WI/Poll: War Plan Red | US vs UK (1931)

War Plan Red

  • USA Wins Decisively - Huge Gains

    Votes: 39 25.8%
  • USA Wins Tactically - Small Gains

    Votes: 52 34.4%
  • UK Win Decisively - Huge Gains

    Votes: 4 2.6%
  • UK Wins Tactically - Small Gains

    Votes: 15 9.9%
  • Stalemate - No Gains

    Votes: 20 13.2%
  • Both Lose - Mutual Economic Collapse

    Votes: 21 13.9%

  • Total voters
    151
Why would America declare war on the United Kingdom?

It wouldn't. But it is a wise idea for nations to consider and plan for the possibility of war with virtually anyone. The US government used colors to designate these and had at various times in the early 20th century developed plans to fight Japan, Britain/Canada, France, Mexico, Germany, Russia, Internal dissention/revolution, and various combinations thereof.

An all-out War Plan Red war would probably have required PoDs in the late 19th century to make the 20th century virtually unrecognizable to us today.

But while the Anglo-Japanese treaty was still in effect, the US was probably wise to consider the possibility that a War Plan Orange war (with Japan) might ultimately trigger some British involvement on Japan's side. Not because the Treaty obligated Britain to assist Japan in a war with the US (it expressly didn't), but because the planned US strategy of naval blockade and economic starvation of Japan might lead to conflicts with Britain over trade with Japan.

In this instance, the war aims and plans for both the US and Britain would probably be limited, and focused on naval action and very limited air/ground action in peripheral theatres primarily, not an attempt by the US to invade Canada and vise versa. Considering the close relationship that had developed between the US and Britain in the 1900-1919 period, it is virtually inconceivable that relations would have deteriorated to the extent that the US would consider mounting a costly invasion of Canada when the main enemy was Japan. Britain would be even less likely to consider mounting an invasion of the continental US, although I suppose its possible they might attempt to occupy parts of Alaska, or entertain a counter blockade of the US west coast and Hawaii (which was not a major US naval base while the Anglo-Japanese treaty was in effect). I voted "Stalemate" because I thing the war aims would be limited with neither the US or Britain aiming for anything resembling total victory.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
I think these days the US instead plans for things like zombie uprisings. Or a rebellion by the girl scouts.

It's exactly the kind of thinking we've done on this thread that they were trying to bring out - for example, the small number of USN cruisers or the slow fleet speed of USN BBs compared to other nations.

The cruiser one, at least, was promptly handled.
 
A lot of posters seem to be Writing off the Canadians without much or any discussion

I mean I know the population is small compared to the USA but they had very recently maintained 4 full Divisions in Europe during the 1st WW where they were generally considered to be the finiest soldiers in the world at the time and became known as the Shock troops of the British Empire.

And while I accept that the USA raised an Army of 4 million of which roughly half made it to Europe before Nov 1918 much of that gained very little experiance especially compared to the Canadians.

In time numbers and industry will no doubt win out - but it would be a hard slog - at the time while both armies are relatively small and would have to expand rapidly the Canadians have a large pool of very experianced soldiers and officers to call upon.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Remember, the "regular" Canadian Army was the Permanent Active Militia

You do mean for food prices not to go up don't you as Europe would still exist? A listing of Canadian Active Militia units as of 1931 can be found here. The British Army was approximately 10K under strength with 138,000 regulars, 128,900 reserves and 17,500 special reserves listed as available in 1931.

Remember, the "regular" Canadian Army was the Permanent Active Militia, all two (horsed) squadrons and three battalions of it. Personnel strength was about 4,000 in the interwar period... the NPAM units were all reserve status, and (like reserves everywhere in nations without conscription) essentially skeleton forces of volunteers.

As late as March, 1939, full-time army personnel numbered less than 4,200, while the reserve force, meaning volunteers with an obligation and some training, numbered about 52,000 in 1938-39.

Obviously, if there is a conflict between the US and UK, that will change, but since we have yet to get a POD from the OP, one can only consider the population numbers to get an idea of what the odds are for a sucessful Canadian defense.

The Dominions's population in 1931 was 10.3 million, while the US census of 1930 listed 123 million; from a population of 92 million in 1910, the US had mobilized 4 million between 1917-18, and was on track to mobilize another 4 million.

Ten percent (generally accepted number for mobilization in Twentieth Century in a Western nation that will not significantly reduce labor force participation) would be 12.3 million Americans vis a vis 1 million Canadians.

Reality is always somewhat lower, but - 12 to 1 odds, even in the abstract, seems rather substantial.

Best,
 
A lot of posters seem to be Writing off the Canadians without much or any discussion

Sorry, don't mean to, but the fact is the United States can raise a soldier for every man, woman, and child in Canada, and still have more military personnel left over. When faced with numbers that overwhelming ultimately Canada will lose, especially since their defense plan relies on aid from the UK, which as I noted before is not coming if the British military planners have anything to say about it.

That's not a dismissal of Canada, and please don't take it as such, just a fact of numbers and industrial power.
 
Remember, the "regular" Canadian Army was the Permanent Active Militia, all two (horsed) squadrons and three battalions of it. Personnel strength was about 4,000 in the interwar period... the NPAM units were all reserve status, and (like reserves everywhere in nations without conscription) essentially skeleton forces of volunteers.

As late as March, 1939, full-time army personnel numbered less than 4,200, while the reserve force, meaning volunteers with an obligation and some training, numbered about 52,000 in 1938-39.

Obviously, if there is a conflict between the US and UK, that will change, but since we have yet to get a POD from the OP, one can only consider the population numbers to get an idea of what the odds are for a sucessful Canadian defense.

The Dominions's population in 1931 was 10.3 million, while the US census of 1930 listed 123 million; from a population of 92 million in 1910, the US had mobilized 4 million between 1917-18, and was on track to mobilize another 4 million.

Ten percent (generally accepted number for mobilization in Twentieth Century in a Western nation that will not significantly reduce labor force participation) would be 12.3 million Americans vis a vis 1 million Canadians.

Reality is always somewhat lower, but - 12 to 1 odds, even in the abstract, seems rather substantial.

Best,

Well yes and no, The official authorised strength of the inter-war US Army was about 296,000 and the National Guard 486,000 but unless every official US Army source is lying they never even came close to having that number of men under arms. Which means that under most scenarios the US would face a prolonged period of mobilisation which would warn the British Empire (boo hiss hurrah depending :D) time to move troops around and call Canucks to the Colours.

So no not remotely likely to be 12-1 odds.

Which does not make US defeat a foregone conclusion by any means but equally does not make a short war victory a foregone certainty either and a long war will bring politics into play which makes the exact POD very important indeed.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Sorry, don't mean to, but the fact is the United States can raise a soldier for every man, woman, and child in Canada, and still have more military personnel left over. When faced with numbers that overwhelming ultimately Canada will lose, especially since their defense plan relies on aid from the UK, which as I noted before is not coming if the British military planners have anything to say about it.

That's not a dismissal of Canada, and please don't take it as such, just a fact of numbers and industrial power.
They can do that eventually.
The US army in 1945, after about five years of increasingly rapid breakneck expansion, had about eight million men under arms.
But it takes time and money to build a drafted (i.e. recruited) mass army. Evidence from WW1 and WW2 at least would suggest it takes about two years to get them into full fighting trim.

Also, the rest of the British Empire exists.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Comes down to the fact that for every Canadian mobilized,

Well yes and no, The official authorised strength of the inter-war US Army was about 296,000 and the National Guard 486,000 but unless every official US Army source is lying they never even came close to having that number of men under arms. Which means that under most scenarios the US would face a prolonged period of mobilisation which would warn the British Empire (boo hiss hurrah depending :D) time to move troops around and call Canucks to the Colours. So no not remotely likely to be 12-1 odds.

Which does not make US defeat a foregone conclusion by any means but equally does not make a short war victory a foregone certainty either and a long war will bring politics into play which makes the exact POD very important indeed.

Comes down to the fact that for every Canadian to be mobilized, there are 12 Americans to be mobilized.

And the Americans have that many more veterans as cadre, considering the US maintained an army and navy in 1919-31 and the Canadians didn't...

As far as the British empire goes, there's a reason (the above personnel and economic differentials) that the British withdrew the last regular battalion from Canada in 1871 - and made nice with the US as per the Treaty of Washington.

Best,
 
Comes down to the fact that for every Canadian to be mobilized, there are 12 Americans to be mobilized.

And the Americans have that many more veterans as cadre, considering the US maintained an army and navy in 1919-31 and the Canadians didn't...

As far as the British empire goes, there's a reason (the above personnel and economic differentials) that the British withdrew the last regular battalion from Canada in 1871 - and made nice with the US as per the Treaty of Washington.

Best,

No it does not because quite simply unless the POD is right Congress will baulk plus the fact that there are potentially all these annoying Tommy Atkins running about spoiling things.

War Plan Red as the planners themselves acknowledged was not remotely a simple concept of sure fire sureties. That was partly the reason for having it as a training exercise and partly the reason for having it as a contingency plan as it was assumed that for the US to have a viable and politically realistic chance the plan had better be there ready to go the first time as there would be no time to dick around counting imaginary numbers.

Which again does not mean that Empire Strikes Back is a guaranteed sequel to Start Wars but a lot would depend on the POD and the resulting length of time until tensions went hot and further the political motivation for the US.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And if the rest of the Empire had the same domestic

They can do that eventually.
The US army in 1945, after about five years of increasingly rapid breakneck expansion, had about eight million men under arms.
But it takes time and money to build a drafted (i.e. recruited) mass army. Evidence from WW1 and WW2 at least would suggest it takes about two years to get them into full fighting trim. Also, the rest of the British Empire exists.

And if the rest of the Empire had the same domestic politics as in 1914-18 and 1939-45, other than the British, don't expect conscription for overseas service...

And whether the British would impose conscription for overseas service in the UK in the event of a conflict that did not involve a direct threat to Britain itself is an interesting question; they did not for Ireland after 1918, for example, and - of course - they did not impose conscription in Ireland in 1916-18 for overseas service.

The US, of course, used conscription for unlimited service in both world wars...

There's a reason the British withdrew their garrison from Canada in 1871.

Best,
 
And if the rest of the Empire had the same domestic politics as in 1914-18 and 1939-45, other than the British, don't expect conscription for overseas service...

And whether the British would impose conscription for overseas service in the UK in the event of a conflict that did not involve a direct threat to Britain itself is an interesting question; they did not for Ireland after 1918, for example, and - of course - they did not impose conscription in Ireland in 1916-18 for overseas service.

The US, of course, used conscription for unlimited service in both world wars...

There's a reason the British withdrew their garrison from Canada in 1871.

Best,

Well they never needed that many troops for Ireland so it is not a good sample to support or dispute anything. Volunteer forces were quite adequate to the military/policing needs while they lasted.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
And the numbers are just as imaginary in Canada...

War Plan Red as the planners themselves acknowledged was not remotely a simple concept of sure fire sureties. That was partly the reason for having it as a training exercise and partly the reason for having it as a contingency plan as it was assumed that for the US to have a viable and politically realistic chance the plan had better be there ready to go the first time as there would be no time to dick around counting imaginary numbers.

And the numbers are just as imaginary in Canada... 4,000 men, spread from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia. Cripes, RA had ~144,000 men in 1931; even if one takes away the 7,000 PS, and another 20,000 between Hawaii and Panama and the Caribbean, that's 110,000 regulars to ... 4,000.

So, you like 27.5 to 1 odds better?

By the way, how many British divisions were ready for France on M-Day in 1914?

Four, correct?

And the numbers were even lower in 1940.

Two, IIRC.

Good luck with that.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, it's the only place where the British fought a

Well they never needed that many troops for Ireland so it is not a good sample to support or dispute anything. Volunteer forces were quite adequate to the military/policing needs while they lasted.

Well, it's the only place where the British fought a war within "white" territory between 1918 and 1939, so it's at least as reasonable a data point as the Western Front veterans would be in 1931.;)

More to the point, it also demonstrates the British only used conscription when Britain was at risk.

There's also the minor reality that they did not impose conscription in Ireland in 1916-18 for overseas service, any more than the Australians, South Africans, Indians, etc did so in 1939-45.

Unlike those effete Americans... who, oddly enough, did so in 1917-19 and 1940-46.

Best,
 
Well, it's the only place where the British fought a war within "white" territory between 1918 and 1939, so it's at least as reasonable a data point as the Western Front veterans would be in 1931.;)

More to the point, it also demonstrates the British only used conscription when Britain was at risk.

There's also the minor reality that they did not impose conscription in Ireland in 1916-18 for overseas service, any more than the Australians, South Africans, Indians, etc did so in 1939-45.

Unlike those effete Americans... who, oddly enough, did so in 1917-19 and 1940-46.

Best,

You have evidenced nothing of the sort let alone proved it.

The issue for War Plan Red is that the US has to mobilise an army so strapped for cash in 1931 that Corps Area Commanders have to ask for permission to visit their assigned units to mobilise rapidly and without warning. In one variant of the Plan Red document they used a poison gas attack on Halifax which obviously is going to cause a political firestorm so you always have to bear in mind this was as much a training exercise as serious contingency plan.

However the question is now whether or not America can win, in some scenarios it can and without the destabilising and politically unpalatable solution of mass conscription either.

However and I say this knowing you will post again for the sheer sake of posting again and not to add anything to the debate. The factors that influence the US chances in any War Plan Scenario still apply to 1931, surprise and political will. The need to raise the second tends to reduce the element of the first however there may be circumstances that could produce such a perfect storm scenario of an War Desirous America roused suddenly and without warning signs preceding events.

Those are the kind of back grounds it would be helpful if you wished to explore.

The fact that many scenarios result US failing to will a short war scenario is unpalatable to you I grasp but oddly many others are interested in exploring the base grounds for various outcome ranges.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
I think my first and second posts in this thread were both

The fact that many scenarios result US failing to will a short war scenario is unpalatable to you I grasp but oddly many others are interested in exploring the base grounds for various outcome ranges.

I think my first and second posts in this thread were both pointing how how ridiculous the idea of an Anglo-American war in the 1930s would be ... including under the warlords Ramsay MacDonald and Herbert Hoover.

As I think everyone else realizes.

What I didn't realize is that you took this seriously.

Best,
 
Anyone know comparative GDP at the time? If it was anything like it was in 1939, well...Britain better win real quick if she's going to win at all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
See here:

Anyone know comparative GDP at the time? If it was anything like it was in 1939, well...Britain better win real quick if she's going to win at all.

Total industrial capability, 1928 (UK in 1900 is 100):

US - 533
Ge - 158
UK - 135
FR - 82
SU - 72
JA - 45
IT - 35


Note that the US has twice the economic capacity of the UK, France, and Japan put together. You will also note that Germany, a decade after the end of WW I, has better numbers than the UK.


Different measure - relative share of world manufacturing output, 1928:
US - 39.3
GE - 11.6
UK - 9.9
FR - 6
SU - 5.3
IT - 2.7

Japan's not even on the charts. US capacity is more than twice the Anglo-French...


One last one - population in the millions:
SU - 150
US - 119
JA - 62
GE - 55
UK - 46
FR - 41
IT - 38


All of the above of Bairoch via Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

There's a reason the British reconciled with the US after the Civil War, they could read the tea leaves.
 
They can do that eventually.
The US army in 1945, after about five years of increasingly rapid breakneck expansion, had about eight million men under arms.

Plus another eight million who served in other capacities in the armed forces. And while the US is not ready for war in 1931 neither is Canada or Britain. While they are probably in a better starting position the US is going to get moving quicker, and overtake them rapidly. And this is assuming the war comes out of nowhere, and the US starts it completely unprepared.

But it takes time and money to build a drafted (i.e. recruited) mass army. Evidence from WW1 and WW2 at least would suggest it takes about two years to get them into full fighting trim.

WWI and WWII also meant fighting against nations which had already been at war for several years and so would have already had time to get their own soldiers and nations ready to fight. That doesn't exist here.

Also, the rest of the British Empire exists.

And as I noted, the UK military has no plans to defend Canada, they view it as doomed. And yes, the British Empire exists, but so what? Any soldiers who are raised still have to be trained, fed, and paid from an Empire that has lost a major source of food, fuel, and credit, then those soldiers have to be transported across the oceans to whatever front they end up fighting on, one of which (North America) even IF they do ship troops in is constantly under threat of having its supply lines cut by local superiority of USN ships. Britain has to fight a war across the Atlantic against a nation whose vastly larger industrial strength is primarily out of reach, with internal supply and communication lines, and which has a large population to call upon.

They will lose. Not decisively, not at this point, but the United States will not lose a war in the Western Hemisphere at this point in history.
 
Top