Axis invasion of America

@general-6-stars

Oh! I understand what you mean now.

Sorry for not figuring out.

Thank you very much CWO Marc.

@CWO:

A question: if the Allies had concentrated their efforts and resources on conquering the southern part of Europe, and had not invaded France, isn’t it possible that the Russians would have driven westward through Germany in 1945 and would have kept going through France (which Germany would still be occupying in this scenario) until they got to the English Channel?  In other words, doesn’t a scenario in which the Anglo-Americans end up controlling the southern and eastern parts of Europe create a situation in which the Soviets end up controlling the northern and western parts of Europe, with France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark and possibly Norway being switched from Nazi occupation to Soviet occupation?

You’ve raised a very good question.

In the scenario I outlined, one possible Allied objective would have been to reach the Baltic before the Red Army arrived. Had this been achieved, all of Europe west of this Anglo-American line would presumably have been protected from the Red terror. Whether that was achievable goal is difficult to say.

It could have made a difference I think, the brits could still not beat the blitzkrieg then.

And their army was 10x smaller then the italian, whose moral would raise by the arrival of the germans/first defeats of the british.

But of course, malta should be taken first.

The Soviet didn’t have capability to invade Japan, they just had claims to Sakhalin Islands and possibly Korea which they lost in the 1905 war. The A-bomb created a huge vacuum for Stalin to mop up demoralized Kwangtung Army units in Manchukuo.

Okinawa could not be bypassed, a further invasion of Southern Japan could not take place without this logistical island. You need a good staging area and Okinawa and Iwo Jima are both necessary to that end.

Mainland China would not be good because Japan still had credible army units within reach, but had zero naval capabilities…so it was a safe choice to use the islands to stage invasion.

The best chance Hitler had to convince Franco to enter the war was in 40 when France fell.
Yes…but heaven with that Franco said no.

_Do you honestly think it would have wasted troops taking the canary islands that serve little if any strategic value (England could barely defend itself, and if Hitler had waited on attacking Russia for a year and focused on England they probably would have been invaded). _

Yes I think because Canaries island would have been easily fall under UK control but worst, it would have been a strategic lost for Kriegmarine.
Uk would have acces to the middle of the Atlantic. A bad news for the U-Boat and give a better protection to cargos.

England did not have a good relationship with Spain.  I would compare that relationship to the US and Iran - yes, we aren’t killing each other but I would hardly call that a good relationship.
Sorry but you’re wrong. Of course it was not a real friendship relation but both konws the importance to talk.

Looking at it from Franco’s perspective, Franco wanted parts of France and Hitler did not want to give it to him.
No Franco wants Gibralter, Morroco and French catalogna but Hitler plan was to annexe Vichy and the southern France in 1942 and Hitler had to meet petain after the Franco meeting so it was not in the interest of Hitler to give to Franco parts of Vichy territory and see Vichy changing camp.

Hmmmm.  This just gave me an idea for a new thread
Good, it’s always interresting to discuss.

I don’t think it’s really plausible that any of the three major Axis powers would have been able to launch an invasion of mainland America large enough to actuallyhewould not have gained ground against the Americans fighting on their own turf. While the German army may have matched that of the United States, their navy was in no way ready to launch any amphibious invasion, especially one of the scale requited to attack the US. Italy… let’s just say I couldn’t see Mussolini walking into the white house.

Most likely, if the Axis were able to overhwelm all of the other allies, a cold war would develop between the US and Germany/Japan (and maybe even between the axis themselves) and all sides would race to develop defenses and nuclear weapons.

If any axis takeover of washington was to take place, it would be a result of either a revolution within the US or (less likely) an invasion by Mexico and other Central/South American countries supported by the Axis. Germany would likely send another Zimmerman letter, but this time would provide actual support. Although by this point, with the US in possession of nuclear weapons, i doubt and invasion would take place.

@ABWorsham:

Should the Italians and Germans occupied Tunisia in 1941? This would have given more airfields to attack Malta bound convoys, provided more ports for shipping, ports that were closer to the Apennine Peninsula. The addition of these ports would forced the British to hunt for shipping west of Malta, which could have helped ease the stress on Tripoli and Benghazi convoys.

Those might have proved to be advantages to the Axis, but they might have come at the cost of negative consequences that would have offset them.  Tunisia was a Vichy-controlled territory at the time.  If the Axis had invaded Tunisia, the Vichy regime would likely have regarded this as a breach of the 1940 armistice terms with Germany, and would probably have reacted in ways Germany would not have liked.  Remember that when the Allies invaded North Africa, Germany occupied the “unoccupied” Vichy-controlled southern part of France, to which France responded with the scuttle of its fleet at Toulon to keep it out of German hands.  France might have done the same thing if the Axis had walked into Tunisia in 1941, and might even have jumped to the Allied side entirely.  So the cost-benefit analysis of an Axis invasion of Tunisia involves some tricky might-have-beens.