Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Germany Had Plan to Take New York in 1900
Yahoo ^ | Wed May 8, 6:52 AM ET | Reuters

Posted on 05/08/2002 6:19:40 AM PDT by Koblenz

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm had drawn up detailed plans in 1900 for an invasion of the United States centered on attacks on New York City and Boston, according to documents in a military archive published on Thursday.

The weekly newspaper Die Zeit published details from documents it said it uncovered in Germany's official military archives in Freiburg. One plan foresaw a force of 100,000 soldiers transported across the Atlantic on 60 ships.

Beginning in 1897, a German navy lieutenant named Eberhard von Mantey was assigned the task of preparing an invasion of the United States after German and American interests had collided in the Pacific.

"Wilhelm II wanted colonies and military bases around the world," author Henning Sietz wrote in Die Zeit. "The United States was increasingly getting in the Kaiser's way."

Von Mantey's aim was to find a way to force the United States to sign a treaty giving Germany free reign in the Pacific and Atlantic. He rejected ideas of a naval blockade or a naval battle and made plans for an invasion of the northeast instead.

"This is the core of America and this is where the United States could be most effectively hit and most easily forced to sign a peace treaty," von Mantey wrote. He said the morale and discipline of American soldiers was low.

The plans were reworked and revised over the next decade. Chief of staff Alfred von Schlieffen, who planned Germany's invasion of France in World War One, was skeptical about the idea of attacking the United States, 3,000 sea miles away.

But his loyalty to the Kaiser prevented him from rejecting the war planning outright, Sietz said. At one point the German chief of staff had a plan to bombard New York City.

"The greatest panic would break out in New York over fears of a bombardment," von Mantey wrote.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Germany; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: boston; germany; history; newyork; war
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last
To: Koblenz
The US Navy was no pushover then. We just got through whooping Spain and had a fairly significant fleet.
21 posted on 05/08/2002 7:23:25 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Millburn Drysdale; CatoRenasci; Koblenz;Pharmboy; The Great RJ;LaBelleDameSansMerci
Militaries engage in this kind of stuff all the time. It's what war colleges do for a living. During the same period, Canada had a plan to invade the US. I'm sure we have ideas on invading Mexico or Canada.

Canada did indeed have a plan to invade the U.S. until it was rescinded in 1931. The U.S. had a plan to invade Canada that was ordered to be kept on file with portions incorporated into RAINBOW.

During the earlier part of the 20th Century, it was assumed by U.S. military planners that every major power had contingency plans for war against every other major power. Each major power was assigned a color. The British Empire was RED, Japan was ORANGE, etc. Joint Plan Red stated:

……….”the Chiefs of Staff of the three (British) fighting services may be assumed to have well considered war plans for the conduct of any probable war ready at any time to present to the Prime Minister.”

In May 1930, the U.S. Secretaries of War and of the Navy approved the “Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan – Red”. This war plan outlined the defense of an attack from and an invasion of….Canada. Actually, it outline the war plan in case of a war with the entire British Empire, but Canada featured prominently in it.

Minnesota would have been a side-show and only raids were anticipated there. The main thrust of any invasion of the U.S. from Canada, as envisioned by Plan - Red was expected to be Northeast of the Norfolk-Chicago line in order to attack the industrial center of the U.S. The main Canadian invasion was expected to drive down the Hudson. A sea invasion by the Royal Navy would secure Narraganset Bay as a base for a drive on Boston. Once captured, the port of Boston would support an invasion of the rest of the northeastern U.S.

Not to be outdone, the U.S. planned an attack of Quebec to secure the St. Lawrence River and thereby blunt the Canadian Hudson offensive.

The Brits, being sensible chaps, had no intention of going to war with the USA in the 20th Century and had no war plans for a USA vs British Empire scenario. In 1919, they informed the Canadians that they should not waste time with such military planning.

However, a certain Canadian officer by the name of Colonel J. Sutherland “Buster” Brown never trusted those damned Yanks. From 1920 to 1927, he served as a one man Canadian G-2, spied in upstate New York and wrote a 200 page “Defense Scheme No. 1” that outlined Canadian actions in case of war with the USA. It remained the official Canadian plan for war with the USA until rescinded in May 1931.

Although the Royal Navy outnumbered the U.S. Navy in the 1930’s in all major categories (Battleships: 20 to 18. Carriers: 6 to 3. Cruisers: 62 to 18. Submarines: 68 to 57.) the U.S. Navy sensibly focused on planning for an Orange war rather than a Red war but, occasionally, theoretical problems at the Naval War Collage did involve scenarios of war against the Royal Navy.

As WW II approached, it was realized that the future war that was brewing was going to be a global alliance war. In 1939, the U.S. Joint Board declared that Joint Plan RED was “wholly inapplicable” to the existing international situation and ordered that no further planning under it be done. The “single color” and “double color” war plans were replaced by a series of plans named RAINBOW.

Joint Plan RED, however, was not scrapped. It was ordered kept on file as part of RAINBOW as it contained useful elements for Atlantic defense against any major maritime power which could, in fact, have turned out later to be Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, depending on the then unknown outcome of World War II.

Joint Plan RED was declassified on 4 FEB 1974.

22 posted on 05/08/2002 7:24:33 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Snake65
The Royal Navy would have had something to say about it.

Excellent point. In any case, the "Great White Fleet" of American battleships would have put most of those German troop ships on the bottom of the Atlantic even if the Her Majesty's navy stood aside.

This episode was pretty well covered in the recent biography of TR, "Theodore Rex".

23 posted on 05/08/2002 7:29:19 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Koblenz
I wonder if China has similar plans? They could set off their prepositioned nukes just as the invasion was happening. You could cram lot of soldiers into the giant container and super tankers and who would know what was in them till they debarked at New York or Los Angeles? Also, they could come in through Mexico and Canada. How many of the Chinese students here aren't also reservists? I know it sounds crazy but crazier things have happened.
24 posted on 05/08/2002 7:29:20 AM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: katana
In any case, the "Great White Fleet" of American battleships would have put most of those German troop ships on the bottom of the Atlantic

No, the battleship forces were pretty well balanced; if anything, Germany would have had a slight edge; and many of the Great White Fleet ships had some design flaws, including a low "freeboard"...that is, the decks weren't high enough off the water. Serious problems if the fighting occured with high seas. Also, the fleet was not concentrated on the East Coast, but split between the Atlantic and Pacific. And no Panama Canal yet.

And I think the German's smaller quickfiring guns would have ended up being better than our slow-firing larger guns.

25 posted on 05/08/2002 7:35:32 AM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eternal_Bear
You could cram lot of soldiers into the giant container and super tankers and who would know what was in them till they debarked at New York or Los Angeles?

So how do you keep them supplied afterwards?

There's a lot more to an invasion than simply putting a bunch of guys on ships. Same reason an invasion of Taiwan would fail.

26 posted on 05/08/2002 7:37:43 AM PDT by John H K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
We seem to have been terribly worried, and took a number of precautions. The Gulf Coast barrier islands are dotted with the ruins of old concrete forts and gun emplacements, built around the trun of the century for fear of attack. The area around Pensacola, FL, is especially dense in forts and batteries. But then airplanes and submarines got better, and the whole coastal fort idea became largely obsolete.
27 posted on 05/08/2002 7:37:52 AM PDT by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
every well-run military establishment is always gaming scenarios against probable, possible and even unlikely enemies.

A few years ago I read about the British war plan against the US drawn up before WWI.
The main thrust was an amphibious landing near New Bedford and a northward trust to isolate Eastern New England and envelope Boston.

28 posted on 05/08/2002 7:40:20 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
Yeah, good point... I remember an old abandoned concrete and stone fort at Popham Beach, Maine, built around the turn of the century. I used to go up to the beach there and hang out, on summer weekends, when I was stationed at the NAS in Brunswick, Maine.

It's been quite a few years, but I recall reading some information plaque at the fort that spoke of it being built for defense purposes against coastal attack. This article puts it all in historical perspective.

(That old fort (and the beach nearby), by the way, was one of the most scenic spots I've ever visited anywhere in the country!)

29 posted on 05/08/2002 7:44:49 AM PDT by Washington-Husky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fogarty
So they assigned a LT to prepare the invasion plans of the United States? Either this is not correct, or we see why Wilhelm's 'empire' didn't get very far.

The way I read the article, the German brass handled this just right.

The Kaiser, with vision of overseas conquest, wants a plan to invade America. This is a ludicrous notion since the German High Seas Fleet is still trying to find a way to get a single German surface capital ship into the Atlantic as the Royal Navy has them bottled up in the North Sea. Any invasion of the U.S. would have meant a Jutland area victory against the Royal Navy, then an Atlantic victory against the U.S. Navy, then a victory against U.S. shore batterries, then a contested landing near a good port, then a land victory against an entire continent with 100,000 men and a 3,000 long logistics train.

Clearly, the Kaiser was in fantasy land. However, he was the Kaiser. What the Kaiser wants, the Kaiser gets and the Kaiser wanted a U.S. war plan.

So the brass called Lieutenant von Mantey and entrusted him with this great undertaking.

In Navy jargon, Lt. von Mantley was the SLJO.

SLJO = Sh*tty Little Jobs Officer.

The Kaiser was happy and the brass was happy that the Kaiser was happy. I have a feeling that Lt. von Mantley probably knew all along that he was an SLJO.

30 posted on 05/08/2002 7:48:34 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John H K
You make a great point, Britain was still in her "splendid isolation" mode and more wary of the other colonial powers (France in Africa and the Near East, Russia in the Far East and the subcontinent). After Wilhelm forced Bismark out in 1890 the Kaiser was pursuing dreams of Empire and a larger navy, which I think touched the Brits in their tender spot. A German adventure in the Atlantic such as the one described would have staked a claim to naval dominance in the North Atlantic, and the British Empire wouldn't have stood for it, IMO.

But I see your side.

31 posted on 05/08/2002 7:49:51 AM PDT by Snake65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John H K
In fact, there was a tense naval standoff between the Americans and Germans at Samoa for a few months. It was ended when a hurricane wrecked both the American and German fleets in mid-March 1889. After that, both sides agreed to a divided protectorate.
32 posted on 05/08/2002 7:52:40 AM PDT by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
All those cities had significant harbor defenses, some of which you can still visit today.
33 posted on 05/08/2002 7:53:34 AM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Washington-Husky
Yeah, good point... I remember an old abandoned concrete and stone fort at Popham Beach, Maine, built around the turn of the century. I used to go up to the beach there and hang out, on summer weekends, when I was stationed at the NAS in Brunswick, Maine. It's been quite a few years, but I recall reading some information plaque at the fort that spoke of it being built for defense purposes against coastal attack. This article puts it all in historical perspective.

If you want to see turn of the century coastal batterry fortification again, get on the Bainbridge ferry and drive to either Fort Flagler or Fort Wagner State Parks. "Officer and a Gentleman" was filmed at Fort Warden State Park. The concrete fortifications they ran around on were turn of the century shore batteries.

34 posted on 05/08/2002 7:54:43 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Yes, good point... I overlooked the fact that we had similar coastal batteries built right here in my own state of Washington, though I wasn't sure of the date that these were built.

I had originally thought that these were built somewhat later, around the First World War, but I see now they were built earlier than that (and now I see the historical perspective, too).

35 posted on 05/08/2002 8:01:55 AM PDT by Washington-Husky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
...their Hessian allies held New York City for the entire war after that and did not leave until 1783.

Some never left at all, but having secured the animosity of the Yankee patriots after the war (two Hessian soldiers came to a violent and ignoble end in the old inn in which I was raised), chose to settle in the bony hills between the Hudson and the Housatonic. After a few generations of inbreeding, these outcast families came to be known as the "raggies". Some of these genetically enfeebled descendents were still living the hillbilly porch life as recently as the 1970s.

36 posted on 05/08/2002 8:04:02 AM PDT by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cleburne
There are the remains of coastal batteries on both ends of the Verrazzano Bridge entering New York Harbor. I remember the name of the Brooklyn fortification, Fort Hamilton, as I have occasionally visited the exchange there. I forget the name of the Staten Island fort. There are also the remains of a battery on Governor's Island in the harbor.
37 posted on 05/08/2002 8:12:08 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
The state of those harbor defenses in the 1890's was not so great. Lots of left over civil war artillery. The modern coastal defenses were not really in place unitl after the Spanish American War. Most of the installations you'll see were either built before 1865 or between 1895 and 1945.
38 posted on 05/08/2002 8:15:04 AM PDT by CatoRenasci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Remember what Humphrey Bogart said in Casablanca about the Germans invading NY.
39 posted on 05/08/2002 8:17:30 AM PDT by longfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Good post, you know your stuff.
40 posted on 05/08/2002 8:28:44 AM PDT by Former Proud Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson