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.

Been quite a while since I've taken a history course, and Im not going to pretend to have an answer for this.. One saying that's a great one to remember is this; The war was won with American money, British brains, and Russian blood. I don't even remember enough as to elaborate, but it is certainly a statement that can be attested to. Britain's breaking the German code in itself was critical... Indeed everyone played their role.

Germany lost primarily because of Hitler and the German way of thinking. They all thought that they were superior to the other races, which includes Russians, therefore they did not think it would be hard to defeat the Russians, that being said, I believe that the reason that Germany lost the war was b/c they spread out when they got close to Moskow, if they had not spread out and just focused on Moskow, then they could have captured the capital and who knows what could happen from there. I think that it would be a close fight if the Germans did not have to fight anyone else, but Russia has so many people that it is hard to tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

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

---

different War . My dad told me many years ago , that there was no feeling like being told by the General
" The 50 of you men are going out on this mission , only 25 will come back " :o

...did you just watch Dazed and Confused recently???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lords Gym

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scrap

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

---

different War . My dad told me many years ago , that there was no feeling like being told by the General
" The 50 of you men are going out on this mission , only 25 will come back " :o

---

then just send the 25 who will be coming back!

I am a ww2 buff...(historian? expert?)
at the time of D-Day the Germans had about 600 main battle tanks available for battle from all war theatres.
they included Panthers,panzers (of course) Tigers and King Tigers (Tiger II) all of these tanks were better than the USA's Sherman Tank
(M4 Medium Tank)

BUT!

The Americans had 20,000 Shermans!! FOR THE EUROPEAN THEATRE ALONE!

think about it!
20,000!!!

When The americans, canadians and british landed at normandy the german defenders said " they have more ships than we have fucking bullets!" Imagine looking out and seeing 7000!!!! ships!!!
They said "there are so many ships the rest of the troops will be able to walk across!!!"

Here's one more.....An Aircraft Carrier is the epitome of navel and air power a crew of 1000's and 30-70 attack aircraft..
The Canadian Royal Navy had ONE! once!
How many AIRCRAFT carriers did the USA navy have at the end of WWII??
The German navy had NONE!
(4 were partially built)
How many did USA have???
Guess!

3?

5?

10?


think about it......
dont forget escort (smaller) carriers..
lets see.....enterprise
yorktown
hornet
essex..
uh..
saratoga..





the answer?


112!!!!!
ONE Hundred and f3cking twelve!!!
Aircraft f#cking carriers!!!!
have you ever seen one!!


LOL


Any way.......fun topic!

I still like Eddie Izzards take on WWII, better then any of your guys theory's.... ;)


[youtube=425,350]6omQ5JjjLsE[/youtube]

I just found this GREAT video of WWII.....
Please I strongly recommend you watch it all.... trust me... ;)
[youtube=425,350]H8877DuzRbE&mode=related&search=[/youtube]

I don't know about the statement someone made that the allies had better commanders, Rommel was a military genius. He was kickin ass with undersupplied troops and as far as I remember the only reason he started getting his ass whooped by montgomery is cause the brits deciphered the germans code, so montgomery and his troops knew what the germans were up to before they even did,up to that point it was all rommel, in a "fair" battle I'd have my money on rommel any day.

As for a country single handedly beating the nazis, I'm not 100% sure any could. If I had to pick one though I'd pick russia/ussr, people always assume it was just their manpower and the cold that brought the germans to their knees, it wasn't just that, it was also their industry, I know who would believe it. But by 1943 russia was outproducing the germans in pretty much everything, and that's not so much cause german industry was baddly damaged but because the russians had highly increased their output. Most of russias's industry was in it's western part which had been overrun by the nazis so it took some time to move all the production to the mountain regions, Caspian? Also another reason nazis were just kickin russia's butt in the first year or so is because many russians didn't want to fight, I mean one has to remember that the Soviet regime wasn't actly much better than the nazi regime. One could argue it was even nastier, so people weren't exactly commited to fighting right away, it took some propaganda about mother russia and what not. Also just their natural resources, if they could keep the germans in a fight for a few years germany's resources would have been depleted while russia would still have plenty left, as for the manpower well russia's population really was only about twice the size of germany's.

As someone else mentioned wtf happened to the french. Heck everyone alywas calls em pussies but shit prior to world war 2 they were some crazzy mofos, I mean they fought a freakin 100 year long war with the brits, that they eventually won! Napoleon almost conquered all of freakin europe, not the work of some pussies.

This is all from what I remember so for all I know all of it could have gotten mixed up in my head and I just told ya all a bunch of bs...

Rommel did well in North Africa but I'll be damned if as soon as Patton got ahold of his ass he didn't start losing!



And when I say The Allies I mean USA, UK, France, and USSR....the Axis had horrid comanders mostly Italians .....a year to take Ethiopia???? They have famine and spears....what are they going to do vs tanks and machine guns?????

FYI there have only been 2 successfull invasions across the English Channel.....#1 William the Conqueror lead his troops to victory in the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and #2 Dwight Eisenhower lead the Allies to Victory June 6th 1944 on a little day we like to call D-Day!

Maybe I am an idiot lyle, but when did patton and rommel face off directly? I'm more into ancient history but I also like the world wars, and I didn't hear till now that they faced off directly. Jeah I was just talkin about germans when comparing generals, cause jeah italy sucked on many levels, not just generals.

...well upon further review perhaps they didn't directly do battle. cc for catching that.

Rommel did his damage before Patton took over the North African Campaign due to the loss at Kassirine Pass....I guess Monty got the oppertunity to fight Rommel directly but Monty was a bastard....and then Rommel fought the Russians only to commit suicide later.

Patton did his best through Italy and during the Battle of the Bulge....which was vs Von Rumstedt and Model.



Acient History is the bomb! It explains so much about the bullshit that happens in the Middle East. I studied a lot about Rome and it was amazing the way they did politics and everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

...well upon further review perhaps they didn't directly do battle. cc for catching that.

Rommel did his damage before Patton took over the North African Campaign due to the loss at Kassirine Pass....I guess Monty got the oppertunity to fight Rommel directly but Monty was a B******....and then Rommel fought the Russians only to commit suicide later.

Patton did his best through Italy and during the Battle of the Bulge....which was vs Von Rumstedt and Model.



Acient History is the bomb! It explains so much about the bullshit that happens in the Middle East. I studied a lot about Rome and it was amazing the way they did politics and everything.

---

Rommel was a German Field Marshall when the war in the west started after D-Day, he was then gunned down by an Allied plane which caused him to suffer major injury, I don't believe he was ever in the east fighting the Russians

Hmmm I would have never thought a boxing forum is populated with history lovers, but one more reason to love this board! Jeah history does explain a lot about the shit that's going on in the middle east, but people that usually make the decisions aren't concerned about history. CC back to ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brazilianbomber

  Rommel was a German Field Marshall when the war in the west started after D-Day, he was then gunned down by an Allied plane which caused him to suffer major injury, I don't believe he was ever in the east fighting the Russians

---

....hey I got enough right....I did sleep through SOME of the class and to mention I have done a lot of drinking since then.


Yeah many leaders are not very aware of history else they would not have made the mistakes they did.
Clinton to Somolia
Clinton to Bosnia/Kosovo
George W. Bush to Iraq

Now what George H.W. Bush did (that's Bush #41 the former VP to President Reagan) was good because he protected our Allies (Kuwait and Israel) but did not disrupt the government's control in Iraq.

HOWEVER by that same line of thinking he let people get punished big time by Saddam Hussein.

But the funny thing is all those involved Islam (not that I have anything against religion but it's tricky to deal with. Shi'ites and Sunni's....they have been fighting forever and we are stuck in the middle of them) and despots who murdered many many people....well it's not funny but it's you're damned if you do and you're damn if you don't

Hitler had the right idea but went the wrong way about it ;)

That is a direct quote from a man who fought against the Nazis in WW2 and is sadly no longer with us.

Think about the troubles in the israel for a clue ;)

And Germany would have crushed any nations 1 on 1.

Not so likely BUDDY......we so easily forget about Pearl Harbour don't we????

Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE

Too bad for Hitler that Europe is an odd shape. No one likes to be stuck between a rock and a hot place.

Im sure Stalin had a little suprise lined up for Hitler anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Not so likely BUDDY......we so easily forget about Pearl Harbour don't we????

Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE

---

I Just knew that you'd say 'AMERICA' would have defeated them single handedly ::**

"Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE" ???

What like the same way you 'took' Vietnam and are Totally f*cking up Iraq ;) trying to take Iraq ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smashup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Not so likely BUDDY......we so easily forget about Pearl Harbour don't we????

Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE

---

This was not suppose to turn into a Britian Vs America topic, but Germany would have crushed the US in a war.
























I Just knew that you'd say 'AMERICA' would have defeated them single handedly ::**

"Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE" ???

What like the same way you 'took' Vietnam and are Totally f*cking up Iraq ;) trying to take Iraq ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smashup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Not so likely BUDDY......we so easily forget about Pearl Harbour don't we????

Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE

---

I Just knew that you'd say 'AMERICA' would have defeated them single handedly ::**

"Had the US had those ships we would have taken ANYONE" ???

What like the same way you 'took' Vietnam and are Totally f*cking up Iraq ;) trying to take Iraq ;)

---

lyle I will agree the Wlad and Vitalli were really abducted Americans at this point.