challenge: invade the U.S

Saphroneth

Banned
Assuming that the coalition can be anything, without any concern for the strain of the alliance, then a theoretical alliance of all the European Great Powers would be able to.



In any realistic scenario, then it is not really very plausible:


1) The US has actually started spending adequately on its peacetime military, which started in the late 1880s.
2) The powers which could provide the ground forces to overwhelm the US army tend not to be able to beat the US navy.
3) The powers which could provide the naval firepower to overwhelm the US navy tend not to be able to militarily invade the US.
4) The powers which can do both have other enemies.

...but...

IF we really push it, with a PoD some time before the invasion, then we can manage it. The key here is to f*ck over the US's ability to resist invasion, which fundamentally means domestic unrest and a lack of power at the start of the conflict.
OTL the US quickly built a large navy and kept it large for the rest of the 20th century, so the only window of vulnerability there is early in the C20th.

But if in another TL there's a pretty nasty depression, like OTL but worse, and a Falcon Cannot Hear type second civil war, then you've got a situation where the US is consumed by internal civil war. Under those conditions, a nation is far more vulnerable to invasion.



It helps you didn't specify that they should eventually win - just that they'd manage to invade the heartland. With that caveat then arguably IF the Germans weren't a problem (hard!) then the French and British put together could do it in the very early period of the 20th century. (The French Mle 1897 means a massive artillery advantage for the French there.)



But it's very, very hard.
 
Post 1900 this is very hard. There are only two possible invasion zones - Canada and Mexico as an amphibious invasion of the US that won't be isolated and destroyed before the bridgehead can become sustainable is impossible.

It is hard to see how Canada would become part of any anti-US coalition. Too similar in culture, and the US has too many close ties to the Canadian political, economic, and military elite.

So any invasion will have to come through Mexico, but staging an invasion here to America's heartland (which means the Midwest) will be hard. There is a desert between the countries which will complicate logistics of supplying an invasion army, and the distance is long.

Historically, Mexico does not have the population or economic power to do so, so it can only be a junior partner of someone else who does. We need a very different world to build any sort of believable coalition that can do so.

American geopolitical strategy since the days of George Washington has been to make sure no power or group of powers can invade the American heartland. In that regards, American foreign policy has been incredibly successful. Several great powers could theoretically do so in 1789. None can do so now.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
American geopolitical strategy since the days of George Washington has been to make sure no power or group of powers can invade the American heartland.
Has it really? Even if that's been the goal at times, I doubt it's been consistent.

I mean, it's hard to view the early 1880s in that light, just as one example - that being the period the US navy was essentially all fifteen years or more out of date, and the army was very small indeed.
By "no power or group of powers" standards, that's an enormous oversight that comes to making a mockery of the concept of "making sure".
 
-- El Salvador Militarily Untenable. President Reagan blames congressional restraints.

-- Labour and food riots in Poland. Communist Party declares emergency. Soviet troops invade.

-- Economic boycotts upon Soviet Regime. Western Europe wavers.

-- Cuba and Nicaragua reach troop strength goals of 500,000 men combined.

-- Green Party gains control of West German parliament. Demands withdrawl of nuclear weapons from European soil.

-- France signs non-aggression pact with Soviets.

-- Cuban and Sandanista governments form Central American Peoples Alliance. Revolution in Mexico.

-- Japan and European Common Market sign trade agreements with Moscow. NATO dissolves.

-- Soviet Union suffers worst wheat harvest in 55 years.

-- Cuban advisors sent to Mexican civil war. Moscow and CAPA recognise revolutionary provisional government in Mexico.

-- United States stands alone.

-- Russian and Cuban troops invade Calumet, Colorado.

:cool:
 
-- El Salvador Militarily Untenable. President Reagan blames congressional restraints.

-- Labour and food riots in Poland. Communist Party declares emergency. Soviet troops invade.

-- Economic boycotts upon Soviet Regime. Western Europe wavers.

-- Cuba and Nicaragua reach troop strength goals of 500,000 men combined.

-- Green Party gains control of West German parliament. Demands withdrawl of nuclear weapons from European soil.

-- France signs non-aggression pact with Soviets.

-- Cuban and Sandanista governments form Central American Peoples Alliance. Revolution in Mexico.

-- Japan and European Common Market sign trade agreements with Moscow. NATO dissolves.

-- Soviet Union suffers worst wheat harvest in 55 years.

-- Cuban advisors sent to Mexican civil war. Moscow and CAPA recognise revolutionary provisional government in Mexico.

-- United States stands alone.

-- Russian and Cuban troops invade Calumet, Colorado.

:cool:

"You forgot 600 million screaming china men." "I thought there were 1 billion screaming china men?" Pours whiskey on fire. "There were."
 
Invade? That's easy. Some idiot takes control of Mexico, declares war on the U.S. out of the blue and attacks. Boom, invasion.

Now he will rapidly be overwhelmed and the U.S. will end up crushing Mexico, but they did invade.
 
Mexican leaders and commanders read the Zimmermann telegram, huff lines and lines of lead paint, and give the go-ahead.
 
The OP specifies not just an invasion of any US territory, but one of its heartland specifically. Its also pretty heavily implied that its supposed to be a serious attack which has at least some chance of succeeding. IMHO the invader being the country that gets nuclear weapons first is by far the easiest way of bringing such a circumstance about.
 
I've seen people on this thread say that Canada would never be part of an anti-US coalition. That's true today and for most of the 20th century, but if the Americans are big enough dicks, we'd likely fight against them.
 
Canadian Defense Scheme No 1. Reaserched between 1921 and 1926, it was a scheme requiring the Canadians to strike first in the case of an Anglo American war. It basically meant crossing the border and destroying bridgeheads as they went.
 
Has it really? Even if that's been the goal at times, I doubt it's been consistent.

It's not an explicit goal, and it's been done in stages, but there is a clear pattern. As one stage was achieved, the next was worked on. The thing about geopolitics is that policy is not determined by ideology or individual whim. It is determined by geography. Because the geography is always the same, there is ultimately only one way to accomplish your goal of defending your country because no matter who leads it, they face the same constraints or opportunities posed by geography.

The best articulation is by George Friedman who owns Stratfor. His formulation is:

1. Dominate the Greater Mississippi Basin
2. Eliminate All Land-Based Threats to the Greater Mississippi Basin
3. Control the Ocean Approaches to North America
4. Control the World's Oceans
5. Prevent any Potential Challengers from Rising

The United States achieved the first goal early on its history by achieving a favorable peace with Britain that expanded the 13 Colonies to the Mississippi River, secured the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and claimed access to the Pacific through the Louis & Clark Expedition.

The second goal was secured with the defeat of Mexico in 1848, peace with Canada and defeat of Tecumseh in 1815, and rapprochement with Britain in 1890s that eliminated Canada as a potential threat.

The third was achieved in 1898 with the defeat of Spain and birth of a major navy.

The fourth happened as a result of WWII when the American Navy became the dominant naval force and has never relinquished it since.

The fifth has been the core of American foreign policy since the US took over from Britain the responsibility for maintaining the liberal international order.

Anyone hoping to invade the United States needs to reverse those accomplishments in order before the US can truly be threatened. The only possible exception is Mexico since it shares a land border, but even then American control of the seas would put Mexico in a bad place strategically.
 
The OP specifies not just an invasion of any US territory, but one of its heartland specifically. Its also pretty heavily implied that its supposed to be a serious attack which has at least some chance of succeeding. IMHO the invader being the country that gets nuclear weapons first is by far the easiest way of bringing such a circumstance about.

Nuclear weapons are not a panacea of power.

The U.S. held total domination the nuclear race until the 60s, but wasn't able to just dictate policy to the Soviets. An invasion still needs the capacity to defeat the American Navy, supply multiple armies across the ocean, have an army large enough to overcome the natural barriers against attack: mountain ranges on both sides, two rivers on the south, barely built up and lightly populated regions in the north; and then actually defeat the American advantages of greater industrial power (which has the further advantages of internal communication and supply). Nuclear weapons will solve none of those.

To put this into perspective by the end of World War II the U.S. had a navy so large it dwarfed those of the rest of the world COMBINED. It had built this force while also funding and supplying large parts of its allies war machines, fighting not one but TWO wars across the ocean, building a massive transport capacity, and performing one of the largest projects in history as a small side project.

Earlier in the century it is easier, but that eliminates the possibility of atomic weapons. And even then, incredibly difficult.

But, as I noted above the OP doesn't say the invasion has to be successful in any way of course.
 
Top