which was to include massive bombing raids on key industrial targets and the use of chemical weapons, the latter signed off at the highest level by none other than the legendary General Douglas MacArthur.

The plans, revealed in a Channel 5 documentary, were one of a number of military contingency plans drawn up against a number of potential enemies, including the Caribbean islands and China. There was even one to combat an internal uprising within the United States.

In the end there was no question of President Franklin D. Roosevelt subscribing to what was known as War Plan Red. Instead the two countries became the firmest of allies during WW2, an occasionally strained alliance that continues to this day.

Still, it is fascinating that there were enough people inside the American political and military establishment who thought that such a war was feasible.

While outside of America, both Churchill and Hitler also thought it a possibility during the 30s - a time of deep economic and political uncertainty.

In 1931, the U.S. government even authorised record-breaking transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles A. Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay to investigate the possibility of using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads.
In 1931, the U.S. government authorised transatlantic flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent covertly as a spy to the west shore of Hudson Bay
+7

In 1931, the U.S. authorised flying hero and known Nazi sympathiser Charles Lindbergh to be sent as a spy to Hudson Bay to look into using sea-planes for warfare and seek out points of low resistance as potential bridgeheads

Four years later, the U.S. Congress authorised $57million to be allocated for the building of three secret airfields on the U.S. side of the Canadian border, with grassed-over landing strips to hide their real purpose.

All governments make 'worst case scenario' contingency plans which are kept under wraps from the public. These documents were unearthed buried deep within the American National Archives in Washington, D.C. - a top-secret document once regarded as the most sensitive on earth.

It was in 1930, that America first wrote a plan for war with 'The Red Empire' - its most dangerous empire.

But America's foe in this war was not Russia or Japan or even the burgeoning Nazi Germany.

Plan Red was code for an apocalyptic war with Britain and all her dominions.

After the 1918 Armistice and throughout the 1920s, America's historic anti-British feelings handed down from the 19th century were running dangerously high due to our owing the U.S. £9billion for their intervention in The Great War.

British feeling against America was known to be reciprocal.

By the 1930s, America saw the disturbing sight of homegrown Nazi sympathisers marching down New York's Park Avenue to converge on a pro-Hitler rally in Madison Square Garden.

Across the Atlantic, Britain had the largest empire in the world, not to mention the most powerful navy.

Against this backdrop, some Americans saw their nation emerging as a potential world leader and knew only too well how Britain had dealt with such upstarts in the past - it went to war and quashed them.

Now, America saw itself as the underdog in a similar scenario.

In 1935, America staged its largest-ever military manoeuvres, moving troops to and installing munitions dumps at Fort Drum, half an hour away from the eastern Canadian border.

(read the rest online)

[aq8knyus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZNBwYFOxd8

There was a Channel 5 documentary about it and it is on youtube.

Britain would have probably lost, but the US would have had decades of angry Canadians to contend with and New York et al would have been flattened.

[le-paul]

[young_clinton]

All during the 1920's the British were planning for the possibility of engaging in a war with the U.S. Is it possible that the U.S. was developing chemical weapons as a defense? The British had used poisonous gas against the Germans, as well as Small Pox infected blankets against the Mohawks during the Pontiac Wars, something the Americans never did. This would be of course unless you can come up with a source that is better than the sources that my professors at a major research institution were using when teaching me medical history.

The Daily Mail, isn't that the British Tabloid that was spouting off that Amanda Knox was innocent and a victim?

[young_clinton]

[Scorpion]

[Scorpion]

[guavashake]

http://www.army.mod.uk/operations-deployments/22727.aspx

The prairie of Alberta has provided an excellent opportunity for the British Army to train on a large scale.
The British Army Training Unit Suffield (BATUS) is an organisation situated on one of the most sparsely populated areas of the Alberta plain.

The training area at BATUS is equivalent in size to the combined area all of the main training areas used by British Army in the UK and in Europe

[Steelrails]

[aq8knyus]

[aq8knyus]

[young_clinton]

The US economy was bigger than that of the British Empire, but not by much, though steel production was far greater. [/quote]

Do you have the figures on that, because the U.S. economy surpassed Britain in the 1880's. By the 1920's it must have been considerably larger. Consider the fact by the entry of the U.S. in World War II, the U.S. was supplying 90% of the overall materials with its massive economy compared to the other countries.

[aq8knyus]

Americans always go on about winning the world wars single handedly, even in movies like saving private ryan, but I am glad that you are not that misinformed.

As for the mobilisation of imperial forces, Irish, Indians, Africans etc all volunteered in large numbers for service in support of the war effort in both world wars. The British Indian Army during WWII stood at 2.5 million and were all volunteers. They formed an important part of British 14th Army that was in turn the largest Army formation in the world and included a number of decorated African divisions. This was the force that defeated the Japanese at Imphal and Kohima, the second largest defeat in Japanese military history.

The depth of the support from dominion and imperial troops was so great that it was the British army alone that was capable of offensive action in 1919. There is no reason to suggest that if called upon they would not answer the call to fight an expansionist US just as effectively.

Finally, the US economy surpassed the British in the 1890s, but that is only counting the British Isles. From the figures I have seen the US economy of the time was far bigger than Britain alone (hardly surprising considering the vast difference in size), but only a little bit bigger than the Empire as a whole.

[Steelrails]

Any war between England and the US would have come down to Britain being able to sustain its maritime commerce. If the US had gained naval superiority, Britain would have been finished. It wouldn't have had the raw materials, most importantly the petroleum, to sustain a war effort and would have rapidly capitulated as the populace starved and shivered.

The problem is that the US can make good its losses and deploy them more rapidly. Once Britain loses a capital ship, it will take years to replace it. USA? They're like serpent's teeth, lose one and three will take its place. And if somehow the US had managed to get Germany and its UBoats on its side...

As for colonial forces, they are only good if Britain has the logistical capacity to transport and maintain them. You can't snap your fingers and suddenly move 2.5 million Indians onto American/British territory. The natural resources of Africa and India don't magically fly over to the British Isles. I also think that the Americans would have been far more successful in sowing dissension and rebellion in the ranks of those colonial peoples.

[Hokie21]