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 ...
Churchill reportedly said, when an aide reminded him that Italy would fight on the Axis side during the war, "It's only fair. We had them last time." Combined with Italian disasters in North Africa,a region about which Nazi ideology or German goals had no particular interest, Churchill's sarcasm was prescient.
And don't forget, more Germans surrendered in North Africa than surrendered in Stalingrad.
I read a book, Bodyguard of Lies years ago pointing out that it was no accident that the Yugoslavs attacked the Germans in May 1941. The British knew all about Operation Barbarosa from their Ultra intercepts of the German Enigma encoded messages. Churchill wanted the Yugoslavs to bait the Germans into moving into Yugoslavia to delay the invasion of the Soviet Union.
If Germany had attacked the US in 1939 before we got our war legs under us, we would have been defeated. As it was the nation was very pacifist and isolationist.
No way.
We didn’t have the arms to defeat Germany. It takes more than attitude to kill an invading army.
I wouldn’t say we were Pacifist at all, not like “Hippy” Pacifist, Isolationists just thought it wasn’t our business.
But I guarantee if the Germans came after us, there would have been no Pacifism. Our industry would have ramped up on a dime, the Germans at best could have gained a beachhead or two, but they would have been eventually routed.
And there would have been a cold war too. But with the German Reich instead of the USSR.
A very good point. Hitler sacrificed a lot of troops to bad decisions. Having the Italians as an ally didn’t help.
I spent 8 years as a naval officer including a year in Vietnam and 8 months off the coast aboard an LPH with Marines who launched attacks against the VC and NVA. I do understand how the military and the Navy operate in wartime.
There was no way the Japanese could hold Hawaii even if our forces operated initially from the West Coast. They weren't capable of the logistics. And there would be no point doing it. US carriers and subs would make it impossible.
Go digging into NAZI movement within Mexican elite circles prior to WW2. Newspaper and radio networks were infiltrated for espousing propaganda. An embargo of electronic spares (transmitter tubes) and other equipment curtailed the trend.
Not impressed I was Naval Officer too. The Japanese maintained logistics in the Aleutian Islands for 3 years EXPLAIN THAT?
The Japanese maintained logistics in the Aleutian Islands for 3 years EXPLAIN THAT?
A small Japanese force occupied the islands of Attu and Kiska, but the remoteness of the islands and the difficulties of weather and terrain meant that it took nearly a year for a far larger U.S./Canadian force to eject them.
A battle to reclaim Attu was launched on May 11, 1943 and completed following a final Japanese banzai charge on May 29th. On 15 August 1943, an invasion force landed on Kiska in the wake of a sustained three-week barrage, only to discover the Japanese had abandoned the island on July 29th.
The Japanese occupied the islands beginning on 3 June 1942. They were pushed out in August 1943 How do you GET to three years?
Do you realize how close Attu and Kiska are to Japan? It is no great feat for Japan to support a small contingent on these remote islands. It is only 2,571 miles from Japan. After the battle of the Komandorski Islands, the Japanese could only supply the small garrison using submarines. Occupying two remote islands in the Pacific is a far cry from invading Hawaii or the US mainland.
Funny thing you think like the Japaneses did which led to ruin. If the roles were reversed The USA would not have made that mistake, they would have taken Hawaii while the taking is good.
There was support for Germany, particularly among ethnic Germans and Italians. Also, a lot of Latin Americans who should have known better were anti-US, or impressed with German achievements, or strongly attracted to European intellectual trends.
I guess we were fortunate that what we later called the Third World wasn't that restless in the 1940s.
If the roles were reversed The USA would not have made that mistake, they would have taken Hawaii while the taking is good.
You mean if the US had conducted a surprise attack on Japan, a day that will live in infamy? Japan could never have held Hawaii and taking and occupying it would have required tens of thousands of troops. Hawaii had 422,000 people in 1940. It comprises hundreds of islands spread over 1,500 miles. It has 750 miles of coastline.
How many people would it have taken to seize the island and occupy it? What naval force would be required to supply the occupying troops with bombs and bullets and beans? How would they protect their suppliy lines and what kind of naval assets would be required? The US was mobilizing its forces and still had carriers. The occupation of Hawaii would have been a military debacle.
What were they going to attack us with?
I know your comment was not directed to me, but thought I'd share this.
Good generals study tactics....great generals study logistics.
Germany and Japan found that out the hard way.
Like I said, Hitler was an idiot.
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.