Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf]
by ArkyBeagle on Friday September 09, 2016 @08:09PM
(#12466938)
There was a vastly reduced military in the interwar period. Not literally "no military". This goes back to the American Revolution. Not having a standing army was really of key importance in the US from the Founding.
I would have thought the reference to Eisenhower's bio. would be enough to show that there was some army.
The Navy varied dependent on who was in charge.
Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf]
by dragonwriter on Friday September 09, 2016 @08:16PM
(#12466977)
> There was a vastly reduced military in the interwar period.
Sure, but its not even approximately the same as no military (and its much more true of the Army than the Navy, except, IIRC, for two periods -- from the end of the revolution to 1794 when there was little (and, from 1785, no) Navy, and about a decade somewhere around 1870-1880 when there was a very small Navy.
From just before the turn of the 20th Century onward, the US at no point didn't have a world class Navy.
Re:An Analysis of Motivations for Income Redistribution [pdf]
by ArkyBeagle on Friday September 09, 2016 @08:26PM
(#12467008)
Agreed. "A moat the size of two oceans" and all that. Thanks for clarifying things.
No, it wasn't. A minimal peacetime army and, for most of its history, a substantial navy -- with reliance on that navy, the oceans, sheer size to provide depth, and the fact that only a small number of countries had land borders to provide mobilization time for the army in time of need was a thing for the US prior to WWII.
> See any good bio. of Eisenhower for details
Any bio of Eisenhower (or any non-fiction work more generally) that claims the US had no military prior to WWII is, ipso facto, not a good one.