Last edited by a moderator:
The United States should be nearly impossible to conquer
- Thread starter sepoquro
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I think you are referring to where he said he would run wild for a year and then he couldn't guarantee anything after that. And that he was as far as negotiating on good terms Yamamoto also said that to make certain victory they would need to get all the way to Washington and questioned whether their politicians or armchair generals would be willing to make such sacrifices.
In any case Yamamoto understood that conquering America means large sacrifices and costs, and that includes costs from guerilla warfare from all the troops, supplies, time, effort, and other resources that it consumes that could be used to move the front forward.
Loads of guerrillas have been defeated historically. The Malayan Communists, DSE, the IRA (both in the Irish Civil War and in the Troubles), the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the Spanish Maquis, the Boers etc. etc.
I think you're over-estimating the ease of fighting a guerrilla conflict. There are reasons why in some countries Axis forces met only light levels of insurgence and in others guerrilla warfare was much more intense, and these reasons cannot be simply summed up as "Polish and Yugoslavs had loads of guns and love their countries whilst French and Czechs are cowardly peaceniks". In reality, where the invaders treat the local populace relatively well and cultivate local collaborators a country it is difficult to organise an effective resistance, in any case outside assistance is still important.
FYI - both Czechoslovakia and Belgium had relatively lax gun-laws at the time. Neither of them saw large-scale insurgence during their respective occupations.
As has already been pointed out a number of times, there's no evidence that Yamamoto ever said anything remotely like this.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
Honestly, it's more likely that most of Latin America sides with the US; the Americans made sure to keep those governments friendly by any means necessary (the populace may be a different matter, but most of Latin America was not exactly democratic at the time). I'm honestly not sure what Canada would do in this case either, as it would very much depend on how the war started (especially in any attempt where the US is caught off-guard, the invaders are by definition the aggressors).
There also seems to be this idea that people load up their troops on ships. sail across the Atlantic/Pacific and unload in New York Harbor when the war starts. That's not how a realistic amphibious invasion goes. You can't mobilize all your troops, arm them, conscript enough of your merchant marine to serve as transports, and send them across an entire ocean in secret. The US invested enough in intelligence to pick that up (note that they knew more or less when Japan would attack and sent out war warnings, it's just the Pearl Harbor aspect that took them by surprise), but it wouldn't take much in the way of spies or SigInt to pick up that. And that gives the US time to mobilize (and note that major cities are likely to be near the mobilization points).
If you don't have surprise (and as noted, you won't for a major attempt to invade the mainland), then a massive invasion is off the cards. The US army will be mobilized, the various (fairly extensive) coastal fortifications that the US had built up would be manned, and the USN and air force would be perfectly capable of sinking any invasion force (which would be limited to the air cover from any accompanying carriers, and very tight on fuel). And if they get ashore and establish a beachhead, every resupply convoy (of which they will need many) has the same problem.
- 3
I agree with most of your points here: the idea that an outside aggressor could invade the US in a surprise attack belongs in the realm of fantasy (Red Alert and Red Dawn both give different slants on this). Of course, here we're talking about a strategic surprise (i.e., invading without knowing the invasion was coming), but a tactical surprise (i.e., invading in a time/place that was not known) might be possible following a defeat of the USN in the Eastern Atlantic - but the logistical problems outlined in your comment would of course be the main thing preventing this.
My only real disagreement is that coastal fortifications would be important in US resistance to an invasion - I doubt this: they might prevent access to certain estuaries and inlets, but the US coast is long enough that a landing ground could be found and a port captured.
- 1
- 1
I don't think im over-estimating the ease of fighting a guerrilla war. But i do think you are over-estimating the ease of fighting a counter-guerrilla war and is one of the most difficult forms of warfare to carry out. And yes you cite examples of successful counter-insurgency. However bear in mind that there are far more examples of successful guerrilla warfare then counter-guerrilla warfare.
And I never said summed up any argument as these countries have more guns then these do. However, it should be noted that when you have a nation that is determined to resist any invader and has a heavily armed populace (Switzerland and USA for example), it is much more difficult to invade and occupy said nation when the population is already armed and determined to resist. Where as a population that is largely disarmed (USSR until partisan support began, Belgium and Czechoslovakia) it is much easier to occupy. That includes collaborators in both examples which depends on whether or not the occupied nation accepts them or rejects them.
Now we all know many Belgians wanted to resist and the Czechs never wanted to be absorbed. However if the population was as heavily armed as Switzerland or the USA for example, you can imagine the possible headache for the Nazi's it would be to crush the uprising short of any rather extreme measures. Especially before WW2 in the case of Czechoslovakia should it get international attention.
Reminder: We aren't talking about the Holocaust or war crimes or genocide. Any further mention of these events will result in thread closure.
I really don't understand why people think that. Guerillas warfare requires extensive training, organisation, logistics. An unorganised bunch of people with guns would get cleared with casualty rations of the order of 100:1 by second line troops. That is if any fighting even happens.
The USSR population in the 30-s was anything but disarmed. The purchase of hunting rifles was allowed from the age of 16 and required only a basic permit.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Before you have a counter-insurgency you have to first have an insurgency, and with the right occupation strategy this can be avoided, regardless of whether the country you're talking about is one where people own hunting rifles, revolvers, and shot-guns in significant quantities.
It's easy to airily state that countries that have never actually been invaded in their modern history (though both have seen civil wars in which insurgency was not a major factor) are "determined to resist any invader". People in every country believe this to be true of their own country except where glaring historical examples disprove this (though they are often given to simply inventing a myth of fierce resistance even if these exist).
I think you need to read up on all three examples here: guns of the types under discussion (hunting rifles, shot-guns, pistols) were fairly easily available in Czechoslovakia and Belgium. In fact they're still relatively lax as far as guns go in the Czech Republic at least - I've been shooting on ranges a few times there (both times in what was essentially a gun-pub) and everything except fully automatic weapons seemed to be on offer. Czech citizens can buy and keep guns fairly easy even now which is why new EU proposals to tighten up gun sales across the EU are especially controversial there (and in Finland, for the same reason).What's more, both Belgium and Czechoslovakia had had conscription in place for a long time, with large numbers of men being trained in the use of firearms, and significant numbers of combat veterans living in both countries.
The reasons why both Czechoslovakia and Belgium saw relatively little in the way of partisan resistance (barring the last-minute uprising in Prague at the end of the war) has little or nothing to do with the availability of firearms in those countries, and much more to do with the skilful use by the Nazi of credible collaborators (e.g., the Rexists in Belgium, the Hacha government in the Czech lands) and the relatively lenient nature of the occupation of each country coupled with the threat of massive retaliation for acts of resistance. I'm not going to go into discussing banned topics, but the aftermath of the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich is well known. Of course, the absence of remote areas in these countries where partisans could establish bases has to be considered as a very important factor in this as well.
For the Soviet Union I'm not sure you're familiar with what actually happened there. Partisan resistance in the Soviet Union began fairly early - guys like Sydir Kovpak (who gained his spurs as a partisan in the Russian Civil War) decamped to the forest areas at the time of the invasion. Belarus had more than 200 partisan units operating by August 1941 - these were pre-planned by the Soviet authorities. By late 1941 there were already 7,200 partisans operating in Belarus alone.
There was no delay in partisan warfare breaking out in the USSR-proper, nor was the populace "disarmed" in the face of the invasion - indeed they were armed in the face of the invasion. What did occur is that those areas which had recently been annexed by the USSR, or which had suffered particularly harshly under Soviet rule, initially welcomed the invaders until the invader's harsh occupation policies turned them against the axis. What also happened is that Soviet partisans were relatively inactive in 1941, not because they lacked arms, but because they lacked the organisation, logistics, and leadership that was later given to them by the Soviet central command to make them part of their overall strategy.
I wouldn't instantly assume that the United States would lack collaborators who might be seen as a credible government by a significant percentage of the population in the wake of a successful Axis invasion. The defeatist inclinations of people like Joe Kennedy, Lindbergh, Robert R. McCormick is well known. America First had 800,000 members. Without going into the societal problems of the time, the US had societal divisions and opinions not too dissimilar to those seen in Belgium that an intelligent invader could have exploited.
As already explained above, people in Belgium and the Czech lands did have relatively easy access to hunting rifles, revolvers, and shotguns pre-invasion. In the case of the Czechs, the Germans were not hesitant to swiftly supress resistance and the Czechs knew this.
The big difference in the case of the US would not have been the availability of non-military grade firearms which are not, anyway, nearly as useful in guerrilla war as mortars, explosives, radios - the weapons with which guerrilla warfare is primarily fought. The big difference would have been the availability of remote areas in which partisans could have established bases from which to operate and which an occupier would have found difficult to locate and destroy, however, this would not have, by itself, created an effective guerrilla movement. The ideal situation would be a pre-planned resistance organisation similar to the Soviet one. Barring that, resistance in the US would have had to have coalesced around everything from the Boy Scouts to the Communists the same way it did in other countries.
In game terms this would require the research of resistance technologies and perhaps the construction of "resistance cells" or whatever resistance-modelling units HOI4 will have. The "suppression effect" of occupying forces should be high in high-infra states and low in low-infra states.
Last edited:
- 3
I think most americans are familiar with the words of nathan hale then. I will not say that all American will agree with his statement but I think you will all agree that the average American is more patriotic than the average Czech or Belgian. Additionally what makes you think that guerrillas will not have access to those things I think your example of Belgium or Czechoslovakia are flawed I think a more accurate comparison would be with Russian, Polish, or French partisans than with those relatively tiny nations.
- 3
I still did not saw any serious rebutal for points given against partisan movement. Essentially, opposition here stands purely on America's exceptionalism in this matter and nothing more.
- 3
There is not even a remote possibility for Germany or Japan to invade the USA. The communication lines can't be that long. However the USA if at war should surrender as soon as the losses are above a certain level.
- 2
well your plan you leave out some major details like how are you going to size both costs how do you plan to stop the US from supplying the partizans from the midwestern factories how do you plan to keep your troops supplied also how do you plan to get all those troops there and where are you going to get all of them (because you will need alot) so nobody took it seriously.
Well, since the logistics for invading and seizing the entire east coast of the United States by the Axis powers seems to be pure fantasy given the Axis starting position in 1936, I guess I don't see the point in quibbling over just how much partisan activity there would be in the United States if Germany and/or Japan invaded.
I don't think the Axis could seize enough territory, in enough time, to prevent US material superiority from becoming a decisive factor even if the Soviets were somehow beaten. Who needs massive partisan activity if the regular US Army is pushing the Axis out while the USN cuts them off from Europe and Asia? Sure, screaming "Wolverines!" is fun and all, but Patton will have the tanks he needs to get through to occupied New York before Chicago is taken during Operation How-In-The-Hell-Are-We-Going-To-Supply-The-Heer.
The only semi-realistic situation in which the US surrenders and accepts any sort of occupation at home is if the Axis somehow manages to both develop multiple nuclear weapons and somehow manages to drop them on the US with no possibility of retaliation.
- 6
I wouldn't assume anything like that. Most countries have patriotic martyrs and legends, I certainly have met plenty of crazily nationalistic people from Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Of course, an intelligent invader can turn this sentiment back round against the people it is occupying - their collaboration government are the true patriots, the partisans are communists in the pay of shady international forces that want to destroy the country etc. etc.
Size is only relevant here in that a large country has more places to organise partisans in - but you still have to have an organising force to achieve this. Russian partisans were in a large part pre-prepared by the Soviet government. French partisans were organised in large part from outside France. Polish partisans were directed by an underground government that was able to achieve success in large part because the occupation policies of the occupiers were so "exploitative", and what they achieved was not something that every country was able to emulate.
Last edited:
- 3
Even then that wouldn't eliminate the material/industrial capabilities of the US. To do that they would have to seize the east coast, the interior of the midwest (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois) as well as the Gulf Coast (including the interior of Texas (almost twice as large as Germany)), and then the West Coast as well (have fun dealing with the Sierra Nevada mountains, lol). Even then you have large amounts of unoccupied land in the south, midwest, and west, so if the country doesn't capitulate you're looking at a long fight to weed out the rest of the resistance (which is assuming you are able to hold the coasts against any counterattack, which is an absurdly large front that is literally impossible to supply.
Even then the US will probably have nukes as well. Even if that isn't the case how will the Axis be able to deliver those nukes? Between radar technology and 1945 fighters and air defense technology any bombers would be swarmed before they even reached the coastline. (not disagreeing with you SM, I just wanted to accentuate the absurdity of this possibility
).Basically HoI 4 is a game. You should be able to conquer the US in-game.
IRL, it was impossible to conquer the US. To subdue the US would be nearly impossible. Anyone saying otherwise simply doesn't understand how amphibious invasion works, how air superiority and basing works, and where the major population/industrial/resource centers of the US were and are.
This whole partisan tangent is incredibly unimportant to the overall discussion, IMHO.
- 5
- Status