OK, now you are changing the situation a bit. You should have posted this information along with your first proposition. It's an open question whether Stalin and Hitler could have remained allies for any length of time. I'm not totally convinced by the argument on either side, but I tend to lean to the belief that they could not. In any case, I'm firmly convinced that the Soviets would not be anywhere near as much help to Germany as most people believe. As for Germany overwhelming Britain, even with the Soviet's help, that's not going to happen. Germany needed to actually invade Britain in order to overwhelm it. That was an impossibility as long as The RN outmatched the German Navy as badly as it did. It would take three to four (peacetime) years, at the very least, for the Germans to build enough specialized ships for an invasion of Britain to be successful. By that time, the US would be involved in the war and Germany is back to square one. Then you talk about US "war weariness", and the "country" (the US I assume) being nearly "bankrupt". The US was far from bankruptcy in 1945. In fact, it was alone among belligerent nations in having an economy in which consumer spending actually rose during the war. Taxes were high, but far from unbearable, and don't forget, the US, immediately after the war was able to spend billions on the Marshall Plan and ship millions of dollars worth of food to Japan to avert a famine in 1946, as well as give aid to other countries. Bankrupt, or nearly bankrupt, nations don't do these things. War weariness, there was, but it was nothing like the "war weariness" of later times and had different causes. An opinion poll taken in early 1945 revealed that better than four-fifths of the public favored continuing the war against Japan until unconditional surrender was achieved, no matter what the cost. I think you are being too simplistic and assuming way too much as to what causes "war weariness" and a breakdown of civilian morale in war situations. No one was "very proficient in guided missile technology" during WW II, let alone Germany. The V-1 and V-2 missiles were unguided, and as such were practically useless as weapons for bombarding militarily useful targets. The Germans did have a scheme to build large submersible canisters in which V-2's could be towed by subs to the East Coast of the US and launched against area targets. But they could hardly have produced enough such missiles to do much damage, and the damage would only have affected the immediate coastline, would have been random in nature, probably hitting far more empty fields and swamps than cities, and would have been extremely costly to Germany. Developing subs which could launch multiple missiles was beyond the capability of German shipbuilding yards at the time In order to effectively bomb American cities on the East Coast, Germany would have had to develop huge fleets of very long range manned bombers with far better performance than even the B-29. Something like the B-36 would have been necessary, and in great numbers, to deliver conventional bombs. This fleet would have been so costly to build and operate that Germany would have had to forgo her large Army, and any sort of navy. In the period 1940-45, the economics just weren't in favor of Germany doing anything of the sort. And even if they had been, only the extreme east coast cities would have been in range; the interior of the US still would have supported war industries to produce weapons and equipment to counter any German attacks. It just wouldn't have worked out for Germany; there was no chance that Germany could significantly damage the US East Coast, or anywhere else in the Continental US.. Again, you are exaggerating the "war weariness" of the American Public. Yes, it wanted the war to end and soon, but it also wanted victory, and was willing to pay the cost. Pearl Harbor enraged and united the American public because it was a treacherous sneak attack in time of peace, which killed many Americans, not because of the damage done, or whether it was to private of government property. Furthermore, you are assuming that the Axis could inflict severe damage on American cities. This was never the case. At best, even assuming Germany was not engaged in a war with the Soviet Union, Germany could mount nuisance raids against US territory which could in no way repay the cost of launching them. Germany might enjoy some propaganda triumphs with the first few, but coud not sustain a military campaign with any reasonable expectation of gaining more than it lost. In comparing the current anti-war feeling in the US with any supposed reaction to military attacks on the US in WW II, you are comparing apples and oranges. The current attitude is based on a feeling that certain military initiatives the US government has taken are not in the country's best interests; That was not the case in 1941-45. You have to make distinctions as to the reasons for public opinions, which you are not doing. Bringing the American Civil War into the discussion is entirely inappropriate. Civil wars, are, by their very nature, complex and unlike wars between countries. The motivations, public and private, for engaging in a civil war are quite different, and the dynamics of public opinion also very different. Just as comparing public opinion about undeclared wars in foreign countries is deceptive, so is comparing public opinion about an internal war versus an external war misleading. I think your discussion was superficial and far too simplistic. You need to also study the differences between current situation and historical events, not just the parallels. And take a good look at the realities of economics, both in the US and Germany.