Worst Possible War Plan Red Outcome for US?

its pretty much a given that if War Plan Red went ahead Britain would be finished off pretty quickly, but what If luck was on the British side? How badly could it have gone for the US?

I’m guessing loosing Guam and the Philippines maybe?
 
its pretty much a given that if War Plan Red went ahead Britain would be finished off pretty quickly, but what If luck was on the British side? How badly could it have gone for the US?

I’m guessing loosing Guam and the Philippines maybe?

The assumption was the Canadians would likely be occupied except for Nova Scotia which could be defended indefinitely. The Royal Navy would then take apart the US merchant marine. That, in addition to the withdrawal of British hulls from carrying US commerce, would gut US trade. Any Plan Red war was never going to be short.

So I suppose the worst case for America would be a socialist revolution as angry workers and possibly bored conscripted soldiers rose up and overthrew the President and Congress that had gotten them into this fine mess.
 
If luck was on the British side then it would be solved diplomatically. Number One rule of British Diplomacy: Don’t piss in the Atlantic.
 
Could Britain make a dent by spamming Indian troops into North America at the cost of earlier post-war Indian independence for there service in defending the commonwealth? Also if we are talking worst case scenario what about imperial Japan staying allied to Britain by not exiting the London naval treaty or at least being opportunistic and joining the war on Britains side to annex US Pacific territories like the Philippines, Guam, Hawaii, Alaskan islands, etc?
 
Last edited:
What time period are you talking about? WPR was first approved in 1930 and not abandoned until 1939. A 1930 war would look a lot different from a 1939 one.
 

Deleted member 94680

its pretty much a given that if War Plan Red went ahead Britain would be finished off pretty quickly

Given by whom?

OTL there wasn’t much enthusiasm on either side for the potential conflict.
 
What time period are you talking about? WPR was first approved in 1930 and not abandoned until 1939. A 1930 war would look a lot different from a 1939 one.
I was thinking around 1930.
Given by whom?

OTL there wasn’t much enthusiasm on either side for the potential conflict.

From what I’ve seen about War Plan Red the authors seem to suggest the British wouldn’t have much chance against total defeat.
 
Perhaps a more interesting scenario would be to assume that the Washington Naval Treaty never happens and the naval building race between Britain and the US continues and leads to the war in 1930.
 
The assumption was the Canadians would likely be occupied except for Nova Scotia which could be defended indefinitely. The Royal Navy would then take apart the US merchant marine. That, in addition to the withdrawal of British hulls from carrying US commerce, would gut US trade. ...

Economically this is catastrophic. Through the 20th Century a average of 60% of US manufactured goods and raw materials were exported. Of the exports between 60 & 70 % were sold in Europe. Aside from a weak US flagged merchant marine Britain through its own merchant fleet, and the importance of Londons banks had considerable control over the bulk of the worlds cargo fleet. While New Yorks banks had supassed Britains circa 1900-1910 London still was a 600 pound Gorillia. So US exports are piling up on the docks, or turn into Brit prizes, factory orders collapse across the US. Any US government inept enough to get into war with Britain certainly wont be able to cope with a impending economic meltdown. OTL unemployment hit 18% at the peak of the Depression. If this war lasts beyond six months its going to be far worse. The1920s were a era of increasing fiscal instability & this could near instantly toss the train off the rails.
 

bguy

Donor
Economically this is catastrophic. Through the 20th Century a average of 60% of US manufactured goods and raw materials were exported. Of the exports between 60 & 70 % were sold in Europe. Aside from a weak US flagged merchant marine Britain through its own merchant fleet, and the importance of Londons banks had considerable control over the bulk of the worlds cargo fleet. While New Yorks banks had supassed Britains circa 1900-1910 London still was a 600 pound Gorillia. So US exports are piling up on the docks, or turn into Brit prizes, factory orders collapse across the US. Any US government inept enough to get into war with Britain certainly wont be able to cope with a impending economic meltdown. OTL unemployment hit 18% at the peak of the Depression. If this war lasts beyond six months its going to be far worse. The1920s were a era of increasing fiscal instability & this could near instantly toss the train off the rails.

If the US is at war with the British Empire isn't the US government going to be funding a truly massive military buildup? War with Britain (and especially if it also means war with Japan) will probably require a military at least as big as what was prepared to fight World War 2, so we are likely looking at over 10 million soldiers conscripted, tens of thousands of airplanes and tanks built, and hundreds of new warships constructed. (To say nothing of megaprojects like the B-29 and atomic bomb.) Wouldn't this enormous military buildup absorb most (if not all) of the US factory and raw material production that in peacetime would have been sold as exports?
 
There's also the problem the US and UK face of Canada deciding, as they did in our timeline, that they are not obliged to take part in a war just because Britain asks them too.
If the US activates War Plan Red because they decide they want new states in the north, then yes, Canada will fight. If the war sparks over some crisis caused by balance of payment disputes or Venezuela or what have you, Ottawa may well wash its hands of the affair.

That will leave the US with the choice of either invading a neutral democracy, which won't be popular at home or internationally, or having to fight the war entirely in the Atlantic and Pacific- which they will eventually win, but not without a great deal of pain.

The UK may well prefer that Canada stays out, actually.
 
If the US is at war with the British Empire isn't the US government going to be funding a truly massive military buildup? War with Britain (and especially if it also means war with Japan) will probably require a military at least as big as what was prepared to fight World War 2, so we are likely looking at over 10 million soldiers conscripted, tens of thousands of airplanes and tanks built, and hundreds of new warships constructed. (To say nothing of megaprojects like the B-29 and atomic bomb.) Wouldn't this enormous military buildup absorb most (if not all) of the US factory and raw material production that in peacetime would have been sold as exports?

All without the preparation that US industry gained from supplying war orders to the British and the French and without the accumulation of capital that the US gained from supplying the British and the French in the run up to their entry into World War 2? Further but with the British interdicting American overseas supply there will be issues with key bottle neck resources which were not an issue in OTL. For example anyone wanting a Manhattan project needs to find somewhere other than a single plant in Wales to source yellow cake.

Also in World War 2 a lot of resources were meaningfully allocated to land forces, largely required to fight in Europe. Here the US is going to spend years on building up its cruiser forces to be able to go out to face a foe with numerous cruisers already afloat and a network of world wide bases. So typical Americans will face years without jobs prospects unless they are conscripted to sit in training camps doing essentially nothing, the latter of which is indeed a proven recipe for brewing revolution

The difference is huge, unless the British have done something pretty horrific to America to precipitate the war there is going to be a real question mark as to what the average US citizen will sacrifice, hell even the above averagely committed US citizen. In World War 2 the US Government could still tax profits on trade with most of the world that was outside Axis control and had the British paying at least part of the cost of their orders and had a casus belli that justified a years long conflict.
 

Deleted member 94680

From what I’ve seen about War Plan Red the authors seem to suggest the British wouldn’t have much chance against total defeat.

Oh, well, if the authors of a military’s own war plan tell the government it’s got a really good chance of success, that must be taken as gospel. Definitely no examples of militaries polishing the chances of success of their own plans that history can point us at, that’s for sure...
 

bguy

Donor
All without the preparation that US industry gained from supplying war orders to the British and the French and without the accumulation of capital that the US gained from supplying the British and the French in the run up to their entry into World War 2?

I think you are vastly overestimating how much preparation the US economy got from supplying war orders to the British and French. It helped a little to be sure, but the US was still at a 9.9% unemployment rate in 1941 and had a long way to go to switch over to full time war production.

Further but with the British interdicting American overseas supply there will be issues with key bottle neck resources which were not an issue in OTL. For example anyone wanting a Manhattan project needs to find somewhere other than a single plant in Wales to source yellow cake.

If things get so bad that the US is going to war with Britain there would almost certainly be years of rising tensions first which would give ample time to find alternate resource sources.

Also in World War 2 a lot of resources were meaningfully allocated to land forces, largely required to fight in Europe. Here the US is going to spend years on building up its cruiser forces to be able to go out to face a foe with numerous cruisers already afloat and a network of world wide bases. So typical Americans will face years without jobs prospects unless they are conscripted to sit in training camps doing essentially nothing, the latter of which is indeed a proven recipe for brewing revolution

And the US won't need a large land army to take and hold Canada? Also why exactly would the US bother producing cruisers to chase the British cruiser fleet around the oceans? Submarines to cripple British merchant shipping and dreadnoughts to take on the Royal Navy directly are much more likely to be the naval building priorities.

The difference is huge, unless the British have done something pretty horrific to America to precipitate the war there is going to be a real question mark as to what the average US citizen will sacrifice, hell even the above averagely committed US citizen. In World War 2 the US Government could still tax profits on trade with most of the world that was outside Axis control and had the British paying at least part of the cost of their orders and had a casus belli that justified a years long conflict.

And you think the US government would go to war with the British Empire in the 1930s without an equally suitable casus belli? Democracies typically don't commit to major wars without the support of their populations, so if the US is going to war with Britain it is safe to assume that it's for some reason that the American people believe is worth fighting a major war (and paying the taxes or at least taking out the bonds necessary to fund such a war.)
 
And you think the US government would go to war with the British Empire in the 1930s without an equally suitable casus belli? Democracies typically don't commit to major wars without the support of their populations, so if the US is going to war with Britain it is safe to assume that it's for some reason that the American people believe is worth fighting a major war (and paying the taxes or at least taking out the bonds necessary to fund such a war.)

Well now you see the genius of the British plan, it likely works short of war and the scariness of

Oh, well, if the authors of a military’s own war plan tell the government it’s got a really good chance of success, that must be taken as gospel. Definitely no examples of militaries polishing the chances of success of their own plans that history can point us at, that’s for sure...

Stenz's point. As one commentary I saw on War Plan Red put it, just when the American planners assumed the war would be over the British assumed the war would be starting. There is of course the slim possibility that some foolish President might have presumed that since the land war was likely to be reasonably easy and quick thanks to all these new fangled automobiles and war cars and airplanes, the entire war would be easy and quick and a vote winner.

In Alternate History you will usually find the possible, once you have eliminated the impossible, still represents a range of outcomes.

A quick note on the likely authors of most iterations of War Plan Red, my understanding is that they were junior officers updating the plan as a staff training exercise. The results were reviewed by field grade officers, marked and then filed for possible future use. It is to be hoped that General and Flag grade officers would have been more aware of the possible wider implications of some of the assumptions made by these younger, less experienced men
 
Well now you see the genius of the British plan, it likely works short of war and the scariness of

A quick note on the likely authors of most iterations of War Plan Red, my understanding is that they were junior officers updating the plan as a staff training exercise. The results were reviewed by field grade officers, marked and then filed for possible future use. It is to be hoped that General and Flag grade officers would have been more aware of the possible wider implications of some of the assumptions made by these younger, less experienced men

Those General and Flag Officers were the ones that had originally written the plan that was being updated or its predecessor. That is the cycle of Staff Schools
 

Deleted member 94680

Here the US is going to spend years on building up its cruiser forces to be able to go out to face a foe with numerous cruisers already afloat and a network of world wide bases.

The difference is huge, unless the British have done something pretty horrific to America to precipitate the war there is going to be a real question mark as to what the average US citizen will sacrifice, hell even the above averagely committed US citizen.

If things get so bad that the US is going to war with Britain there would almost certainly be years of rising tensions first which would give ample time to find alternate resource sources.

Also why exactly would the US bother producing cruisers to chase the British cruiser fleet around the oceans? Submarines to cripple British merchant shipping and dreadnoughts to take on the Royal Navy directly are much more likely to be the naval building priorities.

And you think the US government would go to war with the British Empire in the 1930s without an equally suitable casus belli? Democracies typically don't commit to major wars without the support of their populations, so if the US is going to war with Britain it is safe to assume that it's for some reason that the American people believe is worth fighting a major war (and paying the taxes or at least taking out the bonds necessary to fund such a war.)

According to Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War, 1918-1931 by Christopher M. Bell, the British (and many of the Americans, for that matter) believed the most likely cause of an Anglo-American conflict would be a trade dispute of some kind. Mainly British enforcement of a blockade of a third Power (memories of WWI would be fresh) and interference of American trade and escalation of a confrontation over the impounding or inspection of American-flagged vessels. Most of the thinking on the British side (such as there was, the government had forbidden the Royal Navy from assessing the US Navy as an opponent, to use American building as a justification for increased building of their own) ran to believing that such a conflict would occur rapidly, with no significant build up or 'crisis' presaging the commencement of hostilities. A ship would be stopped, protests would be made and a further vessel would be interfered with later on that would have a USN escort of some form. A confrontation would occur, shots would be fired and things would escalate from there.

It's worth noting the time period as well.
 
Top