German Emperor Wilhelm II planned attack on the United States

[TCO]

lonestar, we would have rocked their little hun asses just like we did every time the wfouth teh,. OORRRRRAAAH!!!!!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by GP
lonestar, we would have rocked their little hun asses just like we did every time the wfouth teh,. OORRRRRAAAH!!!!!

You lost me with those last few words GP.

[KrazyHorse]

I think he just fakes it sometimes...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I realize this is a silly thread, but what makes it even sillier is the number of people who assume that because the USA has a large, strong military now, it ALWAYS had a large, strong military. Sure, supply issues would prevent the Germans from doing anything but posturing towards the US mainland... but c'mon... USA invade Germany? The Germans had a large,
professional army in 1900. The US army was embyronic by comparison.

Moreover, in 1900, nobody 'occupied' defeated enemy nations. You lose the war, you lose a few possessions and some dignity (i.e. Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War). The notion of trying to invade and permanently occupy an enemy nation in 1900 would be as foreign as trying a cavalry charge in 2002.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually in the early 1900s, the American navy was a force to deal with. It was either 2 or 3 since 1900. Britain, of course, was alway #1 .

THe USN is always a force to be dealot with!!!

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I realize this is a silly thread, but what makes it even sillier is the number of people who assume that because the USA has a large, strong military now, it ALWAYS had a large, strong military. Sure, supply issues would prevent the Germans from doing anything but posturing towards the US mainland... but c'mon... USA invade Germany? The Germans had a large,
professional army in 1900. The US army was embyronic by comparison.

(bolding mine)

Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'?

Read my reasoning post. It debunks your claim of a superior "professional" German Army in comparision to the US Army.

Moreover, in 1900, nobody 'occupied' defeated enemy nations. You lose the war, you lose a few possessions and some dignity (i.e. Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War). The notion of trying to invade and permanently occupy an enemy nation in 1900 would be as foreign as trying a cavalry charge in 2002.

Bbbbbbbzzzzztttttt!!!! Wrong! The United States, in effect if not in name, occupied a territory larger than Western Europe from 1865-1876. Said territory was the Former Confederacy.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I think he just fakes it sometimes...

Hey kitty horse you are right.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Lonestar


(bolding mine)

Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'?



Bbbbbbbzzzzztttttt!!!! Wrong! The United States, in effect if not in name, occupied a territory larger than Western Europe from 1865-1876. Said territory was the Former Confederacy.

OK, I'll play

1) If they've been training officers since 1802, when do you think they'll get it right?

2) It's one thing for your army to defeat a band of rednecks, and another to defeat a professional army that has been trained for a real, constant threat of war (which was a feature of late 19th century Europe). The German army is widely accepted by historians to have been the best trained force in the world in the early 1900s. If you don't buy that, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to think that an army made up of conscripts and led by 60 year old Civil War vets would win that fight.

3) Then why didn't you occupy Spain? Total war didn't exist in 1900. Read your history books. Naturally the winner of a civil war is going to 'occupy' the loser - all they're doing is occupying their own territory. Not the same as occupying a foreign nation, which was unheard of at the time.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


OK, I'll play

1) If they've been training officers since 1802, when do you think they'll get it right?

What, destroying the third largest Army in the world didn't do it for ya? (Mexican Army, circa 1846)

2) It's one thing for your army to defeat a band of rednecks,

natch.

and another to defeat a professional army that has been trained for a real, constant threat of war (which was a feature of late 19th century Europe). The German army is widely accepted by historians to have been the best trained force in the world in the early 1900s. If you don't buy that, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to think that an army made up of conscripts and led by 60 year old Civil War vets would win that fight.

Problem; as there was a million of said rednecks led by hundreds of Mexican War heros, it was like fighting a professional army. Remeber; nothing improves a army like experience. And the United States in 1900 had experience up to it's ass.

3) Then why didn't you occupy Spain? Total war didn't exist in 1900. Read your history books. Naturally the winner of a civil war is going to 'occupy' the loser - all they're doing is occupying their own territory. Not the same as occupying a foreign nation, which was unheard of at the time.

As I said, in effect it was like occupying a defeated nation. By 1865 the CSA had factories, armies in the field, and (at the remaining ports in Texas) a navy. It wasn't your standard Civil War. It was more like two nations fighting another.

And certainly the French in 1865 were afraid of the army that had beat "just a bunch of rednecks." Especially after we told them to get outta Mexico or we'd throw them out...


On to the lightening round, Alex...

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
And it was shown when said pioneer heritage came to action over Japan. Blood thirsty huns.

A point that countries should remember when dealing with the US. We really do like to be nice, but have no problem being very thorough when it comes to war and killing. You rountinly mention the atomic bombs. Remember that they were tools no more horrible than the firebombing of Tokyo years before. We can be and will be exacting when we fight a war. Something that we have learned from our European forefathers. When we fight, we fight to win and that means total war. When we fight merely for position, we don't usually do nearly so well.

[Akka]

Aaah, well, I know it's not a serious thread, but there is really too much absurdities here

Actually in the early 1900s, the American navy was a force to deal with. It was either 2 or 3 since 1900. Britain, of course, was alway #1 .

-Not very big in 1900, but certainly bigger than the German navy. Had just came through the Spanish-American war kicking ass and taking names.

British navy was about 150 ships. German and french ones were about 100. USA war FAAAAAAAAAAAAR away, and was nowhere able to compete. Spain was a really small power in Europe by the time, you just can't compare it to Germany.

Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'?

May I say it ?
Well I'll say it : yes, it counts for nothing. Professionnal US army by the time was a joke. Though it actually has lots of competents officers and military material, it was NOT THE CASE at the start of the century.

What, destroying the third largest Army in the world didn't do it for ya? (Mexican Army, circa 1846)

LMAO
ROFL

No, seriously, you think that the army of Mexico was the third army in the world ?
No wonder that you consider the army of US from this time to be match for German's one
I suppose that the first army in the world was USA, the second was UK, Mexico the third, and Germany, Russia, France and Autria were some remnants of weak states ?
(if I remember well, Mexico was crushed by a French expeditionnary army of less than 60 000 soldiers in the 1860's...)

Problem; as there was a million of said rednecks led by hundreds of Mexican War heros, it was like fighting a professional army. Remeber; nothing improves a army like experience. And the United States in 1900 had experience up to it's ass.

Of course, I can imagine how the "experienced heros" from wars against Mexico will be able to cope against a MODERN (by the time) army with something more than old rifles and broken discipline.
Guess you don't really have a grip on reality when talking about professionnal army
And USA experience of war up to it's ass ?

Go back to your history school books, boy, Europe was ten time more full of wars at this time that USA has ever been during its whole existence. France alone fought four war in a frame of time where USA had only its Secession one's. If there was a place in the world where war was known, it was Europe

And certainly the French in 1865 were afraid of the army that had beat "just a bunch of rednecks." Especially after we told them to get outta Mexico or we'd throw them out...

Afraid of what ?
They just had some more important trouble with a big neighbour called Bismark, and didn't gave a sh*t about a poor land like Mexico. The cost of maintaining the expeditionnary army was too high and it was bringing nothing interesting. Sure, it helped that USA showed they were not enthusiastic about the presence, but the States had to busy with the reconstruction more than starting a war with what was considered the best world army by the time.

[Andemagne]

this news was in Finnlands biggest news paper today.
(3 days ago on Apolyton)

[Ecthy]

euro coins

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Aaah, well, I know it's not a serious thread, but there is really too much absurdities here



British navy was about 150 ships. German and french ones were about 100. USA war FAAAAAAAAAAAAR away, and was nowhere able to compete. Spain was a really small power in Europe by the time, you just can't compare it to Germany.

Personally, I disagree with the "2 or 3" statement. We were like ninth or tenth.


But still bigger than Germany's Navy in 1900.

May I say it ?
Well I'll say it : yes, it counts for nothing. Professionnal US army by the time was a joke. Though it actually has lots of competents officers and military material, it was NOT THE CASE at the start of the century.




LMAO
ROFL

Are you joking? They only thing, the only thing the United States had against it at the turn of the century was that it was small. It was small and filled with professional volunteers. History has consistantly shown volunteer armies are, man-for-man, superior to conscription armies.

Although as Lenin said, "Quanity has a quality of it's own."

The job of the US Army in that case would be train up new soldiers. As we had a bunch of vets from the Spanish-American War, the Filipino Insurrection, and, to a lesser degree, the United States Civil War, any army the United States raised at the time would be more proficient then the German Conscription aremy.

No, seriously, you think that the army of Mexico was the third army in the world ?
No wonder that you consider the army of US from this time to be match for German's one

Hey, it was in 1845. It was bigger than the French and British Armies at the time.

I suppose that the first army in the world was USA, the second was UK, Mexico the third, and Germany, Russia, France and Autria were some remnants of weak states ?

Germany didn't exist in 1845!

And the United States was way down the list. (only had 10,000 regulars, IIRC)

(if I remember well, Mexico was crushed by a French expeditionnary army of less than 60 000 soldiers in the 1860's...)

You remember incorrectly. The Mexicans kicked the crap out of the French. repeatibly.

Of course, I can imagine how the "experienced heros" from wars against Mexico will be able to cope against a MODERN (by the time) army with something more than old rifles and broken discipline.

Yeah, and we all know how useful that was. All the way up to WW1 the Europeans were laughing at the American policy of spreading out the troops and attacking in a skirmish line. When WW1 began, your vaunted German and French armies lined up in blocks and whaled away at each other like a bunch of idiots. Apperently, they hadn't relised technology had changed since Napoleon.

Guess you don't really have a grip on reality when talking about professionnal army
And USA experience of war up to it's ass ?

Guess you're wrong.

Go back to your history school books, boy, Europe was ten time more full of wars at this time that USA has ever been during its whole existence. France alone fought four war in a frame of time where USA had only its Secession one's. If there was a place in the world where war was known, it was Europe

What, the United States has a tradition of warfare stretching all the way back to...1607. We have plenty of tradition in warfare. Every much as the Europeans.. Probaly more so, as we fought the only large scale general war from 1815-1914.

Afraid of what ?
They just had some more important trouble with a big neighbour called Bismark, and didn't gave a sh*t about a poor land like Mexico. The cost of maintaining the expeditionnary army was too high and it was bringing nothing interesting. Sure, it helped that USA showed they were not enthusiastic about the presence, but the States had to busy with the reconstruction more than starting a war with what was considered the best world army by the time.

I find that unlikely. Especially as the Franco-Prussian War was some years off. Seems to me that YOU need to go look at your History books.

That said, the French Army in Mexico didn't budge until 100,000 man army under Sheridian (widley considered one of the Best Generals of the war) moved into Texas. In Grand French tradition, they bolted from a fight.

[Dr Strangelove]

Like I said above, it would appear that the German plan was to just shell some ports and hope that the Americans would throw their hands up in horror. Apparently there wasn't a plan for a real invasion.