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.

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.

@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.

Remembered for what they did….and never forgotten!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4QJyg3MyWE

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.