Why no flanking amphibious invasion in WWI?

That video ask the wrong question. They ask if the Japanese CAN do it, we’re asking if the Japanese COULD do it.

Thank you very much CWO Marc.

Thank you Worsham. That explains a lot.

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.

Maybe the website I got the French DOW on was wrong, or just listed the allied ones - since many times they reciprocate a dow even though they don’t need too…

Anyway, Germany was perfectly happy sitting there and doing nothing before Russia decided to stick it’s big fat nose in things, then France and England decided to fight Germany (DOW or not, they did cut off transport and trade with them, so in effect, they did declare on Germany even if it wasn’t on paper)

It’s clear that the side that supported the rebellion against the law abiding, peace loving states of Germany and Austria-Hungary are the aggressors, Germany and Austria-Hungary just defending themselves from unwarranted and unwanted attack. :P

And Belgiums a country?  Sheesh, I thought it was a truck stop on route to Paris!  Next you’ll be telling me Rhode Island is a state in the United States of America and not a gas station with delusions of grandeur!

It would be the 100 million N. Americans against only the Germans plus the “desirable” races.

The massive extinction of these other people would not take place until everything globally were settled. I think the limited nature of the extermination would not be on the grand scale until America was dealt with. I think we are assuming a level of cooperation in former UK colonies akin with the French conquests, so the level of Serbian reaction would have been somewhat mitigated by the axis partners carving up that nation and exacting the type of ethnic violence that occurred much latter. Germany had a commitment to pit old enemies against each other in an effort to make their job easier.

The Soviets i feel would be somewhat difficult, but they did convert a few divisions of Russians who were against Stalin.  The middle east was another basket of potential friends who could be enlisted easily to fight the Jews. Germany raised a number of Muslim units in the war.

If Hitler was removed, the replacement would be far worse because a NAZI victory would remove all the remaining inhibitions against violence against what they deemed lessor men. The SS would have selected somebody like Heydrich who had the most firm convictions of their type.  The choice would have to be political leader, and not a military one.

On the German-Japanese partnership, i think they would not fight until USA had surrendered first. Once all opposition was gone eventually it would happen, but the Germans would have the best scientists, so the Japanese would be at a disadvantage.

The problem now adays is that people just don’t have the stomach for war like they used to.

The rule used to be, pre-1800, that either a city under attack surrendered and chose to raise the flag of the aggressor,  thereby not being seiged, raped, and pilliaged.

Or,

The city resisted, and you seiged it, raped, pilliaged, occupied, and raised your flag thier.

Lastly, whilst most empires expanded the rule aslo was if you wanted the land for yourself, you came in, killed everyone who had a claim to the territory, and took it as your own.

In modern terms however, we invade countires, briefly change their governments, piss everyone off who lives there, pay to rebuild their infrastructure, and then given the country back to the people we’ve made angry - after we’ve trained them to defend themselves.

The war many had feared erupts as German troops move into, at first, Holland and Belgium lead by air suport and airborn attacks.