Nazi invasion scenarios in US article ( Life Magazine 1942)


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10


  • '10

    HA!  This one is the funniest!  Japanese troops, Vichy French and Germans come together to invade!  (The Italians were too busy I guess?)


  • '10

    Somebody had a lot of time on their hands!


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    C O O L


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Compared with the Axis world conquest plans presented in “Prelude to War,” the first of Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” films, the Life Magazine plans look almost realistic.  You can watch that segment of “Prelude to War” from 2:00 to 4:50 minutes on this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umiFnWGzWls&feature=fvsr

    I just love the big arrows showing North America being invaded via Greenland, the Amazon jungle, Alaska and French Polynesia.  Very practical indeed.  I think perhaps Capra forgot that he wasn’t playing a board game.



  • They are fake. Roosevelt created these maps and lied to the public to garner support for WW2, which was hard to come by. Roosevelt was a liar, he lured us and made the Germans attack first, then lied about it, like the Greer. He also refused to negotiate with the Japs and he knew about Pearl Harbor, but did nothing.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    FDR didn’t make these maps. These are published in Life magazine. FDR does not make maps anyway. :roll:



  • Excellent propaganda.

    As far as what military planners were thinking at the time, in broad general terms, these could well have been imagined by military planners.  But realistically, America was invasion-proof.  For that matter, Great Britian was invasion proof after Sept. (which is why Operation Sealion was cancelled).  Even under ideal circumstances of , say July 1940, its a difficult stretch to imagine a successful Axis invasion across the narrow and nearby English Channel, let alone vast stretches of distant ocean.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sealion

    To have had any chance of success, however, the operation would have required air and naval supremacy over the English Channel. With the German defeat in the Battle of Britain, Sea Lion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September 1940 and never carried out…Military historians are divided on whether Operation Sea Lion could have succeeded; some, such as Michael Burleigh and Andrew Mollo, believe it was possible. Kenneth Macksey asserts it would have only been possible if the Royal Navy had refrained from large scale intervention[27] and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (although, in reality, they were totally unprepared at that time),[28] while others such as Peter Fleming, Derek Robinson and Stephen Bungay believe the operation would have most likely resulted in a disaster for the Germans. Adolf Galland, commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht when it was finally called off. Field Marshall Von Rundstedt also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain and the whole thing was a bluff (to put pressure on the British Government to come to terms) [Operation Sea Lion - The German Invasion Plans section (David Shears) - p160]. In fact in November 1939 the German Naval staff produced a study (on the possibility of an invasion of Britain) and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had [Operation Sea Lion - The German Invasion Plans section (David Shears) - p156].


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    @221B:

    Even under ideal circumstances of , say July 1940, its a difficult stretch to imagine a successful Axis invasion across the narrow and nearby English Channel, let alone vast stretches of distant ocean.

    Yes, and a point which underlines this is the fact that it took Britain and the United States – two countries with long naval traditions, and who were able to draw on the vast resources of U.S. industry --over two years to plan, build up for, and execute the D-Day cross-Channel invasion.  Germany didn’t have resources on that scale to draw upon (I think for example that the Sealion plans required it to scrounge for canal and river barges for use as improvised landing craft), and Germany is traditionally a land power rather than a sea power.  German planners tended to regard the Sealion operation as just a large-scale version of a river crossing, a type of operation at which the German Army was skilled, but that was a simplistic view on their part.

    On a related point, one of the reasons for which Germany remained convinced that the Allies would invade France via the Pas-de-Calais (the shortest and most obvious route across the Channel) is that it didn’t fully grasp that two major sea powers like Britain and the U.S. might have the skill and the capabilities to mount the invasion across the widest part of the Channel, something which Germany would not have been able to do in a Sealion-type invasion.


  • '10

    The Germans and the Japanese, both separately and non-connected, had larger long term plans for World Domination.

    Germany in fact had a special dept for studying this issue.

    They look silly here, but if Germany controlled all of Europe and Russian Asia, do you not think they would have the strength to take on the USA?  The United States would at that time be completely alone.  The “Neutrals” of South America would at that time most likely become pro-German for reasons of self preservation alone.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    That’s the only part of these documents that’s not believable.

    They don’t have the resources to finish the Russians, and still haven’t rolled over the U.K.  But somehow they are going to sail across the atlantic and PASTE the American east coast?


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Well i think you  made a wrong assumption. The kaiser during the great war made plans to invade USA and these are official documents and also assumed that UK was not conquered. I can get you a link but google it. These plans were fairly extensive. I have seen the maps prepared and they are not like these Life magazine maps

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly


  • '10

    @Imperious:

    Well i think you  made a wrong assumption. The kaiser during the great war made plans to invade USA and these are official documents and also assumed that UK was not conquered. I can get you a link but google it. These plans were fairly extensive. I have seen the maps prepared and they are not like these Life magazine maps

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly

    Operational Plan Three

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Plan_Three



  • @FieldMarshalGames:

    The Germans and the Japanese, both separately and non-connected, had larger long term plans for World Domination.

    Germany in fact had a special dept for studying this issue.

    They look silly here, but if Germany controlled all of Europe and Russian Asia, do you not think they would have the strength to take on the USA?  The United States would at that time be completely alone.  The “Neutrals” of South America would at that time most likely become pro-German for reasons of self preservation alone.

    I disagree.

    The US would not be completely alone.  Considering the Nazi approach to what they percieved as “inferior” races (i.e. send them to concentration camps to die), which would have become well known before this (if for no other reason than leaked by the US/UK) do you think Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race) would then be destined for the concentration camps?  Or that they wouldn’t consider that nearby hordes of Americans would just storm south as the Axis would clearly be unable to provide sufficient support across vast oceans.  Don’t forget Canada, Australia, S. Africa, India, etc. major parts of the UK empire that probably would fight on, also out of self preservation if no other reason.

    Additionally, its one thing to hold large areas of Eurasia.  Its quite another to get enough economic benefit from it to justify the manpower and resources spent holding it. In short, holding these large areas could well be a drain on the Axis war economy, not a support.

    Also, the A-bomb was possibly a game changer.  A Doolittle type raid on Berlin, for example, would have been possible by the US at any point in 1946 and beyond.  Given the superior abilities of the B-29 bomber (by far the best bomber of the war) I question the abilities of the German airforce to prevent a night raid of this type.  And since Germany stopped development of the A-bomb in 1942 at about the same place as the US, this would surely happen before the Germans could do the same via the Amerika bomber or V-3 as they would need to duplicate the manhattan project.  I’d guess they would need three more years in a crash program to do so.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

    Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

    How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

    BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10


  • '10

    @Imperious:

    Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

    Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

    How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

    BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

    This is exactly what I was trying to say.  It seems SILLY from the perspective of 42-45…  But these were LONG TERM plans for dealing with the United States.


  • '10

    @Gargantua:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG685BKIIqE

    Funny, but seriously…  There was a great amount of study put into the question of eventual Global dominance of Germany.

    See here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer



  • @Imperious:

    Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

    Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

    How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

    I’m not entirely sure of Hitlers feelings towards Spain.  Certainly, his feelings were better than towards the Jews or Russians…maybe it was a first things first philosophy?  Possibly, Hitler thought of them somewhat as he did the British, with some level of admiration.  I do not recall reading anything which might shed light on this, does anyone have any links that might be beneficial?

    Still, coming out of the Spanish civil war, which was a proxy battle between the other European powers, Spain was in no mood to fight either for or against Germany.  It may be telling however, that Spain refused to allow the Germans transport across the country to take Gibraltar.

    I’m also not sure of whether Chile or Argentina were really pro-axis or anti colonialism (given Germany was one of the few great powers without colonies).  I’m not too familiar with Latin America during the first half of the 20th century.  Maybe some in Latin America might side with Germany…though I personally don’t see why they would do so.

    BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

    When would this be?  I was thinking along the lines of 1946-48 under an assumption of either or (or both) a peace treaty with Britain and victory over Russia.  Clearly no Axis powers would have developed atomic weapons by then.  If we are talking 1960 or later, then I could see the Axis having nuclear weapons by then, but I wouldn’t expect the US (and possibly UK/USSR) being unable to either win the war, or at least turn back the Axis in many arenas (N. Africa, Pacific, parts of Asia) well before this timeframe even with an Axis consolidation of large parts of Eurasia.


  • 2017 2016 2015 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Perón and Pinnocet modeled their leadership on that of fascist leaders. Right down to the uniforms and entire look of the regime.

    There is little difference in the leadership of Mussolini, Franco, Perón and Pinnocet. The people who supported them all felt this was the right type of leadership in the 1940’s

    If Hitler fought in Spain for Franco, its not much of an extrapolation to assume Hitler would latter use his connection to form 5th column in South America.

    Its like saying Hitler will help Israel fight her enemies, assuming his stance against the Jews.

    If he lost men and resources helping Spain, he cant have any issues with South America.



  • Well, this is Hitler’s wet dream come true.  The reality of it IMO, is that if England and Russia fell Roosevelt would have called for peace.  At that point we are the ones fighting a 2 front war with Japan in the pacific and the germans in the atlantic.  Also I think the way they have the Germans going to brazil from Africa would have been dumb.  If we were to be invaded take england, than Iceland, greenland through Canada and than the US.  Logistics is a nightmare for either side crossing 2 oceans - but that would have been the best way to do it.  But it would have been abundently clear that we could not win the war if Britian and Russia fell.  The Germans would have had the best real estate in Russia and England.  But the Japs would have gotten India, Australia, New Zealand - blah blah blah.

    We could have dragged the war out to the early 60s because we are protected by 2 huge oceans - but we would have been destined to lose.  At that point make a deal with Germany/Japan to buy time.  Fortify the crap out of our continent and make em pay dearly if they try to attack us.  I think Tojo/Hitler would have gone for that deal.  They would have owned most of the world and would have figured it was just a matter of time before they got us too (and prob. would have been right).



  • It’s just like what this forum was amde for. AXIS AND ALLIES! If your playing a vanilla game and UK and SU fall doe’s US win? Never unless they took over Japan. If any of you have played a game where the exact opposite happened speak up!



  • Image if Sanger had been able to make his space bomber???



  • I’m not sure the fall of England and the USSR would mean certain, even if delayed, defeat of the USA.

    Its one thing to take a country, quite another to hold it.  The cost of taking a nation by force pales in comparison to the cost of occupying.  The Japanese pretty much was maxing out its army just to hold E. Asia.  They didn’t have the manpower to take and hold all of China, let alone India, Australia, etc. let alone invade the USA.  Had Germany defeated the USSR, they would have needed most of their army just to hold the vast area of Western USSR.  The axis wouldn’t have enough resources to hold these gains and conduct any offensive actions at the same time.

    Even if offensive actions against the USA were possible, that doesn’t mean that they would prevail.  The industrial production of the USA was greater than the combined production of the Axis…simply put, the USA was still a giant.  And having some incredible technological advances beyond the capabilities of the Axis such as advanced radar, sonar, the proximity fuse, high octane airplane fuel, etc.

    Even besides this, there was always the A-bomb option for the USA…how many nuked european cities would Hitler permit before suing for peace?  It is highly unlikely they could have developed their own before being forced to come to terms favorable to the USA.



  • No offense, but some of what you posted is just naive.  We aren’t talking about us turning Iraq into a democracy.  If we wanted a stable Iraq we could have it in a month after their military was defeated (with a quarter the number of troops).  If we adopted the inhuman tactics used by Hitler, Tojo, or even SH the population would have been beaten into compliance.  I am not suggesting we should have done that, but it has been done and it is an effective way to control a population.  The British empire did it for 100s of years, we did it to the indians, SH did it to his own people (like the Kurds).  The nature of the regimes in Germany/Japan assures you that they would have done whatever was nec. to subdue the population - paticularly the Japs who were more racists towards us than the Germans would have been (Bataan death march).

    We could not have outproduced Germany by itself, much less adding Japan, had Russia and Britian fallen.  Even put aside the fact we would have no industrialized trading partner which would stifle our own economy, the rest of the industrialized world would have been producing against us.  We could not comepete with that.

    You have a point with the A-bomb… but how exactly were we going to deliver it if Germany held England?  W/o the island hopping we did against japan, it would be impossible to drop one on them either.  A doolittle raid would not be possible.  The B-29s could barely pick up that bomb, and there was no way they could fit those on a AC.  And than there is the very strong poss. that the whole program would have been dropped once things got as bad as it did.  Would you spend $ on weapons develepment in A&A if both England and Russia fall?

    But lets say we do develop the bomb, find some way to deliver it, and manage not to get invaded during all this.  We only had 3.  One had to be tested, no way around that.  If you drop one and it doesn’t explode you just gave your tech to the enemy.  Than we have 2.  There are no places on the mapthat would have changed the outcome of the war.  What it would have done was get teh germans to race to get a bomb of their own.  And unlike us they have a much better delivery system in the V2.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 6
  • 10
  • 4
  • 11
  • 17
  • 49
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games

27
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts