15 ms·
It was a paradigm shift. This recent video by RealLifeLore drives it home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
by tantalor 2y ago
It was a paradigm shift.
This recent video by RealLifeLore drives it home:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=550EdfxN868&t=1504s
the last time in history that Sovereign American territory was invaded and occupied by a
hostile foreign power was between 1942 and 1943 when the Japanese occupied the
small and sparsely populated Alaskan islands of ATU and Kisa which they struggled to reinforce with supplies and
were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers
Up until 9/11, the US people had forgotten what it was like to be on defense.
Later in the video: https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706 https://youtu.be/550EdfxN868?si=gpTplY4Z36tJPxLv&t=2706
that doesn't mean that the US cannot be hurt or have its interests disrupted in other ways the US Mainland
can obviously still become the subject of major attacks from hostile foreign powers if not outright invasions and the
biggest and worst attack that ever befell the US on its own territory happened recently only 23 years ago
- hughdbrown 2y ago> were only able to hold on to for a year before getting overrun by much better supplied American and Canadian soldiers Not especially accurate. The US and Canadian forces that landed on Kiska had no opposition because the Japanese had already left. They did not overrun Japanese forces that were not there. Wikipedia describes this as: "On 15 August 1943, 1st SSF was part of the invasion force of the island of Kiska, but after discovering that the island had been recently evacuated by Japanese forces, it re-embarked ..." And yet, there were still friendly fire casualties, a point omitted from many descriptions of the invasion.