The Forgotten Conflict: War Plan Red and Canada’s Secret Defense Plan

Background and Development of War Plan Red

War Plan Red was a U.S. military strategy developed during the interwar period, envisioning a potential conflict with the British Empire. This plan was part of a series of color-coded strategies that identified various global powers as hypothetical adversaries. War Plan Red focused specifically on the British Empire, with an emphasis on Canada as a critical battleground.

The plan emerged from geopolitical uncertainties following World War I. The United States, transitioning into a major global power, sought to prepare for all possible scenarios, including an unlikely war with Britain. Although the two nations shared cultural and economic ties, tensions over trade, naval supremacy, and territorial disputes lingered. War Plan Red was formally approved in 1930 and underwent revisions in subsequent years to address changing circumstances.

Strategic Objectives of War Plan Red

The primary objective of War Plan Red was to neutralize British influence in North America by targeting Canada. It envisioned a series of rapid military operations designed to cripple Canadian resistance and disrupt British military logistics. The strategy was divided into several key phases:

1. Capture of Halifax: The plan prioritized capturing Halifax, a key naval base in Nova Scotia. Controlling this port would prevent the British Royal Navy from using it as a staging ground and sever undersea communication cables.
2. Industrial and Resource Control: The United States intended to seize critical industrial and energy resources, particularly in Ontario and Quebec. This included power plants, factories, and transportation networks.
3. Invasion Routes: Three primary invasion routes were outlined to penetrate Canada effectively:
   • from Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec
   • from North Dakota to take over the railhead at Winnipeg, and 
   • from the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario. 
4. Economic Warfare: A blockade of Canadian ports was proposed to cut off supply lines and isolate Canada from British support.

Canadian Defense Scheme No. 1

While the United States developed War Plan Red, Canada devised its own contingency plan, known as Defense Scheme No. 1. This plan reflected Canada’s strategic challenges as a geographically vast but sparsely populated nation with limited military resources.

Objectives of Defense Scheme No. 1

The primary goal of Defense Scheme No. 1 was to delay and disrupt a potential U.S. invasion, buying time for Britain to send reinforcements. Canadian military planners recognized that their forces were no match for the U.S. military in a prolonged conflict. Instead, the plan focused on bold, preemptive strikes and strategic retreats.

Key Features of the Plan

1. Preemptive Invasion of the United States
   Defense Scheme No. 1 proposed an immediate invasion of U.S. territory in the event of heightened tensions. The objective was not to occupy the United States but to seize strategic points and disrupt American mobilization efforts. Canadian forces would strike at key cities near the border, including Seattle, Minneapolis, and Albany. These offensives were intended to destroy infrastructure, delay U.S. troop movements, and create chaos.
2. Scorched Earth Tactics
   As Canadian forces retreated, they would employ scorched earth tactics to deny advancing U.S. troops access to resources. This included destroying bridges, railways, and factories. The strategy aimed to make it difficult for the U.S. military to sustain an invasion.
3. Defense of Key Cities
   While the plan acknowledged the inevitability of U.S. advances, Canadian forces were tasked with defending major cities such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver as long as possible. These urban centers were crucial for maintaining Canadian morale and infrastructure.
4. Integration with British Reinforcements
   Defense Scheme No. 1 assumed that Britain would deploy reinforcements to assist Canada within weeks of an invasion. Canadian forces were instructed to hold key positions and coordinate with arriving British troops to mount a counteroffensive.
5. Use of Geography
   The plan emphasized the use of Canada’s rugged terrain to slow U.S. advances. Mountainous regions, dense forests, and rivers were identified as natural barriers that could be leveraged for defensive purposes.

Challenges and Limitations

Defense Scheme No. 1 faced significant challenges due to Canada’s limited military capabilities. The country’s armed forces were small, underfunded, and poorly equipped compared to the U.S. military. Additionally, the vast distances between Canada’s major cities and the border made it difficult to concentrate forces effectively.

The plan also relied heavily on the assumption that Britain would intervene quickly. However, logistical constraints and the possibility of British forces being tied up elsewhere made this assumption questionable.

Comparative Analysis of War Plan Red and Defense Scheme No. 1

Both War Plan Red and Defense Scheme No. 1 reflected the strategic priorities and limitations of their respective nations. While War Plan Red envisioned a coordinated, multi-front invasion of Canada, Defense Scheme No. 1 focused on preemptive strikes and delaying tactics.

Strengths of War Plan Red

• Superior Resources: The United States had a larger and better-equipped military, giving it a significant advantage in a prolonged conflict.
• Detailed Planning: War Plan Red included comprehensive logistical considerations, such as securing supply lines and targeting industrial centers.
• Geographic Advantage: Proximity to Canada allowed the U.S. to mobilize troops and resources quickly.

Strengths of Defense Scheme No. 1

• Bold Strategy: The plan’s preemptive nature demonstrated Canada’s willingness to take the initiative despite its disadvantages.
• Geographic Knowledge: Canadian planners capitalized on the country’s challenging terrain to impede U.S. advances.
• Integration with Allies: The plan accounted for British reinforcements, highlighting the importance of international collaboration.

Weaknesses of Both Plans

• Assumptions of Hostility: Both plans were based on the unlikely scenario of a war between the United States and the British Empire, which shared strong cultural and economic ties.
• Resource Limitations: Canada’s reliance on British support and the U.S. focus on multiple invasion routes highlighted vulnerabilities in both strategies.
• Potential for Escalation: Any conflict between the United States and Canada would have significant global repercussions, potentially drawing in other powers.

Hypothetical Outcomes

Had War Plan Red and Defense Scheme No. 1 been implemented, the conflict would likely have been devastating for both nations. The United States’ military superiority and industrial capacity would have given it the upper hand, but Canada’s defensive measures and British reinforcements could have prolonged the war.

The capture of Halifax and other strategic points would have crippled Canada’s ability to resist. However, the destruction of infrastructure and the logistical challenges of occupying a vast territory like Canada would have complicated U.S. efforts. Similarly, Canada’s preemptive strikes on U.S. cities could have caused significant disruption but would likely have been unsustainable in the face of American counterattacks.

Legacy and Lessons

War Plan Red and Defense Scheme No. 1 were ultimately never implemented, as relations between the United States and Britain improved in the years leading up to World War II. The plans highlight the importance of preparedness and the complexities of military strategy. They also serve as a reminder of the geopolitical uncertainties of the early 20th century.

Today, these plans are studied as historical artifacts that provide insight into the strategic thinking of the era. They underscore the importance of diplomacy in resolving conflicts and the dangers of assuming inevitability in international relations.

Summary

War Plan Red and Defense Scheme No. 1 represent a fascinating chapter in the history of North American military strategy. While hypothetical, these plans illustrate the lengths to which nations were willing to go to secure their interests. Although the prospect of war between the United States and Canada seems unthinkable today, these strategies offer valuable lessons about the complexities of defense planning and the importance of maintaining strong international relationships.