Could have anyone of the Superpowers (USA, Britian, Russia) beaten Nazi Germany

Was it teamwork that brought Nazi Germany to their knees. Could have anyone of the superpowers beat Germany by themselves. France was not included because they were beaten badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

Was it teamwork that brought Nazi Germany to their knees. Could have anyone of the superpowers beat Germany by themselves. France was not included because they were beaten badly.

---

haha france, set a firework off and all you will hear is every french perosn in the area screaming "we surrender"

When Germany tried to screw Russia over, the german army got batterd coz they could not handle the such low tempratures of the russian winter in cyberia. during WWII Hittler and Stalin were ali's and together, would of won the war until Hittles tried to invade Russia.

The USA then, were to far away to win the war solo IMO, its not like now where you can have ana rmy of troops moved anywhere you want in a matter of hours. Alone the USA trying to stop germany had very little, if not Zero chance.

The uk was to small, by the time we got into the war it was already in full motion, Hittler had been preparing for this for many years, he was ready for it, the Uk wasnt. Not only did we lack the materials to make weapons and amunition, the german army vastly out numberd ours.

Russia really were the only ones i would say at the time could of taken on and beaten germany alone. As i said, the germans tried to invade Russia and failed misrably, their men were ill equiped to get thourgh the cold of Russia, their tanks also were freezing up, the tracks of the tank were icing up stopping them moving through.

This is a silly question.......because the irredentist policy (invading many different countries) of Nazi Germany coupled with the increasing globalization of world alliances and markets make such a question silly.

If you are asking: Had Nazi Germany just declared war on one country; would any country have beaten it (had it not aid from any other country)?
The answer is quite simply yes. U.S.A. and Russia could have beaten Germany singlehandily because of thier resources, geography, and manpower. This would of course be coupled with the fact that Nazi Germany would not have invaded Poland among other coutries to unite the Germanic people. Without such a daring and brilliant task, the Nazi party would not have had a platform or a justification that would have enabled the entire countries unparralled support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Preme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

  Was it teamwork that brought Nazi Germany to their knees. Could have anyone of the superpowers beat Germany by themselves. France was not included because they were beaten badly.

---

haha france, set a firework off and all you will hear is every french perosn in the area screaming "we surrender"

When Germany tried to screw Russia over, the german army got batterd coz they could not handle the such low tempratures of the russian winter in cyberia. during WWII Hittler and Stalin were ali's and together, would of won the war until Hittles tried to invade Russia.

The USA then, were to far away to win the war solo IMO, its not like now where you can have ana rmy of troops moved anywhere you want in a matter of hours. Alone the USA trying to stop germany had very little, if not Zero chance.

The uk was to small, by the time we got into the war it was already in full motion, Hittler had been preparing for this for many years, he was ready for it, the Uk wasnt.  Not only did we lack the materials to make weapons and amunition, the german army vastly out numberd ours.

Russia really were the only ones i would say at the time could of taken on and beaten germany alone.  As i said, the germans tried to invade Russia and failed misrably, their men were ill equiped to get thourgh the cold of Russia, their tanks also were freezing up, the tracks of the tank were icing up stopping them moving through.

---

Well I think Russia could have outlasted them with their man power and they are the only super power to match the germans tank forces....our Sherman tanks were tiny compared to the Panzers and T-34's.

USA had the advantage of being a hemisphere away....and I doubt any country could invade the US and have success.....that being said, the Nazi's did a good job of screwing up our ships on the east coast.

England had the determination but the V-2 missle attacks and air power of the Nazi's would have proven too much without help from another country.


The poor poor french....they used to have such a good army and navy....I mean GREAT leaders, Napoleon, Charlemagne....hell Phillipe Petain was the main reason WWI was won!!! and what does the motherfucker do? He turns around and has an armistice with Nazi Germany and runs Vichy France....bastard!...people used to admire the French Foreign Legion and now everyone just laughs at them.



In all the Nazi's fucked up by fighting a 2 front war and not focusing on JUST the UK, France, and USA.....Russia is NEVER to be taken lightley....as MANY leaders have found out. Also killing off all your generals wasn't smart either.....I mean Rommel was a good commander....Patton whipped his ass but Rommel was a good general. They had some messed up people running things which is never a wise choice....but they were a formidible opponent.

Wasn't it Stalin who had all his generals killed? Or am I getting my Dictators mixed up.

Lets be honest we all know it was the Russians who beat the German's. The Yanks played their role, sorted out Japan, dropped the A-bomb and did the normandy landings but the war was lost in the east. Britain helped. If Germany had invaded Britain as they'd planned with Operation Sealion in 1941 directly after the invasion of France they'd have won the war. Don't forget that. If we'd have surrendered, Russia would've been conquered and al of Europe would be under fascism. At the time remember the Americans weren't interested, the Russians had a "peace treaty" with Germany and we were on our own, with the Empire of course.

Of course Hitler, being someone who conquered more of Europe than Napoleon, was not an idiot strategically. He knew that to invade Britain when the Royal Navy outnumbered the German Navy by 4-1 would cost loads of lives. So he bargained on Britain surrendering. He fucked that up ;D

But the Russians. Germany went for Russia whilst it still hadn't dealt with us, and the Russian Winter managed to halt their eastward advance, whilst all the time the UK was rebuilding its army and air force and taking out German cities. Once the Americans had joined the war they could use Britain as a base to bomb Germany, which they did. Germany couldn't sustain their eastward expansion, they couldn't get enough equipment to the front lines and they eventually succumbed. The Russians showed insane pride in deterring invasion, fighting 10 men per gun and hand to hand, thats what won the war.


Every nation did its bit, its not a competition lads :army: :britain:

By themselfs? The Ruskys would of definetly beaten them... too much man power... the yanks could of... considering they'd our country to have a 'base' near europe though.

We could of beat them... but we weren't prepared for war, Russia had quabillions of men and the USA had years to prepare and size.

We weren't that much smaller than Germany... but small enough that we couldn't do what the ruskys did ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

We could of beat them... but we weren't prepared for war

---

....why was that???? Neville Chamberlain???




That's right bitches, it was the dumb motherfucker who didn't prepare for war!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Wasn't it Stalin who had all his generals killed? Or am I getting my Dictators mixed up.

Lets be honest we all know it was the Russians who beat the German's. The Yanks played their role, sorted out Japan, dropped the A-bomb and did the normandy landings but the war was lost in the east. Britain helped. If Germany had invaded Britain as they'd planned with Operation Sealion in 1941 directly after the invasion of France they'd have won the war. Don't forget that. If we'd have surrendered, Russia would've been conquered and al of Europe would be under fascism. At the time remember the Americans weren't interested, the Russians had a "peace treaty" with Germany and we were on our own, with the Empire of course.

Of course Hitler, being someone who conquered more of Europe than Napoleon, was not an idiot strategically. He knew that to invade Britain when the Royal Navy outnumbered the German Navy by 4-1 would cost loads of lives. So he bargained on Britain surrendering. He fucked that up ;D

But the Russians. Germany went for Russia whilst it still hadn't dealt with us, and the Russian Winter managed to halt their eastward advance, whilst all the time the UK was rebuilding its army and air force and taking out German cities. Once the Americans had joined the war they could use Britain as a base to bomb Germany, which they did. Germany couldn't sustain their eastward expansion, they couldn't get enough equipment to the front lines and they eventually succumbed. The Russians showed insane pride in deterring invasion, fighting 10 men per gun and hand to hand, thats what won the war.


Every nation did its bit, its not a competition lads :army: :britain:

---

#1 No it was Hitler that had parinoia and killed his generals/had them commit suicide

#2 The Americans sent "Libety Ships" to England to support our allies and the sinking of those ships directly off our east coast really got us pissed off!

#3 The Armistice between Germany and Russia was broken when Germany invaded Russia

Get your shit right!

Hitler didn't plan well, he didn't learn from WWI or Napoleon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

We could of beat them... but we weren't prepared for war

---

....why was that???? Neville Chamberlain???




That's right bitches, it was the dumb motherfucker who didn't prepare for war!

---

You mean Hitler's mate? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdamGB

By themselfs? The Ruskys would of definetly beaten them... too much man power... the yanks could of... considering they'd our country to have a 'base' near europe though.

We could of beat them... but we weren't prepared for war, Russia had quabillions of men and the USA had years to prepare and size.

We weren't that much smaller than Germany... but small enough that we couldn't do what the ruskys did ;)

---

AdamGB the rusky's lost 25 million people, no other country could have taken those kind of casualties and kept fighting. This is after

1. The Germans had won wars in Poland and France. Losing around 300,000 men (round off) in each war.
2. Fighting the British and USA in Northern Africa while taking many casualties (353,000 men)
3. Much of the Luftwaffle was held down in Western Europe due to raids by the USA and Great Britian
4. Fighting the Allies in Western Europe after the Normandy invasions
5. Fighting the Allies in Italy after the Mossalini debacle
6. Having thier cities and civilian population (From where you recruit new soldiers) ruined. Even though Albert Speel kept production going it would have been trippled if there was no bombing.
7. Having alot of their SS members in Occupied country's facing uprisings and resistance.

I can go on forever, the fact is after all these distractions they still were able to kill 25 million Soviets. 1 on 1 they would have lost more than 25 million people, much more. The Germans would have destroyed that country. It's no way in hell the Soviets could beat the Germans.

As for the USA and Britian, The USA had their hands full with the Germans on the Western Front after their army was depleated, having no fuel and very little ammunition and the majority of their forces in the east they were still able to surround the allies and came close to making them surrender. If not for the West total superioty in the air they would have lost. As for Great Britian it would not be close, when the Germans were in their prime they were creaming Great Britian. They beat them in France, Norway, Greece, the Atlantic and had a ruthless air raid in early 1940 (Battle of Britian). Britian was ready for war they just faced a bigger army that was superior. With the casualty list there is no way that anyone of these country's could have beaten Germany. The Russians were very poor soldiers, it's just they had to many people. The war was won on Russian man power and Western production and air power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Wasn't it Stalin who had all his generals killed? Or am I getting my Dictators mixed up.

Lets be honest we all know it was the Russians who beat the German's. The Yanks played their role, sorted out Japan, dropped the A-bomb and did the normandy landings but the war was lost in the east. Britain helped. If Germany had invaded Britain as they'd planned with Operation Sealion in 1941 directly after the invasion of France they'd have won the war. Don't forget that. If we'd have surrendered, Russia would've been conquered and al of Europe would be under fascism. At the time remember the Americans weren't interested, the Russians had a "peace treaty" with Germany and we were on our own, with the Empire of course.

Of course Hitler, being someone who conquered more of Europe than Napoleon, was not an idiot strategically. He knew that to invade Britain when the Royal Navy outnumbered the German Navy by 4-1 would cost loads of lives. So he bargained on Britain surrendering. He fucked that up ;D

But the Russians. Germany went for Russia whilst it still hadn't dealt with us, and the Russian Winter managed to halt their eastward advance, whilst all the time the UK was rebuilding its army and air force and taking out German cities. Once the Americans had joined the war they could use Britain as a base to bomb Germany, which they did. Germany couldn't sustain their eastward expansion, they couldn't get enough equipment to the front lines and they eventually succumbed. The Russians showed insane pride in deterring invasion, fighting 10 men per gun and hand to hand, thats what won the war.


Every nation did its bit, its not a competition lads :army: :britain:

---

#1 No it was Hitler that had parinoia and killed his generals/had them commit suicide
#2 The Americans sent "Libety Ships" to England to support our allies and the sinking of those ships directly off our east coast really got us pissed off!

#3 The Armistice between Germany and Russia was broken when Germany invaded Russia

Get your S*** right!

Hitler didn't plan well, he didn't learn from WWI or Napoleon

---

He made Rommel commit suicide (poison) due to knowing about the plot to kill Hitler and not giving warning. The rest of those Generals were givin a trail and then executed because of the plot. Other than that he would just dismiss his Generals. He felt that German blood was precious and he would set a bad example buy killing them although he sent many Germans to go and get killed by the enemy, it's ironic but true. Stalin on the other hand alway's had purges and many times ran through the Soviet Army high command, that's how disgusting communist are.

The Allies definantly had the better military leaders, Ike, Patton, Bradley, Montgomery....and many others.


....Hitler also sacked the entire SA to appease his political buddies....he killed his friend who brought him into the Nazi's to gain more power. It was an event called "Night of the long knives".


The Luftwaffe was a decent air force but the US had a fun time carpet bombing Germany over and over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

The Allies definantly had the better military leaders, Ike, Patton, Bradley, Montgomery....and many others.


....Hitler also sacked the entire SA to appease his political buddies....he killed his friend who brought him into the Nazi's to gain more power. It was an event called "Night of the long knives".


The Luftwaffe was a decent air force but the US had a fun time carpet bombing Germany over and over and over again.

---

I hate the Thought of Nazism just as much as the next man, but one thing I respect was thier brillance in military strategy. The generals you named are not better than Guderian and Rommel, they were alway's outnumbered but yet inflicted many casualties on their opponents.

I once asked a General who were the best troops in the war, his reply without a doubt the Germans. Top man Her Heinberger.

Patton whipped all those bastards....he was held out of action for a while to for slapping a guy who was not hurt but in the hospital crying.....and for a couple of his underlings shooting POW's.

Patton had the absolute WORST tanks in the whole war and still kicked ass!

He made D-day possible by diverting German troops.