Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a huge factor. If Britain still stood there is no way an invasion force would cross the Atlantic with the Royal Navy in the way. Germany could never have led this kind of thing with powerful enemies like the UK still in his rear. Europe would have to be ALL his before he attempted a major action against North America. This is just the first major problem he would face. The next issue is where would this invasion have a base to launch it from?? The only possibility is Mexico, and other posters have suggested renewing the offer from the Zimmerman note. Would Mexico bite?? possibly but really not likely. Mexico has to live next to us, if this did not work out for them they would lose everything. Lets consider the possibility that they did accept the German offer for arguments sake. How would Germany transport its forces to Mexico?? They had no where near the navy for that. Also it would take tens of millions of troops to take North America, a huge number for Germany, Japan, Italy and Mexico to supply. Most would be Mexican, as they are already there. Would the Mexicans really want to do the grunt work for the Japanese and Germans?? The amount of real estate to be taken is enormous, no invasion and occupation of this size has ever happened, at least not successfully. Look at the various attempts to conquer Russia, many of the same issues here. To win this war the Axis would have to take the entirety of the US and Canada. If they failed to take it all they would face unending war as the US and Canadian military units would retreat north and regroup, fighting on for decades or even more. Also North American civilians tend to own a lot of firearms, a ready made resistance that would have fought on behind enemy lines for generations. Too many major issues for an invader to face, not a chance they could have even landed the troops here let alone taken any real territory.
The only major invasions and military operations that have ever occurred in North America were infighting among Anglo Americans and British forces. The American revolution, The war of 1812 and the US civil war were all essentially civil wars among people of the same ethnic group, the Anglos who founded the North American colonies. No truly foreign army has ever set foot in the US or Canada since the British took total control of the continent after the French and Indian war. If it has not been done since the 1760s I would say there is a reason for that. Obviously it is extremely tough to do.
The only major invasions and military operations that have ever occurred in North America were infighting among Anglo Americans and British forces. The American revolution, The war of 1812 and the US civil war were all essentially civil wars among people of the same ethnic group, the Anglos who founded the North American colonies. No truly foreign army has ever set foot in the US or Canada since the British took total control of the continent after the French and Indian war. If it has not been done since the 1760s I would say there is a reason for that. Obviously it is extremely tough to do.
N. America includes Mexico, by the way. Well, Cortez & native allies against the Aztec Empire, the suppression of the Mayan areas in the Yucatan, the Mexican American War (a kinda warmup for the US Civil War - lots of the same personnel & officers on the US side). You could count the Cuban operations in the Spanish American War, I suppose. & there were a lot of US incursions & occupations & similar in the Caribbean, Central & South America - beyond our concern here.
No, Spain (& France) conquered vast stretches of N. America - from midway up the US east coast, to FL & across the US SW to CA & up to nearly Alaska. The Spanish government problem was that they were too centralized - all the elites wanted to be @ the center - Madrid, Mexico City - not out in the hustings raising crops or cattle. Their economic model was also very centralized - all trade had to pass through the central cities - to get the government's cut - but this also made trade less competitive, compared with the trade of other countries. With low concentrations of population, low trade & sketchy military presence - the Mexican border areas were prey to Native Peoples' raids, traders from the US or territories, & a flow of colonizers from the US who would swear fealty to the Mexican government, but who agitated for more political & economic freedom. The central government in Mexico City either ignored or otherwise neglected the borders - or were too busy with political succession or insurrections or wars. & so it goes.
No, Spain (& France) conquered vast stretches of N. America - from midway up the US east coast, to FL & across the US SW to CA & up to nearly Alaska.
Saying you own something and getting your friends to agree that you do is different than actually owning it. Spain and France claimed vast swathes of territory and the other European powers respected those claims. However, they never really conquered or actually controlled the territory.
As for the topic...I think the original premise has been trashed thoroughly enough at this point.
Saying you own something and getting your friends to agree that you do is different than actually owning it. Spain and France claimed vast swathes of territory and the other European powers respected those claims. However, they never really conquered or actually controlled the territory.
As for the topic...I think the original premise has been trashed thoroughly enough at this point.
Spain & Portugal had Papal blessing of their conquests in the New World. I'm not sure about France. & it wasn't merely saying - although you can make the same argument about the divine right of kings, I'm sure - especially @ this late date. In any event, both Spain (later New Spain, then Mexico) & France were able to sell their lands - & inhabitants - to the US, eventually - in the case in point. Without, of course, consulting the Native Peoples about the transfer - much as the Pope ignored any concerns those peoples might have had, when he divvied up the booty between Spain & Portugal.
Mexico @ least, more-or-less controlled the lands it claimed on its periphery with the US territories & going west to CA. @ least during the day. The economic & political ties of the borders to the center were always a problem, dating back to Spanish colonial days (& even in Spain itself - a different topic, to be sure). The US colonizers who settled in Mexican territory eventually convinced their neighbors that they'd do better with US sovereignty.
Note: As an American and a man with basic morals, I am glad Hitler lost. I ask this question only as I have an interest in alternative military scenarios.
The United States was Germany's strongest opponent in WW2. It was also basically the last major player to declare war on Germany. So suppose that Hitler predicted that his plans would ultimately result in eventual war with the United States anyway, so he decides to do things in reverse.
So in the 1930s, before Germany is at war with the UK or the Soviets, before Germany invades Poland and at a time when the axis powers are at the height of their strength, Germany, Italy and Japan launch a suprise war out of no where on the United States.
The air forces of the 3 countries launch a full scale blitzkrieg on the US and the Navies of the 3 land the boots of the Germans, Japanese and Italians on US soil, before the US ever saw it coming.
Meanwhile Hitler renews the offers under the Zimmerman note to Mexico to see if they don't want a piece of the action, only now with a full scale invasion of the US underway, Germany's promises are actually feasable and Mexican military success possible this time around.
And the Axis powers make war on the US until they are a destroyed, smoldering bankrupt mess so that Germany can go back and complete it's goals in Europe (And Japan on the other side of the world) unhindered.
What would have come of such a suprise and full scale invasion of the US by the axis powers? (And possibly Mexico)
I didn't read through all of the thread, so my apologies if this has been said earlier (and it likely has)
1) The US was not Germany's strongest opponent in WW2. The US was a far away country that didn't really want to go to war in 1940, let alone 1937. The #1 opponent had always been USSR, even before the war. Hitler saw it as both the biggest threat, and the biggest prize. It was close, it was huge, it had a large powerful military that was severely weakened by purges and expansion, and it was an ideological archenemy. The war against France and Britain was a containment war. The occupation of France was a lucky result of a very good planning and a lot of risk taking by the German high command, and very poor showing by the French and British high command. The real war goal had always been the USSR.
2) Germany had no invasion capable Navy to speak of. They could fight British in the Atlantic, without gaining upper hand, and they could supply North Africa, but they could not mount an invasion of Britain just miles across the channel. They did not have the troop transports (they were actually collecting river barges all over Europe to transport troops if Sea Lion ever materialized, which was admittedly suicidal). They did not have a sufficient protection force. They had no aircraft carriers. How would they launch a massive invasion force across the entire Atlantic, if they couldn't do it across the Channel ? If they started on a ship building campaign, we'd know and we'd outbuild them. They were a ground war powerhouse, not a naval power.
The Japanese had a bigger and better navy but they were not capable of invading the US, either. If they were, they would attempt it in the real history. And no such invasion can be planned in a vacuum. We'd know about this, and we'd mobilize and train a huge army ahead of time. There's a world of difference between sending out a carrier force for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, or assembling hundreds of thousands invasion ready troops, building enough transport ships to carry them, building landing crafts, etc. We'd know well ahead of time.
And I am thinking of 1941. In 1937, neither Germany nor Japan had the means. Germany received a major boost by occupying Czechoslovakia, before the occupation it was one of the most technologically developed countries in Europe. Japan was up to their ears in China.
And Italy... well, they had a very good navy... all two and a half ships. Italy was never a major player outside of Balkans and a little bit in North Africa.
Better. I've just gotten sick and tired of people insinuating that Western democracies start wars. By and large they don't.
By and large they didn't when there was draft. Although nobody dragged France and England kicking and screaming into WW1.
Ever since we switched to a professional contracted army, the general voting public became really disengaged from the burden of war. So it's far easier to justify sending people to fight as long as the war is small enough that the majority of people don't feel it would affect their sons or husbands.
Some Western democracies are not opposed to war. As long as it's (a) well presented, (b) poses no immediate danger to their family members, and (c) doesn't last too long.
By and large they didn't when there was draft. Although nobody dragged France and England kicking and screaming into WW1.
Ever since we switched to a professional contracted army, the general voting public became really disengaged from the burden of war. So it's far easier to justify sending people to fight as long as the war is small enough that the majority of people don't feel it would affect their sons or husbands.
Some Western democracies are not opposed to war. As long as it's (a) well presented, (b) poses no immediate danger to their family members, and (c) doesn't last too long.
Obviously I'm referring to modern times. And France and Britain were not yet mature democracies in 1914. To some extent France is still not one.
The United States was Germany's strongest opponent in WW2. )
you're so kidding(joked)? with regard to military action, what they did to win the war?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
History
