Animal House is a good movie to watch on a Friday night with some pizza and a lot of beer. Loosen up a little!
Posted on 08/02/2015 7:44:26 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Invading the North American mainland can be safely left in the realm of bad Hollywood films. And that's even today, with larger ships, jet cargo aircraft, and more people. While it makes for a great strategy, in the end, it's just a nonstarter. Why?
The Germans had no forward base in the New World. If they had seized Iceland, any of the French protectorates in the Caribbean, or northern South America, then an invasion, while still a stretch, could have been conceivable. Without forward bases to deploy to and from, an invasion isn't going to happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
No doubt US aid helped the Soviets, but 100,000 trucks did not win the battle of Kursk. How many US provided trucks were involved in the battle?
We give weapons and humvees to the Iraqis and they surrender them at the first shot. The Soviet soldier and the willingness to sacrifice huge numbers of people to achieve the objective won the battle of Kursk. The Soviets also had a superior battle plan.
Militarily, Zhukov wielded a strength consisted of 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 pieces of artillery, and 2,400 aircraft. On the other side, the Germans were about to attack with over 800,000 men (including three Waffen SS divisions), 2,700 tanks, and 1,800 aircraft.
At the end of the fighting in Kursk, the German forces had suffered 200,000 casualties and lost 500 tanks, while Soviet losses amounted to 860,000 casualties and 1,500 tanks. The Soviets lost 1,200 aircraft.
When you see the size of these casualties and compare them against those on D-Day for all of the allies or the US total casualties for the entire war in both theaters, you can understand why the Soviets bristle when they hear Americans claiming credit for defeating the Germans or something silly about how 100,000 trucks won the day. Nonsense.
We lost 407,000 KIA and 600,000 wounded for the entire war. The Soviets lost more than that in one battle.
I think many (including my WWII vet father) would have fought for Germany instead.
yeah....don’t bother. I found Belushi and his drunken, drug addled’ wit’ uninteresting then nothing will have improved it by now
IF...Japan would have continued a second or third wave attack on Pearl, effectively razing it, Pearl would have been virtually useless in the short term for the US.
Pearl was vital for the US for its Pacific projection.
BUT...instead of viewing Pearl as something Japan had to invade to take away from the US, think instead of just depriving the US.
Japan would have been too far stretched to invade and control Hawaii. So, instead of trying to gain control for yourself, you just force your enemy to lose control of it. Then no one has it.
Here are the big IFs.
IF...Japan would have continued its attack on Pearl, decimating the military installations
and
IF...Japan would have caught our carrier fleet in port
Hawaii would have been out of play for the US for quite awhile. Allowing Japan to move freely in the Pacific. Without Hawaii, Midway could have and probably would have fallen before June of '42.
Though Midway itself wasn't a major base, it was only 1400 miles from Hawaii. Again, close enough as a jumping off point to harry US attempts of rebuilding Hawaii.
The Battle Of Midway was a game changer for both sides. BUT...IF Japan would have destroyed the bases at Hawaii and taken out the carriers, Midway would have fallen shortly after. NEVER allowing the trap to be set that sent 4 of Japans carriers to the bottom, so early in the war. The whole dynamic of the war would have changed.
Maybe the eventual outcome might have stayed the same, but the interim would have been different. Those 2 blunders could have actually saved 100's of thousands of lives.
Postwar investigations showed that about 260,000 people were in guerrilla organizations and that members of the anti-Japanese underground were even more numerous. Such was their effectiveness that by the end of the war, Japan controlled only twelve of the forty-eight provinces.
U.S. casualties were 10,380 dead and 36,550 wounded; Japanese dead were 255,795. I wonder if the Japanese regretted their failed occupation of the Philippines. They paid a terrible price.
And some great US naval victories occurred off of the Philippines as the Japanese struggled to resupply their troops. The battle of Leyte Gulf was the largest naval battle of WWII and perhaps, in the history of warfare. The Japanese lost 12,500 dead; 1 fleet carrier, 3 light carriers 3 battleships, 10 cruisers, 11 destroyers sunk and 300 planes.
If you have ever attended a football game at the USNA, you will see the names of many of those battles around the stadium. The Japanese occupation of the Philippines became their graveyard.
The US would not have been much of a concern to him, and he could have concentrated solely on Russia.
We needed our European allies as much as they needed us. Without them, we would have had nowhere to have bases allowing us access to Europe.
Until Hitler attacked Russia, Russia wasn't involved in the war. ie they weren't our allies.
No maybes about it. The attack on Pearl Harbor marked the end of Imperial Japan. The outcome was never really in question.
I don't agree that Japan could have put Pearl Harbor out of action for an extended period of time with a second and third wave. You can destroy the facilities, but the harbor itself would still be there and I have no doubt that we could have got the port back into operation quickly. The arsenal of democracy would be mobilized to make it happen.
The Battle Of Midway was a game changer for both sides. BUT...IF Japan would have destroyed the bases at Hawaii and taken out the carriers, Midway would have fallen shortly after. NEVER allowing the trap to be set that sent 4 of Japans carriers to the bottom, so early in the war. The whole dynamic of the war would have changed.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a fine world we would have. The US would still have defeated the Japanese Navy, albeit it would take a little longer. Our submarine force got better and better and did major damage by themselves to both combatant and merchant ships. Japan was overextended in China, the Philippines, and in the Pacific.
During the three and one half years of WWII, the US produced 10 battleships, 27 aircraft carriers, 110 escort carriers, 211 submarines, 907 Cruisers/Destroyers/Escorts, 82,000 landing craft, 124,000 ships of all types, and 310,000 aircraft. And this was done from virtually a standing start. Anyone who thinks that razing Pearl Harbor would have put it out for quite a while underestimates what happens when the US mobilizes its economy and industry along with 12 million under arms.
PS, I still have a ration book for me as a child during WWII.
Also, if Hawaii was decimated, Pearl would have been useless for projecting any type of force.
Midway would have fallen, long before the US could have set a trap, even if they would have had 3 carriers.
Without the Battle Of Midway, Japan doesn't lose 4 of her carriers.
The Pacific turns into a different war.
His generals would have made damn sure they would kill him, before attacking the US.
The US was totally unattainable for them at that time. They had no way of projecting their power this far.
Likewise, we had no way of projecting our power that far, WITHOUT bases in Europe, to stage our offenses.
You sir have no idea about logistics. As much as Japan was over extended (I agree with you on), Pearl was 2600 miles away from San Diego. IF the carriers were taken out, The US Navy would have sucked up tight and left Pearl for a later date. Kind of hard to mobilize The arsenal of democracy if the majority of your capital ships are underwater (and I don't mean subs).
The Essex was the first Carrier to enter in WWII. That wasn't until July of '43.
It took 3 months to return the Pennsylvania, Maryland and Tennessee. The Nevada didn't return to duty until late '42. The California didn't return until '44. Wipe out the drydock facilities, and that takes a lot longer. Remove convoys of supplies and it takes even longer. Pearl would have been virtually on her own until a fleet back home could have been put together to allow safe passage for supply ships. In the meantime, Japan would have kept moving.
Our submarine force got better and better
Oh golly gee willikers, really???
But by when???
1943?
Again, Without the capital ships, everything else is just harassment. Without capital ships, convoys don't safely sail. Without convoy ships, Pearl doesn't get rebuilt. Without Pearl being rebuilt ships sunk in harbor stay there. Without Pearl active and viable, we can't project any force in the Pacific. Can't project in the Pacific and Japan keeps moving (and over extending) but still reinforcing.
The Yorktown was the first of the Essex class carriers to enter service, being built during the war. She was laid down, Dec. 1, 1941 and didn't enter service until July 6, 1943. The Intrepid came 3 months later. The Hornet 4 months after that. That means all this armament you talk about really didn't get into service until 1944 and later.
In other words, the little bit longer you talk about, would probably be about 1-1/2 years.
Japan would have been stronger in their bases and we would have had to expend more human lives.
In '45 we had 3 total nukes. One was popped in Alamogordo as a test. Then Hiroshima. Then Nagasaki. If Japan didn't surrender then, then we were going to have to go in. Change the timeline 1-1/2 years and Japan WOULD NOT have surrendered in '45 after Nagasaki.
You can recite all the happy horsesh-t platitudes you want. The fact remains, change Japans 2 blunders and it changes the dynamics of the Pacific theater.
Now, what happens in 1-1/2 years in China, if the US isn't able to launch reasonable campaigns? At some point Japan goes from being over extended in areas, to conquerors able to make use of the resources and infrastructure.
Likewise Saturday Night Live. I TRIED to like the "humor", but just found it stupid.
Never understood those who raved about either.
Interesting. If Germany had indeed been able to conquer Great Britain, the most likely eventuality would have been an occupation of Canada by the United States. The Canadians would probably have welcomed it, considering the alternative.
Quite likely, the Canadian provinces would have eventually joined the U.S. as states, along with Alaska and Hawaii. You could then drive from Miami Beach to Anchorage, Alaska without having to go through customs!
Animal House is a good movie to watch on a Friday night with some pizza and a lot of beer. Loosen up a little!
I know a hell of lot more about logistics than you do. First of all, you make up all of these hypotheticals to prove nothing. Why don't we just posit that the Japanese invaded San Diego and took over our naval facilities there. This is an exercise in how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Are you saying the Japanese wiped out all of our carriers or just those in the Pacific Fleet? Or all of our capital ships in Pearl or our entire inventory worldwide? I hope you are aware that the entire US Navy was not based out of Pearl Harbor. We had carriers and capital ships in the Atlantic.
The Essex was the first Carrier to enter in WWII. That wasn't until July of '43.
Do you mean the Essex class of carriers? The USS Essex (CV-9) was launched 31 July 1942 and commissioned in December 1942. Construction was accelerated after Pearl Harbor as were two other Essex class carriers. A total of 24 Essex class carriers were built.
There were other alternatives that could have been used if our Pacific carrier fleet had been wiped out. We could have transferred some carriers from the Atlantic to the Pacific, taken some ships out of mothballs and fitted flight decks on them, and accelerate carriers that were already under construction. The bottom line is that I have no doubt that we would have met the challenge. And there is no way we would have written off Hawaii. We certainly would reposition our naval forces to protect the West Coast.
Again, Without the capital ships, everything else is just harassment. Without capital ships, convoys don't safely sail. Without convoy ships, Pearl doesn't get rebuilt. Without Pearl being rebuilt ships sunk in harbor stay there. Without Pearl active and viable, we can't project any force in the Pacific. Can't project in the Pacific and Japan keeps moving (and over extending) but still reinforcing.
As I indicated, we had other ships on the West Coast and the East Coast. Wiping out Pearl Harbor did not wipe out the US Navy. Pearl Harbor would have been rebuilt because it was vital to our national security not to mention that close to half a million of our fellow citizens lived there and needed to be supplied with the necessities to live.
First, there was a USS Yorktown carrier (CV-5) that was a Yorktown class sunk at the battle of Midway. The Essex class Yorktown (CV-10) was commissioned in 1943. It was not the first Essex class carrier. The USS Essex (CV-9) was.
In other words, the little bit longer you talk about, would probably be about 1-1/2 years.
Besides the fact that you are making it up as you go, I can just as authoritatively state that it would have only slowed us down by 6 months.
In '45 we had 3 total nukes. One was popped in Alamogordo as a test. Then Hiroshima. Then Nagasaki. If Japan didn't surrender then, then we were going to have to go in. Change the timeline 1-1/2 years and Japan WOULD NOT have surrendered in '45 after Nagasaki.
Japan was ready to surrender after the first one. We had more than three bombs. Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on August 19, with three more in September and a further three in October. On August 10, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President." Truman had secretly requested this on August 10. This modified the previous order that the target cities were to be attacked with atomic bombs "as made ready"
You can recite all the happy horsesh-t platitudes you want. The fact remains, change Japans 2 blunders and it changes the dynamics of the Pacific theater.
LOL. You make up these scenarios out of whole cloth and reject any one else doing the same thing. At least mine are based on fact. The US provided two thirds of all the weapons used by the allies. In 3 and one-half years we had created the greatest war machine ever seen. At the end of the war we were turning out a Liberty ship a day. You can create whatever nonsense situation you want, but the America of 1941 was far different than what we have today. Americans were united and involved in the war effort with women doing many jobs heretofore done by men. Factories were converted to produce weapons and parts and ammo 24 hours a day. My "platitudes" are based on demonstrated performance.
Now, what happens in 1-1/2 years in China, if the US isn't able to launch reasonable campaigns? At some point Japan goes from being over extended in areas, to conquerors able to make use of the resources and infrastructure.
More fantasy.
Your comment explains exactly why I won’t bother with it.
The idea that ‘loosening up’ requires drinking and finding drunkness funny is beyond teen age behavior.
Cronos in post 112 stopped my idea in it’s tracks, as Canada was a Dominion, which had enough independence to declare war on Germany right after England did.
But, now assuming Goering had continued to pound military targets instead of reverting to bombing London, they could have widdled Englands air defense to a point to where a land invasion could have been successful.
The remnants of the British Empire, being Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India (among others), could have kept up the battle. Any war materials we (the US) had destined for England would have went to those countries.
However the retaking of Europe with out England as a base would have been nearly impossible until the A Bomb became useful.
The Free World (at that time) must have been very thankful England found someone like Churchill to lead them on. I would say he had more to do with the winning of WWII than the US or USSR simply because their holding on provided bases for D-Day.
Had he let his field marshalls bag the BEF at Dunkirk, then finished up the job in North Africa, he’d have turned the Med into an Axis lake, cut the British off from Suez Canal access to the Far East, and starved out their oil supply while simultaneously making sure Germany was plentifully supplied. Having already made inroads in Latin America at the expense of US trade, its unlikely that securing the petroleum supply would have had a negative impact on further influence there.
Churchill might have held on to power, but given how quickly he was dumped after VE Day, it’s difficult to believe that the prospect of invasion, starvation, and no heat or cooked food in the house wouldn’t have led to a non-belligerent if not outright appeasement gov’t in Parliament.
As you said, a couple more years of mobilization before starting Barbarossa would have been helpful, but even more helpful would have been to not undertake the invasion of the USSR in the first place.
Pearl Harbor wasn’t as relevant as the US aircraft carriers which, by a stroke of luck, weird coincidence, or something else, were not in port on Dec 7th. Had the Japanese systematically hunted and destroyed the US carriers, and brought the other two battle groups to bear at Midway instead of the kinda silly diversionary attack in the Aleutians, the US would have had a much longer road ahead of it. Of course, the probable US response would have been to bull ahead, straight for the home islands.
Glad we had such people fighting WWII.
My confidence in our ability to overcome any obstacle in our path is founded on what was done in just 3 and one-half years. We can hypothesize all we want, but the record is clear about what we did. It is mind-boggling and still hard to comprehend. I was born in 1943 and have some perspective and experience to place it in some context. It is remarkable. It is sad to see how this nation has declined in terms of our confidence and patriotism. Once more, here are some of the statistics:
During the three and one half years of WWII, the US produced 10 battleships, 27 aircraft carriers, 110 escort carriers, 211 submarines, 907 Cruisers/Destroyers/Escorts, 82,000 landing craft, 124,000 ships of all types, and 310,000 aircraft. And this was done from virtually a standing start. Anyone who thinks that razing Pearl Harbor would have put it out for quite a while underestimates what happens when the US mobilizes its economy and industry along with 12 million under arms.
Then you make another comment of "First of all, you make up all of these hypotheticals to prove nothing. Why don't we just posit that the Japanese invaded San Diego and took over our naval facilities there. This is an exercise in how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. "
This whole thread is about one BIG IF
What Would Have Happened IF Germany Had Invaded the U.S. During World War II?
In the interim we got side tracked into talking about Japan and Pearl.
Here's the deal. The BIG IF I was talking about, taking out the US carriers was Yamamoto's main goal. Yamamoto understood the future of naval warfare was carriers over battleships. That's why he had a carrier task force 200+ miles away from Pearl, not a battleship force.
That BIG IF was a main objective, so it needs to be legitimately looked at.
Secondly, the other BIG IF was the failure to launch a third wave, which was immediately questioned at the time. The third wave would have specifically targeted the fuel farms, dry docks and the already damaged ships.
As a logistics man, you should know that a fleet floats on fuel.
Now, lets look at your other arguments.
First, the carriers. The US had seven at the time. NONE in mothballs. 3 were in the Pacific, though the Saratoga was in San Diego after drydock. The rest were in the Atlantic.
As a logistics man, you should know that the carriers in the Atlantic were needed in the Atlantic. The Hornet was coming out of its shakedown cruise. The Ranger and Wasp were on ferry duty and patrol in the Atlantic.
IF 2 of the 3 Pacific carriers would have been lost at Pearl, the smart thing to do would have been to pull back until Hornet and or Yorktown could make it from Norfolk.
You mention mothballed ships being converted to carriers. Do you have ANY CLUE as to how long it would take to convert an old cruiser to a carrier, man her and perform a shakedown cruise???
1-1/2 years. That is IF there were drydocks open to perform the task. Remember, the US went into high gear to build NEW ships. You can use a drydock to buid a new ship or modify an existing one. Can't do both at the same time.
It seems you were trying to correct me about when the Essex and others came around.
Being a Navy man and a logistics specialist, you should know the difference between the commission of a ship and its actual battle ready. The dates I quoted were when they were ready. After their shakedown cruises.
So I'll stick with the dates mid '43 to early '44 before replacement carriers. Whether new or modified mothballs.
Without replacement, Midway wouldn't have happened.
Remember, Lexington was lost a month earlier at Coral Sea.
As a logistics man, you should know if you don't have the ships you can't move the fleet.
Midway was a success because we had multiple carriers to form a trap.
Without Midway, Japan doesn't lose 4 carriers.
The US wouldn't have had carrier parity until early '44.
That's not propaganda. That's not platitudes. Those are cold hard facts.
Saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.