|
|
|
|
|
by yosefk
2965 days ago
|
|
What's the difference between France (lost quickly in WWII), Britain (barely evaded invasion), and the US (not invaded, economy grew during the war)? Is it democracy, free markets, or accessibility to German tanks and war planes that is the likely reason for the difference? 8 out of 10 Germans losses were inflicted by the Soviet Army; the USSR didn't rank high on democracy or market freedom but it had no choice but fight Germany, whereas the US could afford to choose the extent of engagement and let the USSR (and Britain) bleed while inflicting losses on Germany. This is not to say that the US policy wasn't sensible for the US, just that WWII is not a clear testament to the latent strengths of democracies and free markets at waging war. And on the point of democracy specifically, in "The Gathering Storm," Churchill nearly pins the breakout of WWII on the inherent difficulty of conducting sensible foreign policy under democracy (both in the case of the badly designed peace treaties at the end of WWI, and in the case of subsequent appeasement of Nazi Germany.) I wouldn't want to live where they don't have democracy or a reasonably free market, but neither is a reliable device to either prevent or win a world war. |
|
A lot of it is location, to be honest. Invading the U.S. was nowhere near as easy as invading France, Poland, etc. for Germany (or Japan, for that matter).
I think the closest we got to invasion during the war (outside Pearl Harbor) were some isolated submarines off the coast of Oregon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Fort_Stevens