W Bush comes to town and this floats to the top......hmmmmmmmmmmmm

[54/102 CEF]

http://www.glasnost.de/hist/usa/1935invasion.html

Bet the lites are on at CSIS over this one

 

[McG]

Old news, and hardly surprising when one considers that Canada & the US always found themselves on opposite sides of conflicts prior to World War 1.

 

[Kat Stevens]

There is little doubt in my mind that the US rewrites this exact scenario every 3-5 yrs.  The reason that they love us is because we give then things.  If we ever stopped handing out the freebies, rest assured that they won't hesitate to come over here and take them....Then again, maybe I'm just paranoid for thinking that the only remaining superpower has become accustomed to having their way....

Chimo,  Kat

 

[chriscalow]

Pretty scary stuff.

 

[stukirkpatrick]

IMHO the plan doesn't take into account how public support would react to attack...  Granted there wasn't as much opposition to war back then, but even in the war of 1812, the New England states basically sat the war out, and even considered seccession, because of the aggression towards British North America.  And several key routes of attack that the plan outlines are from/through the Northeastern states, or through points such as Detroit and the Sault who would probably be opposed to a war being fought on their doorstop with their neighbours...

 

[Pieman]

I imagine this is kind of outdated since it was written in 1935...esp. since the great depression is now over.  ;D
Perhaps they got a new version locked in a cabinet somewhere. Wonder how they would tackle Canada now?

 

[JBP]

I imagine this is kind of outdated since it was written in 1935...esp. since the great depression is now over. 
Perhaps they got a new version locked in a cabinet somewhere. Wonder how they would tackle Canada now?

Ummm, unfortunately for us, pretty damn easily. Easier now then it ever would have been before.

Example by numbers: We have what? 100 tanks? Probably only half that immediately servicable for combat status. We have like 80 CF-18 A+B Hornets... 1 BRANCH of thier airforce outnumbers that easily. They have 90 Aircraft on 1... Yes 1... Supercarrier like the USS Nimitz and USS Enterprise. They have at least 10,000 combat capable tanks. Thave an army of 1 million, we have like 60-65,000......

They would flatten us in days. It would be a raping! We would literally be slaughtered. And it's probably even worse then that, they have far more military hardware+people than we do in all aspects of a modern day combat capability.

Joe
PS> Hopefully we'll never ever ever have to test our arms against thiers. It's simple numbers, they have more. MUCH, MUCH more....
PPS> Even with "allies" comming to save us, it would take them some time to get here, all the strategic points mentioned in that text would probably be taken and fortified by "Blue" (The USA) by the time reinforcements came.

 

[Michael OLeary]

hmmmmmmmmm ... can anyone say Training Exercise:

In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime
military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops
converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and
another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania.  The war
game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with
the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue
forces, but eventually to lose "outnumbered and outgunned"
when Blue reinforcements arrive.  This according to the
Army's pamphlet "Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers:
The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History"

Looks like a staff paper to support a training event. Fodder for the conspiracy theorists perhaps, but hardly evidence of the US actually planning an invasion of Canada in the 1930s.

In the Army's staff college we conducted operational planning using the European area of operations after the end of the Cold War, now we use scenarios for the Balkans, even though we're not as active in that theatre as we once were. The selection of geography and force structures for exercises and the training of command and staff procedures, while usually based on real world geography and force structures, does not necessarily imply intent to conduct those operations in real time.

 

[bgpipes]

I am amused by these conspiratorial theories of The US attacking Canada. I am of the opinion that the US would be much better served by attacking its southern neighbor, the argument can be posed that Mexico is a MUCH bigger threat than Canada,who just happens to be the largest trade partner to the US.And vice-versa,but I believe that both nations have the right to defend against the infiltration of terrorists. the Al Qaeda radicals sees both Americans AND Canadians as infidels. :gunner:

 

[Bill Smy]

:warstory:

IIRC Cananda had a plan to invade the United States in 1919. Can't recall all the details, but one account I read states that military planners believed with some 600,000 or so veterans it would be possible to concentrate one major thrust and capture Washington. But the victory would be short-lived.

I think it was called Operational Plan 1, or perhaps War Plan 1.

If there were such a plan, it would be interesting reading. Perhaps some of the historians out there can comment.

 

[Kat Stevens]

I am amused by these conspiratorial theories of The US attacking Canada.

I'm no conspiracy  theorist.  I have a healthy mistrust of ANYONE who carries ultimate power.  It is the nature of the beast that it will look to secure it's position by dominating those around them.  It is reasonable to assume that if Canada ever elected an openly hostile government, that the US would take steps to control it, either economically, militarily, or both.  Just my thoughts, not a theory...

 

[Michael OLeary]

:warstory:
I think it was called Operational Plan 1, or perhaps War Plan 1.

If there were such a plan, it would be interesting reading. Perhaps some of the historians out there can comment.

It was called Defence Scheme No. 1, prepared between Dec 1920 and Apr 1921, a 200-page document with a central assumption that "the principal external threat to the security of Canada lay in the possibility of armed invasion by the forces of the United States."

The reference goes on to note that "in his assessment of intention, the strategic intelligencer can make only two kinds of errors: he can mistake enemies for friends; and (less commonly) friends for enemies. It was "Buster" Brown's distinction to have committed the more unusual of the strategic intelligencer's sins."

"Buster" Brown was the Director of Military Operations and Intelligence (D.M.O. & I.), Colonel J. Sutherland Brown, who occupied the position from 1920 to 1927.

The reference makes another related coment in stating "the central assumption of Defence Scheme No. 1 not only ran counter to the central assumption of Canadian foreign policy; it challenged most of the assumptions held by others in the military establishment."

Reference: In Defence of Canada: From the Great War to the Great Depression, James Eayrs, University of Toronto Press, 1964

Just my thoughts, not a theory...

"Just your thoughts" - which, by definition, makes it a theory.

 

[bgpipes]

It would seem to me, that Canada's military resources would be better spent searching out ways to respond to terrorist attacks on her cities. If such an attack were to take place,would Canada be able to mount a decisive global response? Could Canada put aircraft carriers to sea, along with Tomahawk missle carrying cruisers? Could Canada launch stealth bombers,fly halfway around the world,and hit targets with bunker buster bombs? All of this,with or without the assistance of the US? How much of a response could Canada mount? Would it just be wringing of hands,pulling of hair, and gnashing of teeth coming out of Ottawa? :-\ :-\ :-\

 

[Kat Stevens]

Thank you Merriam Webster.  I did not realize I was in the company of such accomplished wordsmiths.  I shall attempt to be more erudite in future postings to this august company...

Chimo,  Kat

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Thank you Merriam Webster.  I did not realize I was in the company of such accomplished wordsmiths.  I shall attempt to be more erudite in future postings to this august company...

Chimo,  Kat

Quit crying; you said something dumb and got called on it.  You don't have to be erudite - we'll settle for coherent. 

Published Author Mike

 

[Kat Stevens]

Wel, goooo-lly, you can't expect a highschool dropout like me who spent 23 years slopping around in the muck to be all there, can ya? :crybaby:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Wel, goooo-lly, you can't expect a highschool dropout like me who spent 23 years slopping around in the muck to be all there, can ya? :crybaby:

Well, we'll make you a deal.  If we ever come around to slop around in the muck, feel free to tell us what we're doing wrong.  If we care about what we're doing, we'll appreciate the constructive criticism.  If we do something outrageously dumb, we'll share in a good laugh with you.

Feel free to adopt the same attitude here while writing with the wordsmiths.  I'm fairly certain Mr. O'Leary was poking some good natured fun at you while stating the obvious.... 

 

[Kat Stevens]

All done tongue firmly in cheek... If I had taken offense, I would have been a little more verbose...

 

[54/102 CEF]

Not sure getting "saying something dumb and getting called on it" is in order here or any time.

 

[bgpipes]

HA! Well said S_Baker.....I could not have said it better myself....(wordsmith)