The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer

[Ernestas]

Why are you guys pushing need to invade country? It's way too vast, it's far better to keep near the coast, occupying and running those major USA cities for your own goals is enough of the trouble. Also in Europe we had a lot of enthusiastic people. Like in Lithuania, it was very popular to join resistance fighting, but you know that? It shrunk many times within a year then realities of hiding in the forest struck. And that's on top of having to suffer insufferable USSR regime.

You do not need to expand in depth. Just raid USA if needed, coasts are all you need to hold and in depth defense perimeter will create killing fields for any USA's army operations. Then establish puppet regime in those coast cities. New regime, with your military backing and backing of its most luxurious cities will survive against cheer mass of the rest of USA. Manipulate them into fighting wars among themselves, try to divide USA since this is the goal. While USA is united, it's unassailable. While divided it's weak.

 

[paranoidsteve]

The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer. Why?
I shall go for the divide and conquer route...start a civil war then pick up the pieces.

 

[Zaku]

The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer. Why?
I shall go for the divide and conquer route...start a civil war then pick up the pieces.

Thanks for the huge letters, it really helps to prove your point. /s

 

[FOARP]

We can´t just pretend we know how a mob will react. A mob can organize and become later a guerrila or just give up and obey like sheep. Its very hard, need to be calculated city by city and also depends on a lot of factors. (How they are treated, how they punish misbehavior, if they actually have a chance of fighting back, etc etc).

Yup. Basically, the idea that the US would for-sure have been a partisan nightmare simply because of the availability of hunting rifles, pistols, and shot-guns seems to under-estimate the difficulties of organising and conducting a partisan war.

There's a lot of sniggering that goes on in the UK and the US about how easily France was occupied and how few Germans were killed by the resistance before D-Day. This both fails to give sufficient credit to the impact of the French resistance after D-Day, and fails to recognise how hard it is to resist an enemy whose occupation is (relatively) light and who are supported by collaborators - and the idea that an occupier would not be able to find similar collaborators in both the UK and the US if our military were defeated and our countries occupied is naïve: guys like Mosley, Joe Kennedy, Lindbergh and so-forth were just as defeatist and willing to accommodate as Petain.

The advantage that the US would have is that there are significant wilderness areas where partisans might organise. However, the key word here is "organise" - people forget that the partisan war in Yugoslavia was practically a dead letter before the British linked up with the communists to jointly fight the Germans. There were other partisan organisations but they were not actually focused on fighting the Germans but on settling internal scores, and were anyway deterred from taking action against the Germans by fear of German reprisals. The British could not magic up a partisan movement from nowhere, only the communists had both the organisation and the will to fight that made investing in them worthwhile, and with the support of the British, which was primarily a case of things like expertise and training, they then became a formidable force.

It's impossible to say anything for sure, but if I was forced to guess I would say that an occupation of the US would be similar to that of China - there would be collaborators, the cities might see some urban resistance movements (assassinations and so-forth) but real partisans would only be able to organise in low-infrastructure areas with the occupiers dominating roads and railways.

 

[Jazumir]

Why do i have to think about some specific Enterprise double-episode, all the time, when reading this thread?

I wonder (and this might be borderline - if anyone expresses being offended by the question, i´ll drop it instantly): Would afro-americans be more likely to join the resistance, and euro-americans more likely to colaborate? Would even some southern governors offer colaboration, if the Nazis alllowed them to turn the clock back pre-1863?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Why do i have to think about some specific Enterprise double-episode, all the time, when reading this thread?

I wonder (and this might be borderline - if anyone expresses being offended by the question, i´ll drop it instantly): Would afro-americans be more likely to join the resistance, and euro-americans more likely to colaborate? Would even some southern governors offer colaboration, if the Nazis alllowed them to turn the clock back pre-1863?

You can´t have the invasion force at the same time working with a willing afro-american population as a fifth column (who might be willing to rise to get rid of the Jim Crow laws and segregation) AND get southern governours to collaborate who want to turn back the clock to before 1863.

What policy the invading forces use depends on whom they are and what they intend.

IMO ingame the US when played by the AI should consider some form of peace like the "bitter peace" events that exist for the USSR e.g. in HoI 1 and should not require a player to fully conquer every single state when all he wants for himself and his allies is to rule Europe, Asia and Africa.

If the invading alliance intention is a full conquest of the USA I would agree that this would be nearly impossible just as the title of the thread states.

If they intend to get the US ruled by some axisfriendly government to withdraw from the war they certainly would find a number of people aiding them, e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford

However if some force invades with the clear intention only to get the US to withdraw from WW2 (or whatever ahistorical war would be going on) and perhaps cede the Phillipines, Guam and Wake then the US should agree to that once the coasts are occupied.

 

[pieGEEK]

We have no idea how partisans work or even if they exist yet.

Almost all countries that were occupied had some resistance to their occupiers. The degree of success is varying between countries, with Yugoslavia being the best at it.

There would most likely be strong partisan resistance in the US, but again no idea how it is going to work. Not all Americans are armed but enough of them are and it wouldn't be hard for cells to group up to resist an invasion. Partisans need large amounts of space and lack of occupying forces to be effective see Yugoslavia, as in invasion force gets spread out and doesn't have as much to garrison, those partisans will act up and cause problems. But even then an actual military force is needed to help, see Yugoslavia with the Soviets. But mostly it was on their own.

So overall Partisans are negligible in this series, when they did do a lot more in WW2, that's something Paradox still has to get down, but honestly isn't as fun as fighting Apocalyptic battles on the Eastern Front or great carrier engagements in the Pacific.

Now for the Facts:
The US is the final boss for the Axis. There is no stronger country other than the Soviets who are the real key to who wins the game. If the Soviets go down the Axis win. If they don't, the Americans will make Germany have a two front war, which will lead to their demise. Japan really isn't much of a challenge to the US, in the whole meta-game understanding is to hold off the US as much as possible.

FDR knew strategy and had balls. Also banged his secretaries in spite of his polio, now that's an All-American Hero and Great President.

Back to the topic, the US has oceans, and a good navy and air force. The trick to defeating America is going to be bloody run straight into the core area of the US, the Eastern Seaboard from Boston to Washington. That is the most important area to take in an invasion of the US, but even then there are lot of area that are also important. The line of cities between Chicago and Pittsburgh and the California are the next biggest targets.

The US has an equal population to the Soviet Union and a stronger industrial base. It has good infrastructure and a good education. Much better than the Soviets. There really isn't anything capable of killing the US off early on, and when the war actually starts with the US, it becomes something that is nearly impossible as Germany and Japan or even the Soviets. It is a super-fortress that can churn out huge quantities of pain.

If the US was closer to either Germany or Japan, it would be in more peril or if Germany nuked the US. The only way to beat America is nukes. Realistically. But even then, they most likely will have them first. So we hit 1984. Brilliant.

 

[Jazumir]

[...]
FDR knew strategy and had balls. Also banged his secretaries in spite of his polio, now that's an All-American Hero and Great President.
[...]

lol. I see how that puts germany in a direct disadvantage. Their leader had (allegedly) only half as many balls and Traudl left the Reichskanzlei as a Fräulein, iirc. Both must have been really detrimental to a naval build-up.... ;P "We need balls - thousands of balls - or we are doomed!"

 

[FOARP]

lol. I see how that puts germany in a direct disadvantage. Their leader had (allegedly) only half as many balls and Traudl left the Reichskanzlei as a Fräulein, iirc. Both must have been really detrimental to a naval build-up.... ;P "We need balls - thousands of balls - or we are doomed!"

Actually, it's very close to being confirmed.

 

[Jazumir]

Well, obviously: he droped one on sealion (or was it dunquerque)...

But back on topic: I didnt mean that afro-americans are likely to join the Nazis - which i´d consider unlikely, considering their rabid racism. I would think the Nazis would try to get some white elite working with them, by giving them, among other things, racial previlidges. The Nazis would have little compuntion about allowing slavery to return, i´d think. Black people might have been considered as physically equal or even superior (´36 olympics) but where still regarded as ´untermenschen´ by them - basically made for enslavement. I think this would make them more likely to join the resistance (against Nazi-occupation), if they can - it might have very substantial and direct consequences for them, in contrast to, say, middle-class white people, who might end up indifferent or picking sides based on luxuries like ideology. [The 1st agree got droped, before i edited this paragraph in]

 

[Garmorn]

I notice that most are talking about occupying the east and west coast to grab most of the American factories. A large portion of the US factories were in the Midwest (West of the Appalachian Mountains, north of the Ohio River and East of the Mississippi River). There is a lot of undeveloped land in the Appalachians where even as late as the 1970s where mail was delivered weekly by mule. All of this would make conquering the US very expensive.

 

[amalric de g.]

US will allways win.

 

[lemonsquid]

US will allways win.

 

[PanosB3]

Guess the guy who said on Page 1 that this will turn into an:

AMERICAN F*CK YEAH!!! Thread was right....


But there are still people posting high quality things luckily

 

[lemonsquid]

Guess the guy who said on Page 1 that this will turn into an:

AMERICAN F*CK YEAH!!! Thread was right....

Its all im capable of....

 

[sterrius]

i cant actually guess what politic about its racism the nazis would do in US.

A lot of racism still happened in the US at the time

I notice that most are talking about occupying the east and west coast to grab most of the American factories. A large portion of the US factories were in the Midwest (West of the Appalachian Mountains, north of the Ohio River and East of the Mississippi River). There is a lot of undeveloped land in the Appalachians where even as late as the 1970s where mail was delivered weekly by mule. All of this would make conquering the US very expensive.

If you deny the US its coast you also deny the US its trade.

No trade, no resources, no resources, no IC!

the US produces a lot, but it don´t produced enough in WWII period to keep all its factorys working. All south america without exception and central america exported everything they could to the US and still the US asked for more as they got very low on a lot of resources.

One example is rubber.

 

[steve213]

bro thats a lot of space to occupy still though like probably an area the size of france italy and the low countries and thats just on the eastern side of mexico.

 

[Garmorn]

i cant actually guess what politic about its racism the nazis would do in US.

A lot of racism still happened in the US at the time


If you deny the US its coast you also deny the US its trade.

No trade, no resources, no resources, no IC!

the US produces a lot, but it don´t produced enough in WWII period to keep all its factorys working. All south america without exception and central america exported everything they could to the US and still the US asked for more as they got very low on a lot of resources.

One example is rubber.

OK, so you take all 3 coast. The US have 3 not two. There are 3 major and several minor ports in Texas alone. That means enough troops to hold 500 miles of coastline. If Mexico is neutral then you have to add the entire Mexican/US boarder (One where we cannot seal even in peace time.) This is also assuming the Canada is hostile or conquered too.

I don't claim that the US cannot be conquered but the cost would be has high or higher in manpower the taking the USSR.

 

[Alpha2518]

The US should be really really hard to invade successfully. It's geographic location compared to most of it's enemies, size, and industrial might are all reasons that make it so strong. I frankly don't buy the armed citizens rubbish as having any bearing. Anybody who can defeat the USN, USAAF, and the US Army and manage the logistical challenges in achieving a successful invasion isn't going to be all that worried by a load of drunken hicks with guns .

You underestimate the power of guerrillas in warfare. See Afghanistan when the British went in and Vietnam from the French to the Americans and all sorts of other guerrillas. The only guerrillas that have really lost historically are the American Indians. And that is because they fought against each other and the USA at the same time.

Even Admiral Yamato said that the USA couldn't be invaded because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. And most of those rifles would be from guerillas. If anything the USA should have high attrittion and revolt risk.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

You underestimate the power of guerrillas in warfare. See Afghanistan when the British went in and Vietnam from the French to the Americans and all sorts of other guerrillas. The only guerrillas that have really lost historically are the American Indians.

A few more lost historically, e.g. Che´s attempts to "liberate" South America. Could it be that you meant that no guerillas *that were supported by a sizeable part of the population* have lost?

Even Admiral Yamato said that the USA couldn't be invaded because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. And most of those rifles would be from guerillas. If anything the USA should have high attrittion and revolt risk.

Admiral Yamamoto´s advice came from comparing the abilities of the Japanese Empire against the US and he correctly foresaw that he may go on the offensive for perhaps a year and then a peace would have to be negotiated on hopefully good conditions for Japan.

In this thread however noone assumes that Japan or any single country alone could achieve that but that the Axis or an ahistorical alliance of states tries it.

OK, so you take all 3 coast. The US have 3 not two. There are 3 major and several minor ports in Texas alone. That means enough troops to hold 500 miles of coastline.

Well successfully invading the east and west coast would assume naval superiority has been achieved and in that case the coast from Texas to Florida would be irrelevant when the invading fleet could blocakde the carribean. Depending on who is part of that ahistorical axis, e.g. the UK and France they would have already several bases there.

If Mexico is neutral then you have to add the entire Mexican/US boarder (One where we cannot seal even in peace time.) This is also assuming the Canada is hostile or conquered too.

Would Mexico stay neutral when anyone successfully invades the continental US? If they see a realistic chance IMO they would offer to join in and get a bit of their lost territory back

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treat...edia/File:Mexican_Cession_in_Mexican_View.PNG

And if we are mentioning axes to grind - Cuba certainly would love to be able to get rid of the Platt amendment and get Guantanamo back ;-)