Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
To be fair, the Allies did have the luxury of basing their fleets and landing forces a few dozen miles from the landing zone, and had complete naval supremacy in the theater of landing, and managed to achieve complete operational surprise. That, and they attacked a section of the wall weaker than the rest, and in the event of failure, they could pull back to their base and recover most of their losses.
Instead of having complete naval supremacy, the Germans will be facing a peer opponent at near parity. Instead of being a few dozen miles away, they are invading from a few thousand miles away. Instead of a relatively weak section of defenses, the Germans planned to invade the most heavily fortified ports in the country. And, in the event of something going wrong, there is no option to retreat as there are no friendly ports for thousands of miles.
A bigger issue would be the fact that with an army and an invasion that size, Germany is way better off just invading the British Home Islands. Invading the United States is difficult because the United States is huge and most of the resources inside of America could be gotten somewhere else by someone else for a significantly lessened cost. I could see France, England, Germany, or even a resurgent Spain or another power launching a war to both humiliate America and try to break a hole in the Monroe Doctrine, and a part of that may include key naval landings in certain areas of the continental US, but a Red Dawn style affair is rather out-of-the-question.
Though, I will say the fact that in it's entire existence, the United States has only faced a real threat of sustained invasion twice (1812 and the ACW) and both times the invaders at least arguably lost. Thus, there really aren't any good ways to plan or compare this with IRL things.
Though, I will say the fact that in it's entire existence, the United States has only faced a real threat of sustained invasion twice (1812 and the ACW) and both times the invaders at least arguably lost. Thus, there really aren't any good ways to plan or compare this with IRL things.
Here's what a Spanish admiral purposed the government to do during the Spanish-American War.
What's funny about this is how much it kinda mirrors the original Operation Plan I, which was put together from 1897-98. The original plan was to attack the shipbuilding sites in Norfolk, Newport News, and Portsmouth, where America's biggest shipyards were. Once America's naval capabilities were significantly damaged, the German navy would blockade the American east coast until they relented.
You effectively had three different nations who wanted control over the Caribbean. Kaiser Wilhelm saw the crumbling Spanish control over the region as the perfect way to expand Germany's empire. If this managed to be put into play before the outbreak of the Spanish-American war, could this have lead to a three-way war? Would two powers gang up on the other?
You effectively had three different nations who wanted control over the Caribbean. Kaiser Wilhelm saw the crumbling Spanish control over the region as the perfect way to expand Germany's empire. If this managed to be put into play before the outbreak of the Spanish-American war, could this have lead to a three-way war? Would two powers gang up on the other?
The Spanish plan was a bit different, as the Spanish never pretended to blockade America, but to use their superior speed and maneuver to feint the American fleet and distract them while another fleet would invade several points of the coast. The landing in New England was rather a raid to destroy the industry there and then trench themselves in Cape Cod in order to pinpoint US forces there, then the Army of Cuba would invade the Mississipi while the American fleet was in New England and attempt to cut the US in two, forcing a surrender. The Spanish never thought of a blockade but rather a straight up invasion.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia or North America, guys. Even the Germans just planned on occupying Boston, and that was it.
On one hand, this is very much an "all or nothing" war that unless the US surrendered literally right then and there would probably be a retaliatory invasion of Spanish Europe and there would almost definitely be a Round II. However, the ramifications of such a thing would be fascinating.
EDIT: There's also a difference between an invasion from Cuba with diversionary attacks on some ports in the Northeast and a full invasion from Europe.
Spain recquired an all or nothing war to win, as a slow paced war could give time to the US to eventually smash them with their industrial hammer. If the plan went correctly, the US would never invade anything but Cuba, as the Spanish planned to dizzy the American fleet with a series of fast feints with several fleets in order to make the American fleet grow tired and dispersed, and then once some ships were isolated crush them with numerical superiority. If this worked, Spain would have a window of opportunity in which they would have naval dominance, allowing them to pressure the US fleet further and execute the landings.
The plan was an invasion of Cuba rather than an invasion from Spain. Cuba makes up an excellent base close to the US.
It was such a sad day when Spain & Portugal were moved back to Europe - took away a lot of trading opportunities for Australia.
Vuu
Banned
Eh, it could work nicely if you merge Victoria and Dampieria; Tasmania, Carpentaria and Torresia; and Nuytsland with Flindersland. Guelphia can be split up as well
Back in the old days, before they figured out how to Australia properly.
Kick
In December 1939, Jean Monnet of the French Economic Mission in London became the head of the Anglo-French Coordinating Committee, which coordinated joint planning of the two countries' wartime economies. The Frenchman hoped for a postwar United States of Europe and saw an Anglo-French political union as a step toward his goal. He discussed the idea with Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill's assistant Desmond Morton, and other British officials.
In June 1940, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud's government faced imminent defeat in the Battle of France. In March, they and the British had agreed that neither country would seek a separate peace with Nazi Germany. The French cabinet on 15 June voted to ask Germany for the terms of an armistice. Reynaud, who wished to continue the war from North Africa, was forced to submit the proposal to Churchill's War Cabinet. He claimed that he would have to resign if the British were to reject the proposal.
The British opposed a French surrender, and in particular the possible loss of the French Navy to the Germans, and so sought to keep Reynaud in office. On 14 June British diplomat Robert Vansittart and Morton wrote with Monnet and his deputy René Pleven a draft "Franco-British Union" proposal. They hoped that such a union would help Reynaud persuade his cabinet to continue the war from North Africa, but Churchill was sceptical when on 15 June the British War Cabinet discussed the proposal and a similar one from Secretary of State for India Leo Amery. On the morning of 16 June, the War Cabinet agreed to the French armistice request on the condition that the French fleet sail to British harbors. This disappointed Reynaud, who had hoped to use a British rejection to persuade his cabinet to continue to fight.
Reynaud supporter Charles de Gaulle had arrived in London earlier that day, however, and Monnet told him about the proposed union. De Gaulle convinced Churchill that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war". The Frenchman then called Reynaud and told him that the British prime minister proposed a union between their countries, an idea which Reynaud immediately supported. De Gaulle, Monnet, Vansittart, and Pleven quickly agreed to a document proclaiming a joint citizenship, foreign trade, currency, war cabinet, and military command. Churchill withdrew the armistice approval, and at 3 p.m. the War Cabinet met again to consider the union document. Despite the radical nature of the proposal, Churchill and the ministers recognized the need for a dramatic act to encourage the French and reinforce Reynaud's support within his cabinet before it met again at 5pm.
The final Declaration of union approved by the British War Cabinet stated that "France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France."
