The RN / RCN base in western Canada is on Vancouver Island, not the mainland. Presumably other ports on the North Coast could have been pressed into service as well.
War Plan Red Happens - What Next?
- Thread starter South Sea Pirate
- Start date
Yes, if they receive a magic lamp they can maintain naval superiority off the West Coast.
There were reasons behind that performance, and Britain fared little better at the outset of the initial U-Boat campaign.
Ah yes, because the IJN, which OTL struggled to reach Hawaii, so much so there was a possibility of having to ABANDON their destroyers on the way back from Pearl Harbor if they stayed on-site much longer will manage to travel even farther to fight a significant battle. Right.
To be frank, from your posts I think you just utterly fail to grasp the distances being talked about here, and have even less clue about the level of effort needed to launch an invasion of Alaska from Siberia. Not to mention you seem to have no idea the sheer difference in scope of the US economy and that of Britain and Japan COMBINED. The US in 1937 had 41% of the world's warmaking potential. Britain and Japan together had 10%. You talk about some kind of magical battle in which Japan and Britain wave a magic wand and the USN vanishes beneath the waves thanks to the gallant efforts of the two with absolutely no losses whatsoever. But here's the thing, even if that happens, it doesn't matter. Certainly not with the two powers actively working to help the Soviets invade the country as you keep trying to insist will happen.
That kind of thing isn't something the US will simply take. You are looking at total war in such a circumstance, and that is a war the UK and Japan will lose. And they will lose badly. What do you think will happen when the Americans put a fleet twice the size of the combined IJN and RN to sea after two years? Or one four times larger in four years? What happens when that navy smashes any idiotic blockade and proceed to lock down the British Isles?
And to be completely frank, the idea that the Soviets are going to decide to attack the US alongside Japan and Britain is so nonsensical to be patently absurd. This whole idea that you keep putting forward is basically a perfect way to ensure that the US will destroy the British Empire, and the Japanese but that happened OTL.
I'm sorry to have to keep emphasizing this, but your idea is awful. An invasion of Alaska is suicidally stupid. Trying to fight the United States in North America is doomed to failure. Provoking the United States into total war will see whoever did so ruined in the end. It might take time, but at the end of OTL WWII when Britain was out of money, the Axis was in ruins, and the Soviets were stretched almost to breaking the US was still in many ways still warming up.
Britain is not going to commit national suicide like this.
That is a pretty good start.
I'll have a go at fleshing it out a bit more.
Initially there would be a split into territories based on the different invading forces (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Northern Ontario, Toronto, Quebec, Nova Scotia).
Whatever the final outcome, the objective would firmly control the largest ports and destroy any ability for a hostile power to arise in the former Canada.
The Americans may set up an independent Quebec, but would ensure American military control along the St Lawrence River. They may even take it a step further and set up an Acadian territory from the francophone parts of New Brunswick.
The anglophone parts of New Brunswick are joined to Nova Scotia as is PEI. Newfoundland would also be a separate territory. The Atlantic territories would also be subject to significant military focus. There will be a lot of pressure to make these territories US States.
Ontario would be carved up to weaken it as much as possible. Southern Ontario would be left as a rump territory, albeit the most populous . Far Northern Ontario would be ceded to a US Northern Territory which could encompass the NWT and the far northern parts of the Prairie provinces. Rainy River and Thunder Bay districts could be ceded to Minnesota, Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury could be ceded to Michigan. The carving up of Northern Ontario is designed to weaken its connection to the western provinces.
The Prairie provinces would become territories and have a more smoother ride to become states in the future.
Vancouver would be hived off to become its own territory and like Atlantic Canada there would be significant military focus on the access to the pacific and a concerted effort to make it a US State. The remainder of BC and Yukon would be added to Alaska territory.
Ideally this contains any ongoing civil resistance to Southern Ontario. However with such a concentrated urban population, civil resistance, both peaceful and violent, would be ongoing. More worryingly for the US it would also be adjacent to some of the most populated centres of mid 20th C United States.
Another flashpoint is how anglophones are treated in Quebec. If they are subject to repression a heavy handed state, Montreal could also be a flash point and a rallying call for the Canadian resistance.
I might have guessed...
...Are we back to the folly of the 1859 Pig War and the common sense of Admiral Baynes? The RN chooses when to fight.
US park rangers still fly the Union Flag over the 'English Camp', I understand. Very diplomatic.
...Are we back to the folly of the 1859 Pig War and the common sense of Admiral Baynes? The RN chooses when to fight.
US park rangers still fly the Union Flag over the 'English Camp', I understand. Very diplomatic.
Just a thought about the whole Francophone consequences. Now my understanding about the main reason why Quebecois Nationalism has stirred up so much and as quickly as it did as there was no threat by the US in the social conscious anymore. Therefore it would mean they would atl be incredibly resistant to be under the thumb of Washington. This sparks two questions in my mind:
1) What would their relations be with Washington
2) What would their relations (if any) be like with the Francophones of Acadia/New England but also Louisiana.
Considering how mental we have shown our actions to be during the wars of the 20th century, I doubt this would be any different. Surely French would become a suppressed language being seen as un-American in these very volatile circumstances, more so if France sides with the Empire in whatever state it is in. Potentially this would lead to many to an increasing number of Francophone sympathisers. Maybe there will be militants in the north pushing for a United Quebec while in the south the Front Nationale de la Louisiane leading their sister campaign against Washington.
Could other non-English speaking Americans have similar groups (militant or not) in this timeline within the psychological minefield of the Trans-Atlantic War?
Secondly as I doubt a treaty would ever be signed in such as scenario, could this likely be a super sized mirror of Korea otl?
1) What would their relations be with Washington
2) What would their relations (if any) be like with the Francophones of Acadia/New England but also Louisiana.
Considering how mental we have shown our actions to be during the wars of the 20th century, I doubt this would be any different. Surely French would become a suppressed language being seen as un-American in these very volatile circumstances, more so if France sides with the Empire in whatever state it is in. Potentially this would lead to many to an increasing number of Francophone sympathisers. Maybe there will be militants in the north pushing for a United Quebec while in the south the Front Nationale de la Louisiane leading their sister campaign against Washington.
Could other non-English speaking Americans have similar groups (militant or not) in this timeline within the psychological minefield of the Trans-Atlantic War?
Secondly as I doubt a treaty would ever be signed in such as scenario, could this likely be a super sized mirror of Korea otl?
Well.. How much of the U.S. Army was actually based in Alaska ? I doubt much would be needed in the way of forces to gain a reasonable foothold.
So if the USN is advancing against a base in Alaska that would help to aleviate the range issues of the RN warships.
I seem to recall the USSR being a competitior to the U.S. post WW2. What would stop the Soviet industry in helping UK and Japanese keep up with the U.S. ?
I have my doubts that the U.S. Could handle a long term war against the Soviet Union, Japan (along with what ever empire the Japanese pick up along the way) plus of course the UK and their empire.
Presumably the UK might be rather annoyed if poison gas was used against their citiziens as postulated earlier in this thread ? Perhaps they would see this as a total war even if the U.S. initally didn't ? Perhaps other countries see an opportunity to pile on the U.S. after they use gas post WW1 ?
Presumably the IJN and the RN can take along oilers to refuel their warships. I seem to recall the RN planned on refuling destroyers at sea if they launched operations against the Baltic in WW1. Presumably they could figure this out post WW1 if needed.
Anyways I think it is probably time to agree to disagree and move on.
Fair enough. My apologies; I'm used to hearing the phrase in a different manner.
I would think it'd be better to see that Brazil is akin to the US of South America, in that sense, considering its size in relation to its neighbors, as well as its population with respect to them.
ar-pharazon
Banned
If the US and Britain are somehow(assuming ASB manipulation) fully mobilized for a total war and motivated towards the absolute destruction or breaking of the other(for the UK it would be the capture of DC and capitulation of the USG for the US it would be the US flag flying in London and the British empire dismantled)
Anyway that's an ASB scenario but if so-how long would it take for a total war to reach either total American victory or total British victory?
Also what resources from the empire could the British mobilize? Surely they can raise tens of thousands of troops from India, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and elsewhere?
And if the US were to invade the UK what would be the best route to invade?
How many troops would be necessary for the British to seize DC? The entire east coast?
Anyway that's an ASB scenario but if so-how long would it take for a total war to reach either total American victory or total British victory?
Also what resources from the empire could the British mobilize? Surely they can raise tens of thousands of troops from India, Australia, NZ, South Africa, and elsewhere?
And if the US were to invade the UK what would be the best route to invade?
How many troops would be necessary for the British to seize DC? The entire east coast?
hipper
Banned
Quite a lot to be honest in WW1 the Grand fleet based itself at Scapa Flow, that’s an anchorage not a port all the oil and coal required was taken there by ship there is no reason the Royal navtvcannot do the same in any protected anchorage anywhere in the world
Question: why is the UK, when so opposed to the expansion of Soviet influence that it threatened to start directly arming the Poles to fight them, now turning around and begging them for help? Serious question. Just because Russia once owned Alaska doesn't mean that they want to reclaim it. (they sold it for a reason, after all)
The nearest island to California is Hawai'i. There's no protected anchorage for them to even set up near the west coast. The closest thing that might even fit your case is Christmas Island, which is itself too shallow in its lagoons to even have ships dock there! there's nothing protected about such an anchorage.
Your next closest bets are, again, Tarawa and Apia, both of which are over 2000 nautical miles away from Hawai'i, let alone the North American mainland.
Also, supplying your navy when it's just a little farther off your mainland isn't quite the same as doing so halfway around the world (quite literally). Scotland isn't exactly far from Great Britain; it's just about the opposite.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Should the British retain Vancouver Island/RNB Esquimalt then they are more likely to use it for raiding US shipping rather than trying to supply any dodgy land invasions.
What is war potential? Well mostly it is a figure carved out of pop-historians derrieres, given all the different ways you could differently weight the factors that go into arriving at it a bald figure such as 41% is meaningless, I would expect you mean per Kennedy (cf Rise and Fall of the Great Powers). The biggest problem is the computation changes a lot depending on which war is being fought. Some supplies of strategic raw materials for the US (certain metals for alloying armour and aircraft grade materials, I would have to check which ones) came from sources in Brazil and South Africa in this period...their interdiction thus has to recalibrate US war potential. Likewise the ability of the US to raise a large mechanised land force (ultimately, in the beginning of most of the interwar the British are ahead of them) would become meaningless once Canada had fallen even if the British did dispute a land war at first.
Now it is not all terrible for the US, towards the end of the period the Americans could probably out build the British two to one in naval warships and transport but building and training that fleet would take time at least two years and probably longer and things like the US car industry could contribute little in the meantime. There is a reason Britain thought in navalist terms.
So assume the US wins by big enough margin to punch out Canada for good. Incorporation is iffy. Any new US States will vote for whichever party was in opposition during the war just to spite their invaders. So basically statehood is the war turkeys voting for the peace of Christmas.
American territories is great for an America that want to permanently incense the majority of everyone, at home, abroad but especially in these Canadian territories. The long term consequences of this may eventually be untangled but we are looking at decades of difficult and painful occupation.
A Canadian Republic that was born by US invasion is going to look to some outside power (likely Britain but whoever in the long run) to make the odds of such happening again unlikely, unless the US install a dictatorship. The latter option is unlikely to play well at home barring a radically different America from OTL.
Oh and now the US needs to defend its interests abroad without the benefit of a benevolently neutral UK. For most US Politicians the win options are worse than the war itself.
This was, as someone pointed out, why War Plan Red was often used as a training exercise for junior offices, it is a tough challenge against just about the only enemy who had a real capacity to oppose the US in a land war on North American soil and the foremost peer opponent at sea. The additional fact it was massively unlikely to occur only made it more useful as a theoretical exercise in that it honed real skills with few political consequences. A bit like practising for war against zombies (fear those zombie chickens fear them!)
All good points, it would likely be a patchwork with what works best for each area.
Independence (w/American military support/domination) for francophones.
Statehood for the Prairies
Heavy naval presence for the seawater ports in Vancouver/Halifax/Newfoundland leading to Statehood.
Leaving a rump in Southern Ontario, a largely populated area which would be difficult to govern with many who have loyalties to the old dominion....
Deleted member 94680
All of which is a recipe for a long-term anti-American insurgency. Think Philippine Insurrection with more effective Francs-tireurs...
hipper
Banned
A coal fired merchant ship has a range of 10,000 to 20,000 miles so range to supply an anchorage is not a factor it just means you have got to use more ships to keep the pipeline stocked.
As to protected anchorages ther are plenty on the Canadian Pacific cost or on the Alaska panhandle I don’t see the issue
Only issue is the US Navy would be operating in the area, combined with the necessity of establishing the anchorage in the first place, getting the warships there in the first place to protect it from the US Navy, etc. Then there's defending the convoys as they go all the way around South America or all the way through the Suez to Japan and across the Bering Strait. And these would have to be escorted by the same short-ranged vessels they are trying to supply.
First, you have to get the warships there, which won't happen in peacetime. The US would happen to notice a massive buildup of naval ships right on their doorstep. So, they have to run the ships to the region during the war, which means the short range ships have to be escorted by fleet oilers and be jam packed with fuel, all the while defending against the US Navy which doesn't have the issues of resupply.
Then there's the additional problem of lack of regions to repair vessels, as these ships will be taking damage, and the only facilities in the region that could hope to repair them are in California. US vessels will be able to retire to Mare Island to repair battle damage, while the UK/Japanese fleet will have nothing of the sort in their anchorage. Severe damage would result in valuable vessels being scuttled rather than risking capture, which means that a crippled warship is as good as a sunk one.
If this is post-1933 the Canadians might just capitulate to be honest if you've got a big bally American army massing south of the border. There'd be the Tories who would have the inclination to fight to the death, but Canadian military planners would point out the total disparity in forces. There's the chance the Empire might sally to the rescue, but both sides would realize that the land war is, in the long term, unwinnable. The fight would be decided at sea.
As such, you might see an American occupation, with a generally sullen population combined with passive/active resistance. Integration would, depending on the area and political will, take at least a decade or more.
As such, you might see an American occupation, with a generally sullen population combined with passive/active resistance. Integration would, depending on the area and political will, take at least a decade or more.
Integration of Canadians into the USA?!
Are you crazy? I have had several people from Washington State who to my astonishment sincerely want to become Canadian, Boeing notwithstanding (but with sitting?).
You are asking for several generations of hostility worse than the former Confederacy and Texans.
Canadians (+ or - Quebecois) will on a free vote demand independence and regard Washington DC as a bunch of tyrants.
And what about the Inuit? They'll want Nunavut!
As bad an idea, as conquering the USA!
Are you crazy? I have had several people from Washington State who to my astonishment sincerely want to become Canadian, Boeing notwithstanding (but with sitting?).
You are asking for several generations of hostility worse than the former Confederacy and Texans.
Canadians (+ or - Quebecois) will on a free vote demand independence and regard Washington DC as a bunch of tyrants.
And what about the Inuit? They'll want Nunavut!
As bad an idea, as conquering the USA!
I expect this is my last post on this topic...
Re an alliance with the Soviets, in a world where the U.S. the attacks a dominion of the UK with poison gas I suspect the UK would be looking for any allies they could find. If the Soviets can be pursuaded to side with the UK (perhaps in return for getting to keep Alaska at the successful conclusion of the conflict) then the UK gets a strong continental partner who could presumably help keep the Germans in check while the UK deals with the U.S. I suspect the geo political goals of the UK might change in the event of a war with the U.S.
I suspect the U.S. is going to be looking for allies as well. Perhaps they ally with Germany ?
Which is why the British shouldn't do their damndest to make sure the war didn't last long enough, and piss the US off enough to make them build that fleet. Like say by trying to get the Soviet Union to invade Alaska. Which is exactly what he's been advocating.
. Up to a point that is correct but remember that during the 1920s and 1930s a huge proportion of the US industrial strength you are talking about is in Detroit and New York State. Which might be in the firing line if the Canadians put up any kind of a fight. Secondly, Bethlehem Steel hugely dependent on imported ore and vulnerable to interdiction. Thirdly building up your navy in wartime is difficult unless you enjoy significant local naval superiority. The USA for its size had only a relatively small number of strategic shipyards. During a war hard choices would have had to be made about whether to concentrate on protecting Newport and Norfolk (and letting the RN shell New York, Boston and Philadelphia ) or protecting the big population centres and effectively writing off building and repairing naval vessels.
Finally, at that point in time the British Empire is heavily in debt to the USA and that is one of the main reasons for its financial weakness. Such a war would be likely to have a rejuvenating effect rather than to be the Empire's death knell. And even a victorious USA would thereby trigger off a Great Recession as most of its banks and insurance companies suddenly became insolvent as the British stopped paying on their bonds.