Yes, John Candy made a movie with this theme. Yes, South Park had a song called "Blame Canada," urging we just storm the border and get-'er-done.

But here's the real deal, and it included authorization to use poison gas. (Formatting below is in the original.)

QuoteThe military planning context of this document is War
Plan Red, which was approved in May 1930 by the Secretary
of War and the Secretary of Navy.  War Plan Red and
supporting documents are available from the US National
Archives on microfilm, in the Records of the Joint Board,
1903-1947, Roll 10, J.B. 325, Serial 435 through Serial
641.  In War Plan Red, the US Army's theatre of operations
is defined to be: "All CRIMSON territory" (p.80), and the
US Army's mission, in bold type: ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN
COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON (p. 84).  CRIMSON is the
colour code for Canada.  In 1934, War Plan Red was amended
to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against
Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax
if it could not be captured.

      In February 1935, the War Department arranged a
Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to
build three border air bases for the purposes of
pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields.  The
base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a
civilian airport and was to "be capable of dominating the
industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula" from p.
61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee
on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air
Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130).  This testimony
was to have been secret but was published by mistake.  See
the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.

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

Ummmm ... yeah. This article is misleading to the point of being falsehood. First of all, "War Plan Red" was a plan for a war in which the enemy of the US was Britain, not Canada. Second, and more to the point, War Plan Red (like others) was hypothetical. It was one of multiple "What if we had to" hypothetical contingency plans that were common (and may yet be). There was never a serious intent to invade Canada.

I find it hard to believe that even some German media outfit, even if it were staffed entirely by young people, could be so grossly ignorant of history as to think War Plan Red was a serious plan to invade Canada.

Quote from: SVPete on August 18, 2014, 05:48:45 AM
Ummmm ... yeah. This article is misleading to the point of being falsehood. First of all, "War Plan Red" was a plan for a war in which the enemy of the US was Britain, not Canada.

The Dominion of Canada in 1935 was beholden to England. As stated, this was the CRIMSON segment of that overall plan, although not specifically stated that RED meant the U.K.

QuoteSecond, and more to the point, War Plan Red (like others) was hypothetical. It was one of multiple "What if we had to" hypothetical contingency plans that were common (and may yet be). There was never a serious intent to invade Canada.

Canada had its own version, featuring an army officer named "Buster" Brown, back a few years before that. I'd have to look up the details, but his was definitely a more active role than say a what-if scenario.

QuoteI find it hard to believe that even some German media outfit, even if it were staffed entirely by young people, could be so grossly ignorant of history as to think War Plan Red was a serious plan to invade Canada.

You sure you're not using modern hindsight to describe people who thought Canada was the state above the Dakotas? Stung by the horrors of World War I, it seemed in every nation's best interest to at least think the unthinkable and concoct these scenarios, just in case. The report correctly identifies the Ste. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes as a strategically vital area for either side.

You control one fifth of the planet's fresh water supply, you get REAL serious, REAL fast.

QuoteStung by the horrors of World War I, it seemed in every nation's best interest to at least think the unthinkable and concoct these scenarios, just in case.

I believe this sort of contingency war plans covering even highly unlikely scenarios had roots pre-dating WW1. Definitely by the pre-WW1 German General Staff (and maybe even dating to the Franco-Prussian War). When it began in the US War and Navy Departments, I don't know.

QuoteYou sure you're not using modern hindsight to describe people who thought Canada was the state above the Dakotas?

My comment, "I find it hard to believe that even some German media outfit, even if it were staffed entirely by young people, could be so grossly ignorant of history as to think War Plan Red was a serious plan to invade Canada," referred to the source you linked in your OP. The ".de" in the url means that it is a German outfit. My point was that even if this geographically distant German media outfit were staffed by young people with a poor education in regard to US history, I just cannot conceive of them being so ignorant and uninformed that they would believe that War Plan Red was anything more than a contingency plan covering an extremely unlikely scenario. I think the people at that German media outfit was aiming this ludicrous anti-US propaganda at credulous conspiracy-theorist haters of the US, particularly in Canada.

Just to show how ludicrous it is, consider what was dominating US government attention from 1929 into at least the mid-1930s (when Hitler rose to power and Japan invaded China) - the Great Depression. Further along that tack, throughout the 1920s, into the late 1930s, the Feds had been demobilizing the Army and, under treaty provisions, scrapping many of the Navy's most powerful ships (many of which were obsolete, obsolescent or marginal) and cancelling two or more whole classes of battleships and battle cruisers (I'm painting in very broad strokes, but there's no significant devils in the details, most imps). Between the Great Depression and the gutting of the military it just is not credible to claim that the US had serious plans to invade Canada (along side whose men our soldiers had fought in WW1!).

It wasn't credible that arab trash could fly an airplane into a building --- and a second plane into another, all in one morning. It still happened.

Your fixation on contingency plans amuses me. Do you seriously believe we would NOT have such plans on the shelf, HOWEVER DATED, for just such contingencies?

Quote from: quiller on August 19, 2014, 05:59:13 PM
It wasn't credible that arab trash could fly an airplane into a building --- and a second plane into another, all in one morning. It still happened.

Your fixation on contingency plans amuses me. Do you seriously believe we would NOT have such plans on the shelf, HOWEVER DATED, for just such contingencies?

If we didn't, then it's time to get new blood in the war dept.
Oops, how un PC of me, I should have said "Dept of Defense".

Chair of the Joint Chiefs confirmed we no longer have a plan to invade Canada.

He so disappoints me.

Quote from: quiller on August 19, 2014, 05:59:13 PM
Your fixation on contingency plans amuses me. Do you seriously believe we would NOT have such plans on the shelf, HOWEVER DATED, for just such contingencies?

Did you bother reading my first post in this thread? It wasn't very long. In particular, these three sentences: ""War Plan Red" was a plan for a war in which the enemy of the US was Britain, not Canada. Second, and more to the point, War Plan Red (like others) was hypothetical. It was one of multiple "What if we had to" hypothetical contingency plans that were common (and may yet be)." While I didn't speculate whether War Plan Red was stored on shelves or in file cabinets, I specifically stated that War Plan Red existed (along with plans for war against quite a few other countries). And the link in my post mentioned "Crimson", the section of Red pertaining to Canada. BTW, that link also mentioned that War Plan Red was declassified and made public in 1974, 40 years ago.

As to my "fixation on contingency plans" if recognizing and pointing out the reality that contingency plans for highly unlikely scenarios are different from plans that might actually have to be be carried out (e.g. plans developed in the 1940s and updated to include developing technologies for potential war with the USSR) is a "fixation, I'll own it. If knowing and pointing out that in the 1920s the US demobilized and scrapped much of its war potential is a "fixation, I'll own it. If recognizing that neither Herbert Hoover nor FDR had any intent to invade Canada is a "fixation, I'll own it. If recognizing and pointing out that FDR had further gutted the US military to pay for his social and public works programs is a "fixation, I'll own it.

It's a fixation on reality!

That said, I'm allergic to flamingos, so I'm going to leave the croquet game that is this thread to you.

Quote from: SVPete on August 20, 2014, 04:25:01 AM
Did you bother reading my first post in this thread? It wasn't very long. In particular, these three sentences: ""War Plan Red" was a plan for a war in which the enemy of the US was Britain, not Canada. Second, and more to the point, War Plan Red (like others) was hypothetical. It was one of multiple "What if we had to" hypothetical contingency plans that were common (and may yet be)." While I didn't speculate whether War Plan Red was stored on shelves or in file cabinets, I specifically stated that War Plan Red existed (along with plans for war against quite a few other countries). And the link in my post mentioned "Crimson", the section of Red pertaining to Canada. BTW, that link also mentioned that War Plan Red was declassified and made public in 1974, 40 years ago.

As to my "fixation on contingency plans" if recognizing and pointing out the reality that contingency plans for highly unlikely scenarios are different from plans that might actually have to be be carried out (e.g. plans developed in the 1940s and updated to include developing technologies for potential war with the USSR) is a "fixation, I'll own it. If knowing and pointing out that in the 1920s the US demobilized and scrapped much of its war potential is a "fixation, I'll own it. If recognizing that neither Herbert Hoover nor FDR had any intent to invade Canada is a "fixation, I'll own it. If recognizing and pointing out that FDR had further gutted the US military to pay for his social and public works programs is a "fixation, I'll own it.

It's a fixation on reality!

That said, I'm allergic to flamingos, so I'm going to leave the croquet game that is this thread to you.

Thinking outside the box for a moment, I wonder if we ever developed a plan in the event a Marxist was ever elected to the WH?
That would explain the purge of upper ranking officers we're seeing today, the very ones privy to such a plan, or the ability to carry it out.

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 04:53:20 AM
Thinking outside the box for a moment, I wonder if we ever developed a plan in the event a Marxist was ever elected to the WH?
That would explain the purge of upper ranking officers we're seeing today, the very ones privy to such a plan, or the ability to carry it out.

I came across this the other day.

Why Are Dozens Of High Ranking Officers Being Purged From The U.S. Military?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-are-dozens-of-high-ranking-officers-being-purged-from-the-u-s-military/

Quote from: walkstall on August 20, 2014, 06:57:15 AM
I came across this the other day.

Why Are Dozens Of High Ranking Officers Being Purged From The U.S. Military?

http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-are-dozens-of-high-ranking-officers-being-purged-from-the-u-s-military/

Every one of them should be reinstated as soon as the Marxist is removed from office.

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 07:30:55 AM
Every one of them should be reinstated as soon as the Marxist is removed from office.

I would accept a competent nonpartisan review of each officer's performance evaluations before assuring any blanket return. Some were probably let go for failure to lose weight or other performance-affecting factors. I'd even accept a handful as absolutely worthless, and we're well advised to be shed of them. How-evah......

In the absence of concrete proof they were let go for being COMPETENT or being politically unfavorable to the Red bastards in the White House, it's safer to look at them all the same way before allowing ANY back into the officer cadre.

Quote from: Solar on August 20, 2014, 04:53:20 AM
Thinking outside the box for a moment, I wonder if we ever developed a plan in the event a Marxist was ever elected to the WH?
That would explain the purge of upper ranking officers we're seeing today, the very ones privy to such a plan, or the ability to carry it out.

Raising the question, How? As for when, yesterday looks good.

Quote from: quiller on August 20, 2014, 08:31:57 AM
I would accept a competent nonpartisan review of each officer's performance evaluations before assuring any blanket return. Some were probably let go for failure to lose weight or other performance-affecting factors. I'd even accept a handful as absolutely worthless, and we're well advised to be shed of them. How-evah......

In the absence of concrete proof they were let go for being COMPETENT or being politically unfavorable to the Red bastards in the White House, it's safer to look at them all the same way before allowing ANY back into the officer cadre.

Nope, it's like an impostor posing an an officer of the law, all the tickets written are immediately null and void, despite the fact it was a real ticket book.

And not unlike the impostor in the WH, once removed, all EO's and firings of our Military should be immediately reversed.

Quote from: walkstall on August 20, 2014, 06:57:15 AM
http://investmentwatchblog.com/why-are-dozens-of-high-ranking-officers-being-purged-from-the-u-s-military/

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even "young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job — just keep your mouth shut."

One of the reasons the Wehrmacht were able to outperform the French and Brits who had a much larger army was due to the new doctrine of on the ground officers having the freedom to take decisions on the spot to attack, disengage, flank etc without the permission of the HQ command. One of the aspects where Germany failed and the US won was that even a private was free to speak his mind to his officer and so on creating a continual feedback system where if something was not working the higher ranking officers were made aware of it and thereby able to change strategy, the Germans having no such liberty ending up having Hitler micromanage armies into stand and die orders.

It looks like the US military is becoming more like the NSDAP, except this time it will be all in the greater glory of homosexuality.

Death to the gay nazis!