Let's look at actualities instead of fantasies about how Germany could be a threat to the US. Germany was engaged against England and Russia. They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41. By 42 they did not have the strength to continue the assault along the entire front so they held in the north and center while pushing only in the south. Germany was way over extended and in a death struggle in Russia. Invading the US was not a consideration or even possible even if they had the inclination.
Developing the technology for long range planes is not the same as having fleets of them. As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
As for atomic weapons and rockets and supposing Germany had conquered Europe one still has to be realistic. What is the difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union? We deterred Russia so why not Germany?
Actually, that's the wrong way to do it. The author is advocating abolishing a standing military looking forward, so we have to consider not only what did happen in the past, but what might happen in the future. And in looking at those "might" scenarios, a little bit of historical tweaking and "what ifs" show what might be possible in the future.
They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41.
They couldn't finish the job in '41 because they wasted six weeks in Czechoslovakia, which shortened the summer campaign season by the same period. Give the Wehrmacht six more weeks of summer in '41, and Moscow falls.
As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
If successful in Europe, Germany would have had the shipbuilding resources of an entire continent. And instead of England, it would use Canada as the staging point. Which is far more convenient relative to an invasion of the U.S. than Britain was for an invasion of Europe.
The truth is that Hitler was too big an idiot to ever have pulled it off. But someone who is more savvy, who would try to work with people they have conquered, could have created a much larger military and been a much bigger military threat.
We represent only 5% or so of the world's population. To think that we could stand alone, without a standing military, is laughable.
Your first mistake. They went into Russia with something like 200 or 300 divisions. They went in too late in the year, and they took a wrong turn (toward the oil fields) instead of driving on to Moscow. Plus which, they decided to abuse the Ukrainians, instead of treating them as allies, which the Ukrainians were willing to be.
Whether Germany could have held Russia is an open question -- the Russian partisans were very effective -- but they could have and should have defeated the Russians in '41.
Also -- had Germany done the smart thing in North Africa, and had Germany taken Malta, the entire Allied Mediterranean campaign would have been impossible. Germany would have gotten to the Middle Eastern oil, probably have linked up with the Japanese, and so on.
Actually, that's the wrong way to do it. The author is advocating abolishing a standing military looking forward, so we have to consider not only what did happen in the past, but what might happen in the future. And in looking at those "might" scenarios, a little bit of historical tweaking and "what ifs" show what might be possible in the future.
They were under strength when they went into the Soviet Union in the first place. Because of this weakness they could not finish the job in 41.
They couldn't finish the job in '41 because they wasted six weeks in Czechoslovakia, which shortened the summer campaign season by the same period. Give the Wehrmacht six more weeks of summer in '41, and Moscow falls.
As far as cross Atlantic invasions go we were in a much stronger position in 44 but still we could not have pulled it off if we didn't have the land mass called England as a huge base and supply depot. Germany would have had no such advantage.
If successful in Europe, Germany would have had the shipbuilding resources of an entire continent. And instead of England, it would use Canada as the staging point. Which is far more convenient relative to an invasion of the U.S. than Britain was for an invasion of Europe.
The truth is that Hitler was too big an idiot to ever have pulled it off. But someone who is more savvy, who would try to work with people they have conquered, could have created a much larger military and been a much bigger military threat.
I might agree with the author that a policy of isolationism may have been prefereable if we'd followed it consistently since the 1800's. But we haven't. Adopting such a policy now, when then clearly are large numbers of extremists who really don't like us, and when Europe looks like it is slowly circling the drain, is dangerous.
We represent only 5% or so of the world's population. To think that we could stand alone, without a standing military, is laughable.