Thanks to Established Titles for sponsoring this video! Go to establishedtitles.com/Knowledgia and use the Discount Code: KNOWLEDGIA10 for an additional 10% off on all purchases to become a Lord or Lady of Scotland !
NO NO NO NO NO Please don't advertise this company, they're a scam. A title can only be inferred by the soverign or inherited. Simply owning land does not make you a lord or lady.
The Canadian Maple Rush of 1884. The Syrup wars of the French and Canada. And let’s us not forget the cold syrup fiasco of 1912. Canada has a rich extended history of sticky viscous substances.
Well, Green is probably a by-product of the Mexican American war, yellow was influenced by US intervention in China as part of the eight nation-alliance, and orange was put on full display in WW2. There were a number of other codes as well. Black dealt with Germany, Brown dealt with uprising in the Philippines, Tan equated to an invasion of Cuba, Gold was war with France, etc. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans?wprov=sfla1
@@jadapinkett1656 The details are are obvious and of course available with a quick search. I said I would like to see Knowledgia do the videos on them and enjoy his/her artistry and description of them.
@@khein2204 You would like to think that. But the world has advanced in medicine, rising out of poverty, human rights, growth of democracy, reduction of war etc etc under their stewardship. It's easy to focus on only on faults or make something look negative on balance compared to fictitious utopia. But compare them to other nations and they are a bright shining jewel. You not be mature enough to accept that reality doesn't make that untrue.
@@NR-rv8rz lol western even got those knowledge from arab and persian muslim scientists, such as al khwarizmi who is the inventor of algebra and ibn sina (Avicenna) who is very instrumental in the field of medicine and many other scientists, when western were still in the dark ages islam is in its golden age but western burnt down muslim libraries, such a barbaric behavior, but luckily western also translated a lot of books into westerners language and learned from it , so don't be arrogant, it's not just the west who has contributed here, actually westerners make civilization more backward by burning Muslim libraries, if westerners didn't burn them then Muslims will be the most victorious and civilization is more advanced
We all KNOW where Canada is. Like the rest of the world, we just don't CARE. Many of us have Canadian ancestors who left to find jobs and live in an actual country instead of a large training camp for hockey players. At least now Canada can become a colony of Red China.
@@SWiftxFuRY I see us as Canadians pure and simple. We certainly have many things in common with both the USA and UK, as well as Australia and New Zealand, but at the end of a day we are our own country with our own identity, strong and proud enough that we don't need to latch onto another country to carry us. All the aforementioned countries can do that, so there is no reason we can't.
As an Aussie I see Americans and Canadians having much the same relationship as do ourselves and New Zealand... Connected by proximity/geography, shared common interests, similar accents/culture, friendly sporting rivalries (Our Rugby rivalry is almost identical to your Hockey rivalry... fierce but friendly) and our joined military history... Our ANZAC code has joined Aussies and Kiwis at the hip since WW1... Like twin brothers, we throw shade on each other but when the chips are down the ANZAC spirit and the history our forefathers shared comes into play... From the Battle of Beersheba in WW1 (where my Great Grandfather took a bullet from a machine gun to the knee) to the Battle of Long Tan in Vietnam; the Kiwis were by our sides, neck deep in the blood and guts and Aussies don't ever forget it. They may be a smaller nation than us.. but the Kiwi is one tough Mother Fcker and we're all proud to call them brothers and sisters. Americans should likewise be proud of their Canadian brothers and sisters for consistently punching above their weight class. My point is, we may all have our differences but let us not ever forget that the CANZAUKUS alliance has stood the test of time. We are all, at the core of our values, the same.
@@consciousbeing1188 Yes all very agreeable, though as far as sporting rivalries go, we don't really have one with the US (a bit surprisingly). In hockey, our top rival is Russia, there is a long history there, especially during the cold war era. Canadians and Americans watch many of the same sports, but we don't really PLAY the same sports. Hockey does have a niche following in certain areas of the US close to our border, but it's not really a national thing for them. If we do come up against them in a competition, that natural rivalry of neighbours does arise, but there's not really the same long history that you would see with Aus / NZ. Such meetings are usually one sided, we are rarely evenly matched in any sport, one of us is way better than the other (usually the US).
Canada’s “war plan” wasn’t really a plan. It was more of a concept of a single officer. In the 1930’s the military was completely starved for resources and had no capacity for either action or planning. This video makes it appear the plan was a serious endeavour. It most certainly was not.
@@randomlygeneratedname7171 it would be a diplomatic disaster to invade Canada they're friends with everyone including us now. And Back when they were under British rule it would have been too difficult.
Overall you are correct, but Defense Scheme One is significant in that it was created a full 6 years before War Plan Red was, and correctly assessed the U.S.'s perceived strategy, which underlies the tensions that existed in the western hemisphere but not necessarily in Europe. T/he significance is the political climate that gave rise to both plans, not per say the merits
Wars are started by people that know each other very well And Fought by people who do not know each other at all. The people do not decide on relationships between countries Politicians military and business decide that
The British Empire was so OP that only a British colony could ever surpass it as a world power. It reminds me of Rome and its fall, and all the mighty states that would spawn from its corpse and create global powers
I do think Canada could actually be a huge threat to the USA in the future, but their population is too small. But imagine say 200 years in the future Canada has a population of 150million, 200 million+ on the USA's door step... But the USA would probably prevent it before it gets to that stage
Nonsense the UK and USA have had fairly good relations since after the war of 1812. Only times they were tense when IKE didn't support the UK And France in Suez 56. The other when Wilson wouldn't send troops to Vietnam to help LBJ.
Nonsense because? America like many ambitious superpowers at the time was strategising it's place in the world as well as Germany, the USSR and Japan. War Plan Red wasn't mere conjencture it was calculated research. This wasn't a new entity at the time.. Many nations switched and played loose with their allegiences during this period in spite of past so called alliances.
Forgot to also mention War Plan Black which dealt with a war with Germany and War Plan Gold which dealt with a war with France. The United States was like Batman making contingency planning against friends and foes alike!
It is actually military standard. Foreign policy and war plans are not made on basis of what other nations will do, but what they can do. So any respectable military makes war plans like those - that's what armies do in peace - exercise and plan. At bare minimum, military should have plans for wars with the countries it neighbors. And most, if not all, have it. Regardless of how good the relations are. And those rainbow plans of US are simply interesting for their names and the fact they were discovered like that. But no one should be surprised that they existed. You can bet that Switzerland, a famously neutral country, has military plans for wars with all of its neighbors and prominent world powers. As I said, that's military standard.
@@isacstrand1690 The Royal Navy was stronger on day one yes, but as the US demonstrated in WW2, it can just vastly outproduce anyone. If was broke out between the two in the 30's, there would be a stalemate at first, until the vastly superior Industrial might (and manpower) of the US would allow it to just crush the Royal Navy over time. So no, the British couldn't have won the war, at best they could have hoped for an early peace by dragging the cost of war, but that would have costed them Canada at the very least
I think Warplan Red, had various sub-colours of red, like Purple, Rouge, etc, to describe the various colonies and dominions. Also, as far as I know, the US even considered using massive poison gas attacks on the various important harbors to prevent British landings there.
Mc Arthur once again proves that if violence isn't the answer to your problems, it's simply that you didn't use enough of it We might joke about it but both that and his plan for Tactical Nukes in Korea were both incredibly efficient and if implemented would most probably have seen results
Interestingly enough, War Plan Red actually addressed that too. The plan was to secretly have major air bases near the Canadian Border that could be used for a massive aerial assault on Canada in order to gain air superiority over the empire. Crazy part is America actually built the air bases so we weirdly had these really high capacity airbases just chilling by Canada the whole time.
We might not be able to change what a country ever does as far as wars or politics. But we can allow Jesus to be Lord over our lives and lead us individually while changing who we once were. It’s personal and God will save those who call on him.
@@colinharbinson8284 well being from an Irish family I can categorically say that Ireland was part of the British Empire up to the late 1940s. All it got prior to that was dominion status! In other words home rule. In fact if you want to be pedantic about it it didn't gain real Indy until it joined the Euro...
@@DFMSelfprotection your not being pedantic at all and you are quite right, although many people forget about Northern Ireland. Ps. check out the surname, Harbinson is of Scots origin, but my family has roots in Ireland.
@@roflmywaffles1313 Siriously though. Can you please tell me why Americans think it’s a tie. You invaded Canada. Got pushed back. Then had your capitol burned down. How is that a tie?
America declared war on an already beaten country in 1917 when Britian Russia and France had already starting advancing and gaining rather than being pushed back . . Also the battle of Gallipoli that was a great loss for the three countries , the yanks missed that one !!
Lol if USA and UK actually fight together wit Canada it's gonna be a funny family fight 😅😅😅✌️😂 they'll involved their two sidekicks Australia and New Zealand 😊😊✌️
Just to clarify, the Canadian plan mentioned in this video was not actually an officially approved plan. On the contrary, it was primarily developed by a senior Canadian officer with a particularly strong connection to the UK. It was ultimately rejected by the Canadian government and other senior military officials as being pretty much suicidal. They believed that invading US terrritory and destroying infrastructure and civilian communities would only ensure that the Americans would enter Canada in a blood rage. Imperial Japan would eventually be able to describe how well such a strategy works. As it turns out, the Canadian officials who rejected the plan were smart for another reason. The plan was designed solely to buy time for Britain to throw everything into the fight to protect Canada, while the British had already come to the conclusion that in the event of a war, Canada was screwed. The funniest part of the whole discussion is that the various sides normally have completely different stories that they believe will lead up tp a potential war, and those stories pretty much always make the other side seem like the offending party. In this case, however, both the Americans and the British basically agreed on the cause of a potential war. The Americans had a long history with the British (obviously), and had noticed that the British had a habit of attacking countries when they became wealthy or industrialized enough that they might represent a significant challenge to their superiority in the not-too-distant future. Hell, in their own history, the British had armed native tribes (one of the causes of the War of 1812) and considered aiding the Confederacy during the Civil War in an effort to slow down the United States' growth, and further their own interests in the region. As the US had no intentions whatsoever of slowing down or limiting their growth, they felt it prudent to draw up plans on how to respond should the British initiate hostilities. The British who were concerned about a possible war noted the rapid industrialization in the US, as well as the growth in their economy and of their navy. They were concerned that such continued growth could result in the US being a major threat in the near future. As such, they considered whether or not they might find it beneficial to attack the US and try to set them back a bit. They also formed an alliance with the Japanese so that the Americans would be faced with a combined threat in the Pacific, and a dual ocean threat overall should hostilities actually commence. So, both sides were looking at events through the lens of a potential preemptive attack from the British. In this case, preemptive doesn't refer to getting ahead of any specific aggressive actions on America's part, but preventing the US from being in a position where it could eventually be aggressive (or even defensive) if they so chose to be.
WW2 was the greatest thing to ever happen to the US Before the war there was 6 superpowers USA British Empire French Empire Nazi Germany USSR Japan After the war. Germany and Japan were obliterated and were no longer superpowers, British and French weakened and on the verge of losing their colonies and USSR weakened from fighting the Germans Leaving the USA the only superpower who didn't lose anything major during the war and didn't have their mainland attacked
@MI6 yeah but you can tell someone what to do but you can't make them do it. Furthermore, Germany was a threat. If the UK lost India would suffer. The US wasn't a threat to India. The US wanted all colonial powers to free their colonies. India was one of them. If US victory insured Indian Independence, then India and other oppressed colonies wouldn't do shit for Britain.
@@sebastiandomingos335 India had a volunteer army, and comprised mainly from families which had been in the military for many generations, in a country with rock bottom wages and over 350 million people. But this is neither here nor there, since the entire war would take place at sea.
I kinda have to disagree with the video, well maybe the title, and not the video. Military war plans are not the same as planning to go to war. Military war plans are basically war games to make a plan just in case the shit hits the fan. That is not the same as planning to go to war.
The UK struggled in fleet actions in WW2 outside of Europe because their various squadrons of ships were scattered all over the world defending colonies. Despite being far superior in tactics and capability, the UK struggled to even challenge the Italian Navy, which lacked fuel and RADAR. The US had a few islands, in comparison. So until around WW2 when the US built up massive quantities of ships and vehicles, they still had local concentrated superiority, even if they did not have overall numerical superiority. This doesn't matter anyway, since it never would have happened.
@@uni4rm Yes you are right that it wouldn't have happened and yes the RN was spread across the world. It didn't really struggle much against the Italian Navy though. My point was that video made out that in the interwar years that the US navy could just cruise across the Atlantic. Through the interwar years the RN was still absolutely massive and if there was increasing tension and any hint of the US making a move on the UK would have just concentrated some more forces where they were needed . Namely in the atlantic/North sea. All hypothetical though, as was the video
Well in 1942 Britain had to sail (simultaneously) to different continents to supply its colonies, making it vulnerable. US would have had an opportunity
@@haydnj1202 this doesnt even take into the account all the other sharks in the water that would be itching to make a move on a distracted Royal Navy. Namely Russia and France.
Fun Fact: After the war New Foundland almost joined the US but UK & Canada teamed up for a third option in the reerendum (stay british or become independent and may join US in the future): joining Canada
Not really, The us wasn't even on the referendum ticket, There was a small movement of joining united states because economic ties but it was short-lived. I'm pretty sure you meant the more economic ties with USA, Britian and Canada feared it but it was a small group. Independence first won the popular vote but no one got more than 50%. The Economic Ties with USA failed miserably with only 20k votes. A second referendum happened this time with only the two popular options and Canada won.
@@hokton8555 Newfoundland is not a significant province in Canada. In fact it’s received welfare from federal government. Newfoundland was in huge debt & that’s what led it to join Canada.
@@hansgruber788 The UK didn't enter 'litte buddy' status until after WW II. And a thing called the Suez Crisis. Which the USA and the UK were not on the same side of.
@@hansgruber788 Ah No. Suez Canal Crisis was an embarrassing event for Britain & its clear Britain must always stay behind USA in all foreign policies LOL😂. President Dwight Eisenhower told Britain to pull its troops from Egypt. In retrospect Eisenhower did the right thing cuz he if he hadn’t Egypt would have partnered with Soviet Union. So yeah American hegemony rules !!
@Lovable Wench they was little puppets alone real, if the soviet union and usa didnt join the war together they would not stop germany, if most of uk army that was in france runs away when france fail, they didnt even think about it lol.
The Monroe doctrine is funny because it was mostly aimed at the British, who had little interest I expanding their sphere in the Americas given they were already in control of a large chunk and most of South America was allied, only the US, Mexico and the French speaking areas weren't. Even more ironically is that America's tiny navy couldn't couldn't police such a doctrine meaning the British actually became the primary enforcers of the doctrine
It's this simple, America are bigger and have better weapons, But then again so did Germany during the battle of Britain were Britain stood alone and beat Germany, Also Britain nuked America twice in war games when America knew we were coming and could do nothing about it, Also. Our royal marines did a war games training exercise with the navy seals and forced the US navy seals to surrender, Also we have Gurkhas
Both sides employed "divide and rule"-strategies. In the end the USA was more successful. An example of divide and rule in practice, is US "support" for Irish independence (mentioned here from 3.00 minutes onwards). Obvious effect? It would weaken the UK, and if such exemplary events could spark further independence movements, even better. "Revenge" for London (and Paris) choosing the South during the Civil War in its efforts to effect a secession, and a resulting breaking up of a single hegemony in North America... After 2 world wars GB/Empire was no longer strong enough to ward off Washington DCs rise to nr.1.
@@martinjenkins6467 We will help our Aussie brothers out, no doubt, with or without Biden. Let's just hope it doesn't happen because millions will die, on both sides. We have to always remember that the biggest victims of war is almost always the most vulnerable (women, children, elders, disabled, etc.)
@@acosta2493 Well, everyone suffers in a war. But e women, disabled or children Are the secondary victims, the biggest and the primary victims are the men who fight the war and die fighting
@@ruinnaimperii4686 yes. Civilian casualties are usually higher than soldier casualties but the civilian men do get shot first and then the rest die from starvation, disease, etc. To die in war is the easy part. To survive and suffer the consequences of the war is alot harder.
@@martinjenkins6467 Don't worry the USA's got Australia and New Zealand covered Can't guarantee much blood won't be spilled keeping it that way though ;-;
in alternate universe,, USA declare war on Allies to conquer Canada and small islands around it, hopefully Mexico too,, but without join Axis Imperial Japan conquer China and push South to IndoChina, but station considerable troops on USSR border just in case
Surely, the commonwealth would've played a huge role in an event like this. You would have the Indian, Australian and Kiwis coming in from the Pacific ocean, or even landing in the Caribbeans.
to be fair the numbers would be quite small; the Indians, Anzacs and South Africans weren't able to make a decisive difference in Europe in the First World War...
The problem with that is American naval dominance was even stronger in the pacific than it was in the Atlantic, and had been since the Spanish American War in 1898. The failure of the British to create a strong naval presence in the Far East is precisely what led to the destruction of Force Z by the Japanese in 1941. Even if they did launch a pacific campaign, it would have mainly been focused on the American colonies of the Philippines and Guam, which were vital to the American military presence in Asia and far more of an immediate threat to British dominance in Malaya and Oceania. As indicated in the video, the British strategy was essentially to leave Canada to its fate and focus on saving the colonies that could realistically be defended in the Caribbean, and preventing the American fleet from sailing to the Home Islands by tying them down there. There was never any hope of winning the land war, such a conflict would have been determined by naval prowess near exclusively.
No. The two countries are different like night & day. America has a great Constitution britain doesn’t. As a Canadian, America is a special country & britain is just bland & boring. No comparison there whatsoever ! !
I think this disregards quite intensely British Naval superiority pre-WW2. Also, 'A quick UK surrender?' Good luck with that! It would have made D-day look like a tea party!
@@kevinmaroon1093 british aren't wanna be Americans 😂😂😂😂😂 that's the stupidest thing I've heard for a long time...you must be American to make a comment like that 😳
@@bassicuk1986 I’m Canadian. Face it America is a better country than Britain ever was. We Canadians know british are just jealous of America’s power. You British wish you had America’s power & influence over the world !! 😂. Atleast we Canadians admit it & don’t envy America.
@@NautilusSSN571 it’s delusional for Americans to be posturing about invading and pacifying other countries just mere weeks after being fully routed from Afghanistan. Completely absurd
"Sith Lord Rule of 2".... UK thought US was a mighty student..... Now the US has a Military Force (according to spending) equal to the next 17 powers combined.....
The plan in the end was something the USA could use to invade Canada. Glad it didn't happen because they should be 2 separate countries. Maybe in union in Economics but have separate millitary, government, etc.
@@nathanjackson1091 it sounds like you're a teenager. and fyi half my family went to America... I had many opportunities to get a Green Card as my father is a US citizen, but I always refused because the significant amount of time I've spent in and all over the United States taught me that I have absolutely no desire to live there because it is by and large; a shithole
Every staff has a plans division. It's their job to come up with plans to invade and defend against any country or combination of countries. As such they were just doing their jobs. I'm sure that even now, there are plans for conflict with Canada and or Britain. For instance Desert Shield (the first part of the first Gulf War) was based on a plan to respond to a Soviet land attack towards Saudi Arabia. It was only the availability of troops from NATO (not needed to fight the Soviets/Russians) that allowed the reinforecment for the attack into Iraq (Desert Storm).
@@HolyShitNew a lot of people don’t, but the people who do always come out on a video about the US for some reason. Its only these specific type of hater on the US and nothing else.
@@noname_758 because the history of man is so devoid of these things. But the history of man, other than the US, is completely devoid of a country and it’s people sacrificing our people and our wealth doing so much for so many people that can never begin to repay us. We aren’t perfect. But we are the light and the leaders of freedom in the world. Even with the loser we now have as President in 2021.
Sorry to correct you the Republican Party wasn't formed until mid 1850's and not in power till 1860 with Lincoln. You are thinking of the Fedarlist party.
This looks great but is factually short… the US considered many outcomes and played out endless scenarios & (at that point in time) knew that the Royal Navy would wooop them at sea & between the Canadians, British & other troops from the Empire it would be a stalemate on the border with Canada. Britain knew better than invading US east coast so both parties never went there..
These plans were part of strategic training exercises. To suggest that there was a real chance for war, let alone the conditions or desire for one, between the USA and UK in the interwar period is nonsense. Add to this that the US Army in the interwar period was massively reduced and funding was decreased and you get the impression that this video is pretty misleading.
Your video is based on a misrepresentation of how war planning works. War plans are just that, plans. Plans are drawn up all the time. There are entire sectors of the defense department devoted to planning. To borrow from Bruce Willis in Armageddon; "They've got guys just sitting around thinking shit up." There was no way the populace of either nation would have supported a war between 1920-1939 and politicians knew that. America became more isolationist and Britain was broke. The U.K. and the U.S. both dismantled their standing armies, hardly an indicator that they saw each other as a threat. Naval power was an issue but the Americans had been building a two ocean navy based on the writings of people like Thayer Mahan for decades by this point. Britain accepted it as a reality. There was tension in the sense that Britain was an imperial power and the U.S. was traditionally anti-colonial but after the Spanish American War and the acquisition of Puerto Rico, Guam, Wake, and The Philippines, American thinking on that had softened as well (at least beyond people like FDR but I digress). The Washington Naval Treaty in the 20's was negotiated to curtail Japanese expansion which worried both Britain and the U.S. more than it was to stave off any war between the U.K. and the U.S. On a side, in this video and the one on the War of 1812 you refer to "The Republicans" when you talk about political parties. This will lead someone not versed in American history to conclude you are referring to the Republican Party that exists today. You should correct this and start referring to the party as the Democratic Republicans which was what they called themselves at the time. The party was a result of the feud between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the role of the federal government and republican in that sense meant supporting states rights. The republican bit was dropped with the election of Andrew Jackson and they have been the Democratic Party ever since. The Republicans of today were created in the 1850s after the collapse of the Whig Party over the issue of slavery. The way you phrase things in your videos you make it sound like the republicans existed in 1812 which is not the case. The Federalist Party opposed the War of 1812 and it led to their demise. Just wanted to set the record straight on that one.
I'm.. 50 a.n.d m.y. husband 54 we are both retired with over $3 million in net worth and no debt's. Currently living smart and frugal with our money.serving and investing life style in the stock market made it possible for us this early even till now we earn weekly. Thanks to fire movement.
@@robertmorris3752 Fire means Financial Independence Retire Early. It's been a movement teaching people financial independence and how to retire debt free through solid investment and frugal lifestyle.
@Altcoin Daily I can share some that helped me. 1:plan towards it. 2:be frugal and minimal on spending. 3:spend your money on investment. 4:chose your trade analys wisely. 5:invest with a professional trader like Mr Dennis my trade analyst
Disappointed in the sponser of the video for providing inaccurate information regarding the plots of land being sold. I am from Dunfermline and can tell you that is not a map of Dunfermline but of a small village 20mins away called Saline.
Your map timeline is wrong. You imply the Irish Free State and Northern Ireland were created *before* WW1, when they were created *after* the Great War.
In Canada it’s hard to forget as we have old military bases dotted all around the border from that time period. In my city of Victoria many of our public parks are covered the ruins of military fortifications from the 19th and 20th century made to stop an American invasion. Sorta makes parts of Canada look like Albania that way. You can also see this design in cities like Vancouver which although has torn down most of its old military fortifications still is designed to stop an American invasion, which is why it’s downtown isn’t on the Fraser river but instead pushed up against the water and mountains as a natural barriers. And also why most of the city is north of the river as that was meant to be a natural barrier from Americans being able to do a land invasion .
@@jamescoulson7729 His ironic considering canada alot of places has the name british in it a reminder of who still owns you. Ironic knew how that happen besides knowng canada was a base form for any second plan to take America indepebdence which they tried once they found out washington was long gone.
@@iancruz6617 I’m British and it’s very clear that we in no way own Canada. Our countries are close but so is the whole Anglo sphere so no we don’t own them lol. I reckon them keeping the names is just respecting their roots and the fact that they didn’t have to do a whole war of independence.
@@iancruz6617 The UK has no control over Canada which is an independent country, as is the USA which also has a large number of locations with British names, your comments are pointless.
@Jinx Vanderz Yeah it is: Iraqis and Vietnamese kicked their asses until they sloped off. The Brits could have done serious damage to US economy and infrastructure.
It would be. The thing is, Canadian Forces, if necessary, would fall back further and further North. Americans at the very least would struggle similar to the German invasion of Russia as winter came. Not only that, but Canada is thousands of kilometers of dense forest and some of the biggest mountain ranges on the planet. The geography alone would make a full invasion of Canada very difficult.
@Jinx Vanderz the US also had to rapidly increase its army. If the UK send a 200k experienced force the US could have great casualties before it does the job. Plus the Soviets usually wasted a lot of men in every conflict that was just a Russian thing. No tech but man power enough so using it as the advantage. The US would be outnumbering Canada a lot more on the front line and that frontline be a lot easier to penetrate. Finland is worthy country. Not a puppet of super powers like Canda always been
@@crowbar9566 iraq fell in weeks what are you talking about ? your confusing guerrilla war fare for two armies fighting . the brits lost in guerrilla ware fare to america when they had no army before the french joined . there is a difference between nation building and ware fare if america goes in head first and kills everything moving countries would fall but nation building is different training a army and building a government to fight for you is different .
@Jinx Vanderz American strategy recently has literally been "who needs strategy when you have superior firepower?" Which was exactly the same mistake that the Soviets did with the Finns
2:45 “It wasn’t until the American Republicans came to power…” The Republican Party did not exist until 1854. Either get your facts straight or communicate more clearly.
@@6wh07433 60 years old. Not a historian. But have kind of paid attention and do enjoy history. I’ve never heard of the Democrat-Republicans referred to as Republicans.
Until 1943 the us navy was smaller than the Royal Navy. At the beginning of the war, substantially so… a sea Atlantic war would not see an invasion of the uk….. the rn was just too big in the twenties and thirties
It is for this reason that I think the US would have definitely lost the war. Nothing to stop the UK from blockading the American coast and taking out American naval production. The USA should really thank Germany for tearing apart Britain and Europe because it handed the world to an American hegemony.
@@CeruleanSword There's no way America loses the war, the UK would be helpless to take America out of the war as a successful invasion would've been impossible, while America would easily take Canada and there's not much UK could do about it, also America can ramp up war production to terrifying levels and the British wouldn't be able to stop that either just damage some of it, the US was destined to become the hegemon, that had nothing to do "Europe" fighting, it was always going to happen
Ohhh Established Titles. Remember when they messed up a give away and like 300k people got the "Lord" title for free? I'm even a "Lord of Glencoe". The titles are completely useless and pointless but hey it was free!
I think something that was missed in this video is that the U.S. was a completely different nation than they are now. For instance, prior to WWII, the U.S. was significantly more isolationist than they are now, with many Americans still holding up George Washington's Farewell Address to the nation about the dangers of foreign entanglements as proper American policy. The realty is that if nobody is an ally, than everyone else are potential adversaries, and so you should have a plan to deal with them, A.K.A. the multi color war plans that were concocted. This idea is foreign to most people, as they don't fully understand the ramifications of courses of isolation among countries. However, in accordance with the statement, "where goods don't cross borders, armies will", wars and preparation for wars are the logical end result of isolationism.
If the Americans joined the war against the brits I think France would help and Spain and maybe even Japan will help the central powers would be huge if France Spain and Japan and US joined.
I read Saving Private Power by Mickey Z. He exposes the myth of the “good war “. The Austrian dictator was admired by many in US because he hated communists and unions. Greed and power is usually at the root of all geopolitics.
No they didn't, unions and the CPUSA (communist party USA) were at their absolute zenith in the 30s. Liking Hitler was unpopular and ruined careers. Charles Lindbergh liked Hitler and his career was ruined over it even before WW2. Stop falling for neo-Nazi propaganda.
You probably don’t know about the plan to overthrow the US govt by a military coup then do you, involving Gen Smedley D. Butler then do you? He wouldn’t take part btw which ended the plan.
They was an actual UK plan and it was examined and the played out and the US would lose tho both sides would suffer economically and so in reality both lose. At least both sides grew up, and grew out of war and fighting like children do and later on in life become friends
Typical British propaganda. The US would have won then, they'd win now and they'll win 100 years from now. They already won 250 years ago. Stop the lies.
That rapid fire invasion from the brits would’ve been slowed down by American militiamen. We were and are a land with guns for defense. Not just hunting.
Britain knew that America was far too powerful to take on and could easily take over most of its colonies probably even faster than the Japanese did in the Pacific, which is why they never really tried to pick any fights in the Americas.
The Brits were the more realistic in all this. They knew it would be distratous to come up against America some 3 to 4000 miles away in a war. They would have been playing in America's front yard. Trying to transport a big army all the way to Canada would have been pure folly for them and even if it succeeded, the US would have been way to big for them to invade or expend the resources trying. Canada herself would not have really enhanced the manpower resources either at the time as she had a small population of less than 13 million then. In those days it was about manpower baby. So with that and all the other logistical stumbling blocks it would have been a pure madness and sure defeat for Britain and Canada. And probably an even earlier sure collapse of the British Empire and geopolitical disaster for Britain.
That's not true tho, could the US taken Canada almost certainly, could it have taken most of the British colonies as you say, it would have been almost impossible for the US.
All the English speaking nation's should stick together , Australia , new Zealand , UK , Canada , us , sometimes kids fall out with there parents just like sometimes these countries fall out with the UK .
@@dwaynehicks6838 Why is that? Sounds like you’re sucking up to USA. USA doesn’t need anyone cuz it’s the superpower. Uk, nz, australia are just useless
