Semi-OT: Reasons "The Man in the High Castle" couldn't happen

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It's not to say Germany probably couldn't have made atomic weapons eventually, but it probably would have taken a fair bit longer than the Manhattan Project took.

I'm not sure what 1940s A-weapons get you against the US in that era. They were small and the US was a 50% rural nation. A huge, heavily-armed one.

If you just want to kill the urban population gas is a lot cheaper and easier. If you want to destroy the industry then fire works too. But after you burn the cities and destroy the factories you still don't control the US or get any production out of it. And has been said, we have guns.

[Trugrit]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm not sure what 1940s A-weapons get you against the US in that era.

That is more alternate history speculation as to what America would have done if Hitler had vaporized London, Paris and Moscow.

You are correct in that you should never underestimate America. Especially the WW2 era generation:

[ny59giants]

Around 1980 or so there was a fantasy board game called "Invasion: America" put out by SPI (I think). It was futuristic game of Europe being overrun by Soviets, China, and then Central/South America becoming a force. The USA is invaded by three large coalitions. The problem is that America has some serious terrain to overcome and the only place that the invaders had terrain on their side was up through Texas. I do like some of these "what ifs" but the American guerrilla force would be something to deal with.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Around 1980 or so there was a fantasy board game called "Invasion: America" put out by SPI (I think). It was futuristic game of Europe being overrun by Soviets, China, and then Central/South America becoming a force. The USA is invaded by three large coalitions. The problem is that America has some serious terrain to overcome and the only place that the invaders had terrain on their side was up through Texas. I do like some of these "what ifs" but the American guerrilla force would be something to deal with.

Yep. Drive from Lisbon to Moscow. It's still 700 miles short of LA to NYC more or less.

Oz is about as big (smaller) as the Lower-48. The difference is our middle is populated by people with lots of guns.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Around 1980 or so there was a fantasy board game called "Invasion: America" put out by SPI (I think). It was futuristic game of Europe being overrun by Soviets, China, and then Central/South America becoming a force. The USA is invaded by three large coalitions. The problem is that America has some serious terrain to overcome and the only place that the invaders had terrain on their side was up through Texas. I do like some of these "what ifs" but the American guerrilla force would be something to deal with.

I have that game.

Also another by an obscure publisher called Tomorrow the World!.

I'll grab some photos of both to upload tomorrow.

The lack of realistic plausibility never stopped Red Dawn from becoming a cult classic.

Just loved the premise that a Soviet mechanized army came down through the Yukon....ever looked at that terrain on the AE map?

Would take about three years to make the move.

Then there were the Cuban paratroopers dropping in the Midwest....how exactly did all those transport planes get there?

Pretty much have to suspend disbelief to enjoy those kinds of movies.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

There is actually a very recent remake of "Red Dawn", originally with Chinese invaders, but later changed to North Korean to avoid hurting Chinese feelings... politically correctness [8|]

There is also this old 80s miniseries called "Amerika", was kind of low budget.
Overall, I think this "gorn invasion" miniseries "V" also from the 80s is more realistic than any foreign invasion story

But IMHO, nothing beats Chuck Norris' Invasion USA

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It's not to say Germany probably couldn't have made atomic weapons eventually, but it probably would have taken a fair bit longer than the Manhattan Project took.

I'm not sure what 1940s A-weapons get you against the US in that era. They were small and the US was a 50% rural nation. A huge, heavily-armed one.

If you just want to kill the urban population gas is a lot cheaper and easier. If you want to destroy the industry then fire works too. But after you burn the cities and destroy the factories you still don't control the US or get any production out of it. And has been said, we have guns.

I think it would be more of a breakdown of political will than the national resolve of the country to keep fighting.

If your enemy drops a bomb that vaporizes your biggest cities in an instant, it takes a special kind of leader to put that to one side and demand that the fight is carried on in the countryside with shotguns and hunting rifles. If that leader isn't in the right place at the right time, then what good is it?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: wdolson

It's not to say Germany probably couldn't have made atomic weapons eventually, but it probably would have taken a fair bit longer than the Manhattan Project took.

I'm not sure what 1940s A-weapons get you against the US in that era. They were small and the US was a 50% rural nation. A huge, heavily-armed one.

If you just want to kill the urban population gas is a lot cheaper and easier. If you want to destroy the industry then fire works too. But after you burn the cities and destroy the factories you still don't control the US or get any production out of it. And has been said, we have guns.

I think it would be more of a breakdown of political will than the national resolve of the country to keep fighting.

If your enemy drops a bomb that vaporizes your biggest cities in an instant, it takes a special kind of leader to put that to one side and demand that the fight is carried on in the countryside with shotguns and hunting rifles. If that leader isn't in the right place at the right time, then what good is it?

Ah, the European demand for centralized control. [:)]

Here it wouldn't take a leader giving orders. County level or even lower. Extended families even. Get your gun, kill anyone wearing THAT uniform. Once you do kill them pick up their hardware. Rinse, repeat.

The US population in 1940 was about 130 million. Mostly educated, mostly, even the rural women, familiar with firearms. And really, REALLY pissed off at invaders. I knew about 1775 at the same time I learned to read (age 4). And the Brits weren't even invaders, sorta kinda.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




I'm not sure what 1940s A-weapons get you against the US in that era. They were small and the US was a 50% rural nation. A huge, heavily-armed one.

If you just want to kill the urban population gas is a lot cheaper and easier. If you want to destroy the industry then fire works too. But after you burn the cities and destroy the factories you still don't control the US or get any production out of it. And has been said, we have guns.

I think it would be more of a breakdown of political will than the national resolve of the country to keep fighting.

If your enemy drops a bomb that vaporizes your biggest cities in an instant, it takes a special kind of leader to put that to one side and demand that the fight is carried on in the countryside with shotguns and hunting rifles. If that leader isn't in the right place at the right time, then what good is it?

Ah, the European demand for centralized control. [:)]

Here it wouldn't take a leader giving orders. County level or even lower. Extended families even. Get your gun, kill anyone wearing THAT uniform. Once you do kill them pick up their hardware. Rinse, repeat.

The US population in 1940 was about 130 million. Mostly educated, mostly, even the rural women, familiar with firearms. And really, REALLY pissed off at invaders. I knew about 1775 at the same time I learned to read (age 4). And the Brits weren't even invaders, sorta kinda.

Would the insurrection during the War of Independence have been as widespread if the Continental Congress decided to sue for peace after Brandywine?

In the novel the US surrender is precipitated by two atomic bomb attacks that cause the US Government to sue for peace. Hearing that over the radio is a pretty big incentive to co-operate. I could understand the situation you're imagining if the government had taken the opposite tack - run for the Rockies and blast calls for insurrection all over the airways, but if you hear your government on the radio telling you that it's over, people tend to accept that it's over. August '45 in Japan is proof of that.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




I think it would be more of a breakdown of political will than the national resolve of the country to keep fighting.

If your enemy drops a bomb that vaporizes your biggest cities in an instant, it takes a special kind of leader to put that to one side and demand that the fight is carried on in the countryside with shotguns and hunting rifles. If that leader isn't in the right place at the right time, then what good is it?

Ah, the European demand for centralized control. [:)]

Here it wouldn't take a leader giving orders. County level or even lower. Extended families even. Get your gun, kill anyone wearing THAT uniform. Once you do kill them pick up their hardware. Rinse, repeat.

The US population in 1940 was about 130 million. Mostly educated, mostly, even the rural women, familiar with firearms. And really, REALLY pissed off at invaders. I knew about 1775 at the same time I learned to read (age 4). And the Brits weren't even invaders, sorta kinda.

Would the insurrection during the War of Independence have been as widespread if the Continental Congress decided to sue for peace after Brandywine?

In the novel the US surrender is precipitated by two atomic bomb attacks that cause the US Government to sue for peace. Hearing that over the radio is a pretty big incentive to co-operate. I could understand the situation you're imagining if the government had taken the opposite tack - run for the Rockies and blast calls for insurrection all over the airways, but if you hear your government on the radio telling you that it's over, people tend to accept that it's over. August '45 in Japan is proof of that.

I disagree, particularly in a country as geographically large as the US. wdolson's point about garrisoning the US being essentially impossible is, as Bullwinkle has said elsewhere, "on fleek."

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Ah, the European demand for centralized control. [:)]

Here it wouldn't take a leader giving orders. County level or even lower. Extended families even. Get your gun, kill anyone wearing THAT uniform. Once you do kill them pick up their hardware. Rinse, repeat.

The US population in 1940 was about 130 million. Mostly educated, mostly, even the rural women, familiar with firearms. And really, REALLY pissed off at invaders. I knew about 1775 at the same time I learned to read (age 4). And the Brits weren't even invaders, sorta kinda.

The average American in 1940 was a lot more sophisticated about machinery than the average person in any other country. GIs in the field were much more adept at getting captured equipment to work than soldiers of other nations. The US was also the only combatant in WW II who had a pool of already trained drivers at the start of the war. Everyone else had to train people to drive trucks and tanks.

Consider the hell the Germans had to deal with partisans in Russia, the Balkans, etc. when most of those people were uneducated peasants. Imagine the French Resistance on steroids. By 1940 things like gasoline were also widely available and quite a few Americans knew how to distill alcohol. Molotov cocktails for everyone!

Even if the US was caught flat footed by an isolationist government, any attempt to invade the US would have been very difficult. The chances of success would have been very, very small.

Bill

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




Ah, the European demand for centralized control. [:)]

Here it wouldn't take a leader giving orders. County level or even lower. Extended families even. Get your gun, kill anyone wearing THAT uniform. Once you do kill them pick up their hardware. Rinse, repeat.

The US population in 1940 was about 130 million. Mostly educated, mostly, even the rural women, familiar with firearms. And really, REALLY pissed off at invaders. I knew about 1775 at the same time I learned to read (age 4). And the Brits weren't even invaders, sorta kinda.

Would the insurrection during the War of Independence have been as widespread if the Continental Congress decided to sue for peace after Brandywine?

In the novel the US surrender is precipitated by two atomic bomb attacks that cause the US Government to sue for peace. Hearing that over the radio is a pretty big incentive to co-operate. I could understand the situation you're imagining if the government had taken the opposite tack - run for the Rockies and blast calls for insurrection all over the airways, but if you hear your government on the radio telling you that it's over, people tend to accept that it's over. August '45 in Japan is proof of that.

I disagree, particularly in a country as geographically large as the US. wdolson's point about garrisoning the US being essentially impossible is, as Bullwinkle has said elsewhere, "on fleek."

The books has a collaborationist government installed in the Eastern USA. I imagine that in a real-world scenario that the transition to being a Nazi client state would have been a gradual process. Japan and post-war Germany didn't become what they are today overnight.

Take Japan in '45 as the textbook example. There was a willingness (begrudging, if not outright fatalistic) that the American invasion was to be met with every able-bodied person armed with what-ever they could get their hands on.

Two atomic bombs, the Soviet invasion and a speech on the radio and it was all over. Bar a few isolated fanatics and the holdouts, the war ended pretty abruptly.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Consider the hell the Germans had to deal with partisans in Russia, the Balkans, etc. when most of those people were uneducated peasants. Imagine the French Resistance on steroids. By 1940 things like gasoline were also widely available and quite a few Americans knew how to distill alcohol. Molotov cocktails for everyone!

All contributing factors to the eventual outcome of the war, but resistance movements were far from decisive.

You're also forgetting the collaboration, especially in countries where it occurred on quite a large scale. Russia and the Balkans being the prime examples.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Consider the hell the Germans had to deal with partisans in Russia, the Balkans, etc. when most of those people were uneducated peasants. Imagine the French Resistance on steroids. By 1940 things like gasoline were also widely available and quite a few Americans knew how to distill alcohol. Molotov cocktails for everyone!

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
All contributing factors to the eventual outcome of the war, but resistance movements were far from decisive.

You're also forgetting the collaboration, especially in countries where it occurred on quite a large scale. Russia and the Balkans being the prime examples.

Partisans did have outside help in most places, though the Polish resistance was able to scrounge some weaponry without any help. The US had a lot of weapons in the hands of people, plus National Guard armories all over the place. Even at the peak of isolationism in the US, the US was still very interested in outside interference in the Western Hemisphere and was very interested in home defense. The B-17 was initially conceived as a weapon to be used against any invasion force trying to land in the US.

The US was the most industrialized country in the world in 1940. An insurgency would have access to lots of home grown resources for building arms. Factories would have been stripped of equipment before being occupied and there would have been thousands of basement gun smiths making arms and ammunition. It would have been more primitive than regular army weapons, but it would have been plentiful.

Bill

[HansBolter]

Took a pic of the two games I mentioned earlier.

Invasion America was hex based and set in a fantasy future where the three antagonists didn't so much represent countries as continental alliances.

The USA was invaded by the European Socialist Coalition (ESC), the Pan Asiatic League (PAL) and the South American Union (SAU).

Tomorrow the World by 3W was a point to point movement game based on Germany and Japan setting out to conquer the world.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Would the insurrection during the War of Independence have been as widespread if the Continental Congress decided to sue for peace after Brandywine?

In the novel the US surrender is precipitated by two atomic bomb attacks that cause the US Government to sue for peace. Hearing that over the radio is a pretty big incentive to co-operate. I could understand the situation you're imagining if the government had taken the opposite tack - run for the Rockies and blast calls for insurrection all over the airways, but if you hear your government on the radio telling you that it's over, people tend to accept that it's over. August '45 in Japan is proof of that.

RE Brandywine, I don't know. There was far less cohesion as a nation at that time. As Shelby Foote said of the USA pre- and post Civil War, beforehand people spoke of "the United State are" and afterward "the United States is." The CC was pretty jury-rigged, comms were slow, and local government was given a lot more credence than central. Colonial support for the revolution differed markedly by region as well.

By 1940 that was very different. The premise of the novel demands a surrender for it to work, and I don't think one would have been forthcoming. If there had been one large swaths of the USA would have ignored it. Pearl Harbor was fairly like an atom bomb compared to peace, and Hawaii wasn't even a state. I think the ferocity of the US population would have been exponentially higher had two attacks taken place in CONUS. A president who surrendered would have been immediately impeached IMO.

For that matter, if London had fallen to Hitler would Churchill have ordered the Empire to surrender? I doubt it. And the island is tiny compared to the USA, and had far fewer weapons in private hands.

Using Japan 1945 as an argument doesn't work for either the USA of the British Empire. We don't worship our president as a god. Nor was Japan a continental power with deep natural resources and an armed population. Hence bamboo pikes on the invasion beaches.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Two atomic bombs, the Soviet invasion and a speech on the radio and it was all over. Bar a few isolated fanatics and the holdouts, the war ended pretty abruptly.

But the comparison is a January 1942 Japan surrendering, not a battered August 1945 version. No chance that early Japan gives up after two set-backs.

[jamesjohns]

"Invasion America" I had that game also. Didn't they have "shock wave" attacks from China or South America option?

No way anyone gets past the one-man armies of Chuck Norris, Stallone, Arnold & Steven Seagal Just put one on the east coast, west coast, north and south borders! [8|]

I did read an Alt History book, can't recall the title but basically America never entered the war, or entered after the UK had been been defeated, and was set in the 60's??? Was basically a cold war between Germany and the US, seemed more possible.

[Mundy]

Back around the turn of the century, Wilhelm II was considering an invasion for force concessions with colonial holdings.

Yeah, I do have 1901 by Robert Conroy.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: jamesjohns

"Invasion America" I had that game also. Didn't they have "shock wave" attacks from China or South America option?

No way anyone gets past the one-man armies of Chuck Norris, Stallone, Arnold & Steven Seagal Just put one on the east coast, west coast, north and south borders! [8|]

I did read an Alt History book, can't recall the title but basically America never entered the war, or entered after the UK had been been defeated, and was set in the 60's??? Was basically a cold war between Germany and the US, seemed more possible.

warspite1

Fatherland?