Quote:
|
NO NATION HAS THE ECONOMIC CAPABILITY OF SUSTAINING A WORLD-WIDE OCCUPATION. No population would work under the taxes to fund such a "machine".
|
Well it would have to be federalized, but given some restrictions, it could economically be done I think, or at least I don't see why not. The real problem would be culture. Culture is the glue that holds nations together and while you may militarily occupy a country, that doesn't
really make that country German in the long-run. That's why undermanned and underarmed insurgencies can have any impact. The Germans would have needed to exterminate most of the world and start producing lots of babies. It would have been hell on earth and probably not worth it to the Germans either.
Quote:
|
To say that the Romans ruled the world is false and it never really happened that way
|
Well, the Romans are overrated (only 5.9 million km^2), though they had a much larger and lasting empire than Germany did (3.6 million km^2 during WWII), heh. Kublai Khan had the largest empire in Medieval times (33.2 million km^2), the Persians under Darius were number 1 in ancient times (7.5 million km^2), and the British did best of all in modern times (36.6 million km^2). My point is that both Germany and Rome fell far shorter than others.
Quote:
|
See my above posts. Yes, they did want to dominate the world, but they never could have done so. The "brilliant" Nazis weren't even able to manufacture a single aircraft carrier and they weren't even fully mechanized. Even if the U.S. had never entered the war, they would have eventually collapsed and could have never taken Russia.
|
I was stating their goal, not its feasibility, to indicate that the Swiss were not actually immune, just not a priority.