Come on... the United States devoted at least
forty percent of its GDP to the military during WWII. Compare that to something like 4.5% or perhaps 5% now.
Frankly I don't know why I got involved in this thread. A direct comparison is totally impossible since the US military, and indeed all first-world militaries, are more capital-intensive for the same mission now than they were 50 years ago. (Would Operation Overlord even be possible now?) Add to that the calculating difficulties with inflation and it's a curiously impossible exercise. It's like analysing Hamlet, except without the linguistic splendour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut
I partially agree.
Al Queda and various terrorist organization are not any less deadly a than Nazi soldiers or IJA soldiers. The difference is we are so much more superior in technology that we made them appear to be less deadly. I bet if we fought them with WW2 technologies then this would be a totally different fight.
|
I was not referring to just their pysches, obviously. They're probably even more motivated than the Germans (especially the international pan-European and young boy/old man hodepodge of soldiers towards the end of the war) and just as motivated as the Japanese. However, as a fighting force they obviously do not stack up and people who do compare them to the Nazis and Imperial Japan, accusing Democrats of being Neville Chamberlains, are really exaggerating for dishonest purposes of smearing.