Oh come on, America and guns in their own hands? if Germany had been able to field thousand-bomber fleets around-the-clock they absolutely would have. They tried. They didn't because they could not.
In 1940, the Luftwaffe did not have any strategic bombers available because they could not afford to build them. The medium bombers barely had the range to attack a third of England, and this considerably simplified British air defense operations. The heavy-fighter escorts did not have the speed to avoid the RAF interceptors, and the Messerschmitt fighters did not have the range, even from forward bases in France, for more than 10 or 15 minutes of operations barely inside enemy territory.
Churchill knew 1) that the Americans would enter the war eventually thanks to Roosevelt, even though in 1940 Americans were 80 percent or greater adamantly opposed to war with Germany, and 2) that the Luftwaffe would not be able to pound England into oblivion one way or another, and 3) that the German Navy was a ghost fleet, which meant that there would absolutely NOT be an invasion attempt. The Battle of Britain was a costly bluff on Hitler's part.
Hitler did not want to fight England because he did not believe it to be in Germany's national interest--and that is why he was extremely reluctant to resort to strategic bombing.
I won't go into the Dunkirk angle here but it is a myth on both sides. The recent movie on Dunkirk, which I saw in impressive Imax 3D, was moody and atmospheric but basically disappointing historically. The Christopher Nolan movie at least did not portray the Germans as monsters--but then it hardly portrayed the Germans at all.
Full Luftwaffe rearmament to include "Ural Bombers" was absolutely not possible
for Germany before the war any more than completing Admiral Raeder's Plan Z for German Kriegsmarine rearmament could be completed in peacetime before 1942 at the earliest. The German Navy was forced to settle on U-Boats which were a threat to shipping and not meant to fight capital ships. The Kriegsmarine was lucky to get any air support at all.
All air forces at the time believed strongly that strategic bombing could win wars all by itself, and Göring would have followed this logic as well for the same reason that all navies want their blue-water fleets of capital ships.
So Göring did what was possible and geared the Luftwaffe to Army support. Fortunately the German Army and Air Force developed impressive operational doctrine linking armor and motorized troops to air support as flying artillery by means of electronic communication--what we today call Blitzkrieg
. This worked well in Poland, France, and initially Russia until it ran out of logistical steam. This operational vision is what earned Göring the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross and his promotion to Reichsmarschall after the defeat of France, when several other Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe generals including Erhard Milch were promoted to Field Marshal.
The 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony
In any case, if the Germans could have magnified the V-weapons by an order or two of magnitude they would have been decisive. They were willing to expend the lives of 20 thousand prisoner laborers to dig the bombproof underground factory at Nordhausen-Dora in record time in order to build 600 V-2 rockets a month, many of which were duds, and half of which had to be fired in developmental testing of a weapon which still needed a few years of intensive development. General Dornberger discusses this extensively in his memoirs, as does Albert Speer. David Irving wrote about this in his Mares Nest
and even counted the Mittelwerk company invoices so that we know exactly how many rockets were actually produced.
In the excellent 1979 book The Rocket Team
by Frederick Ordway III
, we have a comprehensive history of von Braun and his colleagues from Kummersdorf and Peenemunde to the Redstone and Marshall days and the Saturn V rocket and the Moon Landing.
General Dornberger, the German artillery officer who discovered von Braun and set the technical specifications for the A4/V2 rocket, notes in his memoirs that the V-2 needed hypergolic fuels and a decent proximity fuse, but neither were developed in time. Peenemunde was put on low priority status in 1939 at the start of the war until the concept was successfully proved in 1942 and then put on top priority status, but it was too-little/too-late.
Even if one argues--as I do--that the V- "payback" Weapons were for strategic deterrence and not "terror bombing," whatever that even means, there is little difference between a city-busting attack by four-engine bombers and a V-1 or V-2 attack except by order of magnitude.
And there is no way that it can be argued that the Germans would not have been--and actually were whenever they could be--just as ruthless as their enemies.
Germany developed new nerve gases before the war. Hitler was urged to use them to prevent the Allied invasion. Hitler refused to do so--not because he was a sentimental artist or because he had been gassed himself as a soldier during the last war--but because his experts could not assure him that the enemy did not have anything better to hit them back with. This is a completely rational position, not a moralistic one.
And further, even if the enemy only used mustard gas, as in the last war, the Anglo-American monopoly on global oil supplies meant that they could with little effort supply hundreds of times more ethylene to produce chemical warfare agents than Germany ever could have.
The military experts of all nations concluded after World War I that the only way that poison gas is decisive in warfare is 1) if the enemy cannot provide countermeasures to chemical attacks, and 2) if the enemy cannot mount a credible counterattack as a deterrent.
This is why gas is rarely used, and was in fact used by the British against colonial Iraq in 1922 and by Italy against colonial Abyssinia in 1938. That is why the German Tabun, Sarin, and Soman nerve gases remained either in unused stockpiles or in the laboratory during WWII.
Then there is the Manhattan Project and the question of the atomic bomb. Director Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita about the Trinity atom bomb test:
" I am become Death - the Destroyer of Worlds "
Okay, but let us not wax too eschatological about this. There is no reason that atomic weapons are not reasonable in a military or strategic context. The most humane application of atomic weapons would be a so-called Neutron Bomb. This is simply a small-scale tactical nuke where the bulk of its energy is focused on troop concentrations and not on collateral damage.
In any case, there is no doubt that the Jewish scientists who built the atomic bomb were disappointed that it was dropped on Japan instead of Germany.
Jews have historically hated Russians, Poles, and Germans--and in that order. This is ultimately why the establishment mass-media bleats endlessly today about "Russian conspiracies." This is in fact one of the marker traits of Neoconservatives, who are invariably "Red Diaper Baby" Jews, and some like Irving Kristol actually came from a Trotskyite background.
It can be argued that Jews hate all Gentiles to some degree, and that this is proportional to the power that these Gentile nations possess. This implies that Jews will ultimately hate Americans the most of all. But let's leave the Jewish Question alone for a moment.
If the Germans had been able to make an atomic bomb, there is NO DOUBT that it would have been used.
There is no way that a single or even two atomic bombs could have won World War II either unless the country possessing them had been able to develop the infrastructure to repeat the process on a regular basis. This is exactly what the Manhattan Project did. There was one bomb tested, two used on Japan, a third ready to use, and after that a production schedule of at least a bomb per month for the rest of 1945. The only nation in the world that could have done this industrially in the middle of WWII was the United States.
Although the V-Weapons program was actually more expensive than the Manhattan Project, much of this was due to higher costs of strategic materials and shortage of skilled manpower in wartime Germany.
It would have been very difficult for Germany to have accomplished even a single atomic bomb, and it would only have been doable if it had been an early German priority like rocketry, which was motivated by prewar limitations from the Versailles Treaty which banned heavy artillery. A similar situation was true of jet engines--the interest for which was motivated more by the German lack of high-octane gasoline and a desire to use cheaper grades of oil than by any far-sighted aerospace vision.
Even if Hitler had directly asked for an atomic bomb--and even if this were intended merely for roasting Jews in New York City, or for whatever reasons, real or imagined, Prof. Werner Heisenberg was not the man to head such weapons research. He was not qualified.
Werner Heisenberg was a brilliant theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate, but he was not a gifted experimentalist like Enrico Fermi, the Italian-American Nobel laureate and theoretical physicist who had achieved a controlled nuclear chain reaction in 1942. Heisenberg was still struggling for this in vain in 1945 when the war ended.
Germany had the talented military engineers and other talented personnel for atomic research but did not have the luxury of taking unproven risks with precious resources for something on the scale of the Manhattan Project. Building isotope separation plants and plutonium production reactors would have been every bit as daunting as building synthetic oil or rubber production plants.
Atomic weapons research might have provided Germany with a credible deterrent potential and possibly some diplomatic leverage, however, which is why the Germans developed and produced nerve gases at considerable cost, even though the military did not really want them.
The Radiochemist Otto Hahn, who proved the concept of atomic fission in 1938, and whom David Irving interviewed in his research on this subject, considered it a personal failure that he and his German colleagues had failed with atomic weapons research and could not provide either an atomic bomb or a credible deterrent. That was proven with the clandestine Farm Hall recordings of intimate conversations between captured German scientists.
Returning to Dresden...
All countries do what they have to do to win wars. That has always been the case in war and the only firm rule is that people will die and be hurt and destroyed.
If nations are not willing to bear sacrifices--including to civilians who in every way support the war effort just by their existence--then they might as well become pacifists, not build weapons and train armies, and just SURRENDER to all comers.
Dresden was a War Crime, not because civilians were hurt or because there were fewer military or strategic targets there, but because it was overkill that was UNNECESSARY and NOT DECISIVE for victory.
And this is even within the confines of the Allied Policy of Unconditional Surrender, which if it is not a War Crime of itself, is certainly bound to intensify the carnage by making the terms of peace elusive, possibly to the point of annihilation.
Dresden should absolutely be remembered--especially in Germany. Dresden was a War Crime, but compared to the Allied Policy of Unconditional Surrender, not so much.
To Fritz's murky point on terms of national character and ethnic virtue
, I have briefly mentioned the Jewish Question but there are many other issues, of course.
The American national character is almost half ethnic German for good or for bad. Germans have often been demonized but so have Scots-Irish and Southerners.
In fact, all White people are demonized today by the establishment media and in academia. We are supposed to have Genocided the Noble Savages. But this is Marxist propaganda from start to finish and probably off-topic for this discussion.
The United States fought a bloody Civil War, supposedly over slavery, even though it was the United States itself that ended the Slave Trade in 1808, which blew the pillars out of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Caribbean sugar plantations, where slaves were worked to death and then cheaply replaced, were far more brutal than anything ever practiced on Southern cotton plantations, which were regulated by state laws. Almost no one talks about the Arab slave trade. And Africa has always been a barbaric land. The idea that the Antebellum planter-aristocracy were paragons of Man's Inhumanity to Man is complete nonsense. Slavery sucked and cheapened the value of the labor of the White working class, but getting rid of this "peculiar institution" was not an easy problem. What do you do with the Negroes? No longer having a stake in the slave trade, Northerners were fine with manumission or emancipation--as long as the Negroes stayed in the South.
By raising Federal troops against Southern states, and deliberately provoking more states to secede from the Union, Mr. Lincoln found a way to turn a rich man's war into a poor man's fight and still not solve the Race Question. As Civil War historian Shelby Foote once remarked, turning crusades like the War Between the States into morality plays "is a uniquely American thing to do."
To the issue of comparing the German national character to the American
, this is really an apples and oranges diatribe.
The USA is still a young nation. Germany has a longer history. In the 17th century Germans killed each other not over Negroes but over Christian sectarianism. Eight million Protestant Germans and Catholic Germans killed each other in the Thirty Years War. The aftermath of this was German balkanization which lasted for over two centuries. In order to achieve German national unification under the Prussian aegis, Bismarck had to fight the Austrian Empire, Denmark, and France. Then to keep German internal rivalries focused outside the Reich, Bismarck high-handedly annexed Alsace-Lorraine so that Germans would be focused outward, wary of French hatred.
To the issue of German immigrants to America
, a lot of these were religious whackjobs, like the Anabaptists or the Born-Agains of German extraction. Benjamin Franklin complained about them in Pennsylvania. They wanted to live the Godly life as though they were chosen like the Jews and not speak to the "English." Ultimately they assimilated but you can still see this in the Amish and Mennonite communities who eschew modern technology and try to live insular lives like Jews in ghettos. Actually they will happily use technology if it is on a small-farm scale that does not force them to interact too much with Gentiles/English--and thus it is easier to apply Groupthink to everyday life situations where your horseshoe or buggy guy is your co-religionist neighbor that your community can shun into submission rather than to the "English" power grid or the all-powerful Gentile government.
Immigration of religious zealots, especially to Puritan New England, is one of the reasons for the Second American Awakening of the early 19th century that began in New York State, where the Mormon movement came from.
Abolitionism also had a very nasty, hypocritical and violent streak. These are the kinds of people who believe that God wants the world to burn in Hell. These "Transcendentalists" and "John Browns" will happily see over 600 thousand dead to free Negro slaves or burn cities into cinders to save Jews from the Devil.
An excellent and mostly non-judgemental history about the organic American national character is Albion's Seed
by Brandeis Prof. David Hackett Fischer. Understanding where we came from is an important antidote to the neo-Marxist propaganda which asserts that White Males are the crux of the problem.
No student of real American History can get a grade without being familiar with the works of Frederick Jackson Turner and Charles and Mary Beard. Turner developed the "Frontier Thesis" in academic American history, and argued that the West was settled by 1890, thus ending the Frontier. I won't go into too much of this and the notion of American Exceptionalism, which is also a source of great mischief.
But the end of the Frontier (1890) led to an existential crisis, and this is when the country started to transition from a Nation to an Empire, when Monroe Doctrine gave way to Multicultural Global Interventionism over the course of the 20th century. I would argue that there are other ways to create frontiers of progress and that the "White Man's Burden" as Kipling called imperialism--now Globalism--is a path to ruin because all Cultures are not in fact equal, nor capable of learning "Enlightenment."
Also the notion that White people have some kind of noblesse oblige
to save Untermenschen from themselves is hugely misguided. If anything, White people and Europeans, but Germans and Anglos in particular, have a very unseemly trait of Christian Universalism and pathological altruism
which is easily exploited by our alien enemies.
Marxism sought to make all men equal--but some were more equal than others, of course. And this was reflected in some Enlightenment thinking that Marx drew upon. Locke believe that all men were blank slates, tabula rasa
. That this would lead to alienation and materialism is explained away in many ways. Rousseau believed that all men were inherently Good--that CIVILIZATION itself and not Human Nature was the great corrupter. This is where we get the nihilistic ideal of the "Noble Savage" from. With neo-Marxism and Jewish Feminism the "goodness" is assigned proportionally to skin color, and the "progressive" goal then becomes the "decolonization" of White/European "Patriarchy."
Another excellent source is from the Harvard Professor of History Charles A. Beard, and he and his wife, Mary were hugely influential American historians. In 1913, Beard wrote the classic An Economic Interpretation of the United States Constitution
, an important corrective which argues that the Founding Fathers were not demigods, but propelled by ordinary economic motives, and less so by abstract ideologies.
Ordinary people fought the British crown for Independence because the 1763 Treaty of Paris blocked American Westward expansion in order to preserve lucrative trade deals with the French and Indians, who had been organized to terrorize American settlers on the Frontier. This conflict was not completely settled until after the War of 1812.
Charles and Mary Beard also emphasized the economic issues of the Civil War over the abolitionism and morality tropes.
Charles Beard is now in the academic Memory Hole because he was an Isolationist and an authentic Progressive, who was bitterly opposed to Roosevelt's efforts to intervene in World War II.
Charles A. Beard
The Beards announced that the Civil War was really a "social cataclysm in which the capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South".  They argued that the events were a second American Revolution. 
Isolationism--in reality Nationalism and non-Interventionism--is the only authentic American Foreign Policy. It dates back to Washington/Hamilton and the early Federalists and did not die until Charles Lindbergh was discredited after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which compelled American entry into World War II.
The only neo-Isolationist academic that I can think of is Andrew Bacevich, a Prof. Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University. He is a former U.S. Army colonel and a graduate of West Point. Bacevich has been heavily critical of American Foreign Policy since 9/11 and his son was killed in the Army in Iraq in 2007.
This is enough of an American History lesson for today.
In his article "Non Believer" in the July 7, 2010, issue of The New Republic
, Bacevich compared President George W. Bush, characterized as wrong-headed but sincere, with President Obama, who, he says, has no belief in the Afghanistan war but pursues it for his own politically cynical reasons: "Who is more deserving of contempt? The commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause, however misguided, in which he sincerely believes? Or the commander-in-chief who sends young Americans to die for a cause in which he manifestly does not believe and yet refuses to forsake?" 
But I would like to point out that the History books that my Dad used in High School and College in the 1950s--which I studied intensively as a kid--were infinitely superior to what passes for the History textbooks today, which is mostly about muh Holocaust and the "Genocide" of People of Color, the oppression of Women and perverts, etc.
Even when I took my Junior year of U.S. History in High School in the 1970s, much time was spent on the incredibly complex nuances involved in these matters, such as the Civil War. But this is simply not the case today. That is why we need to take our History back.
The biggest War Crime of all is hypocrisy and double-standards. Hitler explains this quite well in Mein Kampf when he discusses atrocities, real and imagined, and the Allied concept of War Guilt from the last World War. These are not things that lead to peace.