4 ms·

US Steel has, of all things, a massive steel mill compound in the Utah desert near Provo. It was built there during WWII to have steel fabrication closer to sh

US Steel has, of all things, a massive steel mill compound in the Utah desert near Provo. It was built there during WWII to have steel fabrication closer to ship building on the West coast. The other reason it is there is that the contingency plan for a Nazi landing and invasion of the East Coast was to retreat behind the Rocky Mountains.

dylan604 8y ago
>The other reason it is there is that the contingency plan for a Nazi landing and invasion of the East Coast was to retreat behind the Rocky Mountains. That's the first time I've heard of that plan. Would love to read more about that if you have any resources for it. A quick cursory search online wasn't too successful. Retreating behind the Rockies would leave a huge amount of space and resources available, and presumably the majority of the citizens. Would places like steel mills or other industrial facilities be sabotaged so they could not be used by the opposition?
- Bucephalus355 8y ago
  That factoid is from this book: The Corporation : A Centennial Biography of United States Steel Corporation, 1901-2001 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1887969128/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1887969128/ To answer your other question, there were plans in place to evacuate most of the capital via rail behind the Rockies as well. The Soviets did this tactic for real during the German invasion and were quite successful at it.
  - dylan604 8y ago
    Thanks for the link. I find these mostly untaught tidbits of what the US did domestically during the war very interesting. War bonds, rationing, scrap metal drives etc. The contrast with today's "war effort" is mind boggling. Current "war efforts" include tax cuts. It's so 1984ish to me. We've always been at war with...
    - mikeash 8y ago
      To have a real “war effort,” in a democracy you need a population that strongly supports the war. Otherwise you get voted out and replaced with leaders who will seek peace. You’d hope the outcome would be that unpopular wars are avoided, but it seems that the real outcome is only that big ones are. Our leaders have discovered that small wars that don’t require major sacrifices from the general population can be highly unpopular and it just doesn’t matter.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        At least small wars kill a lot fewer people than big wars. You might even call it progress.
        mikeash 8y ago
        That is true. And it’s not like small wars that didn’t require major sacrifices from the general population weren’t a thing before.
beginningguava 8y ago
The idea of anyone invading the east coast is hilarious, Appalachia would make Afghanistan look like an amusement park in comparison.
- tomcam 8y ago
  Never heard that perspective before. It resonates powerfully.
captainperl 8y ago
To go into detail why Germany couldn't invade or even annoy the US mainland in WW2, they didn't have a credible navy and never had a strategic bomber fleet. Hitler started WW2 5 years before the German navy was built-up, and most of their aviation was for close air support. Even the English Channel ended up being too much. In summary, both Germany and Japan declared war on a country they couldn't invade, the USA - how futile is that?
- WalterBright 8y ago
  Neither had the means to get an army to the US mainland, either, nor supply it. The logistical support needed for the D-Day invasion was incredible.
  - FiveSquared 8y ago
    Imagine today.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  The Japanese knew that they would lose in a war with the US but the military leadership considered a war inevitable. Pearl Harbor was their "Hail Mary". The civilian leadership (Konoe et al) tried to negotiate an alliance of some kind with the US as late as autumn 1941. "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." – Yamamoto, head of the Japanese Navy, and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack

dylan604 8y ago

>The other reason it is there is that the contingency plan for a Nazi landing and invasion of the East Coast was to retreat behind the Rocky Mountains. That's the first time I've heard of that plan. Would love to read more about that if you have any resources for it. A quick cursory search online wasn't too successful. Retreating behind the Rockies would leave a huge amount of space and resources available, and presumably the majority of the citizens. Would places like steel mills or other industrial facilities be sabotaged so they could not be used by the opposition?

Bucephalus355 8y ago
That factoid is from this book: The Corporation : A Centennial Biography of United States Steel Corporation, 1901-2001 https://www.amazon.com/dp/1887969128/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1887969128/ To answer your other question, there were plans in place to evacuate most of the capital via rail behind the Rockies as well. The Soviets did this tactic for real during the German invasion and were quite successful at it.
- dylan604 8y ago
  Thanks for the link. I find these mostly untaught tidbits of what the US did domestically during the war very interesting. War bonds, rationing, scrap metal drives etc. The contrast with today's "war effort" is mind boggling. Current "war efforts" include tax cuts. It's so 1984ish to me. We've always been at war with...
  - mikeash 8y ago
    To have a real “war effort,” in a democracy you need a population that strongly supports the war. Otherwise you get voted out and replaced with leaders who will seek peace. You’d hope the outcome would be that unpopular wars are avoided, but it seems that the real outcome is only that big ones are. Our leaders have discovered that small wars that don’t require major sacrifices from the general population can be highly unpopular and it just doesn’t matter.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      At least small wars kill a lot fewer people than big wars. You might even call it progress.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        That is true. And it’s not like small wars that didn’t require major sacrifices from the general population weren’t a thing before.

beginningguava 8y ago

The idea of anyone invading the east coast is hilarious, Appalachia would make Afghanistan look like an amusement park in comparison.

tomcam 8y ago
Never heard that perspective before. It resonates powerfully.

captainperl 8y ago

To go into detail why Germany couldn't invade or even annoy the US mainland in WW2, they didn't have a credible navy and never had a strategic bomber fleet. Hitler started WW2 5 years before the German navy was built-up, and most of their aviation was for close air support. Even the English Channel ended up being too much. In summary, both Germany and Japan declared war on a country they couldn't invade, the USA - how futile is that?

WalterBright 8y ago
Neither had the means to get an army to the US mainland, either, nor supply it. The logistical support needed for the D-Day invasion was incredible.
- FiveSquared 8y ago
  Imagine today.
rangibaby 8y ago
The Japanese knew that they would lose in a war with the US but the military leadership considered a war inevitable. Pearl Harbor was their "Hail Mary". The civilian leadership (Konoe et al) tried to negotiate an alliance of some kind with the US as late as autumn 1941. "In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success." – Yamamoto, head of the Japanese Navy, and architect of the Pearl Harbor attack