Japan and Germany invade US through a "neutral" Mexico.

Yes, I agree. Jimmy Stewart was a very conservative Republican, but certainly no isolationist; he joined the AAF almost a year before Pearl Harbor. In any event, he was too young (33 years of age) in 1940 to run for President.

Clark Gable was old enough to qualify as a presidential candidate in 1940, and his politics were conservative Republican, although his wife, Carole Lombard was a liberal Democrat who encouraged him to support Roosevelt's administration. There is no hint in his biography, that Gable was personally interested in any kind of serious political activity. I'm not sure the American public considered acting in Hollywood as a profession conferring political wisdom or experience in 1940. Ronald Reagan was the first actor to run for President, and that was only after he had forsaken his acting career to serve as Governor of California.

But it definitely would have required considerable personal charisma, not to mention formidable political expertise, for any candidate to have prevailed over Roosevelt in 1940. And, as is the case today, the two major political parties offered the only realistic paths to the White House in 1940. The Republican Convention revealed that Dewey, the front runner with the most committed delegates, was considered too young, too inexperienced, and too isolationist, to be a viable candidate for the office of President. That is why Wilkie ended up as a compromise nominee. The Republicans were only too aware that isolationist power was waning; with the fall of France in 1940, and serious German threats to Britain, most Americans did not think isolationism was the proper answer to Axis aggression in Europe and Asia.

 

Then all you would have would be a political "cheerleader", not an "isolationist President".

I don't think even a charismatic figure such as a Hollywood star would have altered the drift away from isolationism in 1940. The events in Europe and Asia were on too large a scale, and too dramatic, to be countered by "cheerleading", even if sincere and impassioned. Even the Republicans, whose conservative wing was the locus of isolationist power, realized isolationism was not a force sufficient to determine the election of the President in 1940. It may have been comforting for some politicians, and segments of the public, to cling to isolationist principles, but common sense in 1940, dictated that the Axis threat to the US was real, rapidly growing, and demanded action that the isolationists found repugnant. The majority of Americans realized that simply ignoring the Axis powers could very well prove fatal for the US; and they were not prepared to do this.

 

I'm not arguing that it's "impossible", in fact I've stated it's within the "realm of possibility". But I do find it "implausible", given the historical antecedents of the election of 1940. The trend of world events was away from the isolationists' views in 1940. It was just common sense, not the influence of politically leading men, to believe that sooner rather than later, the Axis powers would represent a direct threat to the United States.

Even the isolationists would not tolerate such a threat, but would support arming to defend the country. Even supposing an isolationist President were elected in 1940, I find it inconceivable he (or she), would remain unconcerned about German successes in Europe or Japanese aggression in Asia They certainly would not allow a situation to develop where the Axis powers dominated Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. Long before any such situation eventuated, the US would be taking steps to counter such Axis domination. It would never get to the point that Mexico was faced with a choice of siding with a moribund US or acceding to Axis demands to allow it's territory to be used as a base for the invasion of the US.

 

I am just expressing my opinion based on what I've read about the period. I agree there was no consensus among the isolationists as to the best course for them to follow in 1940; it was a time of great turmoil in reaction to startling international events. But even the Republican Party and it's nominee, the only realistic alternative to re-electing Roosevelt, was not willing to put it's eggs in the isolationist basket.

In my opinion, the annexation of Canada anytime during the period would be out of the question, not so much because of American attitudes, but because of Canadian conditions.

I'll be interested in reviewing your documents and speeches when they are posted.

 

Why Mexico? Canada would looked better as a plaform for unavsion:
1. In this scenario it would be an Axis`s "trophee".
2. Shorter way both from Europe and Japan.

 

Have you ever looked at the west or east coast of Canada? On Japan's side there is exactly one port worth having, and nothing but mountains between the shoreline and every single method of moving troops anywhere else. BTW there was only a single east-west rail line in Canada, and no north south roads, let alone rails of any worth.

The Canadian east coast is not much more hospitible, and much better defended. It might be a "shorter" trip, but it is a trip to no-where. Mexico at least has the doubious advantage of some decent shoreline and infrastructure for transport with less concentrated defenses. But that is neither here nor there, Japan had nearly NO sea-capable re-fueling capability, and no fuel for their non-existant tankers for their non-existant fleet of troop ships.

The Germans weren't in any better shape for this, but they would also have to fight their way through the existing RN and USN's Atlantic Fleet. Neither of which they could even HOPE to match, let alone defeat.

 

Clint,
Actually you had the Canadian Pacific railroad which ran precariously close to the US border but also one had the Canadian Northern railroad which ran from Winnipeg to Vancouver by a much more northerly route. The Canadian Northern was completed in 1916 I think. I'll try and provide some links later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Northern_Railroad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_National_Railway

I agree with most of your points though.

 

I think this has gotten off the topic of the original thread. I think, that in the 50's, faced with a general public that not only would vehemently oppose invasion, but had the guns to defend it, the German and Japanese armies would find their hands more than full. If you assume the US remained neutral and that the papers published the headlines of the war, you must assume the normal US family would have some knowledge of what has going on. And have at least one or more gun. If it was to happen today, personally I would be able to outfit 67 people with weapons to fight an invading force. 67. An invasion of mainland America would be suicide...you think the Germans and Japanese didn't read how we won the west??

 

Too true Luke. Yamamoto, who had spent time in the US and traveled by train from the east to the west when he left for his homeland, told his fellows back in Japan that (paraphrasing); "Invading America is a fool's errand, we would find a shotgun, rifle or pistol behind every blade of grass!"

He knew that our "gun culture" was far different from any other nation in the world.

 

Could we be possibly looking at a Boer War on steroids if either Japan or Germany had ever tried to invade mainland USA?

 

Well, I take off my proposition about Canada as platform for invasion.
But anyway, has author any plot in order to make Canada at least “neutral” as Vichy France after defeat of GB? Or maybe he has other variants in order to counterbalance somehow German- Japan and American naval forces.

 

I see Germany terminating the US goverment easily in this scenario, but I dont see it conquering the country, the people would fight until no US citizen was left or Germany retreated, rights in USA are WAY overrated, they re facists that means they will take those rights away, dont get between an USA citizen and its rights, NEVER!

A succesful attack to the US goverment (goverment, as they wont conquer the nation), would be from what I see influencing the Latin American countries to form an union into 1 power or contry, to make South America a superpower which can be done if all join into 1 force, when this union is formed Germany will be seen as the benefactor of Latin American countries who have suffere A LOT thanks to the ****ing Monroe Doctrine, Im sure if Germany uses the rage the people have towards the Monroe Doctrine they can convince the whole of Latin America forces to join with Germany and make a massive attack on USA, 2 and half continents against a country? A germany that controls ALL the Europe, Japan ALL Asia and all of Latin America countries enraged by the Monroe Country, poor US goverment....... still they will face a REALLY though fight against US citizens, unless they respect their rights in exchange of of havint Hitler's poster in every corner that says "Leader" everywhere I mean they will lose the right to choose their goverment but I think if the basic rights are respected US people might not fight.

 

The US people would never "not fight" an invasion. Ever. So Germany is going to outfit these Latin American's, train them, transport them, supply them, for an invasion of mainland United States? It wouldn't take a long time of massive losses to one of, if not the, largest guerrilla forces in history for these other countries to say, "you know what? We are better off staying out of this". No way could this be effectively pulled off in my mind. If someone can prove that it can, I'd be all ears.

 

Well really about the latin america thing I was speaking about a long process by which latin nations could join or something, still if you want to be more real or a more immediate action instead of the long process of consolidating several nations into 1 continental superpower, the Germans can only go along the Latin American nations by taking advantadge of the imperialistic view and danger they see in USA as the perfect momment to attack, specially Mexico its people are VERY pissed off today because USA took from them more than half of its original territory. Really USA is strong but I dont see USA defeating the entire world, this topic is almost a USA vs The World thread, I dont see USA soloing the entire world they are facing all Europe, all Asia and possible all Latin America at once, USA isnt soloing this.

Nukes arent beign used unless you want the Apocalypse to begin, they are MAD certaintly and the only was US have a chance is if it goes nuclear.