Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon Jun
I have to disagree. Aside from the US, the Soviet Union also proved it had a similar potential industrial capability as the US. The Soviet Union was able to produce in quantity most of the stuff their military needed, despite the hardship of having to move their industries eastward and undergoing the rigors of an invasion.
The US had the fortunate position of being a major combatant nation that did not have its mainland directly invaded or experiencing a series of major attacks.
As for viewing the economic base as more important as the population base, I beg to disagree again. It's been historically proven in general that these two are so intertwined that one can't say that one base is more important than the other. Speaking in general, if a nation with a low population base but a high industrial base suffers heavy casualties, it is inevitable for that nation to eat into its labor manpower pool.
This would inevitably lead to adverse effects on industry. When I say casualties, I combine both military and civilian. The ideal would be a large population base and strong economic base. Having both would be an advantage during times of war. Such a nation would be able to endure losses better and replace them. (Think of the situation of the Soviet Union).
|
Absolutely correct, Australia's workforce during the war was something like approx 3 million with the rest being the aged and children, take into account during the war Australia's total contribution to the armed services and militias came to 700,000 10% of the population and we were stretched to breaking point. While America was never stretched to breaking point, it never faced invasion, being bombed from the air, it did not have 10%+ of its population in the Military but if it did it still could cope with its tens of millions in the workforce. The United States could never have done what it did with the population of Australia.