AHC/WI: Alaska a Major Front in World War II

TFSmith121

Banned
No, but simply letting the Japanese garrisons on

So after Attu and Kiska were occupied, the best American Strategy would have been completely evacuating Alaska and letting the Japanese have it? Awesome!

No, but simply letting the Japanese garrisons in the Aleutians grow old, unloved, and hungry rather than mounting divisional- (LANDCRAB) and corps-level (COTTAGE) combined operations to oust them - while maintaining garrisons in Alaska proper that totalled more than 100,000 soldiers alone (notwithstanding the USN & USCG) would have made more sense.

Best,
 
I live to serve...:D

Trying to invade Asia across the North Pacific (or trying to invade North America across the North Pacific) is likely trying to invade New Zealand from Chile, or vice versa - you could try, but the obvious question would be why?

The other point would be that the US (and Canada) could always deploy and sustain greater military, air, and naval forces in the North Pacific than the Japanese ever could, as witness the reality of 1942-45.

Best,

It's called strategy by map. Attu and Kiska are only 2000 miles from Tokyo. That sounds really interesting when you consider that they are 1500 miles from Anchorage.

The fact is, it looks good on a map. The problem is that when you get off the map you have things like weather, sea states, hideous terrain, lack of infrastructure, part of the year with no sunlight, and probably a few other stumbling blocks that I can't think of at the moment. However, it looks great on a map.
 
It's called strategy by map. Attu and Kiska are only 2000 miles from Tokyo. That sounds really interesting when you consider that they are 1500 miles from Anchorage.

The fact is, it looks good on a map. The problem is that when you get off the map you have things like weather, sea states, hideous terrain, lack of infrastructure, part of the year with no sunlight, and probably a few other stumbling blocks that I can't think of at the moment. However, it looks great on a map.

It's the Japanese version of "Island Hopping". And you forgot "Volcanic".
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Oh sure, been there - the North Pacific is about the

It's called strategy by map. Attu and Kiska are only 2000 miles from Tokyo. That sounds really interesting when you consider that they are 1500 miles from Anchorage.

The fact is, it looks good on a map. The problem is that when you get off the map you have things like weather, sea states, hideous terrain, lack of infrastructure, part of the year with no sunlight, and probably a few other stumbling blocks that I can't think of at the moment. However, it looks great on a map.

Oh sure, been there - the North Pacific is about the worst place in the world, outside of Antarctic or the Arctic Ocean proper, to try and sustain naval and air operations.

Best,
 
How about a PoD in the 1920s or '30s, probably on the US side.

Everyone has been talking about the Japanese invading Alaska.

What if, after the Washington Naval Treaty is signed (limiting US bases in the Pacific), that the 'Yellow Peril' fever strikes the US (possibly something like an earlier, nastier Panay incident).

Aircraft carriers aren't proven - and they're massively limited.
The US can't build bases in the Pacific without voiding the Naval Treaty.
But... Something Must Be Done!

So the US starts building up military bases in Alaska, putting a major infantry force there, and a major Air Force (OK, Air Corps) presence. Dozens of bases are built in mainland Alaska, and work is started on several on several of the islands.

Thousands of US servicemen suffer frostbite, hypothermia, etc., and hundreds die. But the bases are built.

When WWII starts, Japan figures it has to take out those bases, and a horrid, horrid fight develops in the North Pacific, where more men die of exposure than killed by the enemy.
 
How about a PoD in the 1920s or '30s, probably on the US side.

Everyone has been talking about the Japanese invading Alaska.

What if, after the Washington Naval Treaty is signed (limiting US bases in the Pacific), that the 'Yellow Peril' fever strikes the US (possibly something like an earlier, nastier Panay incident).

Aircraft carriers aren't proven - and they're massively limited.
The US can't build bases in the Pacific without voiding the Naval Treaty.
But... Something Must Be Done!

So the US starts building up military bases in Alaska, putting a major infantry force there, and a major Air Force (OK, Air Corps) presence. Dozens of bases are built in mainland Alaska, and work is started on several on several of the islands.

Thousands of US servicemen suffer frostbite, hypothermia, etc., and hundreds die. But the bases are built.

When WWII starts, Japan figures it has to take out those bases, and a horrid, horrid fight develops in the North Pacific, where more men die of exposure than killed by the enemy.

That is certainly an interesting idea and I've seen worse ideas on this forum and in reality.

You can pile on by having one of our attaches in Tokyo get ahold of some obscure Japanese staff study about an invasion of Alaska with said attaché forgetting that militaries do staff studies like that all of the time and they never become anything more than that. That study is translated into English and makes its way around the planning sections for the War Department and Navy Department.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Something WAS done

How about a PoD in the 1920s or '30s, probably on the US side.

Everyone has been talking about the Japanese invading Alaska.

What if, after the Washington Naval Treaty is signed (limiting US bases in the Pacific), that the 'Yellow Peril' fever strikes the US (possibly something like an earlier, nastier Panay incident).

Aircraft carriers aren't proven - and they're massively limited.
The US can't build bases in the Pacific without voiding the Naval Treaty.
But... Something Must Be Done!

So the US starts building up military bases in Alaska, putting a major infantry force there, and a major Air Force (OK, Air Corps) presence. Dozens of bases are built in mainland Alaska, and work is started on several on several of the islands.

Thousands of US servicemen suffer frostbite, hypothermia, etc., and hundreds die. But the bases are built.

When WWII starts, Japan figures it has to take out those bases, and a horrid, horrid fight develops in the North Pacific, where more men die of exposure than killed by the enemy.


Something was done - the fleet was moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the early 1920s, and a huge program of naval base construction resulted in the complexes in San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles-Long Beach, and San Diego; in addition, Oahu was developed into the largest overseas base complex in US territory (larger even than the Canal Zone defenses, which had the honor until 1917 or so); Alaska was always going to be an economy of force theater, in the same way BC or Newfoundland would be for Canada...

Best,
 
Something was done - the fleet was moved from the Atlantic to the Pacific in the early 1920s, and a huge program of naval base construction resulted in the complexes in San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles-Long Beach, and San Diego; in addition, Oahu was developed into the largest overseas base complex in US territory (larger even than the Canal Zone defenses, which had the honor until 1917 or so); Alaska was always going to be an economy of force theater, in the same way BC or Newfoundland would be for Canada...

Best,

Well, except that Oahu is the closest of those bases to Japan, and it's nowhere near close enough to fight from. Especially before aircraft carriers become a big thing.

Some combination of Alaskan politicians trying to build up the place and naive Washington planners looking at a map and saying 'Oooo....' should be entirely feasible, IMO.

Likely? No. Feasible? Yes.
 
Well, except that Oahu is the closest of those bases to Japan, and it's nowhere near close enough to fight from. Especially before aircraft carriers become a big thing.

Some combination of Alaskan politicians trying to build up the place and naive Washington planners looking at a map and saying 'Oooo....' should be entirely feasible, IMO.

Likely? No. Feasible? Yes.

It might help if you bump Alaska statehood up a couple of decades...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Naive Washington planners?

Well, except that Oahu is the closest of those bases to Japan, and it's nowhere near close enough to fight from. Especially before aircraft carriers become a big thing.

Some combination of Alaskan politicians trying to build up the place and naive Washington planners looking at a map and saying 'Oooo....' should be entirely feasible, IMO.

Likely? No. Feasible? Yes.

Naive Washington planners?:rolleyes:

Um, what United States are we speaking of here, my friend? Some fictional one, or the one that became master of the North American continent in the seven decades between 1783 and 1865?

Ruthless? Yes.

Naive? Hardly...

Best,
 
Naive Washington planners?:rolleyes:

Um, what United States are we speaking of here, my friend? Some fictional one, or the one that became master of the North American continent in the seven decades between 1783 and 1865?

Ruthless? Yes.

Naive? Hardly...

Best,

The ones that have never been to Alaska, and think 'strategy by map' works? The ones that stayed out of WWII until 1941? The ones that protected the Torpedo Mafia and prolonged the Pacific War considerably? Those ones.
 
Top