Watch out America, Canada's coming to bomb your asses.........

[JohnyCanuck]

.....with our top-secret, float-plane air force.


This is in regards to the recently declassified Pentagon war plans for the invasion of Canada and Mexico going back to the 1930s. The author of the article "Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism" relates US militarism to a backward projection of the US military's own plans for invading and seizing control of resources from other countries. In other words, they project on others what they themselves plan to do.

He examines these declassified war plans for the US invasion of its neighbours and quotes from a US military expert testifying before some dumb-as-shit Congressmen as to why they needed to construct more air bases to attack Canada. Here is where it really gets into lala land. Just keep in mind that at this time Canada had a practically non-existent air force and no army to speak of.

Secret War Plans and the Malady of American Militarism
by
Floyd Rudmin

SNIP

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.

SNIP

In the mistakenly published 1935 testimony to Congress about the need for new air bases to attack Canada, a military expert explained that Canada has thousands of lakes, and each of these is a potential float-plane base. He asked the congressmen to imagine the fearful vision of the sky filled with bush-pilot float planes flying down from Canadian forests to bomb Boston and Baltimore:

"...the Creator has given countless operating bases within a radius of action of this country in the vast number of sheltered water areas that are available deep in Canada... from which pontoon-equipped aircraft could operate at will... There is no necessity for starting with an observation in order to know what they are going to bomb. They know now what they are going to bomb. They know where every railroad crosses every river. They know where every refinery lies. They know where every power plant is located. They know all about our water supply systems... Now they are dispersed widely out over this area. Their location is most difficult for us to learn, for our own air force to learn. We have to hunt them up. We have to find out where they are before we can attack them."

No one in the hearings laughed at this. Instead, Congressman Wilcox complemented the speaker, Captain H. L. George, as "a mighty good teacher" and Congressman Hill said, "Captain, you made what to my mind is a very interesting, clear, and lucid statement." No one asked Captain George how he knew with such certainty that Canada or Britain had located and targeted U.S. railroad bridges, oil refineries, power plants and water systems. In fact, the U.S.A. had located and targeted such facilities in Canada as part of War Plan RED. We imagine that others are planning to do to us what we know we are planning to do to them. Projected military imagination causes paranoia.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rudmin02172006.html

Does this remind of "war hero" Colin Powell spouting known lies and bullshit to the UN about Saddam's WMDs?

[Kagemusha]

1. Germany was not exactly a threat to the US in 1935.

It was, in fact, in such a pathetic military state overall, and on a continent an ocean away with its WWI navy scuttled at the end of that conflict, without a realistically effective submarine fleet whatsoever, that I could almost believe that Canada was a larger threat than Germany at the time.

This is a classic example of applying hindsight to history. Great for propaganda; bad for education.

And you mistake Colin Powell's job at the UN for that of a soldier. If he wasn't willing to make the case for war, he would be expected to step aside in favor of someone who could. Since stepping down would in itself hurt the cause, he instead made the case and judged his reputation less important than the President's diplomatic policy. A pity his efforts were so infamously wasted. He got used, plain and simple.

[JohnyCanuck]

2. Good Grief.

I could almost believe that Canada was a larger threat than Germany at the time.:rofl:

Note that the appearance of the US military spokesperson detailing to Congress the dangers of attack from Canada's non existent float plane air force and bare bones army was in 1935

Hitler saw Nazi Germany as being at the centre of Europe and as the great power of Europe, the nation needed a strong military. Throughout the 1920’s, Germany had been technically keeping to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles but in reality she had been bending the rules regarding training. Versialles had not stated that Germany could not train submarine crews abroad or that pilots for the banned German Air Force could train on civilian planes. Therefore, on paper Hitler inherited a weak military but this was not in reality the case. However, Hitler knew that publicly Nazi Germany was still seen within Europe as being held to the terms of Versailles and he was determined to openly break these terms and re-assert Germany’s right to control its own military.

In 1933, Hitler ordered his army generals to prepare to treble the size of the army to 300,000 men. He ordered the Air Ministry to plan to build 1,000 war planes. Military buildings such as barracks were built. He withdrew from the Geneva Disarmament Conference when the French refused to accept his plan that the French should disarm to the level of the Germans or that the Germans should re-arm to the level of the French. Either way, the two main powers of Europe would be balanced. Hitler knew that the French would not accept his plan and therefore when he withdrew from the conference, he was seen by some as the politician who had a more realistic approach to foreign policy and the French were seen as the nation that had caused Nazi Germany to withdraw.

For two years, the German military expanded in secret. By March 1935, Hitler felt strong enough to go public on Nazi Germany's military expansion - which broke the terms of the Versailles Treaty. Europe learned that the Nazis had 2,500 war planes in its Luftwaffe and an army of 300,000 men in its Wehrmacht. Hitler felt confident enough to publicly announce that there would be compulsory military conscription in Nazi Germany and that the army would be increased to 550,000 men.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/germany_and_rearmament.htm

As for Colin Powell, his toadyism to power goes back to his Vietnam days.No doubt he was "just following orders" like a good soldier should.

In response to a letter written by US GI Tom Glen to Gen. Creighton Adams, Commander in Chief in Vietnam, detailing atrocities committed by US troops against Vietnames civilians and POWs that he had witnessed first hand, the then Major Powell was assigned to investigate. Glen's letter did not mention the My Lai massacre which only became public later on, but if Powell had done a proper job investigating Glen's allegations of war crimes and abuse instead of blowing smoke and minimizing their signficance its quite likely the facts about My Lai would have come out sooner than they did, so the often heard accusation that Powell "covered up" My Lai is not completely accurate.

The letter's troubling allegations were not well received at Americal headquarters. Maj. Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen's letter, but did so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him. Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen's superior officer that Glen was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing about, an assertion Glen denies.

After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13, 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S. soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, Powell noted.

"There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs," Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his letter.

Powell reported back exactly what his superiors wanted to hear. "In direct refutation of this portrayal," Powell concluded, "is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin3.html

[Kagemusha]

8. Agreed about Colin Powell but...

How the HELL was Germany going to actually get those planes and soldiers to American soil, huh? Germany was a much bigger threat at the time to WORLD PEACE, but to America? I find that completely and utterly absurd. Canada really did have more realistic prospects of invading actual American soil.

[adwon]

3. This is silly

1. This is a moronic article.

2. War plans covering a large variety of potential scenarios and opponents is not militaristic. It's doing the minimum to be prepared. While it may not be likely that Canadian-US relations would ever turn belligerent, it's also not impossible.

3. The hype about chemical weapons is a bit overblown. Would they have actually been used? And how effective would they have been? Considering the likely public outcry over their use and the general inefficiency of such weapons, it's a useless detail at best. Bear in mind, tabun, the first nerve agent, was not discovered until 1936. Before nerve agents, chemical weapons were a terror weapon, not a practical one.

4. The idea that a war with Great Britain could lead to hostilities with Canada was not paranoid fantasy. Perhaps the author should have noticed that in 1935, the very same year in which he decries American 'aggression' against Britain, the Nye Committee was busy blaming Britain for American involvement in the Great War. Further, Canada was a Dominion at that point and, thus, a legitimate target in an Anglo-American war (especially ironic would be the fact that this would be a mirroring of traditional British strategy).

5. 3 secret bases to bomb Canada? Oh no. I guess that would work out to like 5 planes per base, considering the Army Air Corps barely ranked when it came to air force size. Seriously, unless the capability exists, the intent is irrelevant.

6. Finally, his assertions that American military spending is a sign of militarism is conveniently ignorant. As a European, he has little standing to contest our spending when he is a direct beneficiary of that spending. After all, until the heroic job of destabilization that is Iraq, much of the burden of ensuring stability in major industrial and economic areas has been borne by the US, not Europe. In fact, one wonders at his assertions when the history of his home country (Norway) clearly shows the fallacy of trying to maintain a policy of neutrality. Perhaps the Norwegians should have spent money in the 1930s themselves...maybe it would have saved them the horror of Nazi occupation.

One final note: the criticism of America planning an offensive campaign, rather than a defensive one is a bit ironic. Leaving aside the brilliant success of the Maginot Line, check out this article. Specifically, check out the last paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

[tocqueville]

7. direct beneficiary of that spending ? you must be kidding

sorry to teach you that 75% of NATO's military spendings are funded by the European nations themselves (US bases included). Another myth...
http://ftp.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2976&sequence=4

"After all, until the heroic job of destabilization that is Iraq, much of the burden of ensuring stability in major industrial and economic areas has been borne by the US, not Europe."

you mean control of Saudi oil ? what stability ? where ? Iran, Vietnam, Chile, Cuba ? Most of the "stability job" was aimed at the Soviets. But NATO to 75% was still financed locally.

then starting from when ? The US military power was quite little before WWII, it grew with a tremendous effort DURING the war, because the US territory wasn't attacked and production intact.

and the Maginot line was a mistake, such as the poor state of the British Army yes (who survived because of the fact that England is an Island and that the Nazis fucked up the invasion completely). But so was the state of the US Navy too :


Operation Drumbeat (second happy time)
The U-boat crews called this the second happy time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Battle

Table showing total Allied and neutral losses in GRT during WW2, the North Atlantic is clearly on top.This began when the US joined the war, by declaring war against Japan after the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Germany then declared war on the US and promptly attacked US shipping.

Dönitz had only 12 boats of the Type IX class that were able to make the long trip to the US East Coast, and half of them were removed by Hitler's direct command to counter British forces. One of those was under repair, leaving only five ships to set out for the US on the so-called Operation Drumbeat (Paukenschlag). What followed is considered by many to be one of the most victorious naval campaigns since the Battle of Trafalgar.

The US, having no direct experience of modern naval war on its own shores, did not employ shore-side black-outs. The U-boats simply stood off the shore of the eastern sea-board and picked off ships as they were silhouetted against the lights of the cities. Worse, the U.S. Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Ernest King, rejected the RN's calls for a convoy system out of hand. King has been criticised for this decision, but his defenders argue that the United States destroyer fleet was limited and King believed that it is far more important that the destroyers protect Allied troop transports than shipping. This decision effectively left the U-Boats free to do as they pleased.

The first boats started shooting on January 13th, 1942, and by the time they left for France on February 6th they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss. After six months of this the statistics were equally grim. The first batch of Type IX's had been replaced by Type VII's and IX's refueling at sea from modified Type XIV Milk Cows (themselves modified Type IX's) and had sunk 397 ships totalling over 2 million tons. At the same time, not a single troop transport was lost.

It wasn't until May that King (by now promoted to Commander-in-Chief U. S. Fleet and the Chief of Naval Operations) instituted a convoy system. This quickly led to the loss of seven U-boats. But the US did not have enough ships to cover all the holes, and the U-boats continued to operate freely in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico (where they effectively closed several US ports) until July.

Operation Drumbeat did have one other effect. It was so successful that Dönitz's policy of economic war was seen even by Hitler to be the only effective use of the U-boat, and he was given complete command to use them as he saw fit. Meanwhile, Dönitz's commander Raeder was being demoted as a result of a disastrous operation in the Barents Sea in which several German cruisers had been beaten off by a small number of RN destroyers. Dönitz was eventually made Grand Admiral of the fleet, and all building priorities turned to the U-boats.

________________________________________________________________________________________

so please don't add to your post that the US "liberated" Europe during WWI too... Nobody in Europe denies the efforts and the sacrifices the US made against the Nazis and even later, but adding to much spols the good part

Remember too that the main effort with troops and material (including casualties) were done by Europeans during the Yugoslavian wars. Of course the US provided air support (and with very little effect in the Kosovo case except bombing Serbia to the stone age), but out of the 70 000 troops engaged by NATO only 4 500 were US and only 2500 stationed AFTER hostilities were ended. Still we still hear that the US "did the job" in Yugoslavia...

sometimes it gets a bit tiresome

[adwon]

9. Ok

The only problem I have with your argument is using NATO as the basis of the spending question. As I recall, the only time NATO has ever gotten involved with a security issue as an organization was during the 90s. It was the main piece of a set of overlapping regional alliances, but just one piece. The costs NATO bore were restricted to Europe, they were not global. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in the first post, but I'm speaking of global engagement, not just one area. Also, I'm speaking of the post-war world. The author of the article was attempting to link prewar planning (which was scrapped in 1939) to some mythical American militarism in the post-war world. I'm not oblivious to the fact that until the middle of the war, the US was not the dominant partner in the cross-Atlantic relationship. Essentially, please don't read my post as relating to WW2. I wasn't thinking of that much at all, except when I noted that the author might look back to his own country's history as an example of why military spending and militarism can be mutually exclusive.

I think you misunderstood the Maginot Line example. I was using it as an example of the ultimate permeability of supposedly 'unbreachable' defenses in order to argue against the seige mentality that is intertwined with the idea of a policy of non-active defense. I considered using the Siegfried Line as the example, but, in my experience, more people remember that there was a Maginot Line than the Siegfried Line. I guess I could have used McNamara's sensor line along the 17th parallel as well, but it wasn't really in keeping with my point. All I was trying to say is that part of defense is offense. It's usually a bad idea to sit back and wait to get hit.

I don't expect Europeans to kiss American ass for being in the two wars. It's not as though it was altruism on the part of US to be involved and many Americans tend to forget that we fought the Axis because it was in our interest, not because we like Europe being free (though, as side benefits go, it works out quite well :P).

Hope this helps.

[Rocknrule]

4. Counting seconds until inevitable South Park reference...

[area51]

5. OK, Canada...

I'm counting on you to mount your attack on the U.S. & "force" us to get your single-payer healthcare so we'll be a civilized nation ... pretty please? :evilgrin:

[TX-RAT]

6. Bring it on!

Y'all just make sure you bring plenty of that good Canadian whisky with ya. "Oh" and some fresh Walleye if ya don't mind.