Imperial Germany's turn-of-the-century plan to invade the United States
The German army at the time was a formidable force, one that had adopted industrialization early on. To compete with the power of the British, the German Imperial Army maintained a peacetime force of nearly half a million troops. Since the empire also implemented universal conscription policies, it could muster up to two million soldiers if it wanted to, more than enough to challenge American forces on land.
Meanwhile, the U.S. was far behind, but Germany recognized its martial potential. The Americans had just reinvigorated their Navy and sailed the Great White Fleet around the world, but they maintained fewer than 99,000 active duty troops in the Army and fewer than 10,000 Marines. After all, the United States was more concerned with fighting Native tribes in the West. The Germans had a low opinion of the U.S. Army anyway, believing it was well-fed but lacked discipline. They had an even lower opinion of the Navy, questioning whether the country's democratic ideals affected its military discipline.
The German Empire had only become a unified country in 1871, but soon boasted the world's strongest army, a navy that rivaled Britain's, and the third-largest colonial empire. When that empire came too close to the burgeoning overseas possessions acquired by the U.S. during the Spanish-American War, the German General Staff set to work on a plan to invade and possibly even conquer the United States. At the very least, it believed it could capture American possessions in the Caribbean.
Operation Plan I
The German attack plan was developed in three phases. Toward the end of the 19th century, Germany was ramping up its shipbuilding in an effort to compete with Britain's mighty Royal Navy, so the original planners had naval warfare on their minds. The brilliantly named Operation Plan I called for the German fleet to draw the U.S. Navy's Atlantic Fleet into a decisive battle at sea.
Once the American ships were defeated, the Germans would shell American shipbuilding centers (calling it 'the Heart of America') at Norfolk, Newport News, Portsmouth, and Hampton Roads with the goal of occupying all of them. After devastating their shipbuilding capabilities, the victorious German Navy would blockade the East Coast and negotiate an end to the war. Unfortunately for the Germans, they lacked the necessary number of vessels for this plan, so the general staff had to go back to the drawing board.
Operation Plan II
The next iteration of the plan came at a time when German sea power completely outmatched that of the Americans. This time, the plan involved more than just naval tactics; they also planned for German troops to land in the United States and capture its most important cities. After the prerequisite decisive naval battle outlined in Plan I, a German armada of 60 ships would land 100,000 troops and a large number of artillery in a two-pronged attack on the Eastern Seaboard.
The first prong was to land at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and lay siege to the city of Boston with the artillery. The second prong was more of a fast-paced, shock strategy (what might even be considered a precursor to the Germans' 'blitzkrieg' strategy to come). Imperial ships would fire on New York's harbor fortifications, Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn, and Fort Tompkinson on Staten Island. Once they were taken out, the fleet would proceed to shell Manhattan. Concurrently, German troops would land at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and march on the city.
German Gen. Alfred von Schlieffen, who would later concoct the empire's plan to invade Belgium during World War I, drawing both France and Russia into the war, designed the strategy. He was confident they could capture Boston, but believed New York, with its population of millions, could not be held with just 100,000 troops. Again, the goal is to force a negotiated end and a foothold in North America.
Operation Plan III
In 1903, the invasion plan was reworked because German agents had actually visited Cape Cod and found it to be less than ideal for an invasion. Instead, the planners decided they could land at Provincetown, Massachusetts and at Cape Ann. Once landed, the Germans could sweep into Boston using a pincer movement. In New York, the landing areas considered included Long Island and Brooklyn. The Germans also believed that holding Caribbean bases for naval operations would be necessary to threaten the Panama Canal.
Ultimately, nothing came of the invasion plans. Nothing stays secret for long, and the Americans eventually got wind of the threat the German Empire posed. The United States began adding ships to its naval fleet as European rivals began threatening German interests at home and abroad. Suddenly, the Kaiser couldn't spare the troops or ships necessary for an American adventure.
Although the Germans were America's number one enemy for much of the first half of the 20th century, the United States never really considered a German invasion to be a credible threat.
History
History
Imperial Germany's turn-of-the-century plan to invade the United States
By Blake Stilwell
History
Naval officer and Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell dies at 97 Naval officer and Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell dies at 97
By Miguel Ortiz
History
The Gee Bee Racers of the early 1930s created winners and widows The Gee Bee Racers of the early 1930s created winners and widows
By Friedrich Seiltgen
Desert Storm
Desert Shield at 35: Why the Gulf War Still Matters Desert Shield at 35: Why the Gulf War Still Matters
By Robert Billard
History
The world's first jump jet: How we got the legendary Harrier II The world's first jump jet: How we got the legendary Harrier II
By Friedrich Seiltgen
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams donates €100k BBC libel payout to 'good causes'
GERRY Adams has said he has made donations to 'good causes' after the BBC paid the former president 100,000 euro (£84,000) in defamation damages. The broadcaster lost a defamation case earlier this year after Adams took them to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme and an accompanying online story. It contained an allegation that Adams sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson. READ MORE: UK Government backs down on demand to access US Apple user data, spy chief claims Adams denied any involvement. In May, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euro (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. Johnsons Solicitors, which represented Adams in his action, confirmed that the BBC has discharged the order of the court in relation to the compensation to their client. Adams said he intended to donate any damages awarded to good causes. READ MORE: Netanyahu 'primarily responsible' for October 7 attack, Israeli genocide scholar says The law firm said donations have been made to 'Unicef for the children of Gaza', local Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) organisations, a support group for republican prisoners and their families called An Cumman Cabhrach, to the Irish language sector, to the 'homeless and Belfast based-youth, mental health and suicide prevention projects', and others. The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith, nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Fein leader's legal costs, potentially in the order of millions. However, it is understood that the final costs have yet to be determined.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Just 35 complaints of debanking cite political bias despite Trump order
By Ross Kerber (Reuters) -Less than one percent of customers who filed detailed complaints about checking or savings account closures with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the last 13 years accused banks of acting for political or religious reasons, even as the White House mounts a campaign to stamp out "systemic abuses" in the financial system that it says have wronged conservatives, a review of the agency's data shows. U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this month signed an executive order requiring banks not to discriminate against clients on political or religious grounds, a practice known as debanking, after citing what Trump called discrimination against conservatives. The White House said the order was targeting "systemic abuses by financial institutions that undermine free expression and economic opportunity." But few customers who have been denied access to banking products cite their political affiliation as a chief concern. Out of the 8,361 detailed complaints about closed bank accounts filed with the CFPB since the agency began taking them in 2012, only 35 include the terms 'politics,' 'religion,' 'conservative' or "Christian," a review by Reuters shows. "It's not a real issue. 'Debanking' is an excuse for political attacks," said Amanda Jackson, a director for Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive-leaning groups. The group and others say a bigger problem is making sure U.S. banks provide services to poorer consumers. Financial institutions have tried to balance fair access with steps to combat a wave of fraud, and say they have not cut customers over their political views. Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, whose leader Russell Vought is also CFPB's acting director, did not directly address questions about the small number of complaints. She repeated claims that members of the Trump family and others have been cut off from banking services on the basis of political or religious beliefs. The actions, Cauley said, amount to "an Orwellian censorship tactic that is antithetical to the American way of life. The Trump Administration believes access to the financial system is a fundamental right for all Americans." The CFPB data does not identify filers. While none of the 35 complaints provided proof that their accounts were closed for political or religious reasons, filers said they suspected that was the case. "I believe this is discriminatory actions based on race, religion and/or political views," according to a 2023 complaint filed against JPMorgan over account closures. A JPMorgan representative, Lauren Bianchi, said via email that "We do not close accounts for political or religious reasons, full stop." The bank supports a national prohibition on account closures for political or religious reasons, and for regulators to allow more transparency in those cases, she said. Brian Knight, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which calls itself a Christian law firm and is supportive of Trump's executive order, said the small number of complaints citing politics or religion could reflect that banks are not required to disclose much detail to consumers they drop. "There's no information-sharing mechanisms" short of litigation to force banks to be more open about their thinking, Knight said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Just 35 complaints of debanking cite political bias despite Trump order
By Ross Kerber (Reuters) -Less than one percent of customers who filed detailed complaints about checking or savings account closures with the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over the last 13 years accused banks of acting for political or religious reasons, even as the White House mounts a campaign to stamp out "systemic abuses" in the financial system that it says have wronged conservatives, a review of the agency's data shows. U.S. President Donald Trump earlier this month signed an executive order requiring banks not to discriminate against clients on political or religious grounds, a practice known as debanking, after citing what Trump called discrimination against conservatives. The White House said the order was targeting "systemic abuses by financial institutions that undermine free expression and economic opportunity." But few customers who have been denied access to banking products cite their political affiliation as a chief concern. Out of the 8,361 detailed complaints about closed bank accounts filed with the CFPB since the agency began taking them in 2012, only 35 include the terms 'politics,' 'religion,' 'conservative' or "Christian," a review by Reuters shows. "It's not a real issue. 'Debanking' is an excuse for political attacks," said Amanda Jackson, a director for Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of progressive-leaning groups. The group and others say a bigger problem is making sure U.S. banks provide services to poorer consumers. Financial institutions have tried to balance fair access with steps to combat a wave of fraud, and say they have not cut customers over their political views. Rachel Cauley, communications director for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, whose leader Russell Vought is also CFPB's acting director, did not directly address questions about the small number of complaints. She repeated claims that members of the Trump family and others have been cut off from banking services on the basis of political or religious beliefs. The actions, Cauley said, amount to "an Orwellian censorship tactic that is antithetical to the American way of life. The Trump Administration believes access to the financial system is a fundamental right for all Americans." The CFPB data does not identify filers. While none of the 35 complaints provided proof that their accounts were closed for political or religious reasons, filers said they suspected that was the case. "I believe this is discriminatory actions based on race, religion and/or political views," according to a 2023 complaint filed against JPMorgan over account closures. A JPMorgan representative, Lauren Bianchi, said via email that "We do not close accounts for political or religious reasons, full stop." The bank supports a national prohibition on account closures for political or religious reasons, and for regulators to allow more transparency in those cases, she said. Brian Knight, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which calls itself a Christian law firm and is supportive of Trump's executive order, said the small number of complaints citing politics or religion could reflect that banks are not required to disclose much detail to consumers they drop. "There's no information-sharing mechanisms" short of litigation to force banks to be more open about their thinking, Knight said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data