American Invasion

were only in Iraq for oil, just like Hitler went into Russia for the oilfields.

 

I'd love authentication on that, POS. A primary source would be nice.

Does anyone else feel like talking to brick walls?

And it's off-topic.

 

Clearly the oil is what he wanted, all the stuff about lebensraum, the distruction of bolhevism and so on was just a cover...

 

clearly were in Iraq for oil purposes as well, Saddam Hussein was a threat to Saudi Arabia which supply our (USA) oil. Anyways we really strayed off topic.

 

Clearly you missed the sarcasm there...

 

ever heard of killing two birds with one stone? defeat Bolshevism and get their oilfields.

 

That's a great pic of a t-34 taken out of a mud hole, thanks, it's been alot more informative than this thread.

Good post

 

I think a good half of the 20th century wars started with official propaganda, whatever the countries involved.
What you call 'similar rethoric' does not link USA and nazi Germany, nor Bush to Hitler in any remarkable way.

Boy, you'd better investigate their shared taste in wearing boots.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this subject, USA and nazi-era Germany are worlds apart.

 

Yes, the Americans and their berets, but how about the British and Theirs! Either way, in this alternate reality it is assumed that GErmany is winning,. So assume that they conquered England. They then invade Greenland and then Canada to come down through Canada. Likewise they climb their way up South and Central America. It never could have happened, but would definately changed the face of the world had they managed to get that far. I would assume that America would take roughly 5 or six years to capture. It's so big, with so many cities and people and space. Assuming the US got it's forces back in time, then we would fight for every stream, valley, and beach much like the British planned to do.

 

Consider the following scenario:

Late 1940-Germany starts her invasion of England. In six months it's over. The US is stunned, but not compelled to join the war. Through merchant shipping, a covert buildup starts in Mexico in mid 1941.

Germany conspires with Japan on the Pearl Harbor attack. An intelligent attack is carried out, the channel blocked, the oil tanks destroyed, the fleet bottled up, and the carriers-after one is sunk, the remainder flee to the west coast.

While the US is in shock, an infantry invasion crosses the river into Texas. Eventually, the invasion sputters (but not after causing a lot of damage in Texas, Oklahoma, and a few of the gulf states).

Meanwhile, Dornier has time to build his surface fleet. The war lingers to 1950, but not until after all of Korea is one country, and the French never fight in Vietnam. The atomic bomb isn't built until 1947, but it's used in both Europe and Japan.

Pax Americana eventually takes place, but the treachery of Mexico is not forgotten and Mexico is occupied, eventually leading some parts of Mexico to not only fall under American influence, but stopping the illegal immigration problem we have today.

 

Which begs the following question:

-How would Germany even begin to invade Britain?

http://www.ww2f.com/what-if/21516-operation-sealion-should-have-happened.html

(Read through the whole thing. Don't skim it.)

 

Oh and what if the Axis had superman on their side

 

Mexico had been, was then, and still is filled with Yanquis from los Estados Unidos. All sorts of businessmen, mining engineers, travelers. Also in that era it was a cheap refuge for Germans fleeing itler Gestapo. With al those observers, plus active US spying by the State Department and FBI how is Germany going to 'covert, anything there?

Ok, the German experts on aircraft carrier and fleet operations could have helped the iggnorant Japanese imensely

By the end of 1941 the US had Three armored divsions, two armored cavalry groups, fourteen fully motorized infantry divsions, and roughly a dozen bomber and fighter Wings combat ready in the US. What is a "infantry invasion" goung to accomplish against this? More likely a preemptive strike would be made by a mobile corps before a infantry force could assemble.

Who is Dornier and what does he have to do with fleets? There was a German Admiral Raeder who commanded the German navy until 1941. He was replaced by Doneitz, who had been commander of the submarines and who wanted little to do with surface ships.

Why would the atomic bomb not be built until 1947. The project was underway in the US fairly early, instigated by Germanys victorys. More Geman victorys would be a incentive to progress the atomic bomb development faster.

 

Oh-oh, looks like someone forgot to take their lithium supplement! This isn't "what-if", it's alternate universe stuff.

An economist by the name of Paul Kennedy wrote a book titled, "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers", in which he analyzed the economic aspects of WW II. As part of that analysis he developed a method for calculating the war-making potential of the most powerful belligerents in the war. His calculations were based on data from the year 1938. In 1938, Japan commanded just 3.5% of the total of the world's war-making potential. This was after Japan had shifted to a war economy. Germany possessed 14.4% of the total, Mexico isn't even mentioned, but probably possessed less than one quarter of one per cent. The US, in 1938, before it had begun to rearm, possessed 41.4% of the war-making potential, and the UK, which certainly would have been our ally, had an additional 10.2%. So the US, even before it had started to ramp up it's economy for war production, easily had twice as much war-making potential as Germany and Japan combined!

The idea of either Germany or Japan, neither one known for it's logistical brilliance, solving the massive logistical problems involved in invading the US, is to put it mildly, laughable. In the Pacific war, Japan never managed to land more than the equivalent of one division at one time, and certainly never contemplated doing so over a 6,000 mile range. The IGHQ staff estimated (very optimistically) in mid 1942, that just capturing Hawaii would require three divisions, or about 60,000 troops counting support elements. In fact, those three divisions would have gotten slaughtered had they tried because they would have faced over 100,000 defending troops not to mention massive amounts of both fixed and mobile artillery, and overwhelming numbers of aircraft. In any event, the Japanese never made the attempt because Japanese IGHQ admitted there was no possibility of amassing the numbers of transports and freighters required to move and supply even three divisions across 4,000 miles of ocean.

To sustain a campaign on the North American continent would have required at least ten times the numbers of troops that were estimated for Hawaii. Consider that the Japanese Army rejected plans for the invasion of Australia because it would have required 10-12 divisions supported over a distance of about 2,600 miles. The Japanese, and the Germans, for that matter, had a better chance of establishing a base on the Moon than they did of gaining a foothold in the US.

 

What piqued my interest in thinking this started years ago when I met people from Mexico with either Russian or German first names. Because I have visited Mexico, I know you can do quite a bit there relatively undetected. For almost two hundred years, bandits have committed acts in the US, then fled across the border-appearing only when they want to.

From growing up in a mountainous area, I know you can move about stealthily. Afghans fought the Russians very well for a decade in their moutains. The US fights Taliban and Al Quaeda well in the mountains because the US now trains for that kind of thing.

Although it wasn't done, I strongly feel that you could've moved at least a division undetected in 1940's Mexico (isolated compounds and covered trucks).

 

Bandits? Sure they moved back and forth across the US southern border for a hundred years or more. Guerrillas? Why not? If they're well trained, indigenous to the area, and well led, they can be troublesome. A regiment, brigade, or division of regular troops? No way. Such units leave huge footprints when moving or bivouacked. The heavy weapons that make it possible for regular troops to sustain themselves in battle required support troops, regular re-supply, and couldn't be very well hidden, especially from air reconnaissance. If even so much as a regiment began to concentrate near the border, it would be detected, tracked, and subjected to bombardment. And the US would counter by concentrating forces to block any moves to breach the US border.

In any case, that wouldn't be the enemy's major problem., It would be logistics. And even if the Germans or Japanese had the means to sustain troops in Mexico, which they didn't, their very long lines of communications and supply would be extremely vulnerable to attack by US forces. Germany had a tiny navy and almost no merchant marine. Japan's navy couldn't operate within 3,000 miles of Mexico because of poor logistics. Just taking the majority of the Combined Fleet as far as Midway, 4,000 miles short of Mexico, strained the IJN to the limit and they burned the equivalent, under normal operations, of six months worth of oil. Can you imagine what maintaining regular convoys between Japan and Mexico would require, even if they didn't come under attack?

Really, Mexico is not now, and never was the key, to invading the US. During WW II, the United States, indeed, all of North America was untouchable by Axis forces. Japan proved that when it demonstrated it's inability to provide even basic supplies to it's tiny garrisons on Kiska and Attu. These islands are much closer to Japan's Home islands, yet the US was able to choke off most of the supplies intended for the garrisons.

 

Sure the U.S. did have many many advantages of being the attacked but would the government really have done a"Burn it down" policy as they fell back to deny things to the Germans(scorched Earth policy I believe?) and also about the gigantic manpower thing. Now about what as said about the U.S. having a population close to that of the Soviet Union, would they have made it out to be "The one with the rifle shoots the one without the rifle follows him, WHEN the one with the rifle gets killed; the one without the rifle picks up the rifle and shoots" I do not belive that the U.S. would have used superiour manpower to make themselves a "wave after wave" fighting country like the Russians had.


On another note, if Canada could have been taken by Germany; Japan could land there too. Dont forget the MASSIVE border between the United States and Canada.

If America was the only Belligerent left between a Japanese-German-Mexican force, yes it would take a long time but the Jackboot would have a new footrest in the world.

Please pardon any grammar mistakes, my fingers are very shakey.

 

First of all, I don't understand what you are saying in your first paragraph.

Second, do you think that the US would have just let Japan and Germany take over Canada (as well as the Canadians). An invasion of Canada would have just been a huge wast of time and would take just as much planning and preparation as an attack on the US. The same difficulties apply to an attempt to take over Canada, a huge one is that Germany lacks naval superiority.

 

I agree. The biggest problem with this "what if" is that nobody has even attempted to explain how either Germany or Japan is going to transport the huge numbers of troops, and the supplies required to support them, across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The assumption seems to be that they would be able to "somehow" find a way. But that alone takes this idea out of the realm of near reality and relegates it to a fantasy world. The grim (for the Axis) historical fact is that the US out built Germany and Japan combined something like nine-fold in ships. If either, or both, of these Axis powers suddenly embark on naval building programs, guess what the US response is going to be. During WW II, Germany and Japan built, or converted, 18 aircraft carriers, the US built 140 and built the aircraft and trained the pilots to constitute the necessary airgroups. In the face of those kinds of odds, neither the KM nor the IJN has a snowball's chance in Hell.

 

I'll repost my original idea for a German - US match up along the lines of this scenario:

The war in Europe begins as it originally occurs. Germany however is careful not to rouse the US by venturing too far into the Altantic with U-boats to avoid US - German confrontations. The Germans also try to curry favor with groups supporting them in the US to slow the flow of supplies to Britain and France.
France falls and the British are on the ropes as historically occured. The Germans invade Russia as they historically did.
On December 7th 1941 the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor etc., again, as they historically did. A couple of days later, say, the 9th or 10th Germany declares war on Japan basing this on the Japanese having attacked an "Aryan" nation...blah, blah, blah.....Hitler offers the US several ships and a division or two of troops to help in the Pacific (he doesn't need the ships and, the loss of a couple of divisions of second rate troops is hardly a big loss).
This puts the US in a real delimma. Roosevelt is now in no position to continue Lend-Lease to Russia or Britain. He might be able to continue British aid to the extent it is used in the Pacific. All Germany has to pull out of this is a negotiated peace with Britian and Russia. This is likely by 1943.
The British are in pitiful shape in the Pacific and in no way able to make any appreciable effort against the Japanese on their own. The best they can manage is to hang on to India relying on the US to help Australia survive.
In North Africa, without US aid their forces are fought to a stalemate. Rommel can't win but neither can the British. Monty is no cure for this problem.
In Russia without US aid the Russians fight a valiant struggle but lack the means to really effectively take the offensive. They instead manage to fight the Germans to a standstill and negotiate a peace that gives Germany Belorussia and Ukraine for a settlement. Better to have another go later both sides decide.
In the Pacific, the Japanese lose by late 1944 being overwhelmed by the entire US military focused against them.

By 1945 the war winds down to find Nazi Germany in a Cold War with the US and Soviet Union. Britain is a US ally along with Turkey. The Middle East is in turmoil with many of the Arab states siding to some degree with Germany as client states. Others remain under US / British influence.
Japan is under US control and China and Korea are both allied to the West. Mao's revolution fails due to lack of Soviet support.
The US has nuclear weapons and the Soviets are aware of this. Germany suspects that the US might know about atomic power but has no clue they are so armed. The German nuclear program takes a backseat to other more "Nazi" things Hitler wants.
The US and Germany both begin a missile race as the Germans find the A4 just the flashy kind of thing to grab press headlines worldwide.

At some point, the Germans decide on a rematch. Say, in the mid 50's or so. What would that look like given the above?