Invasion of Canada

February 17, 2006
Plan Crimson: War on Canada
Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism

By FLOYD RUDMIN

Between the First and Second World Wars--that is, between 1918 and 1939--the United States developed and approved as official national policy three major war plans: a War Plan ORANGE against Japan; a War Plan GREEN against Mexico, and a War Plan RED against the UK. (The most useful source here is R.A. Preston's 1977 book, The Defence of the Undefended Border: Planning for War in North America, 1867-1939.) But there were other war plans as well. Special Plan VIOLET was approved by the Joint Board of the Army and Navy in 1925 for interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean "to forestall action by other countries including the League of Nations." There was a War Plan WHITE initiated in 1920 for suppressing internal insurrection by U.S. citizens, but it was not developed or approved.

These war plans were all declassified in 1974 and (can be purchased from the U.S. National Archives. Germany was color-coded black, but there never was a War Plan BLACK. War Plan RED was the largest of the war plans, the most detailed, the most amended, and the most acted upon. The Plan presumed that a war with the UK would begin by U.S. interference in British Commonwealth commercial trade, "although other proximate causes to war may be alleged". The Plan presumed that the British navy would take the Philippines, Guam, Hawai'i, and the Panama Canal. In exchange for these losses, the U.S.A. would invade and conquer Canada.

Though ostensibly for war against Britain Plan RED is almost devoid of plans to fight the British. The Plan is focused on the conquest of Canada, which was color-coded CRIMSON. The U.S. Army's mission, written in capital letters, was "ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON." The 1924 draft declared that U.S. "intentions are to hold in perpetuity all CRIMSON and RED territory gained... The Dominion government [of Canada] will be abolished." War Plan RED was approved in May 1930 at the Cabinet level by the Secretary of War and Secretary of Navy. It was not a plan of defense. The U.S.A. would start the war, and even should Canada declare neutrality, it was still to be invaded and occupied.

In December 1930, the US Naval Attaché in Ottawa made an espionage report to the Joint Board on Canada's lack of readiness for war: "In as much as Canada had no idea of trouble with any other country it was not considered necessary to maintain a proper air force." The U.S. focus on invading Canada accelerated during the 1930s. Even as late as 1939, when World War II was beginning and the free world was mobilizing to fight fascism, Preston describes how the U.S. Army War College and the Naval War College had set as their planning priority the task of coordinating land and sea forces for a project entitled, "Overseas Expeditionary Force to Capture Halifax from Red-Crimson Coalition."

For some unexplained reason, The Washington Post and Canada's national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, recently decided to report on War Plan RED. Peter Carlson's Dec. 30, 2005, article in The Washington Post was entitled, "Raiding the Ice Box." Shawn McCarthy's Dec. 31, 2005, article in The Globe and Mail was entitled, "They'd take Halifax (then we'd kill Kenny)." Both articles are written with doses of disbelief, derision, and sometimes giggling or guffaws.

But War Plan RED is certainly not news, nor is the re-re-reporting of re-re-discoveries of War Plan RED. The first news report of the Plan was in 1935, when secret Congressional budgeting for three camouflaged air bases for surprise attacks on Canada, at $19,000,000 each, was mistakenly made public by the government printing office, which published "Air Defense Bases: Hearings before the Committee on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, Seventy-Fourth Congress". This was reported by the New York Times on its front page and re-reported by the Toronto Globe under the headline, "U.S. Disavows Airport Yarn". War Plan RED was re-discovered and re-reported in 1975 by the Reuters wire service, and the Globe and Mail re-re-reported it. It was again re-discovered and re-reported as news in 1991 and again in 2005. History has lessons, but they cannot be learned by re-re-repeated disbelief or by giggling.

If U.S. war plans for the conquest of Canada provoke laughter, that is a comment on those who are laughing, not a comment on the war plans. In its day, War Plan RED was not meant to be funny. The 1928 draft stated that "it should be made quite clear to Canada that in a war she would suffer grievously". The 1930 draft stated that "large parts of CRIMSON territory will become theaters of military operations with consequent suffering to the population and widespread destruction and devastation of the country..." In October 1934, the Secretary of War and Secretary of Navy approved an amendment authorizing the strategic bombing of Halifax, Montreal and Quebec City by "immediate air operations on as large a scale as practicable." A second amendment, also approved at the Cabinet level, directed the U.S. Army, in capital letters, "TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY PREPARATIONS FOR THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE FROM THE OUTBREAK OF WAR. THE USE OF CHEMICAL WARFARE, INCLUDING THE USE OF TOXIC AGENTS, FROM THE INCEPTION OF HOSTILITIES, IS AUTHORIZED..."

The use of poison gas was conceived as an humanitarian action that would cause Canada to quickly surrender and thus save American lives. (Commander Carpender, A. S., & Colonel Krueger, W. (1934), memo to the Joint Board, Oct. 17, 1934, available in U.S. National Archive in documents appended to War Plan RED.)

In March 1935, General Douglas MacArthur proposed an amendment making Vancouver a priority target comparable to Halifax and Montreal. This was approved in May 1935, and in October 1935, his son Douglas MacArthur Jr. began his espionage career as vice-consul in Vancouver. In August 1935, the U.S.A. held its then largest ever peace time military maneuvers, with more than 50,000 troops practicing a motorized invasion of Canada, duly reported in the New York Times by its star military reporter, Hanson Baldwin.

What is the mentality and line of illogic that leads ranking military professionals, executive cabinet officers, and congressmen to plan and prepare war on an ally and good neighbor? Secret border bases? Surprise attacks? Strategic bombing of populated cities? Immediate first use of poison gas? And at the same time they were planning this for Canada, they failed to plan for war against German fascism, a very great threat to America. Clearly, something was wrong in the thinking of many high-level civilian and military decision makers. These war plans warrant proper study, not dismissive derision, if America is ever to understand and control its military impulses.

"The Americans have always been war crazy and they always will be. You will note the chemical warfare that they planned to wage on us. Americas have used many thousands of tons of chemical weapons against helpless civilian targets."

--

No worries! http://tinyurl.com/cqun4

Well the U.S. invaded Canada once already and got their asses kicked. We could do it again

Thanks for the link, I wonder what the updated plan looks like.
Darkbeaver

The nerve gas would ensure that we were for the most part dead.

That was the tickle I needed today, now I have a big smile stuck on my face which hurts a little, those laugh muscles that I don,t exercise
enough have almost become atropoid, thankyou.

Ok
1. The USA during it's early life all the way into the 20th century did believe that it had menifest destiny over north america and had plans for taking Canada, as they saw Canada as an extention of the British empire even when we had our own government.

2. the war of 1812 should have been an easy victory for the American's as the British never really cared that much about Canada. But the American's were too cocky and invaded through the south which gave our troops the advantage of supply. If Quebec or montreal had been taken first the war would have ended fast. But with our supply roots in tact we were able to hold off the American's. The British and American's had many lose's during that war and our one great victory was in holding Canada.

3. With the lessions learned from the war of 1812, I doubt the American's would make the same mistake again and we would be american's now if they had invaded.

With the lessions learned from the war of 1812, I doubt the American's would make the same mistake again and we would be american's now if they had invaded.

They have learned nothing, the simplest lesson of all escapes them, if you live by the sword you die by the sword.

I don't know. I would argue that the American's had their eyes on our water ways - St. Lawrence, The Great Lakes and the Mississippi.....in the south.

Ah but the Americans are our friends; we can trust them!

If the American's had invaded after the civil war we would be saying the pledge of allegiance now, I have no doubt that with the withdrawal of British forces from Canada around this time we would not have been able to hold back a sizeable and concentrated American invasion nor one which was planned. Hell the Finnian raids were a big deal!

.....they would pound us to hamburger in a matter of hours.

Come to think of it Australia...that little country in the middle of no where would probably overpower us

That's what they said about Vietnam too.

The Australian military is far smaller than the Canadian.

I've said this before,but here goes again: America has no reason to invade us..they already have control over everything they need from us,thanx to NAFTA.

Word

Ah Haggis... where do you find this stuff? I had to pick myself off of the floor.

If they had, maybe people would be able to read and write. My supply roots are intact, but I'm long out of tact. And my apostrophe's used up.

On the other hand, if the US invaded, the only way they would "win" would be if we all wanted to be Americans; look at the easy time they've had in Vietnam and now Iraq. Sure, the invasion part is easy.

-- - 21k

Preston's article is in the bibliography of this essay.

No doubt after the declassification in 1974 Preston constructed his book based on these historical records - a time when Canada was ideologically standing as far away from the U.S. as possible, accepting draft dodgers, decrying VietNam, and blossoming as a respected nation of "not" Americans.

Nevertheless, the trade and sharing has continued above the cries of dislike, Americans have come to realize the Canadian shunning is real, and many good thinkers on both sides of the border aim to eventually repair the damage done. How? I have no idea.

My hope is that the reinstatement of cordial friendship and trade can be done without rumor and innuendo against the other side and that truth will eventually prevail - with both sides listening to it.

There's a difference between planning and intending.

The US has plans to invade Canada right now. They have such plans as a pre-caution, in case there ever was a need. Why would there be a need? For example, if the USSR had ever decided to invade from the north. As slight of a possibility that may have been, the government would have been grossly negligent to not have such a scenario thought out. Same with the UK. The US has plans to invade the UK. Again, and more realistically, it was in response to a scenario if the USSR invaded the UK. How would America take it back?

Wednendays Child said:

"My hope is that the reinstatement of cordial friendship and trade can be done without rumor and innuendo against the other side and that truth will eventually prevail - with both sides listening to it."

That would mean continued association with a Terrorist
State, eventually that truth will prevail.

Even the British saw you as part of the British Empire despite having your own government.

The losses on either side were negligible and you speak as if Canadian and British were two separate entities, they were not.

The War of 1812 created Britains own Manifest Destiny, look at the land you now have and say it isn't so. The only thing that kept Canada together was the British Empire.

That would have been interesting to watch. A Russian land army miles from home in the tundra. I've been there, they'll be no invasion from the North

from what I have read Australia depsite its significantly smaller population spends more money on their military than Canada does.......but I guess if we had a draft we would have more manpower.

ahahah imagine that.....two weiner countries going at it

I have a Silliness folder in my browser, and a Profundity folder in my Documents. Between the two of them, I could be laughing clear into the next decade.

The only reason Australia spends more money per capita is because they know what it is like to be invaded. Ever since Darwin was attacked they've been more aware of external threats.

Canada on the other hand has never really been invaded in recent history, and we do have the US close by.

Australia is on its own and can't really count on New Zealand to bail them out. Nonetheless, it would be quite easy to take Australia is one wanted to.

Canadians love to put down their military, yet when plans are put into place to beef it up, we complain about the cost.

Why does the US have such a big military, cause they pay for it? I have no doubts that Canada could develop an advanced military if it were willing to spend the cash.

Australia plays a large role in "keeping the peace" in South East Asia too.

Out of necessity, not out of good will.