Plan Red: Britain and America's Planned Wars on Each Other
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2019
- If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: / historigraph
Check out my other videos here: • Newest Videos
#WarPlanRed #Historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
►Discord: / discord
►My Gaming Channel: / addaway
►My Twitch: / addaway
-
Sources:
Christopher M. Bell, “Thinking the Unthinkable: British and American Naval Strategies for an Anglo-American War, 1918-1931”, The International History Review, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Nov. 1997).
Kevin Lippert, War Plan Red: The United States’ Plan to Invade Canada and Canada’s Secret Plan to Invade The United States (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2015)
Stephen Roskill, Churchill and the Admirals
Ben Wilson, Empire of the Deep: The Rise and Fall of the British Navy
Music:
“Crypto" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
“Rynos Theme" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
“Division" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... 
Развлечения
If you enjoyed this video and want to help me make more, consider supporting on Patreon: www.patreon.com/historigraph
This video was made after a poll of my patrons, and you too could help shape the content I make :)
Youhave forgotten to mention WW inwhich USA finance Hitler and pretending your allie innstead of youur enemy have manage to lead you in dept , to vanish the influence of British empire , by using you as a cheap meat along with French ...........
I think you over estimate the speed that the US could take over key locations in Canada, the US after all in the 20s the Americans only have a handful tanks and the like meaning that if Canadian troops entrenched themselves around key positions it would be slow going for the US to deal with them, particularly significant as a higher proportion Canadian troops and officers in the 20s would have had far more experience in trench warfare and they'd likely to able to mobilise a significant number of veterans of the western front while the US deployed a relatively small number of soldiers to the front lines.
10 minutes and 2 seconds.....
Nice
@Historigraph can you also think about making one or two vids about tank battles in North Africa? doesn't seem like there are many good ones about Tobruk, Libya etc. (Operation Torch) :)
Historigraph ....Hi....first time seeing and hearing this. I am a 52yo lady, Danielle in Philadelphia Pa. When I was small, young like maybe 5 or6. I had thought, why cannot we , America, just tow those little British Isles over the Atlantic to the U.S.!!! Because, we were always friends as far as I knew and got along great. Now I have, had, grandparents in France, my Papi passed in 75, my Mami in 1996, my mothers parents. My Dad was born here, 3rd generation Italian American, he met my Mother in 1959, in the service. They married then moved back to States around 63, I think. I had been to France by plane five or seven times in my life. Last time with Mom in 1982. Mom n Dad one last time in 1994. So I was somewhat travelled, back then or thought I was by that age...and knew we couldnt get France over here....but maybe those tiny islands...all through a childs eyes. Would have been cool. Ha😄🤣😁🤗😎😉🕊🦅🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸🇬🇧🇺🇸REGARDS OVER THERE, ACROSS THE POND...GOD BLESS N LUCK AND STRENGTH. You as well as us are going to need it, as we always did. Slainte and Au Revoir. Bisous, if I got that right. To the good citizens of the U.K. and France. My God, how it changed. Aside from that...persevere and stay TRUE. Ciao, mes amis.....and Cheers!!!
Germany: Execute order 66
USA: You mean War Plan Red?
Germany: Yeah, sure, whatever
Hello There!
truE
Canada and Australia : Master England, there are too many of them. What are we going to do?
England: we are going to drink tea
@Fabian Kirchgessner America: If you can't beat them, join them!
I think it would be wise to point out the British had an Alliance with japan during the interwar period.
That would mean that Britain can attack the us form to east and Japan attack form to West
@@USSAnimeNCC- i don't think Japan would have the means to invade the mainland. They would be far more interested in the Philippines and Hawaii. It's pretty safe to assume if the war lasts more than a year that the Americans could lose all assets in the pacific to the Commonwealth and Japan.
This would be a strong card to hold in peace talks since Canada would be in extreme risk.
@@Litany_of_Fury Pearl Harbor would still have happened which would cause issues for the US.
@@Firmus777 the attack Pearl Harbor was only effective since the American fleet was there. In the 20's-30's it's more likely that the American fleet is divided up among the American strategic areas, notably San Francisco. Also depending on when the hypothetical war is, the use of naval bombers is non existent. The Japanese navy still believed in British Naval doctrine of battleships.
The Japanese would probably do a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor with Commonwealth support. The only difference is that the it will either be lightly manned or end in a pitched battle.
No, they didn't. It was officially terminated in 1923 in order to persuade the Americans to agree to naval parity in the Washington Naval Treaty. Had Britain and Japanese remained allied with each other, there was no way in hell the Americans would agree to mere parity with Britain; they would instead demand a fleet that could fight Britain and Japan at the same time.
"America to the left
Britain to the right
And im just stuck in the Middle"
~Ireland
🎶 Clowns to the left of me
Jokers to my right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with you🎶
Big Irish Potatoe Boi
and what cowards you are
The Irish actually tried to start a war between the US and Britain by staging terrorist attacks in Canada right after the civil war. It didn't work. And I thank God every day that we don't own Canada.
Trump to the left of me
Brexit to the right
Here I am stuck in the middle With EU
At least the Americans wouldn't starve you
How naïve to think the militaries of major nations don't routinely work up hypothetical war plans for all contingencies.
You'd be surprised - it's bizarrely rare. Even after the invention of the concept of a General Staff, lots of countries refused to even entertain plans for various military scenarios. WWII saw a lot of countries run into this as they found themselves quite suddenly at war with Germany without time to plan a comprehensive defense.
As far as military planning is concerned, America has basically taken the role of Batman. You could even argue that NATO mirrors the Justice League in this context.
Obviously modern plans like this will be very, very classified for the foreseeable future. But I really do hope they exist on all sides. Historically, fully planning your military operations seems to greatly reduce the pain and suffering they cause. Which makes perfect sense; such planning will reduce the time soldiers spend milling around in an area (bored soldiers are volatile soldiers), ensure supplies can be brought in smoothly (instead of pillaging the countryside), prescribe specific (and hopefully reasonable) responses to events which don't result in some colonel somewhere panicking and blaming local civilians...
@@PhysicsGamer Do not mentíon DC
In that time [of psychos] yeah, but I like to imagine we only make plans for dealing with threats these days [russians at the gate]
@@artificialgravitas8954 Why, though? It seems obvious to me that a country shouldn't neglect to plan for a situation simply because it's unlikely.
Artificial Gravitas, your post is contradictory. Since Russia doesn't have any good water ports (among other factors), they'll never be able to expand enough to be an economic threat, and the military question was answered long ago (Mutually-Assured Destruction). China is a much more significant threat, since they are busy buying property in every location they can get their hands on and even probing the moon for helium-3 deposits (future fusion fuel), on top of not having to worry about human rights getting in the way of production. Left unchecked, they'll simply out-compete the rest of the world because they're freaking efficient. Oh, and they control most of the rare-earth metal production, too.
TL:DW Canada gets thrown under the bus, the UK and the US play whoever is the better pirate wins
XenomorphZZ
The UK has a history of bad luck with pirates.
Matthew John Paul Jones was such a badass that his war crimes got excused lmao
Daniel Mendoza
Exactly. Their privateers tend to go rogue.
Bloody pirates!
A fantastic summary
When America turns fascist in HOI 4
set_ruling_party f
The Free American Empire
+Magne
No need to build a wall if all of the Americas is part of the Free American Empire. Europe to the Germans, Asia to the Japanese, and the Americas to the United States...
Communist*
Facts
Always have a backup plan, just in case your former friends turn on you.
There is no serious defense plan for Canada. The US Navy in 2019 is powerful enough to sink the rest of the worlds navies combined.
Americans don't like the thought of attacking Canada they are like family to us.
@@kappadarwin9476 until oil is discovered in Canada XD
USS Anime DD24 google says they have the third largest oil reserves in the world
@@p51mustang24
Arrogant and uneducated
War Plan Red's sub variants
War Plan Crimson - Canada
War Plan Ruby - India (or the British Raj at the time)
War Plan Scarlet - Australia
War Plan Garnet - New Zealand
War Plan Emerald - Ireland (a British dominion at the time)
The US also developed another variant of the plan called War Plan Red-Orange dealing with the concept of a 2 front war against the Anglo-Japanese alliance that existed at the time.
The US planned for war with a number of other countries with the colour coded war plans but the other big 4 besides red were probably orange which as mentioned before was for Japan, Black which dealt with Germany, Gold for France, and Yellow for China.
How did they think war with France of all people would come about? Or did they just want to be prepared for all eventuallities?
Also what about the Soviet Union?
The fuck did New Zealand ever do to you America? Is this about the No Nuclear Ships thing? God damn you bloody drama Queens!
@@jakobschoning7355 I would Imagine that France likely would have been similar to Britain as this was the French Empire we're referring to which maintained a similar if somewhat smaller colonial empire and had until recently been the world's second strongest naval power so something to do with trade, although having said that one could ask how did war with Spain come about at the end of the 19th century? I must admit I have not actually seen the specifics of War Plan Gold but I imagine it wouldn't be to different from Red with the Americans seizing French assets in the Caribbean, French Guyana and their other American possessions then negotiating a favorable peace using their superior navy to cut off any French reprisals but lacking the power projection to do anything to metropolitan France without a European Ally.
As for the Soviets I have heard conflicting things indicating that there may have been a War Plan Purple in case of a war with them, but I have also heard that Purple was something in South America. It would however, surprise me very much if there was no war plan to deal with the USSR given the political climate of the interwar period.
@@SimonNZ6969 Perhaps because New Zealand (along with Australia) was on British side? If U.S.A. actually went to war with Great Britain, as the video implies, why wouldn't NZ possibly be one of the targets? Maybe GB could have used NZ to its advantage against U.S. in some fashion in this hypothetical war, and U.S. might have taken that into possibility to actually draw up a plan.
I'm surprised our quite racist ancestors didn't make the color of the war plan against Japan yellow.
They say generals are always planning on fighting the last war, but this takes that concept to the next level. "Gentlemen, 1812 remains a blight on our military record, a blight you will all wipe away."
Ah, warms the heart to see best friends secretly planning to kill each other.
like father like son XD
🇺🇸♥️🇬🇧
@@MrDacat ahh sorry but
Germany is the fartherland
And Russia is the motherland
Making the UK the sonland
And usa the daughterland
@@ad3l english and russian was different
"Best friends." America has no friends. Only interests.
Can you do the rest of the Rainbow Plans, specifically Black (Germany) and Orange (Japan) and look at how the United States modified their plans to meet the realities of a modern war?
Yes please
1984
Agreed please do this.
There is War Plan White which was for Russia
PresidentWordSalad actually is a war plan rainbow it’s a planned war with the United States stands alone and literally hast to fight a war against the entire planet,
USA: When you can't forget about 1812
UK: When you can't forget about 1783
@Curvy Haydur 1776 is when the colonists declared war
1783 is when they gained their independence
Jesus why are Americans so bad at history
@@chrisklitou7573 1776 is when they BECAME independent, but the war ended in 1783- an American
@@KIMG69 gained independence in 1783
Declared in 1776 learn the difference
Chris Klitou 1776 is when it was declared. That means enacted. The whole war was the British attempt to invalidate the declaration. Since they lost, it stands. Nobody thinks American Independence Day is September 3, 1783 😂
@@KIMG69 because they're stupid
If I file for divorce on 1776
Then get divorced in 1783 im not going to say I got divorced in 1776
USA: France, can i get help?
France: Perdon, No.
USA: were fighting UK!
France: 🛥️🛥️🚢🚢🛳️🛳️⛴️⛴️🚤🚤🛩️✈️✈️✈️🛩️🛩️🛩️🚁🚁🚁🚀🛰️🌍🌎
Britain: *kills one general*
French: WE SURRENDER!!!
America: really?!
@@evanlight2550 France is gonna roll from Indochina to Singapore with bikes lmao
@@evanlight2550 they fought the brits off and on for about 100 years britain isn't germany
*start of the video*
“The United States and Great Britain”
*shows Canadians landing on D-Day*
I mean, Canada is kinda a mix of the two /s
@@comedymask5340 Hell Canada is mix of France as well. They're just what happens when you combine Americans, Brits and French.
Yes, the New Brunswick North Shore Regiment landing on Juno Beach on June 6, 1944. That is, in fact, the only footage of a first wave assault in Normandy. There is no other film of it. Anywhere ...
Todd Sauve Yeah I get that, just pointing out the irony in saying just the US and Great Britain while showing Canadians
@@Ryan-0413 Yes, very funny in its all too often way!
Sir! Canada destroyed our cities.
WHAT! Impossible! They're supposed to be defending Halifax. How do you know it was Canada?
The only thing left that was not on fire was a letter saying "Sorry"
Its Surry
@Iafiv Iv who are canuks?
I can't think of a good name canucks is a name giving to Canadians
Mexico: They fell for it! *turns communist and elects Trotsky as leader*
1812 intensifies
Canada: “We will hold out until the mother land comes to the aid of her Canadian children; defending us to the hilt.”
-War declared between US and Canada-
UK: “Nope”
>Fast forward to April 1982 over a rock in the South Atlantic
@@marcokwan1377 By that point it was more an insult to British sovereignty: 'A 3rd world dictator dare place boots and standard on our land; oh they certainly choose a queer day to die!'
poles learned the hard way there
Send in the Vulcans
Don't be so certain. That is what the plan outlined here said but if a Prime Minister such as Churchill was in Number 10 then sending aid to defend Canada would certainly be on the cards. Churchill proved throughout WW2 that he would defend anywhere and everywhere in order to prove the UKs loyalty. Just see Poland, France, Norway, Greece and Malta for confirmation.
America deployed Emu Divisions in Australia
No we deployed bear and wolf divisions.
Emu; the most feared anti-aussie weapon
Really interesting stuff! Great work
03:00 The US challenging a British blockade leading to war sounds a lot like the trigger for the War of 1812
Red Ice big difference 100 years makes though
He even made the trade country France XD
And invaded Canada.
The outcome won't be the same.
@@Fifthmiracle You're tears.. Mmm!
USA: Uhmm, whatcha got there?
Canada McNaughton tries to hide Scheme No.1:A smoothie.
If Canada had just kept pushing after they burned the white house is the only time in history theyll have ever had a chance against America
@Sovereign They actually did win battles during the invasion of Canada. Just didn't win the campaign.
@Quackers O'Brian the USA lost that war, although more to the British than the Canadians. Although they were pretty much the same thing at the time
@Quackers O'Brian heh, unfortunately, they didn't achieve their main war goal which was to stop British restrictions on American trade with France . The US was the aggressor in the war of 1812, regardless if their cause was just. If the aggressor is forced into what was essentially a white peace (with neither side achieving their war goals) then the defender has won. Losing a war does not neccesarily mean total defeat, just a failure to accomplish what they set out to do. The British do not loose for failing to accomplish their war goals because their initial and overarching objective was to prevent the US from achieving theirs, which they definitely accomplished.
@Doctor Slave go on provide some historical evidence then
The Canadian plan sounded like something that was just written down so they could say they had a plan.
Right?
"Okay, we go in... bash a few bridges in Fargo...get out and lock the doors."
"Nice, then what?"
"Then we wait for Britain."
"Perfect, what'll they do?"
"Hopefully the rest."
"Brilliant!"
Honestly, do some more reading on "Buster" Brown and his wacky hijinks. Dude was a bit of clueless lunatic in some ways, but he was very serious. Foolish, but serious. His plan would have utterly failed, spectacularly so, and Canada would be America's 51st state right now if war ever broke out, but it wouldn't be because they were half-assing their plan. It would be because they whole-assed a terrible plan based on faulty assumptions.
@@fakecubed How is it foolish? Makes sense to bring the war to the enemy. Use the best weapon Canadians have, the US is use to war with people who look and talk different than they do. Imagine the damage 1000 Canadians could have done in the USA. Of course now all they need to do is turn off the power and water to the USA and there would be rolling power outages and no water for many areas in the US. Also cut oil lines to the USA who gets the majority of it's imported oil from Canada.
"united kingdom declares war on the United States"
"United States joins axis"
Only thing is that Japan probably would’ve allied with the UK.
In our timeline the US mainland was never truly under serious threat from Japan and Britain never truly under serious threat from Germany and Italy. I think in a theoretical pre ww2 Britain vs USA -> 1v1
@Adam de souza that is just not true though. The entire reason for the interwar naval treaties is because Britain was broke after the first World War and every single belligerent owed the United States enormous amounts of money. Britain pushed for those naval treaties so that they could maintain a slightly smaller Navy than the United States had because they knew that without those treaties the United States would rapidly overtake them in terms of naval power. Britain simply was incapable of matching the United States in terms of naval production, although you can certainly make a very strong argument for the British having better ships on a one to one basis, at least generally speaking.
@@micfail2 The pre-existing naval power of the Royal navy in the interwar period allowed for relaxed funding, but was still the most dominant navy until 1943~
The British planners behind the naval treaties wanted the huge navy to be as economical in peacetime for as long as possible to save costs because of the debt.
If Britain in 1918 expected to fight a total war with America, the Navy would've matched American production and would go all out to destroy the last major British rival
@@micfail2 I'd even argue there was an even chance of victory on both sides up until 1946, as with all out mass battleship naval battles the Royal navy was as experienced as America, taking on both Italian and German Battleship navies.
And American carriers had wooden decks, and British ones had steel decks, and would've made easy work bombing the Wood decked carriers of Uncle sam.
This reminds me quite a bit of the German 1918 Spring Offensive. _”We can’t let too many British troops/American troops arrive, so we’ve got to quickly overrun Canada/France.”_
DylanDude B the difference is that it will work this time
Yeah, most likely.
The difference is that the entire border isn't covered with deeply entrenched armies from 2-3 countries
It's a fairly common tactic regardless of the militaries involved. You always want to hit the enemy hard before they have a chance to mobilize and dig in. It's those instances where foes are not matched well, (Canada vs US for example) it's often better for the outmatched party to hit where they can in opportunist fighting and live to fight another day for as long as is possible, as it decreases enemy morale and ups war fatigue while also limiting (to some degree) their ability to project war. In Canada's case, they have a strong ally in Britain, so it makes even more sense to bide time until vastly superior reinforcements and aid can arrive.
@Parker Dunlop Far more of them, far better equipped, better trained, and with the necessary support systems to properly wage a war of such size (including air and sea assets). More importantly, their ability to produce isn't directly threatened like Canada's would be, so they'd serve vital to importing supplies. Not much option Canada would have in such an exchange given the immense shortcomings in all aspects but to maintain a strong defensive position as long as possible...
This entire hypothetical plan is literally War of 1812 2: Electric Boogaloo. It has the lense of the 20th Century, that is all.
It's really amazing how quickly the USA developed. In 1812 Chicago and Pittsburgh were just outlying forts held by less than 100 soldiers (called Fort Dearborn and Fort Pitt), Detroit had barely been founded.
I love how throughout history America and Britain were always worrying about some big final showdown between them, only for the loss of all of Britain's colonies and two world wars to turn the two into close allies that consistently fight side by side.
Glad both Americans and Britain are still Allied
though the concept of a war between USA an emerging power and Britain a waning super power with lots of allies during a time of new technology and tactics is interesting
given the fact that britain sold her empire to america to defeat germany
and since then america has humiliated and dominated britain
i would say you are not allied britain is a satellite of america
USS Anime DD24 or are they?
Viorel viorel ‘humiliates and dominated Britain’ we have a triggered American
@@whowoulge1256
it did ever since the suez crisis
being humiliated on the irish problem
not to mention british politicians destroying things like british aerospace industry at the request of american companies
that is how britain became the first and only to get orbital capability and then close the program
this is just the top of my head
you are ignorant if you believe you are their equal partner
_“A warring nation Canada is not, though a nation of warriors she has sometimes been forced to become.”_ -Pierre Berton, _The Invasion of Canada, 1812-1813_
Huh, I didn't know that Chicago was named Detroit in the 1930s
And Minneapolis is sure a long way from Minnesota
(good vid but as a Minnesotan I am obliged to bring that up)
wolfbyte3171 I do believe Detroit is in the correct spot (maybe a little too south), but was also not aware that Chicago used to be called Minneapolis
@@evandavid9087 It's a bit confusing with the animation, but the "Detroit" name appeared when the Chicago dot did, and "Minneapolis" for where Detroit more or less is. Otherwise yes Detroit is correct, just not Minneapolis XD
"broke my immersion when I saw that, as a fellow Minnesotan I'm hurt. 5/10")- IGN /s
Yeah and winnipeg isn't in saskachewan
@wolfbyte3171: Misidentifying cities: one of the side effects of bootleg hooch.
What about the Wookies on Kashyyk?
yoda will keep their morale up
It's a system we can't afford to lose.
@Ernest Meszaros it's unfair!
@@marnie4629
DO IT!
Wut about the Droid attack on the wookies??
Someone should make an alternate history story about this
It's called HOI4
It's Called Harry Turtledove's TL-191/ Southern Victory Series.
Atleast a TV show or a movie
Someone tag alternatehistoryhub
No because alternate history is just somebodies fantasy and worth a dirty diaper.
Meanwhile in Australia,
US and UK text: "Hey...u up?" and leave 4 missed calls in 5 minutes.
Australians to the PM: "Oi! Leave the phone alone, don't answer it!"
Defence Scheme No. 1 may seem ridiculous by today's standards, but in the 1920s, Canada still had hundreds of thousands of combat veterans from World War 1, large stocks of small arms, and air and armoured forces were still in their nascent stages and likely would not have been a major factor in a conflict between Canada/UK and the USA.
The biggest reason it would have failed is because the active Militia at the time only had about 5,000 soldiers in total, and it would have needed weeks or even months of slowly simmering tensions to draft and train the troops necessary for it to work.
If the UK considered Canada as having any real strategic value at that point, the plan might have actually worked, especially if the UK started pre-positioning some forces ahead of the war actually breaking out, as tensions started to escalate. The problem is Canada vastly overestimated the UK's interest in actually defending Canada from the US.
Denmark: ahh, we may have cut down 80% of our forest, but now we have a big navy so we can defend ourselves against those damned Swedes! That’ll show ‘em!
England: yea, about that...
6:07 Ah yes, the city of Minneapolis, Illinois.
Canada should use the soviet tactic ""WINTER""
America has access to fake-canadian Alaskans
But the US has Winter. Right now for me its -53F lol
Remember Wilson Canada's population lives near the US border
Lmao u try way to hard to be funny and your very ignora2
@@artificialgravitas8954 i think you mean Canadians are just weaker Alaskans ;)
I adore these video's, they're so well written and very well narrated. Doesn't hurt that you have a very nice voice to listen to :)
"We have the right to fire upon any neutral merchant ship if it's shipping to our enemies! Even if it draws us into a war with a previously neutral major power! Because that's our right!"
Man, now I know where we in the US got our hyper aggressive military mindset. Like parent nation like child nation.
It's not "hyper-aggressive". If your entire war plan is to starve the enemy of any supplies, then someone comes along and starts giving them supplies, you're gonna be pretty pissed too.
The US from the '50s onward has declared war on countries simply because of how they are run. The Belligerent rights were.. probably irritating, yes. But reasonable if you consider everything. If these Belligerent rights were never considered Britain would've lost it's empire at Napoleon.
Why am I getting flashbacks to what the Germans did, this sounds no different... bloody Victorians
I'd like to add that this is literally the reason the US decided to fight against the Central Powers in WW1.
Hfar The problem is?
Why does that sound like the buildup to War of 1812
A country has no friends, only interests.
@@artificialgravitas8954 Actually I think it was Charles de Gaulle that said that.
@@Xenin7 Don't tell the two where the other is from and maybe they'd get along then
Sounds like something Kissinger would say. ;)
@@Xenin7 He did, but it was first said by British Prime Minister Viscount Palmerston: 'We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow'.
Exactly my opinion
Loks like Batmans strategy: Always have two plans
One for the enemys
Two to kill your friends
People seem to forget that the US and Great Britain were at war with each other twice, and were at odds at each other from the end of the American Revolution to around the 1800s.
Well this war plan would be different, both sides rival each other on the seas, and the US no longer needs the aid of another nation to take down Britain.
@Reckoning I that case the British Empire would have devored the American Empire restoring the old political order in the new world. In reality the opposite scenario occurred : the American Empire expropriated and did away with the British Empire. The Suez war is a good illustration of ho and hy this as done.
But the paradoxical thing is that its main helper and/or accomplice in that matter was a certain half American whose father-in-law was a Wall Street millionaire as the head and hero of the British power elite. His name was sir Winston Churchill , the grave-digger of the British Empire.
Imagine if this happened at the start of WW2 and the US entered the war on the side of the Axis.
Actually, I believe it would be more likely that the British side with the Germans because Hitler saw the British as equals (or at least as equal as you can get in the mind of an egotistical maniac). There is more evidence to this theory, that's just all I could remember but I implore you to do some research on the topic because that was a real possibility.
@@Firmus777 I can't blame you that would be very interesting.
The memory of WWI was much stronger in British heads. And if Britain sided with the axis I don't think the US would have a real interest in siding with allies. Capitalists liked the idea of fascism (take Ford).
Now US with the allies and Britain with the axis, that war could have been very long. France would be attacked first, but then USSR may still have enough time to take the strong hand, more so if the US attacked Britain.
Drew Durnil already has it covered
@John Fulghieri no they didn't. Communists were the first group nazis massacred. Capitalism is compatible with fascism while communist is really not. The reason why the USSR made a deal with Germany is that USSR despite its name had very authoritarian (hence not really communist) elements and it saw that pact in a strategic way, not ideological.
2:55 Thank you for explaining what had puzzled me for years.
This is fascinating! Thanks for creating this
Just imagine what could have happened if Bismarck was alive during this hypothetical situation
Canada beats both?
No, america becomes allied with the fucking kaiserreich. Crazy right?
No they wouldn't have
@@x999uuu1 Hey, enemy's enemy = friend. It's just how war works.
CHAOS CHAOS That is wrong
A wise green beret once told me "when shit goes down be prepared to kill every one involved" this applies here
You are truly an excellent narrator. Great and informative video as always.
really cool video! Im looking forward to your next one, whatever it may be
Hmmmmm, this is very interesting
That sounds like the talk of a Hun spy, tell me good sir, are you a Jerry spy?
Bill Gultch I don’t know kind sir, are you a COMMUNIST SPY
Jk you’re probably a good spy
It has always been my opinion the military has developed plans to attack and defend friend countries. These plans are good academic exercises that can be implemented in war games. Having plans and testing them provide insights into areas where you do not get a second chance. (I think the Chesapeake Bay is a prime example.)
Good to see you back!
dam Awesome vidéo !
Also...the names for patreons were awesome !! :O
Friends are enemies that hasn't attack yet😚
An in depth view of a war that never happened. Really well made video 👍
Your voice is so calming
YES! Another Historigraph video, and recommended straight from the Apollo 11 Movie trailer. This is a great day!
America: How many times do we gotta teach you a lesson old man
A laughed more than what I should had.
@@Belisarious5-600 shhh the Americans think they won that one, I mean when you get your arse kicked and fail all your objectives its a win, right? But hey they won in Louisiana.
@@CptBritish Name an objective that we lost we already achieved our goal of stopping the British from kidnapping our people, and no borders were ever changed so its more of a draw.
@@gabriel.b9036 Manifest Destiny was shelved... Canada stayed British... Also you were stopped from trading with French Hitler. Also they weren't "Your people" they were British citizens that fled conscription. You know just like the US taxes people even if they don't live in the US or benefit from US taxes at all today, it might be unfair but tough titty.
Gabriel.b America lost to britan in the war of 1812 because America failed their objective (anex Canada) and britan completes their objective 🤦🏻♂️
We're lucky we didn't waste our time fighting a war that would have accomplished nothing, but instead we joined forces to crush fascism a decade later.
@Shóisialach Náisiúnta Na hÉireann ok /pol/
@SoundCeremony no he's racist because he has a clear prejudice for anyone who's a minority dumbass
As a Canadian our greatest defence: 1.Winter
2. Millions or acres of bush
Us Americans would eat that syrup up.
@@liberalbias4462 plus im from New York, the one time we got 2.13m (7ft) in 2014
So a video about the USA and the UK fighting starts with a clip of Canadians landing at Juno beach... funny if intentional.
To be fair, we are kind of an essential part of the proposed conflict.
Canada was the Empire's only hope of a land war with the US, which at the time we could probably manage.
2:49 That's exactly how the War of 1812 (1812-1815) began because the US was trading with Napoleonic France.
4:58 Living in Canada, I doubt we'd take a side today. If any, it would be with the US. Not only because of our strong friendship since 1815, but because much of our economy is based on the US's.
Yeah I doubt Canada would want the two to fight at all. Perhaps trying to find a middle ground for the both to get along. Honestly though I figured Canada would be more pro British if it came down to it.
USA: I am the besttttt
Uk: hey you wasn’t!
Germany: hello
Uk&USA: STFU👊🏻👊🏻👊🏻
4:25 ...my understanding was that the 1807 attack on Copenhagen was out of fear Napoleon would seize the Danish fleet to replace his losses at Trafalgar and so threaten the Home Isles rather than Baltic Trade... Similar to the 1940 attack on the Vichy fleet at Mers-el-Kebir.
I'm british all I can say is
Up the rebels
Love the yanks and their unrivalled generosity.....
Love my country too....
Family should stick together
I'm sure Americans aren't so eager, seeing as you are the smaller part of this... family.
@@rippspeck Why not? What does size matter, population or land area, if we can just get along as allies?
back at you from a yank
mike bolton no us americans feel the same next to canada. We love both
caractacus brittania Vietnam was a joke
Such an interesting topic, and so crazy to think it was in the back of both countries' minds not that long ago. Nowadays such a thing is just unimaginable lol.
War is what middle east is for, for both
@@artificialgravitas8954 major wars are sooooo last century, PROXY wars are where it's at
United State's plan: Let's capture the major Canadian cities! Canada's plan: Let's try to capture Great Falls, Montana.
Great as always :)
That was a really cool video! Could you make more vids on ww2 naval battles, and German battles in Russia?
Country *builds ships
Britain * COWABUNGA IT IS
Wow I never knew about this very informative video!
Go back to [eternal] bed, you don't keep Rome
Game company Avalanche Press in it's 'War Plan' series has a naval game on this hypothetical. It covers naval action from Norfolk in the USA to beyond Halifax in Canada out to and just past Bermuda. It looks not only at the 'historical' fleets and plans but at what might have happened with no Washington. Part of the Great War at Sea series.
Thanks for the video
"the British plan was just to use it's powerful fleet to make life unpleasant for the Americans" yeah that about sums us up pretty well.
For the 1920's and early 30's this makes sense, but by the late 30's or early 40's the role of air power would be interesting with British bases in Jamaica and Bermuda, maybe even Newfoundland in range to bomb the US mainland. That would be an interesting game changer.
Always have a plan. When I was stationed at Ft Huachuca, AZ there was a plan to resist attack by the nearby city of Sierra Vista. Such plans were, I understand, developed by young officers as part of their military development.
Nah, you weren't briefed because it was above your pay grade, but Sierra Vista is actually where the government keeps the zombie virus vials. Those plans were all too real.
Can you explain more? Sierra Vista is in the US too.
In 1812, when the ostensible cause of war was British interception of US ships breaking the blockade of Napoleonic Europe the USA attempted to invade Canada, but were decisively defeated by British - Canadian forces ( historians recognise these days that expansion into Canada was the main reason for the decision to declare war). The British blockade of the eastern seaboard strangled American trade. Peace came in 1815.
1spitfirepilot that is incorrect. Most historians say it was over shipping rights. The war was never over Canada. And the blockade didn't do as much since Madison order an embargo in 1813 which stopped all American trade to any nation. In fact the only nation that demanded any land during the war was the British.
President Madison did indeed wish to annex Canada, but Congress and the Department of War decided otherwise, and no plans were drawn up let alone executed to occupy the Canadian colony for what land was initially held in the invasion.
Just a minor point which doesn't detract from this generally good account: Your map shows Newfoundland as part of Canada, but it did not join Canada until 1949. In the 20s it was a separate country with the same semi-colonial Dominion status as Canada.
Scary thought! We love the UK and Canada; can't imagine hostilities with either one! We're all family.
🇬🇧🇨🇦🇺🇸
I love your channel bro
Great video!
Quick question why is Chicago labeled as Minneapolis?
Nice to see my home (Halifax) mentioned...lol
Love the way the Americans borrow the flying columns term from the IRA, that’s what they referred to their units as during the Anglo-Irish war.
As an American of British ancestry I am for one glad this never happened. I believe the EU is a mistake and that the Anglican allies of USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and the UK are the best bet against any enemies. I once seen a beautiful illustration of several young ladies in a room in full 1700's dresses in a sewing circle. The Mother was decked out in a dress of the English Flag a daughter In the Scottish colors and several others in Canadian and Australian. Off to the front in a doorway was one daughter in the American Flag colors. In her hand her sewing piece with the words "revolution". On the bottom this WW2 piece said something like "Britain's Rebel Daughter will return Home When Mum Needs her too!"
To me it’s just crazy to think about a frontline between The United States and Canada!
Man,just imagine the US joining the Axis,the Allies would be done at that point,Germany would probably have all the supplies it could need from them.
To quote Stalin, "I have two generals who will not fail me: Generals January and February." In Canada we have similar generals.
I really enjoyed your videos on the Battle of Norway, do you think you could make a video covering the Invasion of Denmark?
Or if anyone could recommend a video that would be appreciated
This video mentions that, in a war between these powers and with Canada overrun by the U.S., the greatest disaster for Britain would be an American alliance with a European power that would allow the U.S. to use its ports. But what if the reverse happened, i.e. Britain established an alliance with Mexico or Cuba? A British presence in Cuba would be disastrous for U.S. trade and naval power. I think that would be the wild card that would give Britain parity in this war.
Britain already had colonies in Bermuda (off the coast of North Carolina), Jamaica (next to Cuba) and a lot of other colonies in the Caribbean. Throw in British owned Malaysia, plus Australia and New Zealand's Pacific Ocean territories which could be used to attack the Philippines and Hawaii and the British Empire almost had the USA surrounded.
Better dead than red right?
that and blue too
You are dead.
@@indigophanta8288 "better dead than red"- Liberty Prime
Better old than gold as French chose surrender rather than destruction
@@gabriel300010 Yeety yote, your rights are now revoked lol
9:13 Y'ALLS side knew what a self destructive move that would be lol.
Wow I just looked this up after hearing a small bit about this and you have a video uploaded from only 14 hours ago!
British Navy Men:"A strong fleet will be sent across the Atlantic to be based at Bermuda with smaller fleets in the Caribbean and the Halifax."
Panama Canal: AM I A JOKE TO YOU!
Trying to supply 2.5 million troops along either side of the US/Canadian border in that era would have made the logistics of the Axis invasion of the USSR look like simple task.
Not really, the UK had an abundant supply of oil, far better logistical capability in general, and 2.5 million men is significantly smaller than what was on the much more geographically challenging eastern front.
@@turdferguson3803 I meant more towards the low level on infrastructure on the US/Canadian border.
An interesting video. The one comment that comes to mind was that the 1807 Battle of Copenhagen was less about trade and more to keep the Danish fleet out of French hands
Yay more videos!
In a full-scale conflict with the U.S., Britain would have learned the same lesson as Japan. In 1942, the U.S. was down to one aircraft carrier. By 1945, it had 27. U.S. carriers would have sunk the entire Royal Navy. They could have produced not thousands, but tens of thousands of submarines to destroy the British merchant marine. Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would simply have Manchester and Liverpool. It would have been a very sad day. The only upside is that we would never have had the Beattles.
You forget the fact that at the time there was a unified British Empire that spanned the world, so the USA would not just be fighting the UK and Canada, but also Australia, India and 50 other places, including half of the Caribbean. Many of those places had shipyards that could produce destroyers and submarines. Some could also produce cruisers and aircraft carriers. Overall the British Empires combined industrial capacity was greater than the USAs.
@@Dave_Sisson no it wasn't......in fact American industry and money helped keep Britain in the war during ww2......the British Empire cannot hope to match an America fully geared for War unlike the UK the USA is self sufficent it doesn't need to rely on imports almost everything it needs it can get right at home.
Oh! Didn’t know that
I had no idea that this existed. Very interesting documentary.
8:20 - "... the strategy for both would be to try and make the war as unpleasant as possible for the other side, and essentially outlast them."
So - the same ineffective tactics that were used in the WW1, and resulted in a colossal four-year-long stalemate? Genius
*headdesks repeatedly*
Err, so ineffective that the Germans were forced into surrender due to a breakdown in civil order within Germany caused by the long blockade?? If it wasn’t for that blockade bringing the war to an end they’d probably still be pointlessly slinging grenades at each other in Belgium today...