Why no flanking amphibious invasion in WWI?

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.

@abworsham4

We’ll say that magic happens-the Japanese would have surrendered by regular bombing before the planned invasion, even without the atomic bomb. So I’ll say that five nuclear bombs would be ready for tactical use.

I think the Allies would have lost 1.5 million men, including naval losses, radiation poisoning after entering area attacked by atomic bombs, and regular land fighting. Countless more would have been wounded. This also includes Soviet losses from the planned Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.

The Japanese would have lost at least 12 million men killed, due to the enormous losses fighting, from the nuclear bomb, and the mass of Kamikaze attacks. This total includes PCFC losses. 1 million more might have died in guerrilla warfare after the war.

20 million would have been wounded, if not more.

Yeah - looking forward to watching that…

THE PHILLIPINES WAS A MUST!!!

Folks, the war wasn’t like Axis and Allies,  you didn’t know how many aircraft carriers and battleships your opponent had, or what weapons, or what secret technologies,  you fought as best as you knew, and you hit the enemy where you knew you could.

HOWEVER - Like Axis and Allies everything is done in Baby Steps.  Sure - Peleliu didn’t matter by the course to victory the allies took,  but say,  the Japanese invented the Jet in 42?  Or won a series of battles they lost?  Say they turned the American offensive around at Gaudalcanal?

You know, I can stand on a cardboard box and screw in a light bulb, but what if I slip? or the carboard crumples?  I might fall and break the light bulb… or my neck…  Better to get a REAL step ladder, or a cinder block, and place it on the ground - JUST TO MAKE SURE, I have a fail safe point to operate from.

That’s what the Phillipines was all about.  It was also a symbol to the world, of which side was winning… and it removed a POSSIBLE and SIGNIFICANT strategic asset from the enemy.  It had to be done.

There is a reason America didn’t just take the whole fleet to San Diego, load it with Marines, and set sail for Tokyo and for the win.  Everything is done one step at a time.

@CWO:

A similar situation existed in the Confederacy in the early stages of the U.S. Civil War, where it was believed that the material advantages of the North (in terms of industrial capacity, natural resources and sheer population numbers) could be overcome by (if I recall the quote correctly) “the gallantry and fighting spirit of the Southern Gentleman.”  The contrary (and ultimately correct) view was expressed by a certain Northerner to a friend he had in the Confederacy: “No nation of agriculturalists has ever defeated a nation of industrialists.  You are bound to fail.”

That’s an excellent example. I looked up the Civil War and found that the North experienced twice as many combat deaths as the South. That ratio would seem to partially justify Southern leaders’ faith in their strategy. However, the overall ratio of military deaths was 1.4 to 1. The reason for this is that so many soldiers on both sides died from disease, exposure, and other causes.

Later in the war, the North increasingly benefited from activities which did not necessarily involve a clash between the main Northern and Southern armies. The increasingly effective naval blockade is a good example of this, as are some of the coastal raids the North performed later in the war. The Southern economic collapse which resulted from the naval blockade is still another example. Later in the war, Grant capitalized on the Northern advantage in manpower by sending several secondary forces to invade the South, while the main Southern forces were occupied by their Northern counterparts.

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.

I haven’t gotten to “Day of Battle” yet, I am just finishing up “An Army at Dawn.”  With the template he uses, he gathers a lot of personal journal entries and witness accounts. So I think it would be fair to say that there will be a high probability that he will shed some light on Italian battle plans he may have had.  I know he goes in depth about Operation Husky which would be a given. Even if there is not that much substantial info about that specific topic, I would still suggest buying and reading the books.  Its probably one of the best historical war narratives I have ever read.