Should the United States have acted on War Plan Red and/or War Plan Green?

Posted by: PetersSmith

An expansion of my poll on "War Plan Red".

11 Total Votes

Stay out of everything

The United States is out of line already. No 51st state, except for maybe Puerto Rico.
6 votes
1 comment

Annex the entire western hemisphere (I don't think this can be done completely peacefully)

Why not? We're already a war-mongering menace to society: In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief in the United States that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Historians have for the most par... t agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny: The special virtues of the American people and their institutions; America's mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America; an irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty. Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "A sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example...Generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven". Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept—Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity.... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest." Manifest Destiny provided the rhetorical tone for the largest acquisition of U.S. territory. It was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with Great Britain. But Manifest Destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter, had changed his mind and repudiated Manifest Destiny because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas   more
4 votes

Annex the entire world

Uh, sure; I mean, it's an option. World peace, check. One world government, check. Disarmament of all nuclear weapons, check. No more human rights violations, check. Everyday is Freedom Day, double check.
1 vote
1 comment

Annex the Middle East

I don't think I've ever shed a greater tear of freedom.
0 votes

War Plan Red

Always wanted to visit Canada without a passport: Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red was a war plan created by the United States Army and Navy in the late 1920s and early 1930s to estimate the requirements for a hypothetical war with Great Brita... in (the "Red" forces). War Plan Red discussed the potential for fighting a war with Britain and its Empire and outlined those steps necessary to defend the Atlantic coast against any attempted mainland invasion of the United States. It further discussed fighting a two-front war with both Japan and Britain simultaneously (as envisioned in War Plan Red-Orange). War Plan Red was not operationalized and did not have presidential or Congressional approval. Only the Congress can declare war, and in this period of U.S. history, it made no war plans. President Herbert Hoover was known as a pacifist. War Plan Red was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35. In 1939 on the outbreak of World War II and Britain's war against Nazi Germany, a decision was taken that no further planning was required but that the plan be retained. War Plan Red was not declassified until 1974. The war plan outlined those actions that would be necessary to initiate war between Britain and the United States. The plan suggested that the British would initially have the upper hand by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy. The plan further assumed that Britain would probably use its Dominion in Canada as a springboard from which to initiate a retaliatory invasion of the United States. The assumption was taken that at first Britain would fight a defensive battle against invading American forces, but that the US would eventually defeat the British by blockading the United Kingdom and economically isolating it   more
0 votes

War Plan Green

During the 1910s, relations between Mexico and the United States were often volatile. In 1912, U.S. President William Howard Taft considered sending an expeditionary force to protect foreign-owned property from damage during the Mexican Revolution. ... Thus War Plan Green was developed. In 1916, U.S. troops under General John Pershing invaded Mexico in search of Pancho Villa, whose army had attacked Columbus, New Mexico; earlier, American naval forces had bombarded and seized the Mexican port of Veracruz, and forced Victoriano Huerta to resign the residence. In 1917, British intelligence intercepted a telegram from the German foreign ministry to its embassy in Mexico City offering an alliance against the United States and assistance in the Mexican reconquest of the Southwest. Released to American newspapers, the Zimmermann Telegram helped turn American opinion against Germany and further poisoned the atmosphere between the USA and Mexico. Relations with Mexico remained tense into the 1920s and 1930s. Additionally, between the United States Civil War and World War I, the American military frequently intervened in the affairs of Latin American countries, including Colombia/Panama, Haiti, Cuba, and Nicaragua. This policy continued during the 1920s and 1930s, and parts of "Gray" and "Purple", although never officially activated, were used   more
0 votes

Annex Canada Peacefully, or at least attempt to

Send an ultimatum, or ask for a referendum, to Canada and offer statehood. During the Victorian Era, several Canadian provinces considered asking the United States for statehood. The most notable provinces were British Columbia and Newfoundland. I... n Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be to be annexed into the United States as "the 51st state". Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999. The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. Border from a desktop map of North America.[68] Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line. The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause. The Articles of Confederation, written after the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada. In 1948, during the last days of the Dominion of Newfoundland (at the time a dominion-dependency in the Commonwealth and independent of Canada), there was mainstream support, although not majority, for Newfoundland to form an economic union with the United States, thanks to the efforts of the Economic Union Party and significant U.S. investment in Newfoundland stemming from the U.S.-British alliance in World War II. A few groups in Canada have actively campaigned in favor of joining the United States. These annexationist movements have not attracted large mainstream attention, although surveys have found that a small minority of Canadians expressed support for the concept in surveys done by Léger Marketing in 2001 and in 2004. In the United States, the term "the 51st state" when applied to Canada can serve to highlight the similarities and close relationship between the United States and Canada. Sometimes the term is used disparagingly, intended to deride Canada as an unimportant neighbor. In the Quebec general election, 1989, the political party Parti 51 ran 11 candidates on a platform of Quebec seceding from Canada to join the United States (with its leader, André Perron, claiming Quebec could not survive as an independent nation). The party attracted just 3,846 votes across the province, 0.11% of the total votes cast. In comparison, the other parties in favour of sovereignty of Quebec in that election got 40.16% (PQ) and 1.22% (NPDQ)   more
0 votes

Annex Mexico peacefully, or at least try to

At least we won't have to deal with them hopping the border if there is no border to hop: The annexation of Mexico has always been a possibility. Due to their stability issues, sending an ultimatum, or asking for a referendum, to Mexico will allow i... t to become the "51st" state and hopefully the Mexican Drug War can finally be brought to an end. The US government, however, will not want to deal with Mexico's issues (because they would rather sit in the Middle East for no reason)   more
0 votes

War Plan Red, but annex the UK as well

Why not? We both speak English, the people of the UK desire freedom from their tyrannical and immortal leader, we could bring stability to Ireland, and the UK people love us.
0 votes

War Plan Green, but annex all of Central America and/or South America

Why not? South America could use some democracy: A glance at a map of the world shows Brazil's strategic location as far as a crossing of the Atlantic is concerned. The northeastern tip of Brazil allows the shortest crossing point to French West Afr... ica and Sierra Leone. In 1939, the US drafted War Plan Rainbow, and one of its tenets was that northeastern Brazil would be secured and available as a staging point for trans-atlantic travel to Africa and onwards into Europe and the Middle East, and yet further into the Far East and China (remember, at this point, the US was deeply concerned with Japanese involvement in China and a second route to that theatre independent of the Pacific was essential). However, as the US entered the war, it was believed in Washington that the security of northeastern Brazil could not be guaranteed; worse still, that the area and possibly the entire country could side with the Nazis. The reasoning behind this was complex, but boiled down to two essential elements: firstly, Brazil was not a democracy, but was instead a dictatorship ruled by Getúlio Vargas. Having staged a revolution in the early 1930s, Vargas had proclaimed a fascist "New State" which invited obvious parallels with Italy, Spain and to an extent, Nazi Germany. Vargas was also proud of his country's independence, and this spawned the second factor; in late 1941, the US requested the use of Brazilian bases for air operations, and to send in troops to guard these Brazilian bases against sabotage. Vargas saw this as an affront to his nation's sovereignty and refused. In Washington, this may have been interpreted as a resistance to the US rather than national pride, and hence doubt as to Vargas's (and hence Brazil's) allegiance was founded. There may also have been some truth to the fear that Brazil, or at least its military, would side with the Nazis. The bulk of Brazil's military were based in the southern part of the country, with the northern part being relatively secure and therefore thinly defended. Whilst the navy and air force were generally regarded as pro-Allied (unsurprising, considering the close ties that each had formed with the British Royal Navy and the USAAF respectively), there was a considerable degree of support for the strong military example of Nazi Germany amongst the officer corps of the Brazilian army, based mainly in the South; an OSS report estimated that some 70% of the officer corps were pro-Nazi, and senior government ministers were also believed to be of the same persuasion. Another factor was the large German expatriate population of some 1.5 million, most of whom resided in the southern part of Brazil. The fall of France and the spectre of a German seizure of Vichy territories in West Africa completed the picture. US planners believed that the German failure to capture Moscow in 1941 could lead to expeditions on the opposite flank, with a drive through Spain and Portugal, coupled with the seizure of Vichy French territory in Africa, bringing Brazil within range of German aircraft. A credible scenario involving German troops (or at least "5th columnists" landed by air from Dakar), combined with the mobilisation of pro-Nazi elements of the Brazilian armed forces was postulated. Thus, in the days after Pearl Harbor, the US drew up plans to forestall any attempt to secure northeast Brazil for the Axis by seizing it themselves. "Rubber Plan" was born   more
0 votes

War Plan Red and Green (peaceful and/or aggressive)

Both would be beneficial to both countries. A war would be costly, but it would be faster, and a proposal would be less costly, but a lot slower and has the chance of losing.
0 votes
No comments yet.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.