John Atkinson schrieb:
> > Hmmm... Funny how the loudest comments seem to come
Pardon me, but the comparison is not very apt. In both World Wars, the
American forces were first transported to convenient ports in France (WWI) or
Britain (WWII). This does not make their subsequent successes any smaller, but
it is quite a different proposition from sailing right across the Atlantic (or
Pacific) and supporting an invasion from the open sea.
If Canada or Mexico had had the population and industry to rival the US, US
history might have looked qute different.
While we are on the subject, recently a historian checking German archives
found plans drawn up for a German Invasion of America under Kaiser Wilhelm
before the first World War:
http://www.vizzavi.co.uk/Archive/2002/May/08-455128.html
http://www1.excite.com/home/news/news_article/0,11746,211509%7Coddlyenou
gh%7C05-08-2002::07:39%7Creuters,00.html
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa050902a.htm
Could make for some interesting scenarios.
> And keep the Russians out by sheer indimidation value.
With a little help from the Brits, Germans, French, Italians, Dutch
etc...
Greetings
> At 10:42 AM +0200 5/30/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
The American civil population would have made life bloody hard on them. The
sheer size of the country and distances involved would have made them aghast
at what it takes to get from A to B. All the while, they'd have been harrassed
on all sides by a civil populous bent on stopping them.
Ryan Gill schrieb:
> At 10:42 AM +0200 5/30/02, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
The info I've seen on the web (including some German press sites) is not very
detailed. As I understood it, the plan was mostly about seizing key economic
and political spots to be used as bargaining chips rather than a serious
invasion bent on conquering the country.
My impresssion, too, is that very few people took it seriously. More a staff
wargames exercise than a serious plan.
Which, I think, is the best use for such might-have-beens. Much better
to use them as wargames scenarios than for usually fruitless
discussions where nobody can prove what would have happened :-)
Greetings
From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> >While we are on the subject, recently a historian checking German
Yes and No.
Look at how they dealt "harshly" with francs-tireurs in the contretemps
in 1870, and in Belgium in WW1.
a) German soldier gets shot. b) Ten hostages get shot c) Another German gets
shot d) Twenty hostages get shot
...etc
until either a) the surviving populace turns in the guerillas, or b) there is
no surviving populace. In which case no problem, move to next section to be
pacified.
The large ethnic German populace in the Eastern states may not have been all
that enthusiastic at repelling a German invasion, especially if limited. Then
again, a lot of them were in the USA simply because they wanted to
get away from the Prussian-dominated German Empire.
More likely, many of the "Minutemen" would have expended their ammo on
unarmed German-Americans rather than duke it out with armed invaders.
i agree with KARL.
this is one for wargames scenarios, and not for a serious ball buster
"discussion"....
On Thu, 30 May 2002 10:42:23 +0200 (CEST), KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
wrote:
> While we are on the subject, recently a historian checking German
The US Navy had Naval Plan Black as a plan to deal with a naval war against
Germany. The likelihood of war between Germany and the US on the high seas, as
a war between two belligerants and not as part of a world war, was at its
height at the turn of the 20th Century. As your post alluded to, Wilhelm was
more aggressive in his earlier years. This would have put him right up against
Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet". It does make for an interesting set of
scenarios, starting with a German attempt to take Puerto Rico.
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Sounds vaguely like what Hitler learned trying to invade Russia in WWII.
3B^2
> While we are on the subject, recently a historian checking German
Well, the Ukranians welcomed the Germans at first, and the Cossack regions out
of the Steppe were also welcoming. What messed that up was the policy that all
Slavs were subhuman. Then there's the sheer numbers of Hiwi's in German units,
often as part of the fighting strength.
My line is that certain parts of the US would have resisted hard, but other
parts would have been easier.
First of all, let me say, I agree it would make wargaming, but I have to say
it's fun to banter about as well.
> John Sowerby wrote:
> Well, the Ukranians welcomed the Germans at first, and the Cossack
I agree. I also aknowledge the political and cultural differences between
1910's USA and 1930's-40's USR, but there are some parallels: Vast
amounts
of land to cover, drawn-out supply lines, hostile natives, and terrain
friendly and familiar to the defenders.
3B^2
> I agree. I also aknowledge the political and cultural differences
Oh for sure. I would even say that invading Russia would be easier, as at
least you have land communication. Invading the USA by sea, in the teeth of
anything the Atlantic and then the various navies could throw at you would be
nearly impossible.
One set of ideas I do like is from Harry Turtledove. In a world where the CSA
won at Antietam, and then won again 10 years later with the aid of the French
and British, the Great War opens out on the US continent with the
USA fighting with the Germans / Austrians, and the CSA alongside the
British and French.
> From: John Sowerby <sowerbyj@fiu.edu>
> One set of ideas I do like is from Harry Turtledove. In a world where
Given the number of German immigrants in the North, and the British cultural
heritage of the South, I find that culturally plausible but politically
distasteful. Of course being pro-Germany in WWI doesn't rankle me quite
the way it would in WWII.
3B^2
> Given the number of German immigrants in the North, and the British
Yes, the politics is pretty strange. I know that the British wanted to look
the other way at times for the sake of the cotton, but the slavery issue
should still have been a sticking point in any alliance between the CSA and
GB.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
One would also have to consider the British equation as well. Given that they
were largely responsible for our ability to enforce the Monroe Doctrine when
it was issued, they could conceivably have a BIG problem with Germany trying
to take over land in the Western Hemisphere, particularly so close to Canada.
If that were the case, the Germans would find it a near impossibility to
secure their supply lines against the predations of the British fleet.
> Mark Reindl wrote:
> One would also have to consider the British equation
Not to mention the US Navy, as well as the problems with making landings in
the first place, Sounds like a combination of Gallipoli AND Invading Russia,
all at once. Whee fun.
3B^2
On Thu, 30 May 2002 10:46:43 -0400, John Sowerby <sowerbyj@fiu.edu>
wrote:
> Yes, the politics is pretty strange. I know that the British wanted to
Not if Britain had recognized the South early on in the Civil War. Note that
North didn't actually abolish slavery until 1864.
I haven't read _How Few Remain_, yet, which is the book that covers the
second American Civil War. Turtledove is using either a win at Antietam by the
CSA, or the "Lost Order" never getting lost as the point where history
changes. The CSA successfully invades the north in 1862. This means that
Lincoln doesn't have his "victory" and thus does not roll out the Emancipation
Proclamation.
Britain and France were both pretty close to recognizing the CSA in 1862.
Lincoln was a master politician. With a notable exception of "blockading"
Southern ports, he steadfastly held to the idea that there was a civil
insurrection going on, and that the South was not a separate belligerent (the
exception was declaring a "blockade" of Southern ports, but legally you don't
"blockade" your own ports, you "close" them). The South was still part of the
Union, and the war was all an internal "police" matter.
Before Britain or France would recognize the South as a belligerent, separate
nation, they needed proof that the South would probably win the war.
Otherwise, they would be interfering in the matters of a sovereign nation.
This was against international treaties and would result in all sorts of
commercial and military messes in Europe amongst the other powers.
Britain and France needed a major campaign victory before they could recognize
the South as a nation. Up until August 1862, the Confederacy had managed to
win most of the battles in the Eastern Theatre, but the Union army was still
in Southern territory. In the west, the Union had seized New Orleans, the
largest city in the Confederacy, and had won key strategic victories. The
South needed something major to show that they were capable of winning the
war. Taking the war to the North and winning a major battle on Northern soil
would probably have done it. Capturing Washington (or maybe Baltimore or
Philadelphia, perhaps even Harrisburg) would definitely have done it.
In real life General Robert E. Lee began an invasion of the North by marching
through Maryland. During the march, a copy of Lee's orders detailing the
location and march order of every unit (the copy intended for General D.
H.
Hill) was lost en route, and found by the Union. General McClellan took the
order and struck at Lee. This ended in the battle of
Antietam/Sharpsburg. It
was really a draw, but since Lee retreated from the field the Union was able
to claim it as a victory.
This victory was what Lincoln had sought. In order to stop Britain and France
from recognizing the Confederacy, he had produced the Emancipation
Proclamation. It would free slaves in captured Southern territory (it didn't
free slaves in states already captured, like chunks of Tennessee, nor did it
free slaves in the northern slave state of Delaware). This was the first big
step towards abolishing slavery. The average Briton was against slavery (the
British aristocracy felt a bond with the Confederate "aristocracy", though),
so the Proclamation would make it politically difficult for Britain to
recognize the Confederacy.
Lincoln needed a victory before acting on this Proclamation. If he did it
after a major loss, it would only look desperate. This would signal to Britain
and France that a Confederate victory was inevitable, giving them the excuse
they needed for recognition. Lincoln took the "victory" at Antietam and used
it. The Proclamation went through at just the right time, and Britain in
particular backed away from Southern recognition.
If Lee had successfully invaded the North (against McClellan that was quite
possible), or if the South had won at Antietam, it is quite possible that
Britain would have recognized the South as an independent nation. This would
have destroyed the legal fabrication that the South was in insurrection.
Britain would have put itself in the place of arbitrating a settlement
(British commerce was affected by the war, after all) and would have
intervened if the Union had balked. The South would have gained its
independence.
The South would then become an ally of Britain. It would probably start to
dismantle slavery, though perhaps not for one or two decades after the war. In
either case, the slavery issue would not prevent Britain from being allies
with the CSA in this alternative time frame.
> From: John Sowerby <sowerbyj@fiu.edu>
This has crossed from Science Fiction to Fantasy! <grin>
On Thu, 30 May 2002 07:29:31 -0700 "Brian Bilderback"
> <bbilderback@hotmail.com> writes:
See it begins, the change!
Brian Bilderback schrieb:
> > If that were the case, the Germans would find it a near
Actually, I see the possible course of events differently.
I'm not too familiar with the American Navy and the strength of its
Army ca.1900-1910, but I don't think that
- The Navy would have been able to cover the whole coastline from
Canada to Florida, nor that
- The Army (even with associated militias) would have been able to
adequately defend every port along that coast.
So it seems quite possible that the invaders might have achieved a surprise
landing with little opposition and been able to establish a bridgehead. But
after that, they would have had massive problems, with their supply lines
threatened by the US (and possibly other) Navies and the US army concentrating
against them.
Greetings
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 05:37 30/05/02 +0200, you wrote:
I'm of the opinion that the German Invasion would have been a demonstration
rather than a war of conquest.
"We've got New York, play ball or else"
Cheers
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:22:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> derekfulton@bigpond.com writes:
> I'm of the opinion that the German Invasion would have been a
"We've got New York. Take it back and we'll give you Munich. Please."
(and I AM a New Yorker. :-))
John Rebori ETN2 (Discharged)
USN 1976 - 1982
ex-USS Pegasus PHM-1
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote:
> From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
Any chance that the plan could be reactivated? We might just like getting rid
of New York city, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Newark, ect.
Bye for now,
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
The only major difference is that the Americans start out with arms and can
resist from day one.
Bye for now,
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote:
> Yes and No.
> More likely, many of the "Minutemen" would have
Uh, massacres stiffen American resolve, not weaken it.
The biggest thing that foreigners fail to comprehend about Americans is that
you mistake natural peacableness with cowardice.
Santa Anna made that mistake, ordering no quarter to be given at the Alamo and
a prisioner massacre at Goliad. All he did was guarantee that the Texans would
fight well. Also see US reaction to the Malmedy massacre et al.
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> > And keep the Russians out by sheer indimidation
Who do make GREAT Feoderati!
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, John Leary wrote:
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Russians ahd massive hidden arms caches for partizan activity behind
German lines, set up before the invasion.
Cheers,
On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:12:04 +1000, Derek Fulton
<derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that the German Invasion would have been a
No one seems to have commented on my message about Puerto Rico. That was the
first focal point of German Naval Operation Plan III at the turn of the
century. They even went so far as to consider towing coastal defence hulks
across the ocean for use in holding Puerto Rico.
On Thu, 30 May 2002 18:24:23 -0700 (PDT), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The biggest thing that foreigners fail to comprehend
Foreigners aren't the only one to make that mistake. The massacre at Fort
Pillow only set the resolve of Black Union troops during the Civil War. Far
from making them fearful, it meant that pressed into a desperate situation
they would fight to the last man. This resulted in Blacks fighting desperately
and honourably at Port Hudson, Petersburg, and other battles.
> At 09:23 AM 5/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 09:12:04 +1000, Derek Fulton
When would this have been in terms of season? North Sea and North Atlantic
crossing would have played havoc in Winter, and the threat of hurricanes in
the Central Atlantic would play havoc in Summer. None of these things are
easy..
> No one seems to have commented on my message about Puerto Rico. That
How well would German troops have held up to the climate? The Caribbean being
known for malaria and so forth. I know Germany had some troops in Africa who
might have been acclimated, but how many and how available?
> --- Derk Groeneveld <derk@cistron.nl> wrote:
> > The only major difference is that the Americans
Your point, while interesting, does not
invalidate mine. My point is that the American
arms are in the hands of people who can use them to
great effect from day one. The Russian partizans,
if not survivors of the army, couldn't shoot for beans.
Bye for now,
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au>
wrote:
> From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> *Chuckle* Well put. Though we prefer to think of
Actually, Brits, Canadians, and Aussies are more in
the position of the pre-Latin Wars "Allied Legions"
from the Italian Peninsula. Ethnically indistinguishable, but not yet granted
Citizenship.