War Plan Red

France would not get involved.
I literally don't think Britain could afford to support Poland after the war

Every country worth its salt has a plan to defend anyone it might have to defend itself or attack anyone it's capable of attacking.

This seems pretty drastic tho

>Why did the USA plan to go to war with the British Empire In the 1930s?
They didn't, it's just a war plan. Why would they make such a plan? To see if they could win, it was purely hypothetical, like a war game.

Not really. This sort of planning is more military policy wonks getting together and drawing up paper plans. Having a plan is secondary to just getting together and getting the ol' noggin joggin.

You can't blockade the USA, its too big and its mostly self-sufficient anyway. Britain would have had no choice but to relinquish Canada, a war would have been hugely costly and neither side could actually occupy the other anyway.

Surely the size of the royal navy would permit blockade of significant ports?

the British were the only power that ever posed a serious threat to the US, to be fair

Such as? You know how many ports the US has? Also the US fleet was no lightweight, operating close to home they might have had the edge of the UK even in 1930, and with their industrial output they could have closed the ship gap fairly quickly, within a few years of teh start of fighting.

>The US can't just build up a navy to match the royal navy in the midst of war where the US is surrounded by British naval bases. There would be blockades on trade to America and US coasts and shipping factories would be attacked.
By terms of the Washington and London naval treaties, the U.S. starts this war with a navy that's equal to the RN in tonnage. Furthermore, they're actually far more powerful in practice; because the British are shackled to defending a colossal overseas network of trade that spans the entire globe and is necessary for the continued existence of life in Britain. America does have some overseas trade, but it's hardly necessary, and can be abandoned in a way that the British don't have an equivalent to. It's *really* hard to keep slow, unarmed, poorly armored convoy ships alive, consider how many tons of shipping the British lost to the German u-boats in WW2, and that's against a navy that's miniscule compared to theirs, not one that's equal or near-equal.

And then of course, the Americans will spit out ships much faster than the British do. You can't blockade over 12,000 miles of coast, and you can't send in battleships to shell shipyards, not unless you enjoy being sunk by all the coastal batteries and land based airplanes.

The problem is that while outside of conflict they could close the gap, in the midst of coastal bombardment, blockades and their navy being sunk, it's difficult to build up in war.
Also the entire US would be under threat whereas British colonies like Australia would be open to ship building

I thought the treaties limited the potential of the navies.
Also you underestimate the industrial capacity of the entire british empire. They had alot of resources and factories for such a project and would mostly be undisturbed as the fighting would take place mostly near the US

Plus the limitation was only to capital ships

There is no possible way the UK could invade the US, the citizens there are armed and they outnumber the British 5 to 1. The UK was FAR more dependent on shipping than the US was, any battle to strangle trade and starve the enemy out would hurt Britain long before it hurts the US, and again the US is self sufficient in all the things you need to make ships (mainly steel and oil) so they absolutely could have produced ships while at war, as ofc they did while at war with Japan (granted Japan was no Britain).

>I thought the treaties limited the potential of the navies.
They limited the tonnage that could be kept during peacetime, as well as certain armament issues. The point is, by the time WPR is being discussed, Britain does not have a superior navy. It has a roughly equal navy, maybe even a slightly inferior navy, as most of their ships are older than their U.S. equivalents. And that's before you get into other, institutional problems. The British naval action is going to be a desperate struggle to survive, not a blockade and bombardment of the entire American coast.

>Also you underestimate the industrial capacity of the entire british empire
It was considerably smaller than the industrial capacity of the U.S.

>They had alot of resources and factories for such a project and would mostly be undisturbed as the fighting would take place mostly near the US
No it wouldn't you fucking idiot. The British would be on the defensive on the water, almost from day 1. What ships they could spare to go on offensive missions would be in colossal danger if they actually tried to disrupt U.S. shipbuilding, nor can they actively disrupt anything further inland from the coast even in the most favorable outcomes.

I didn't say they would invade the US, out of the question.
Steady on chap, also the treaty only limited capital ships

>the British were the only power that ever posed a serious threat to the US, to be fair
To be fair, the US defeated them in war, so history says otherwise. By 1930? Not a chance. Canada is gone, the Caribbean is gone, Central and South America come under pressure to cut ties, it'd be a mess. Naval treaties make their navies equivalent, by the way.

>the treaty only limited capital ships
...and as the Germans showed in two world wars, the rest of their warships were ineffective against the modern attack.

>defeated them in war
In the revolution? That's more France + thirteen colonies. War of 1812 was status quo ante bellum (though I read somewhere that the US government was close to bankruptcy)

Why are you so vehemently defending your ignorance? Is it really that hard to admit you have no idea what you're talking about?

loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-0351.pdf

Article 4
>The total capital ship replacement tonnage of each of the contracting power shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the United States, 52500 tons (533,400 metric tons); for the British Empire 525,00 tons (533,400 metric tons)

Article 11
>No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of any of the Contracting Powers.

Article 12
>No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimeters)

loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/m-ust000002-1055.pdf
Article 7
>No submarine the standard displacement of which exceeds 2,000 tons (2,032 metric tons) or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre shall be acquired or constructed by or for any of the High Contracting Parties.

London's naval treaty also gives total tonnage for smaller ship classes that the powers agree to have. Interestingly enough, the Americans are matching the British in destroyers and submarines, and exceeding them on heavier cruisers, although behind them on lighter cruisers. Article 16.

>industrial capacity of the entire british empire.
Only Britain was industrialized in 1930. The rest of the empire just lived from producing commodities not manufactures

In 1812 the British were suffering their own financial crisis as well.

What war did the US beat the UK in?
Other than the one in which they had help from 2-3 global empires and first rate powers as well as the sultanate of Mysore, then one of Asia's dominant powers.
The UK's navy was made to be equal to that of the USA's maybe, that doesn't mean that would be all the UK could call on or that the USA would have a navy of equal standard - certainly not in the 1930s.

>What prompted their belief that war with Britain was a probability?

Probability has nothing to do with it. Possibility does. Wtf do you think a military does in times of peace?

Also UK could conscript a much larger army and workforce and the impact of the war would be spread over a vast empire

In 1940, the bongs went bankrupt at the minor inconveniences of an Austrian corporal, and had to get down on their knees and beg the US to help them. The "vast empire" was of no value then, as history tells us.

user, britain won the battle of Britain

>UK could conscript a much larger army and workforce
Yeah and most of those people live overseas; good luck getting them to the UK through hostile territory and overseas. Meanwhile, the USA has overrun Canada and is getting ready to seize the Panama Canal to cut off the Brits from Australia the fast way.

Why would they have to go to the UK?
Also I thought the US owned Panama canal anyway

So did the british not win WWII because they had those same terms?

I forgot the US gave the canal away later.

Also, where else are the workers going to go? You talk up this great workforce and draftable army but if it isn't centralized and grouped together then the numbers dont mean shit since the US is so centralized.

Stralia is a pretty good place to centralise the Asian contingent

>Britain didn't win WW2

Have I been transported to another dimension?

>sultanate of Mysore
>not a first rate global power

user, the Austrian corporal cucked and fucked the bongs, then turned to his life's work in the East.

The bongs were bankrupt in 1940, and begging the US to help them.

Reading is hard, huh?

>The bongs were bankrupt in 1940
What

>Stralia is a pretty good place to centralise the Asian contingent
No, when the bongs went bankrupt in 1940, the Americans became the guarantor of Australia's security, as the bongs were incapable of providing that, and were just LARPing.

GB had spent the latter part of the last century destroying and interning independent settler populations. They had proven their willingness to wage total war against the mere threat of fractional naval parity with a continental power, and had solicited America's aid and then sidelined it at the subsequent negotiations, as it would have a vassal state. The USA, thoroughly humiliated, withdrew from Versailles, and Congress ratified a separate treaty with Germany. It was not inconceivable that the victorious empire might treat the USA as a betrayer, or worse, a rival. To have a war plan against the UK was an absolute necessity.

Don't give him (you)s, he's baiting.

Inb4 "perfidious Albion"

Only for Americans.

Name any other country that could have sought a separate peace with Germany during WWI and not faced serious repercussions. Name any other country that brought as much to the table and received so little in return.

Reddit spacing

The US did receive alot in return

Jizz upon Wilson's comatose face I do not call a substantial return. If the deal was so good why wouldn't Congress sign it?

>putting spaces between your points is le reddit

US would overrun Canada, naval war would be a stalemate.