"Plan Red - US vs UK war Alternate History" Topic

Suppose early on, Adolf was chasing his niece around the house, tripped over his copy of Mein Kamp & broke his neck.

The scenario at the time taken most seriously by Washington predicted an inevitable conflict between the US & UK, with Japan probably coming in on the side of Britain, & USSR an opportunist-who knows what Joe would have done.

The US had a very detailed war plan called 'Red' or 'Red-Orange', which outlined a blitzkrieg of Canada carried out from 3 disguised airfields, Fort Drum, and Boston. First use of poison gas was officially authorized as well as carpet bombing of Halifax to deny it to the British navy, providing it could not be taken. Washington was allowing for the loss of the Pacific territories including Hawaii in order to secure Canada as top priority.

Canada indeed had a counter insurgency plan where they would mount 3 local spoiling attacks to buy time for British reinforcements.

Now, I'm not that familiar with Eastern Canada geography, so I'm asking for input to make some scenarios for Plan Red.

1) Does anyone know of an official British war plan for the US in the mid-late 30's?

2) How difficult would Halifax be to take either by sea or land invasion? If it couldn't be taken, could it be held or even useful under threat of air attack?

3) Looking at the 1940-41 naval lineup, who do you think would prevail on the eastern seaboard?

4) Do you think the USN would have been recalled to San Diego to protect the mainland?

5) In WW2, was the major naval base at Portsmouth functional given it's close proximity to Nazi airfields?

6) what do you think British strategy would be? If thrown out of Halifax (North America), where would they base?

Also, I'd like to hear other input if anyone has other ideas regarding Plan Red. Feel free to bring up the Pacific.

I know Americans like to joke abuot invading Canada, but let's try to stay serious please :-)

if you really want to go down this road, you need to start with a different ending to WWI

a believeable change in history doesn't change from the 1930's, as everything happening in WWII, is a product of WWI…

something along the lines of:

USA refuses to help the UK against Germany in WWI, the war drags on an additional five years, with Germany finally defeated… with huge animosity between USA and UK…

also the USA does NOT back the Czars in 1917, but stays out of the conflict…

and to spite the UK in Spain, the USA backs Franco, silently, along with the Germans…

also, the USA continues an expansionist policy in the South Pacifc, threatening New Zealand, Austrailia and Singapore…

in addition, the USA deploys troops in China to counter the Japanese expansion, threatening to take Hong Kong (this could be the spark to the war with the UK)

of course, you'd have to eliminate the whole "supreme race" thing as the USA would never tolerate that with the Germans, to be believeable…

however, the majority of American troops are deployed overseas, and the buildup of troops on the Canadian Border would be noticed..

fyi, the American Army was in POOR shape in the 1930's, and would have lost to Mexico, if push came to shove… the only reason Germany finally lost, is that noone was bombing the USA, and gave them time to ramp up… Canada was participating in the BEF, and had veterans of combat, and so you have a good case for the Canadians repelling anything the poor American Army would be able to do in the 1930's… don't confuse the American Army in 1944/1945 with the American Army of the 1930's…

anyway, i hope this helps…

personally, i find the concept (although it's only fiction).. rather nauseating, sort of like making out with your sister…I've always viewed Canadians as brothers from a different mother… but for a line on a piece of paper, we're very much the same culture and friends…

No WW2…no BEF. The conflict is based on commercial rivalry & American capitalist desire to dismantle the British Empire to open up markets. BTW, it's not fiction. The plan existed, and nobody knows if it has been updated.

I know the US army was in bad shape which is why this is an interesting plan

You don't need to change the ending of WWI at all. The plan was developed after WWI (I believe the navy's part was developed at the end of the war and the army's part was developed after the war). Canada was "crimson" and her invasion was just a means to an end to get at "red" Britain.
Japan was "orange" and was a totally different war plan.

Like what Terrik said, the US Army in the late 30's would really leave me worring. Contrast the British army their first time at bat in France & Libya, vs. the American fist time at bat in the Phillipines & Tunisia. Don't look pretty for the USofA

I suppose with a different post WW1 world the "Washington Treaty" which limited the sizes of the world's navies would have been completely different, perhaps the Royal Navy would have still maintained it's traditional superiority or perhaps the German battleships interred at Scapa Flow would have been prevented from scuttling?

If not then I would guess that at some point in the 30s the US navy would have begun to increase it's complement of capital ships and perhaps begun to make political overtures over the border with Canada. The question then I suppose would be could the British Empire have matched the US? If the US had gone to war without such an increase in complement you would have a very equal contest as under the Washington Treaty both navies would have roughly 1/2 million tons of capital ships. However the USN had not fought a naval war whereas the RN had. It would be a close thing I would expect that the RN would have ruled the Atlantic with the USN controling the Pacific.

Ultimately, the British Empire would not be capable of defending Canada but perhaps an unholy alliance with Mexico might have exposed a soft belly in the South of the US?

Perhaps you would have had the Royal Navy shelling New York whilst London was safely out of the firing line (a reversal of WW2 in a sense!)

I don't know about England, but Canada had a war plan for the invasion of the U.S. called Defense Scheme One. The theory was that the best defense is a good offense, and when it became apparent that Canada was being invaded by the U.S. the Canadian military should go on the offensive and launch their own invasion. Go for it. Nothing wrong with a weak U.S. Army fighting Canadian Militia in Canada or Vermont or…

Check out "War Plan Red" and "War Plan Crimson" from Avalanche Press (parts of the Great War at Sea) system.

"Contrast the British army their first time at bat in France & Libya, vs. the American fist time at bat in the Phillipines & Tunisia."

Tunisia: the U.S. didn't do all that badly, considering how veteran their opposition was. Remember, the Germans _lost_ at Kasserine.

Phillipines: U.S. lost, but put up a hard fight. It's not like the U.S. units were breaking an fleeing. The decisive factor was overwhelming Japanese air superiority, which would not have been the case in either a War Plan Crimson or a Defence Scheme One engagment.

Libya: the Brits beat up on a poorly-equipped and badly led Italian army. They had a tremendous advantage in mobility, which they exploited to the fullest. They also didn't have to deal with a large, and widely armed, population.

France: decent performance at the tactical level, terrible army leadership.

BTW, Defence Scheme One was never official Canadian Army or government policy. link

(sitting here, actually looking out into Halifax harbour, I had a creepy shiver, thinking of being gased. Thanks for the wake-up!)

Halifax harbour was very well defended (during ww2), perhaps extremely well defended (heavily fortififed gun batteries facing the harbour entrance, submarine nets, patrols, etc).
However, by land, not so defended at all (although the 1850's style bastion fort in the middle of the city would make an interesting backdrop).

If Halifax fell, UK naval forces probably would have been based in Newfoundland, as this is actually closed to England.

Plan Red was a theoretical exercise in military planning. The US military never seriously contemplated having to face the UK in a battle after the turn of the century and certainly not after WW I. The color coded plans were done in the 20s and 30s. Of the plans Plan Orange (war with Japan) was probably deemed the only one that was possible.

EMCKinney – We're agreed about the poor assessment of first engagements earlier in the thread. The UK spent how many years screwing around in the desert before getting it right? (not to bash the UK, who did a smashing job given the time, but just to point out that "first engagement" was much better than second, and the first was against someone who didn't want to be in the war).

The British would have done a lot better in France if not for French leadership of the day.

But reading that Wikipedia entry doesn't leave me feeling as if it was never official… It was "terminated" which sounds like it was indeed official (note that this is the first I've heard of it, just commenting on your citation).

I think it's a cool scenario to ponder, but it does feel a little dirty. I mean, Canadians are our siblings – we view the right to pick on them as our personal venue – because we "grew up" with them. Much like a sibling.

The U.S. Navy would have lost at that time. It was just not comparable to the UK if they didn't have other fronts to contend with.

Of course, in material, it was the US that kept the UK out of bankruptcy, so unless there were co-bligerents in Europe that could provide a lend-lease style agreement, that might have gone badly for the UK over time.

And Mexico was and still is our biggest weakness. Long, poorly defended border, with plenty of manpower on the other side of it. They would definitely have been the wildcard for a North American conflict in the between-war period.

Don.

By the way, here is a brief rundown of the Plans. Remember most were plans in only the broadest sense and offered now details.

Red War with UK and Canada
Orange Japan
White Domestic uprising
Green Mexico
Gray Any of the Caribbean nations
Purple Any Central American nation
Gold France
Red-Orange Japan and Britain
Indigo Occupation of Iceland
Brown Uprising in Philippines
Yellow China, specifically defense of Beijing and relief of Shanghai
Black Germany (interestingly the least developed of the plans)

Plan Red was declassified in 1974 by the way.

Marc, I can't recall the details, but I took a course in college 'European History 1919-1938' & after WWI, England & US were staring at each other eyeball to eyeball. That's why this Plan Red really caught my attention. I recall UK & Japan formed a short term alliance which had the US reaching for its holster.

Hmmm…I thought Plan Crimson was the code name for war with Canada.

The alliance between UK and Japan was indeed a long termo one, vut short by Washingotn insistence during the treaty period…

One of the major postulates of the colored War Plan was no Washington/london treaty. In such a case the USN planeed to outbuild the brits early on (actually the USN was doing that alos during the lcosing months of WWI with this precise intention (pursuing the work on his latest BBs). Additionallly after WWI many of the older UK dreadnought were at the end of their career and definetly outgunned. Considering the proposed project of both "belligerents" I think that if the war would have happened in the form described by Plan Red the context would have been balanced or slightly favoring the USN.

Okay, checked my list and here is what I have on the "color plans" that were developed starting circa 1900 and probably in use up to the years just prior to WW2.

IMO, someone in the War Plans Division really goofed with regard to plans Olive and Emerald. I mean, can you imagine a spy NOT associating 'olive' with Spain (Spanish olives, anyone?) and 'emerald' with Ireland (the Emerald Isle)?

Black: Germany
Brown: Indonesia
Citron: Brazil
Crimson: Canada
Emerald: Ireland
Garnet: New Zealand
Gold: France
Gray: Azores
Green: Mexico
Indigo: Iceland
Lemon: Portugal
Olive: Spain
Orange: Japan
Purple: Russia/Soviet Union
Red: Great Britain
Ruby: India
Scarlet: Australia
Silver: Italy
Tan: Cuba
Violet: China (internal intervention)
White: United States (civil/domestic conflict)
Yellow: China

Back in the 1960's I read a fascinating article about "Rainbow Red" in the "American Heritage" magazine. I didn't keep any notes but recall the whole story was fascinating. It seems the were both American and Canadian war plans. In fact the national archives actually had the original very polite and Canandian reply from the hon. secretary of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society transmitting maps of Canada for a US army second lieutenant to draw up plans for the invasion of Canada. he planned to march north from North Dakota and cut Canada, the author rather snarkily surmized his goal was to attack Britan in the way best calculated to not require USN assistance.

The lt wrote up the war plans at the request of a USA major who was a one-person "I hate the UK and Canada" movement. He seems to have had a officer counterpart in Ottawa's Department of National Defense who was equally anti-American.

If I remember both the US and Canadian defense staffs found out what plans their own underlings were hatching and told both officers to get over the=ose particular xenophobia snits and start working on real, serious threats.

Then again there's even a novel called "1901" of fairly decent vintage about a German amphibious attack on New york City in 1901 so goodness knows what else is out there in the way of still classified war plans?

I can't believe I found my old textbook. wow.

link

The US/Uk battlelines and support squadrons probably tipped to the UK but their Fleet Air Arm was much inferior to the US carrier air groups in both qaulity of aircraft and numbers although the quality of pilots was doubtless equal. If the US didn't have to worry about the Japanese, which we certainly would have then the USN might have done pretty well.

While I agree that the scenario is rather abhorent in context of reality, one can visualize a realistic causus belli that could lead to such an invasion. Suppose that Edward VIII doesn't give up the throne and finds common cause with Mussolini and Tojo. Britain decides to join in subjugating and divying up China as a "defense against encroaching Communism." Siberia is forcibly held as "White Russia" with a puppet "czar" as government in internal exile in Vladivostok. Increasingly belligerent demands for use of the naval facilities in the Philippines and Hawaii cause a break in diplomatic relations. Another factor is the UK's demand that the US forgive its wartime debt.

So, the US government could have several reasons to take Canada;

1) Collect the debt.
2) Border defense against an increasingly hostile British Crown
3) Some overreaction to unplanned military action by some over-eager yahoo on either side of the border. (the "He started it plan").

Meanwhile, Britain was also tied up in 1929-1930 in Palestine as well as Nigeria and unrest in India so the Royal Navy is scattered about, as are its troops. More low-level conflicts occurred throughout the decade in reality. Some could've been inflamed by American agents if it was deemed politically important.

The US Army wasn't in any real shape to fight in '35 or so, but the American use of trucks for rapid transport of troops was well established. US light tanks could be easily moved by rail while the British "land battleships" of 1935 would be hard pressed to keep up with infantry.

You might want to also throw in the USN rigid airships Akron, Macon and Shennandoah – deep strike aerial aircraft carriers. I don't recall if the latter was equipped with the trapeze arrangement, but Goshawks with small bombs would cause quite a ruckus. Moreso than any actual damage. One of them succeeded in "sinking" a carrier I believe during naval exercises.

It wouldn't be an easy fight or a foregone conclusion, but the US industrial power and a shorter logistics change would tell in a protracted conflict.

If the RN lost Halifax, they'd station out of Bermuda or Jamaica and harry the US eastern and Gulf of Mexico coasts. USAC Gen. Billy Mitchell would be able to again demonstrate the effectiveness of bombers against naval ships (albeit moving ones this time).

Hawker Hurricanes, and Gloster Gladiators vs. P-26's, P-35 Hawks, F4F Wildcats, Brewster Buffaloes and B-18 Bolos would make for an interesting aerial combat.

Wyatt

IMO, someone in the War Plans Division really goofed with regard to plans Olive and Emerald. I mean, can you imagine a spy NOT associating 'olive' with Spain (Spanish olives, anyone?) and 'emerald' with Ireland (the Emerald Isle)?

For that matter, British maps of the time always coloured the Empire in red. So "Plan Red" isn't very subtle either. And Plan Yellow for China?

Grosskaliefornja
As mentioned the plan as such was declassified in 1974 and proved to be not much of a plan detail wise. The problem you allude to was the fact of the Anglo-Japanese Military Cooperation Treaty, which expired in 1924. At the time the US military was concerned with Japanese expansion in Asia. Most historians agree that after the turn of the century conflict between Britain and US extremely unlikely and was very remote after WW I. With the expiration of the Anglo-Japanese treaty most any cause for such a war disappeared.

Rich;

NEVER to disagree with you my friend. However there was a difference between plans and color codes. Crimson was indeed the code color for Canada but there wasnt a separate plan for Canada rather it was folded into Plan Red, Red being both the plan color and the color code for Britain.

As mentioned most of these were staff planning exercises. The rise of these plans coincides with the formation of the US Army War College in 1903 and the US Army War Plans Division in 1921.

Interesting. If the UK did the obvious thing and allied with Japan, life would have gotten very awkward for the USN.

Assuming we didn't have to deal with any continental problems i.e. a hostile Germany, I think we'd have done quite well. We could concentrate the RN in the Atlantic and let the Japense deal with the Pacific fleet. I doubt the USN was capable of sustaining a two-front naval war.

And as for hitting commercial shipping, our torpedoes worked :)

We did have smaller carriers, due to tactical doctrine, but ours were harder to knock out, due to having armoured flight decks.

So, if the war aim was simply to keep Canada, I think we could have done it with Japanese help. Don't think we'd be interested in invading the USA.

A friend of mine who has family in Canada, told me his grandfather was part of the planning division in the Canadian army and in the 20's and 30's the Canadain war plan was to hold in the east and attack in the west.

Would love to find the Canadian war plans. Both armies would need command of the sea to move, as motorazation was primative at best.

Jon

Marc, I'm not so sure. The last several years should remind us all how one person (or a small group) can radically alter the direction of progress.

There were deep driving forces in America for a war with Great Britain. The two biggies being the American drive to dismantle the empire & the USN's drive to beat the RN. Heck, it wouldn't be all that hard to do. 'Remember the Maine' :-)

Also, it seems as though Lloyd George really difused the situation by agreeing to compromise & negotiate. But lets say he was chasing his maid around the mansion & tripped on his copy of the Magna Carta…

Attack Canada?! But where would we get our actors?

Would make a fascinating "mega game", or even as a fictional backdrop to allow for "might-have-been" games.

Interesting point about a possible Japan-UK alliance. That would have put the US in a very vulnerable position.

If UK gets Japan, then the US courts Germany, Italy and France diplomatically, and a large part of the UK's fleet sits in Scapa Flow to protect the UK from one or more of them.

Grosskaliefornja you of course have several good points and even small actors have had inordinate influence on the world stage at times.

I believe the USN was more in a position of wishing to rival their UK brethren as the world's premier navy without the need to attack them to prove it :)

And it is interesting to speculate had the Uk-Japanese accords been renewed what accords the US might enter into. I would speculate none since the US was very isolationist once again at the time.

The more I think of this, I don't think the US had a chance. The US couldn't defend the 2 coasts, Panama Canal & take Canada all in one shot. The Brits could definitely have blown the canal one way or the other which would have really have put the US in dire straits

I remember reading one part of plan red that stuck in my mind and that was an expected attack by Anzac Forces to take control of the Philippines.

ETenebrisLux
Halifax harbour was very well defended (during ww2), perhaps extremely well defended (heavily fortififed gun batteries facing the harbour entrance,…"

Not convincing, considering Singapore.

Remembering my regimental histories (The Royal Canadian Dragoons and 8th Canadian Hussars, Princess Louise's), if the US miitary was considred in poor shape, then the Canadian military would definitely be about 30 steps lower. "Tank training" in some regiments in the 30s consisted of driving cars around (sound familiar?). Indeed, at one point the total tank strength of Canada was 3, count em three FT-17s (bought from the US) at Camp Borden in Ontario.

We had a regular force of something less than 5000, I seem to (vaguely) recall.

I think we'd have gotten our asses kicked back to the North pole.

Another aspect of this to possibly consider: Newfoundland would likely have colluded with the US because Canada was much hated at the time (all the good that alliance would do the US <insert standard newfy joke>!). Canada, in fact, was waging and winning an extremely nasty trade war with Newfoundland with respect to trying to undercut fish prices and was regularly referred to as "the wolf" (and still is by many folks here who were not born Canadian).

Indeed, there was an uproar cuased here in St John's 5 or 6 years ago when declassified Canadian plans showed the sort of contempt for Newfoundland that was typical in those days – in the event of a German landing on the island, the plan was to let loose the valves of the large numbers of gas/oil storage tanks that still cluster the main harbour today and burn the city of St John's to ashes, without warning anyone.

In any event, you'd need modifiers for hockey sticks in close combat…

This sounds very, very interesting, I'd love to hear how things go.

Wow. That does explain something. Roughly 15 years ago when there was that vote in Quebec to secede from Canada, I recall those Atlantic provences getting their States applications in order.

I wonder if there was any thought of stoking Quebec seperationist flames back then, have the US side with them, support them (gaining France at the same time) & march in to save the oppressed, and etc.

I recall those Atlantic provences getting their States applications in order.

Er, nope. But it does sound like some of the hysterics from the odd newspaper columnist from that time period (1995).

Honestly, I think a war between the US and Canada wouldn't really have a "winner" in the traditional sense. Candadian and British forces would lack the strength for a credible counterattack onto US soil, where nationalist sentiment would at any rate be stirred up by the presence of British troops once more. Consider especially the pervasive anti-British sentiment that was still very much in vogue in the USA at the time; I think there would have been a lot of irregular volunteers.

That being said, I think there would be little to stop the British from gobbling up America's isolated colonial holdings and/or disabling the Panama canal. American Regular Army forces would be spread thin at the start of the war, and the British would take maximum advantage of that.

The disruption of British trade caused by American commerce raiding, and the similar destruction or capture of American merchants by the British would probably hurt both countries economically. I suspect that the war would end stalemated, with neither side able to win a decisive advantage over the other. Both economies would probably be wrecked, and if poison gas was used, there would be the chance of massive civillian casualties. Any peace that would follow would be a bitter one.

If America had won, would I now have to speak American nstead of English?

"Just think! If Washington had died at Valley Forge, Americans might still speak English today!"

Yes, and your name would be Jeff

So, the US government could have several reasons to take Canada;

1) Collect the debt.

A great post Wyatt, but I'm not sure of the reasoning here – Canada was a sovreign country at the time. That would be like taking Australia to collect the debt….

The most likely way in which this war would have started is in the game of one upmanship.

The Washington Treaty was put into effect to stop what everyone saw as the beginning of a new arms race. One concentrated on the most expensive arm of all the Battleship. Great Britain and her Empire had brought near to bankruptcy by WWI and could ill afford to be sucked into an arms race, especially with the one real winner of that war the USA. Assuming that insanity had prevailed at the Washington treaty and all sides had agreed to continue the arms race then a few important things would have happened. Aircraft Carrier develpment would have been severly hampered. Many Battelships being built at the time were converted to carriers as these didnt count toward the limits.

Ultimately however Brtian would have had to of forced war or accepted deafeat as the US was in a manor simlar to the way they deafeated the Soviet Union better able to support the cost of such an arms race.

Assuming War did take place then would Britian as they did at Tarintino take the early lead with there Pearl Habour inspiring attack. Its hard to say. Ultimatly I doubt there would have been any real winners and the outcome I believe would have been two severly weaken nations who later would be unwilling and ultimatly unable to stop the German Wermacht when it started its march across Europe.

Tim, the 'collect the debt' could have just served as the excuse to pound the Brit. empire the same way the we did the Spanish some decades earlier. Invading Canada would only be 'preemptive' to secure the northeastern coast. Whether or not the USN & Army could have pullled it off…I kind of doubt. btw, GB did default on their loans in 1934. You have to recall that there was an ongoing itch in the States in the 18-19th centuries to secure Canada. It was tried at least twice. If someone in DC was Really thinking, they could have hatched a plan with Quebec, similar to the one historians say Hitler should have done with Ukraine.

Remember, the scenario assumes Germany is out of the picture. With the globe then in the sole hands of the Japanese, British & Americans, I do believe this stew would have boiled over. It makes for an incredible global conflict…even more so that it would likely start out as a 'limited' war & is impossible to predict where it would go.

GB definitely was wary of another war in the 20's & 30's, & bent over backwards at Washington's whim. So, if the US invented a war with them, I can see them folding very quickly to keep their hold on Singapore (from the Japs) & the Suez Canal (from the Italians).

I think this would make a fantastic global strategy board game. There are so many WW2 ones now, somebody must want to try something different.

You're right, Tim. I got my dates wrong. I can name all 13 of the Canadian provinces and territories, but there are gaps in my knowledge of Canadian history.

Still, its not like anyone ever let facts get in the way of a war.

Wyatt

The easiest way to get set up this scenario is assume a different outcome to the 1932 election and have a militarisitic junta set up shop in Washington. Having the Washington Naval treaty fail (either never signed or abandoned by the new goverment) would put the British and American Navys on much more even footing (The US could just out-build Britain, all things considered).

I'd agree that Japan entering the war tilts things heavily in Britain's favor (and I think they are tilted that way to being with)- the best way to stop Japan to from doing this would to assume the Soviet-Japanese conflict in Manchuria boils over faster and hence starts a few years early.

Also, don't count Germany out completly- the Weimer republic was more peaceful then the Third Reich, but that doesn't mean it was completely pacifist…. Many of the tools and plans the Nazis needed to rapidly rebuild the armed forces had already been put in place when they took power, as the previous set of military leaders had been looking towards German military revevial already. For example, the Kreigsmarine's 'plan Z' buildup was based heavily on the Weimer's Navy pre-existing plans for new navy. So even without the Nazis in power the Germans might see a US-UK war as a way to get back.

-Will

There is a DTP (Desk-top Published) board game about war plan red. Check out consimworld.com and you can probably find more information.

How about Britain's "Manchester Project" using Canadian uranium and tested in Australia (or "in the field" in Western Canada or States) as a 01 roll on percentage dice?

personally, i find the concept (although it's only fiction)… rather nauseating, sort of like making out with your sister…I've always viewed Canadians as brothers from a different mother… but for a line on a piece of paper, we're very much the same culture and friends…

Except we spell "labour" and "colour" correctly. Oh, and "tire" and "aluminum" too.

There was a incident on a US navy exercise where US battleships and heavy cruisers of their Atlantic fleet simulated a broadside and some tactical manouvres against a "force red" in the atlantic.

The royal Navy representative asked who they expected to take on with such a force as The royal Navy didnt see a potential enemy with a force as big as they had and it was only half the size of the US force. The US officers just looked at each other

of course, you'd have to eliminate the whole "supreme race" thing as the USA would never tolerate that with the Germans, to be believeable…

You might want to check with Rosa Parks about that!

Too many people in UK and US thought Mid 30's Hitler was a wonderful person.

I knew about the US and Canadian invasion plans and of the dire states of both armies at the time, but the gas part is new to me.

Gassing a city.

…