War Plan Red Happens - What Next?

[Blue cat]

I take it the consensus on this forum is that Defense Scheme No. 1, the Canadian plan to seize various strategic U.S. cities in response to any aggression, is not something to be taken seriously.

Pity.

IMHO the concept of raids by Canadian forces across the border in response to a U.S. attack may have made some sense. I'm having a hard time envisioning forces in western Canada being able to be redeployed to the Maritimes in time to do any good once the war started so perhaps sending them across the border might cause the U.S. to keep more forces in other sectors ? Still given warning before the conflict I suspect concentrating the defences in the Maritimes and perhaps Vancouver Island might have been the preference of the UK.

If the UK could hold onto Vancouver Island then a subsequent joint UK, Soviet and Japanese counter attack against Alaska, British Columbia and the Pacific North West might be easier

 

[Cockroach]

TBH there's too many question marks over what caused thing to get to War Plan Red to give a definitive answer. I mean, a US gone militaristic and building up for a decade is quite a different matter to c. 1930 the US and UK accidentally blunder into war. There's also the question of if the causus beli is 'big' enough to get all the US's population behind a total war, and so if they're willing to go in for the long haul...

Assuming conditions haven't changes sufficiently to cause major investments in military forces... the US army interwar (indeed, in any substantial run of peacetime prior to Korea...) could charitably be described as being weak and relatively poorly equipped (indeed, as late as 1939 US regular army strength -including air corp, logistics units etc.- was 170,000 with potentially 200,000 national guard and similar to call upon... in the same period Canada alone had about 5000 regulars and 50000 reserves). There's a very good chance that if the British get a few divisions into the coastal regions of Canada they can hold for at least six months (but loose the interior)...

If the US population is happy to seek a total war, in the longer term (12 months plus?) US industrial strength and population advantages will tell, and I see little hope of the poms holding 'mainland' Canada.

 

[Theoretical_TJ]

An executed aggressive WPR would do more to create an early armed European Union than just about anything else. It's entirely possible you'd see America portrayed as the new Napoleonic menace that everyone's going to try to contain. And contain it they can with ravaging the US merchant marine.

An unprovoked, defensive WPR...well, that's just going to make the British Empire go from Pax Brittanica to a broke joke in a heartbeat.

 

[hipper]

TBH there's too many question marks over what caused thing to get to War Plan Red to give a definitive answer. I mean, a US gone militaristic and building up for a decade is quite a different matter to c. 1930 the US and UK accidentally blunder into war. There's also the question of if the causus beli is 'big' enough to get all the US's population behind a total war, and so if they're willing to go in for the long haul...

Assuming conditions haven't changes sufficiently to cause major investments in military forces... the US army interwar (indeed, in any substantial run of peacetime prior to Korea...) could charitably be described as being weak and relatively poorly equipped (indeed, as late as 1939 US regular army strength -including air corp, logistics units etc.- was 170,000 with potentially 200,000 national guard and similar to call upon... in the same period Canada alone had about 5000 regulars and 50000 reserves). There's a very good chance that if the British get a few divisions into the coastal regions of Canada they can hold for at least six months (but loose the interior)...

If the US population is happy to seek a total war, in the longer term (12 months plus?) US industrial strength and population advantages will tell, and I see little hope of the poms holding 'mainland' Canada.

To be honest the British and the Americans can mobilise at the same rate and it’s only after a couple of years that American numerical superiority would be noticed as you say it depends on the Naval situation

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I’ve read a paper on War Plan Red and the corresponding British plans (they had no name as they weren’t actually in existence for the period - the author relies on statements from Admirals and politicians in the period for the British view).

In this it is generally assumed that War Plan Red would only come about via a trade disagreement that escalates (British view) or British attempts to blockade a third power and American shipping is interfered with (American view).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Further, to the suggestion that the loss of Canada would induce the British to surrender:

 

[Erin Go Bragh]

What book is this from?

Further, to the suggestion that the loss of Canada would induce the British to surrender:

 

[Ultima770]

Makes me wonder what the State of things would be to call for this war. A violation of the Monroe doctrine, a right wing President (for or against Germany), etc.

 

[corditeman]

Only to be expected, I suppose...

...As we Brits think about Hitler and Sealion, Napoleon, William of Normandy and Claudius Caesar, the United States of North America (the South American United States is Brazil) seems bent on refighting either the War of Independence or 1812.

I would agree that RN forces could blockade and bombard US East and West Coast ports, possibly in alliance with Japan, and probably go as far as seizing Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Cuba and American Samoa. At a very big pinch, possibly the Cape Hatteras islands, Nantucket, Long Island, Ellis Island and Manhattan. Controlling as it did the 'sea gates' of the oceans, the RN would seize every US merchant ship on the high seas and blockade the rest.

I foresee a 1920s or 1930s situation in which (like Germany) the US gains land but loses oceanic trade. Standard Oil and its subsidiaries would lose Chinese trade and the USA would have to talk to the Soviet Union or France or face economic disaster. A war at sea would be a disaster in Wall Street - unless a very quick war, a President who attacked Canada would face impeachment on economic grounds. Both France and Russia were badly weakened by the Great War. I would not care to be in the White House in that situation - you could trigger alliances between Italy, Germany, Japan and Britain.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

What book is this from?

It’s not a book, it’s a long article from the International History Review in December 2010.
Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War 1918-1931 by Christopher M Bell.

 

[Poach]

I don't think any such war would result in any major changes.

The US would easily seize Canada, with the US army contenting itself in playing whack-a-mole against the Canadian insurgency, who would in turn be kept supplied and bolstered by British arms and commando units.

Any such war would include a build-up, so I think you'd already have significant US and British naval forces stationed along the eastern seaboard (Bermuda for the UK) and Caribbean. Unless there's a major back-breaking disaster (eg Midway) for either side, I think it would be a war of naval actions and trading of islands.

On a global scale the RN (and RAF) had a significant advantage in basing: American trade would grind to a halt, greatly harming the US economy. Would the US want to continue the war for very long just to gain Canada and some Caribbean islands? I think it would depend what started the war.

I foresee the ensuing peace being essentially Status Quo Ante Bellum: no territory changes hands and whatever crisis sparked the war being resolved in some sort of compromise.

What it would end up doing is probably seeing a more militarised UK in the late 30s, better placed to oppose Germany, though with a population that may not want to do so.

 

[Redcoat]

Hmmmm....Maybe Thule could be used as a base for the Americans to reach into Europe. And possibly some island hopping equivalent?

 

[fastmongrel]

Everybody seems to be talking about Canada as if it was just a colonial outpost of the British Empire. Before the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931 it was a self governing colony with a democratically elected Parliament but was in effect apart from Imperial War and trade policy plus Royal succesion laws an independent nation. It was also a founding member of the admittedly fairly toothless League of Nations.

After 1931 Canada was an independent democracy and an excellent friend to the US what the hell leads to a war apart from the entire US government drinking LSD spiked illegal hooch and thinking Canada was a giant purple dragon.

 

[Cockroach]

What the hell leads to a war apart from the entire US government drinking LSD spiked illegal hooch and thinking Canada was a giant purple dragon.

There's the (fairly remote, Pommyland wasn't keen to fight the Yanks, but shit hitting the fan is always possible...) possibility of conflict between the UK and US developing elsewhere and the Yanks jumping to a gross misunderstanding of Canada's status, as demonstrated above (and in previous similar threads, and the current rubbish skip fire on NavWeapons, etc. etc. etc.) despite Canada claiming neutrality or similar.

As for LSD spiked hooch and purple dragons... recent US politics suggests that's probably saner than OTL...

 

[South Sea Pirate]

Everybody seems to be talking about Canada as if it was just a colonial outpost of the British Empire. Before the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931 it was a self governing colony with a democratically elected Parliament but was in effect apart from Imperial War and trade policy plus Royal succession laws an independent nation. It was also a founding member of the admittedly fairly toothless League of Nations.

In the OP I did suggest Canada could, in a US v UK 1920's/30's war, declare neutrality and effectively leave the British empire. This is an interesting scenario in itself.

However in the 1930's there was still much loyalty to the British empire. It was also a key part of the Canadian National identity at that time. So in a US/UK face-off, I don't think it is certain Canada would choose the US.

 

[ar-pharazon]

Is it possible with sufficient naval build up and US luck for American troops to land on the shores of the UK?

 

[wcv215]

Is it possible with sufficient naval build up and US luck for American troops to land on the shores of the UK?

Possible? Yes. In any way, shape, or form probable? No. IMO any war between the US and UK is going to be limited in scope. You won't see a full-scale war to the finish like we did in WWII. Neither country is enough of a threat to the other (or at least cares to be enough of a threat). This ties into just how hard it is to get a war going between the two, there just wasn't that much for them to fight about by the 1930s. It requires at least one country going off the rails for something to break out.

 

[wcv215]

IMHO if the goal was largely to invade Alaska (which might be a reasonable Soviet war aim) and perhaps portions of BC and the PNW in the U.S. I don't believe such a plan is necessarily stupid.

The UK could potentially facilitate troop landings along the coast so the invasion might not be a largely overland affair.

On the other hand trying to invade the bulk of the U.S. and and an actively resisting Canada via Alaska would seem rather foolish to me.

Sorry for the late answer, I didn't realize I hadn't responded to this.

Yes, IMO any plan to attack the Pacific Northwest, or Alaska is still stupid. Look, from Vladivostock to Alaska is 5,000 kilometers. That's the width of the Atlantic that you have to transport an army across. Its akin to invading France from North America (with no Britain in the way), only you are going into far, FAR worse terrain, and against an enemy with a stronger navy. And here's the thing, Alaska cannot support an army on its own, so once those supply lines are cut that's it, army's finished. That's not even getting into the ENORMOUS cost of transporting the war materiel necessary for an invasion of Alaska across SIBERIA. Which you know only has the one major rail route. Landing additional troops along other parts of the coast just means stretching the already awful logistics farther, way beyond where they will break, and leave smaller individual forces for the Americans to surround and defeat.

Invasions across the ocean are HARD. Really, really hard.

 

[Blue cat]

Sorry for the late answer, I didn't realize I hadn't responded to this.

Yes, IMO any plan to attack the Pacific Northwest, or Alaska is still stupid. Look, from Vladivostock to Alaska is 5,000 kilometers. That's the width of the Atlantic that you have to transport an army across. Its akin to invading France from North America (with no Britain in the way), only you are going into far, FAR worse terrain, and against an enemy with a stronger navy. And here's the thing, Alaska cannot support an army on its own, so once those supply lines are cut that's it, army's finished. That's not even getting into the ENORMOUS cost of transporting the war materiel necessary for an invasion of Alaska across SIBERIA. Which you know only has the one major rail route. Landing additional troops along other parts of the coast just means stretching the already awful logistics farther, way beyond where they will break, and leave smaller individual forces for the Americans to surround and defeat.

Invasions across the ocean are HARD. Really, really hard.

Well I seem to recall at least some of the U.S. Forces in operation Torch sailed direct from the U.S. So IMHO it isn't impossible to launch trans oceanic invasions. A lot would depend on the likely US resistance (both on land and at sea.)
The Japanese also historically managed to seize minor portions of Alaska in WW2. If the UK could also hold onto a port on the west coast then things might be more interesting.

The logistical issues also affect the U.S. particularly if they aren't able to rely on sea borne supply and the UK manages to disrupt the limited potential land routes via BC (ie commando raids against choke points, Canadian stay behind forces etc.)

Even with the co operation of the Canadians building the Alaska highway in ww2 was a massive undertaking.

If UK and the Japanese can cut US seaborne traffic to Alaska and the U.S. cant push a land route thru via BC then I could see the Soviets deciding it was a good time to take Alaska Then perhaps the UK might try and push further south.

 

[Luminous]

This all depends on the timescale we're operating under, of course. When is this war occurring? What leads up to it? Etc.

I'm currently operating under the assumption that there is a rift in US-UK relations in the aftermath of WW1, with the peace treaty against Germany being incredibly harsh, leading to the US denouncing it and withdrawing from the participation in the treaty, nonparticipation in the League of Nations, etc. Wilson himself limps through the rest of his term, devastated at how he has been ignored by the imperial powers of Europe and how the nations of Europe had been divvied up for their game. The US continues its hurried shipbuilding, perhaps even accelerating all that they can (which isn't much) - they are fearful that what happened to Germany might someday happen to them. Some floaters about a conference to end the accelerated construction of large warships, but the calls on both sides are ignored, and the US and UK forge ahead with their construction goals. Considering how US-UK relations have turned sour, the UK and Japan maintain their relationship.

In 1923, the Ruhr is occupied by the French and the Belgians. With animosity greater between both sides of the Atlantic, the eventual Dawes commission does not end up being created, and the occupation of the Ruhr continues for an even longer period of time while the British try and dislodge the French. The Great Kanto Quake strikes, and the majority of Japanese shipbuilding grinds to the halt, taking them out of the race. And, in 1924, the first of the South Dakotas and Lexingtons begin to be launched, and the UK is hustling to attempt to build enough N3s to keep up. Seeing that the UK is at risk of losing the naval monopoly, especially now that the Japanese are years behind their building schedules, it would be best to try and risk war now when the UK has a reasonable advantage and with an ally in the Pacific to distract them than to risk war later.

And here, Canada could go and refuse to join in to protect itself, remaining neutral, or it could launch its first strike, but in this scenario both nations have been preparing for war for years. It's not a sneak attack against an unprepared foe.

-

Honestly, that's the best I can think of for a war in the time period, as frankly there isn't a reason for the two nations to go to war barring something massive happening in either (or both) countries. I mean... "maybe" the US suddenly goes land crazy and decides to invade Canada? Doubtful. Perhaps the US decides to invade and occupy Canada to protect it from a Communist Britain that is trying to claim the whole Empire for itself? I mean, the whole scenario is such a stretch...

the United States of North America (the South American United States is Brazil)

Pardon? The official name of Brazil is the Federative Republic of Brazil. There is no "United States of South America" or "United States of North America". And why call Brazil that? Argentina and Venezuela are also both federal states with just as much "claim" to the title.

Attempting to diminish the US by intentionally mislabeling it is just petty posturing. I can't recall any other country that has bothered to put America in its name (at least since the demise of the UPCA in 1840).

I would agree that RN forces could blockade and bombard US East and West Coast ports, possibly in alliance with Japan, and probably go as far as seizing Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, Cuba and American Samoa. At a very big pinch, possibly the Cape Hatteras islands, Nantucket, Long Island, Ellis Island and Manhattan. Controlling as it did the 'sea gates' of the oceans, the RN would seize every US merchant ship on the high seas and blockade the rest.

Samoa is lost, same with Puerto Rico, likely. While important, they are vestigial territories whose losses are tolerable.

However, Hawai'i is not nearly so sure as a thing as you're stating. The possibility of the Japanese invading Hawai'i at the peak of their power in 1941 is outright impossible, and that's in the sneak attack. A joint British-Japanese invasion against the fortifications of Hawai'i, and likely a prepared army and navy defense (as, again, the war does not erupt out of nothing).

Here are a list of historical forts and batteries around just Pearl Harbor. I've taken the time to bold the relevant batteries that would be available for defense, and that's not assuming butterflies in the timeline eventually leading to further defenses being set up.

The Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
FORT BARRETTE / Kapolei /1934- / city / county park / KKK
Hatch / 2/-16″/ BCLRN / 1934-1948 / casemated-WWII

FORT WEAVER / Puuloa / 1899 (1922) / Navy Housing / K
Williston / 2-16″/ BCLRA / 1924-1948/ ARF, destroyed
AMTB No. 1 / 2-90 mm/ F / 1943-1945
Weaver / 4-155 mm / PM

FORT KAMEHAMEHA / Queen Emma Point / 1908-1949 / Hickam AFB / MD?, MC / KKK
Hasbrouck / 8-12″/ M/ 1914-1943
Closson / 2-12″/ BCLR / 1924-1948/ casemated 1942
Selfridge/ 2-12″/ DC/ 1913-1945
Jackson/ 2-6″/ DC/ 1913-1943
Ahua/ 3-5″/ NP 1942-1944/ Ahua Pt.
Barri/ 2-4.7″/ A-CM/ 1915-1924/ Bishop Pt., destroyed
Chandler/ 2-3″/ P-CM/ 1915-1942/ Bishop Pt., destroyed
Hawkins/ 2-3″/ P/ 1914-1943
AMTB No. 2/ 2-90 mm/ F/ 1943-1946
Kam/ 4-155 mm/ PM

Puu O Hulu M.R. KK
“Hulu”/ 2-7″/ NCM/ 1942-1944 / incorperated into BCN# 303
#303/ 2-6″/ SBC/ 1942 NC/ tunneled into rock

Other locations- Pearl Harbor ?
Arizona/ 3-14″/ NT/ 1945 NC/ Kahe Pt., from USS Arizona
Burgess/ 4-8″/ 2xNT/ 1942-1948 / (Salt Lake) near Aliamanu Crater, destroyed
Brown’s Camp/ 4-8″/ RY/ 1937-1944/ Browns Camp, Kahe Point
Adair / 2-6″/ A-CM/ 1917-1925/ Ford Island, empl. elsewhere earlier ?
Boyd/ 2-6″/ A-CM / 1917-1925/ Ford Island
“Homestead”/ 3-7″/ NP/ 1942 / Keaau Homesteads
Nanakuli / 2-5″ / NP / 1941-1943 / plus 1 – 3″ NP / destroyed
Oneula/ 2-5″/ NP/ 1942-1944/ Oneula Beach (Ewa)
unnamed/ 2-240 mm/ H 1931-1941/ Laie
unnamed/ 1-240 mm/ H 1927-1941/ Pupukea
unnamed/ 3-240 mm/ H 1930-1941/ Makua
Awanui/ 4-155 mm/ PM 1942-1944/ Brown’s Camp
Barber’s Point/ 4-155 mm/ PM/ 1937-1942/ Barber’s Point / destroyed
X-Ray/ 4-155 mm/ PM 1942-1944/ Oneula Beach / destroyed
Homestead/ 4-155 mm/ PM/ 1942-1944/ Makua Military Reservation
Kahe Point/ 4-155 mm/ PM/ 1942-1944/ Kahe Point

There are other batteries available. Just thought I'd make the point.

Let's not even forget the range issue. It's thousands of nautical miles to the nearest Japanese or British base of any significance; British forces simply do not have the range to bring more than their largest ships. The yellow line is the mark for 2500 nautical miles (the Queen Elizabeth and the Revenge class had a max range of 5000 nm) and the red line is the mark for 2750 nm from Pearl (Nagato's max range was 5500 nm). It's impossible for the British to bring any of their more modern ships to try and invade the most important US naval base in the Pacific without risking losing the ships from running out of fuel.

The only ones that could be brought would be either the Kongos from Japan or the older Iron Duke (or older battleships). Perhaps Hood could have reached there, but it'd been pushing it. The worst thing is that the British and Japanese interdict forces coming from the US to reinforce Hawai'i, as the only base from which they could was in Vancouver, which is going to be under heavy assault at the least.





So, no, the Philippines might fall, Samoa likely will, and so will Guam at this stage. But forcing a landing on Hawai'i, at the very furthest reaches of their supplies and reach, against an entrenched opponent with a significant number of fortifications and a large army to resist, all the while having no ability to interdict support except by being on site, burning away precious fuel? It's not going to happen. The Japanese couldn't have pulled it off in WW2 in the best of situations. The two combined couldn't do it two decades before.

-

As for occupying portions of the west coast? Again, there's the range issue - the UK can only supply so many ships out of its ports, and has to maintain forces worldwide for other purposes. To look at the numbers... from 1900 to the mid 1920s, the UK built 512 destroyers (and lost 64 in WW1, but i'm not sure how many of those were pre-1900 DDs). That is the E-class all the way to the V & W class and the Shakespeare class. Of those, 184 designed before WW1, 235 were under construction starting from 1914 to 1916, and the remaining 93 were built from 1917 onwards.

In comparison, the US built 267 DDs in a span of 5 years, from 1917-1922. These were also, nearly universally, longer-legged than the British destroyers. This gives the US a large fleet of destroyers and torpedo boats which can operate locally and harass British vessels, while the British have to deal with supply issues. The destroyers have plenty of range to operate from Bermuda, Jamaica, Halifax, etc, but there is the question if there are enough docks in the Caribbean to support a fleet that would be able to combat the US on equivalent numbers - especially while some ports are under siege. (Halifax in particular).

Any lodgements that do occur must be constantly maintained by sea lines, else risking being thrown back. Such lodgements are far more precarious with Naval support being less than it would be in Europe proper, and attempts to knock them back into the sea would need the navy to support them. Which means that whenever the US Navy attempts an assault which forces the British to divert resources, they would be without cover and be subject to entrapment by local forces, which would be far larger. Such a scenario seems destined to end up in a Dunkirk-style setup, with local forces being far larger than what could be supported from the sea, and Naval support being rather fleeting.

And, while not as heavily fortified as Oahu, the Eastern Seaboard historically had a large number of coastal defenses set up along it. Fort Hamilton alone had 6 12" guns and 8 12" mortars in the relevant time period; by 1927, New York, Boston, and Hawai'i had 2 16"/50 guns apiece mounted and in service (these are the ones purpose-ordered for the army, and not surplus guns from the cancellation of Lexington and South Dakota). Combine that support with local fire support from the US fleet, and it's hard to see any significant landings from succeeding. Gallipoli might not be the most accurate specter to invoke, but it's the closest one of that time period, and the US are far stronger relative the the Ottomans and can devote far more troops (simultaneously, the UK would be using their best units instead of second-rate battleships and other obsolescent ones).

The Japanese also historically managed to seize minor portions of Alaska in WW2. If the UK could also hold onto a port on the west coast then things might be more interesting.

There's a slight difference between a few small, and in the end inconsequential islands in the Aleutians and a major port, of course. One of the islands was evacuated beforehand, and Kiska had 10 men and a single dog to offer resistance to an armed landing. I mean, the Moroccans managed to temporarily seize a Spanish island in 2002, but it helped that the island was barren and uninhabited.

If UK and the Japanese can cut US seaborne traffic to Alaska and the U.S. cant push a land route thru via BC

They could also push a land route through Alberta into northern BC worst to worst. Considering how sparsely populated Canada is, the Plains Provinces are a sure loss in the event of a war. And, even then, the Canadians might hold Vancouver, but that would leave the interior wide open.

I could see the Soviets deciding it was a good time to take Alaska

With what Navy in particular? Or are the Japanese providing sea lift? And, considering Soviet success against Poland, a nation that was as connected as closely to their metropole as there ever would be, engaging in a trans-Pacific invasion starting from the most far-flung reaches of their empire is a sure plan to continue those successes.

Then perhaps the UK might try and push further south.

The British invading into Washington and Oregon through... Vancouver? Again, how are they reaching that? Without drawing the soviets in, their nearest base would be Yokosuka, I think. And even then, the closest after that would be Vladivostok.

The disparity of forces are going to be massive by this point in time... I can't help but wonder how many troop transports would get sunk below the ocean TTL as well.

-

tl;dr: The US in North America and Hawai'i will prove to be virtually unassailable absent a surprise invasion of a nation that was not expecting war at all, which is an unlikely scenario. The British will successfully manage to take the far-flung portions of the US possessions, and will manage to commandeer or destroy a large portion of the American merchant marine thanks to the numerous bases around the world, but will have difficulty maintaining local numerical superiority at sea even assuming OTL numbers. If we assume that the US maintains its building programs at a constant clip from the end of WW1, then that numerical superiority will certainly be lost.