# 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada



## Gunner (11 Apr 2004)

An interesting read. Any comments?

A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada


----------



## Bill Smy (11 Apr 2004)

I recall reading years ago that just after World War I, Canada had a plan to invade the United States. Could we have done it? Don‘t know, but we did have 600,000 men who had seen active service, the majority of whom were combat veterans.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Apr 2004)

And Major Baker, the US would never think of attacking Canada now especially since we have the JTF.

Wait they‘re leaving for private civilian companies.....Were defenseless.


----------



## mattoigta (11 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] Bullshit....it was written or at least compiled by a MAJOR in the US Army, it seems to me nothing more than a document written by a field grade officer preparing for Command and General Staff Officer Course....
> 
> *EDIT* Major‘s do not write War Plans and sign them.... [/qb]


Things could have been different back then no? Or maybe it was just a "War College assignment"?
Either way, if you read it, it sure seems that theyve got their facts straight


----------



## Gunner (11 Apr 2004)

Actually, this really never surprised me at all.  The purpose of the general staff was to prepare for war.  If they didn‘t have a strategic plan to invade Canada they would have been derelict in  doing their jobs. 

The use of "colour" plans were used pre-1914 and resurrected in the interwar period.  The war plans covered certain hypothetica scenarios, in which a colur was the code name for the strategic plan to be used if America were attacked by a particular nation, for example, red for Britain (Crimson for Canada?), green for Mexico, black for Germany, and orange for Japan.  The plans were limited in scope, with only superficila attendtion to logistical aspects and with no provisions for coalitions or for conditions of total or global warfare.  They were unrealistic about contemporary or future international alignments...  (Makers of Modern Strategy, p 710).

As far as a Major authoring a document, I don‘t think it was that wrong for the times (particularly based on the comments above).  Its a sad state that Majors of today are merely coffee boys in NDHQ and the Pentagon.  Independent responsibility has been lost to the mediocracy of numberous committees...


----------



## Canadian Patriot (11 Apr 2004)

Every military has a plan ready for the invasion of parts of the world...Even most little islands have a prepared plan. This way, if some place ever needed to be atacked, we would save loads of time preparing a plan. They just write these things and throw them in a vault somewhere, and adjust it every once in a while because of new technologies, tactics, and numbers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Apr 2004)

I wonder what the updated version reads like?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

Probably along the lines of just keep supporting the liberal party and they‘ll eventually just have to secede.


----------



## Bert (12 Apr 2004)

If I remember my history, didn‘t Canada march into the US early in the 1800s and burn down the White House?  We won the war in 1812.  Maybe the US never got over that?  

What I don‘t get is the beer of choice at the junior mess on my base is Budweizer.  I‘m sure Molsons has a plan to invade the USA, take over the brewery, and drain the tap water out of it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Apr 2004)

Whats the difference if it was approved or not or who it was written by? The **** thing was made up 70 years ago and who around here is 70 yrs old (well besides George    ). So it really affects none of us, for me its just interesting reading about the outlooks of ppl at that time.


----------



## kaspacanada (12 Apr 2004)

hey the point where he writes about Canadian Terrirory acknowledges Canadian territory extending beyond the arctic archipelago...isn‘t that what the US says is international waters?  hmm, just a thought.  Too bad it‘s not an official government position on the matter.  

No idea if its real or not, but I am inclined to agree that it is a planning phase for ANY eventuality.  It‘s their job to plan.  And I also trust Baker‘s judgment.  So, don‘t know, and I don‘t think its important since its way outdated.  I‘m sure they would have something better planned for us now.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Apr 2004)

Ok here is what you need to ask yourselves did the US not have a variety of colour coded plans to go to war with any number of countries before WW2? I think that has been established as historical fact. No big deal I think it was only prudent at the time... I think the key word is the US "had" a paper done up in 1935...again who cares that was 70 years ago....as for Quebec seperating and what Canada would do you are trying to change the subject S_Baker. I have been to France and they have little interest in what happens to Quebec. Whenever our guys have tried speaking French in the places I have been to France the native French switch to English or barely even notice that they are there. Hello that should tell you that France could care less what would happen to Quebec should Quebec go its own way.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

I think you should learn to spell CONFEDERATION.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

You are so right Ex-Dragoon. I spend a lot of time in Quebec and trust me S_Baker, having anything to do with France is probably more distasteful to them than it would be for you right now.


----------



## Duotone81 (12 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] It is important ex-dragoon...by the tone of the beginning of the article seems to me that someone is trying to insinuate that the US has a plan and could invade Canada.
> 
> [/qb]


I didn‘t read into any insinuation of the sort. Can you please clarify? The plan was drafted in 1935, not the present.

Would it seem foolhardy if the US didn‘t have any plan of action that would deal with any sort of situation to her north? Maybe details that you wouldn‘t be privy too perhaps? Not trying to bark off conspiracy theories but I would think it reasonable for any country to have such plans of action.

BTW, France openly supported the succession of Quebec from Canada. Jacques Chirac went on record (CNNs Larry King Live) and said he would give legitimacy to Quebec as a new nation and would convince other nations to do so. I‘ll try to find the transcript from that episode.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

The islands you refer to[ I can‘t name them off-hand] actually do belong to France, but the chance that France would lay claim to Quebec would be met with the same derision[sp]as Peru laying claim to Texas.
CHEERS


----------



## winchable (12 Apr 2004)

I believe they‘re called "L‘Isles de magdalene"
Or something like that.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (12 Apr 2004)

St Pierre and Miquelon?  or are they too far from the mouth - no map in front of me.

The spanish fishing boat incident was a challenge of our sovereignty, but we won, when the int‘l court refused a Spanish appeal in 1998.

We had the moral ground as well, as it was about conservation.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2004)

Actually the islands are Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and are off the southwest coast of Newfoundland.  The Les Iles-de-la-madeleine (The Magdelene islands are Canadian territory off the Gaspe shore of Quebec).

By the way, I am still looking for it but I concur with Bill Smy‘s post.  There was a Canadian inter-war study/plan on the possibility of "invading"  the US.  To the best of my recollection (demonstrated previously to be faulty but what the heck) it was authored by a Captain, it involved an invasion of Up-State New York and included said Captain wandering the State "spying" out the terrain. I seem to remember that it was more than a staff college study, that it was warehoused by staff in Ottawa as an option.

Cheers.


----------



## winchable (12 Apr 2004)

Right, right, just figured that out with a little google-work.
I get those islands confused.

.....PEI is the big one with Labrador attatched to it right? And then Newfoundland is the one where they all speak french?


----------



## clasper (12 Apr 2004)

Actually people in France are quite interested in what is happening in Quebec.  When they hear I‘m Canadian, I get asked about it all the time, in varying degrees of militancy.  I was even asked once how our Quebec brothers were doing in their fight against the English oppressor.  They weren‘t terribly impressed when I told them I wasn‘t Quebecois, just a maudit anglais qui parle francais avec un accent canadien.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Apr 2004)

Bang on Che. A second lieutenant with a map and compass, right?     

Cheers from an ex-2lt


----------



## mattoigta (12 Apr 2004)

Major Baker - what ever happened to Manifest Destiny? Why is it unlikely that the US would have a plan to invade Canada - it was only 1935, we weren‘t the best of friends back then, only 30 years ago Roosevelt was threatening invasion over the alaska boundary crisis, and even so, it was the War College‘s job to plan, who cares if it‘s a "what if" scenario? I don‘t think anyone on this board feels threatened by it - I don‘t think anyone saw it as if it was "trying to insinuate that the US has a plan and could invade Canada."


And France couldn‘t give a **** what happened to Quebec, and vice-versa. France stopped caring about Quebec after 1763, and Quebec felt abandoned by them, and hated France for it. Now the hatred has died down, but they still dont give a **** about eachother. I‘m sure Canada does have a plan for when Quebec leaves confederation - wasn‘t there an article posted on here that showed the PM authorised Canadian troops to move in and seize key buildings?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Apr 2004)

We never had that reaction at all in Marsaellies (sp) or Brest at all. Would that be a reginal or cultural difference of opinion clasper?


----------



## Gunner (12 Apr 2004)

These types of plans come out of dusty old cabinets all the time and one person or another gets their shirts in a knot.  I surprised Cretin‘s shrill Ducros isn‘t spouting off or the twit of a MP who called down the US. 

Some of you may recall in the mid to late 90s an allegation that CLFCSC was preparing war plans to invade Quebec in the event of their separation.  In reality they were simply conducting TWETs using East/West Axis of advance and major cities as centres of gravity.  The inept response by the CF made it almost seem as this was actually true.  Hence the directive, no more using the names of actual towns (as enemy) on exercise.

I don‘t think Quebecers have any love of the mother country.  Certainly few were actually willing to defend the motherland during WWI and WWII.  However, politics makes strange bedfellows, and it is politically expedient for Quebec sovereigntists to have the support of France in order to legitimize their efforts.  France can use Quebec to meddle in the affairs of another nation as well as being seen within the Francophonie world as something other than a washed up European power.  

In the immortal words of Groundskeeper Willie on the Simpsons "bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

I‘ll clarify in case I gave the wrong impression. Of course the people of France would be interested in Quebec.[something for free!]
I believe Quebecers would find any connection to France quite distasteful.  CHEERS


----------



## clasper (12 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] We never had that reaction at all in Marsaellies (sp) or Brest at all. Would that be a reginal or cultural difference of opinion clasper? [/qb]


I don‘t think it‘s a regional difference.  Most people ask about Quebec just because they‘re interested in other parts of the world that speak French.  It‘s just a minority that obviously think Quebec should separate- and they tend to go away in a huff once my opinion has been made known.


----------



## Danjanou (12 Apr 2004)

I saw this same topic come up a couple of months ago on another military board, (full of wannabes) and you should have seen how fast it turned into a flame war between the Canadians and US.

You guys actually made me get my duff off of the computer desk, go over to my bookcase and drag out my copy of Canadian Brass, The Making of Professional Army 1860-1939 by Stephen Harris (ISBN-0-8020-5765-9).

It does cover this a bit. Both the fact that the US did have as noted a "war plan" dealing with an invasion of Canada, and the Canadian Militia response including preemptive strikes into the border states with militia flying columns. Some were a bit ambitious as they presumed a Canadian Militia of 15 Divisions!

Major Baker why does it get your red white and blue boxers in a knot that the US had at one time plans to invade it‘s neighbours. Similar plans existed for Mexico. In fact is that one of the reasons for having lots of bright young officers to plan and prepared for any opossible future conflict. The various colour coded plans mentioned earlier are a fact. This was just one of them.

Also why is it hard to beleive that other countries would have similar plans in some filing cabinet somewhere. The difference is that they were never implemented.

Finally for the last time we did not sack and burn Washington in the War of 1812. That was the Brits, by themselves. We sacked and burned Buffalo, twice.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Apr 2004)

Watch the Buffalo news, bit by bit it‘s still burning....


----------



## kosstro (12 Apr 2004)

OK, about the france/quebec thing, i am currently living in quebec, and although i‘m not quebecois myself, i work with them everyday, and they have said that they dislike france even more than the US. So,in regards to quebec separation, perhaps your question would not be what is france‘s reaction, what is Quebec‘s? Major Baker, do you honestly think if quebec finally acheived independence, that they would turn around and become a french colony again?  If you had ever been to Quebec, or talked to a normal person on the street about France coming back, they would‘ve laughed in your face.

What i‘m saying is, i‘ll believe you on whatever you say about the US invasion plans of 1935, but as for Quebec, i‘m sorry but you are out of touch with reality.


----------



## winchable (12 Apr 2004)

Those Brit‘s that sackd Washington were based out of Halifax..I think.
General Brock? Maybe, I can‘t remember. I know quite a few of their graves are at the "Old Burying Ground"


----------



## clasper (12 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Che:
> [qb] Those Brit‘s that sackd Washington were based out of Halifax..I think.
> General Brock? Maybe, I can‘t remember. I know quite a few of their graves are at the "Old Burying Ground" [/qb]


According to the question of the week thread, yes they were based out of Halifax, but it wasn‘t Brock.



> Originally posted by Michael OLeary:
> [qb]Born in Ireland, Robert Ross joined the 25th Foot in 1789, rising to command the regiment in 1803. A popular commander who shared his soldiers‘ hardships, he was promoted to major general in 1812. After several major engagements in the peninsular campaign of the Napoeleonic War, Ross was sent to North America in command of 4500 men, with a mission to draw attention from other theatres and to avenge recent American actions in Canada.
> 
> On August 19, 1814, Ross landed at Benedict, about sixty miles from Washington. On August 24, in Bladensburg, Ross routed an American militia force and entered Washington that same evening. For two days, he British sacked and burned virtually every public building in Washington, including the White House. Ordered to march on Baltimore, Ross landed 12 miles away at North Point on September 12. In the vanguard as usual, Ross was shot from his horse and died before reaching the coast. His body was returned to Halifax for burial.[/qb]


 http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/7/203/8?


----------



## winchable (12 Apr 2004)

Ah yes that‘s it, that‘s right, I knew that too I have a catalogue of the graves there. *WORK BRAIN WORK*


so what did Brock do then??


----------



## mattoigta (12 Apr 2004)

Detroit, Queenston Heights and everything based around Fort George, and a few others i cant think of


----------



## kosstro (12 Apr 2004)

OK, about the france/quebec thing, i am currently living in quebec, and although i‘m not quebecois myself, i work with them everyday, and they have said that they dislike france even more than the US. So,in regards to quebec separation, perhaps your question would not be what is france‘s reaction, what is Quebec‘s? Major Baker, do you honestly think if quebec finally acheived independence, that they would turn around and become a french colony again?  If you had ever been to Quebec, or talked to a normal person on the street about France coming back, they would‘ve laughed in your face.

What i‘m saying is, i‘ll believe you on whatever you say about the US invasion plans of 1935, but as for Quebec, i‘m sorry but you are out of touch with reality.


----------



## Marauder (12 Apr 2004)

Phuck the phrench. Just dress a bunch of Bloggins up as Wermacht types and parade them through gay Paree and watch the smelly wine swillers fold like cheap tables.


----------



## karpovage (12 Apr 2004)

Thought I would toss this out there. FW Rudmin (the professor who posted this 1935 Invasion Plan) also wrote a book in 1995 called Bordering on Aggression. He states - in his opinion as fact - that Fort Drum was set up to invade Canada. Here is the synopsis from his book jacket:

Bordering on Aggression: Evidence of Us Military Preparations Against Canada 

From Jacket:
The United States has placed an attack force on the Canadian border south of Ottawa. The base that houses this force is inappropriate for training or overseas deployment but is ideally located, equipped and trained for intervention in Canada. In fact, that is all Fort Drum forces can effectively and efficiently do.

Many Canadians would like to think that the United States would never consider military action against Canada. Perhaps it is our vulnerability, or it could be that we don‘ t want to suspect a friend. Canadian schools teach that our two countries stopped being enemies at the end of the War of 1812 and have been friends ever since. In this century, our forces have fought only as allies. We have the longest undefended border in the world and we are proud of it. That pride is both unfounded and dangerous- The United States has made elaborate preparations for war against Canadians in the 20th century. Rudmin looks at these plans for clues to what the United States might do in the future.

Current U.S. top-secret war plans are, of course, not available but there are ways of uncovering intentions. Just as in a murder investigation, you look at means, motive, opportunities, careless statements; character, history and you build a case. Rudmin produces enough evidence to make all but the most complacent among us sit up and take notice. Rudmin builds his case relentlessly, not only examining supporting arguments, but using the process of elimination to ensure that there is no reasonable doubt. The United States has prepared an effective and specialised attack force and, under the right circumstances, is capable of using it against Canada. 

Here‘s the link I found it on: www.maxdelta.com/catalogue3.asp?sku=4170

So, just stirring the pot some more.

Shameless Plug- 
For a great action-packed military novel on this subject click on the ad in this website - FLASHPOINT QUEBEC - 

BTW - I did have a French connection in my book, albeit mercenaries with shoulder-launched missiles against the U.S. and Canada, but still I think France would definitely have a greater economic interest in Quebec and form some kind of partnership rather than a recolonization of New France.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (12 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Marauder:
> [qb] Phuck the phrench. Just dress a bunch of Bloggins up as Wermacht types and parade them through gay Paree and watch the smelly wine swillers fold like cheap tables. [/qb]


LOL! thanks that just made my day


----------



## Bill Smy (13 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Bert:
> [qb] If I remember my history, didn‘t Canada march into the US early in the 1800s and burn down the White House?  We won the war in 1812.  Maybe the US never got over that?
> 
> What I don‘t get is the beer of choice at the junior mess on my base is Budweizer.  I‘m sure Molsons has a plan to invade the USA, take over the brewery, and drain the tap water out of it. [/qb]


You do not remember your history well. In fact, you fail. There were no Canadian troops on the British expedition against Washington.


----------



## Bill Smy (13 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Bert:
> [qb] If I remember my history, didn‘t Canada march into the US early in the 1800s and burn down the White House?  We won the war in 1812.  Maybe the US never got over that?
> 
> What I don‘t get is the beer of choice at the junior mess on my base is Budweizer.  I‘m sure Molsons has a plan to invade the USA, take over the brewery, and drain the tap water out of it. [/qb]


You do not remember your history well. In fact, you fail. There were no Canadian troops on the British expedition against Washington.


----------

