Need some help here, guys.

[fbWldcat]

Okay, me and an old teacher of mine got into a minor argument today. SHE said that the US homefront was different than the homefronts of Germany, Britain, France and Russia (Outbreak of WWII) because the US had no chance of being invaded. In contrast, I said that the US had a LEGITIMATE chance of being invaded or at least attacked. She said I was crazy. I said that Japan had intent to bring the fight to America, as well as capture the Pacific Islands. Several Japanese ships drew near the US Pacific Coast. My other bit of reasoning was that Germany sent a prototype bomber towards America and got within 12 miles of New York (Junkers Ju 290) before returning to France.

My question is, who is right?
I think my argument is valid, and if anyone can come up with a source such as a site that I could use to shoot down her theory, it would be much appreciated. I told her SPECIFIC examples and she still called bull.  I just want the community's help with this, as I will apparently need all the resources possible to fix this. 

Thanks in advance.

[dedalos]

You really cant tell the difference between an army just walking across the border and having to cross 3000 or 4000 miles of water with their troops and supplies?  The distances they would have to cross to invade the US are bigger than the territory they occupied in Europe 

[Vulcan]

iirc the US was invaded, some of the pacific islands and those ones up near alaska?

[Dichotomy]

I was thinking that some of the Aleutians were US territory so, in a sense, we were invaded. 

[Melvin]

That's gonna be a tough sell.

The Japanese invaded some islands in the Aluetians.(Sp?)

German subs were all over the east coast and Gulf of Mexico.

Some German saboteurs were actually landed on the mainland, but did little (if any) damage.

Let's not forget the Japanese balloons on the west coast and Pearl Harbor.

I mean sure, we had some skirmishes in our area, but compared to what happened in the rest of the conflict zones, it isn't really much to speak of.

[Shuffler]

Alaska was not part of the US back then

German U boats did come into territorial waters of the US. At least one was even sunk in the Gulf Of Mexico.

Impossible??? no..... Improbable??? yes.


Only the Mythbusters know for sure.

[Melvin]

Alaska was purchased from Russia in 1867.

[greens]

my great gramps bro served in the aleutians when they was invaded and occupied by the japanese. somewhere u can find out about it. tell ur teacher that american soil was invaded twice but got inhabited once, only because it was a unhabited island with only a few eskimos to defend it, thats why they got hold of it. 

not a cedible source but thats the word in our family.


<S> greens

[Vudak]

I have to side with your teacher as well...  Even if the entire U.S. Navy were destroyed, it would still be a logistical nightmare to launch an invasion large enough to be effective, and especially to supply that invasion force TODAY, let alone in the 1940s.

You know, it's not like a video game...  You can't just capture a city square and move on to the next one without a massive logistical effort.

[Lusche]

My other bit of reasoning was that Germany sent a prototype bomber towards America and got within 12 miles of New York (Junkers Ju 290) before returning to France.

Even if that flight had not been a myth (which it actually is), a single prototype maritme recon plane isn't exactly heralding a German invasion... particularly in '44

Both Japan as well as Germany at no point had any capability of pulling off an invasion of the US mainland.

[fbWldcat]

I'm not trying to say that the US was going to be invaded. I was saying that attempts were made to prove that aircraft and troops could be sent and maybe attack the general population or bomb a major city such as New York. Invasion? I don't think it is all that likely, but I was trying more for bombing and attack. I don't even know if I actually said invasion... It was a heated argument.

[Vudak]

Regardless, your teacher is no doubt trying to make the point that New York and London had completely different atmospheres during the war.  There is no comparing the two.

[fbWldcat]

Regardless, your teacher is no doubt trying to make the point that New York and London had completely different atmospheres during the war.  There is no comparing the two.

Yes, but her saying that the US mainland had NO possibility of attack was a little weird to me.

[Melvin]

Check this out. It's a stretch, but it's the best hope you have of winning.  

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/aleutians/html/aleutians-wwii.htm

[Lusche]

I'm not trying to say that the US was going to be invaded. I was saying that attempts were made to prove that aircraft and troops could be sent and maybe attack the general population or bomb a major city such as New York. Invasion? I don't think it is all that likely, but I was trying more for bombing and attack. I don't even know if I actually said invasion... It was a heated argument.

According to your initial post teh starting point of that argument was how the homefronts of the other combatants differed from the US one. And yes, facing full scale invasion or massive bombardments is something entirely different than a giant country having to expect nothing more than a few shells fired from uboats, a couple of infiltrating agents or at most a few very desperate suicide (end extremely unlikely) plane attacks