Yes, but two nations on battling the Soviets on each side, the advancement would have been much quicker and easier as the Soviets would have had to split their forces, not to mention Germany able to bring more forces forward and a much larger airforce. And again, the Soviets barely held out as it was with the food and arms supplies from the U.S. Without that, they would stand no chance, even just from fighting the Germans. And that's without bringing the Japs into the picture. - N
Yes, but what's between the eastern side of the USSR and the good stuff? Do you know how long it would take the Japanese to cross that? Do you think the Russians would just let them use their railway?
Allied aerial bombardment didn't become effective until 1944, with the advent of the Mustang fighter and US control of Italy. This is well after the German army had its back broken at Kursk. As much as I am proud of my country's role in the defeat of the Nazis, the Allied invasion was pretty much a clean-up job, if a particularly nasty one. Without Western involvement, it's possible the Nazis could have gotten a reasonable settlement out of the war (probably with more territory than they started with). But a decisive victory over the USSR seems pretty far-fetched. Given Hitler's attitude towards compromise and surrender, you have to wonder if Germany wouldn't eventually have suffered a total defeat even without Allied intervention. Anyway, as to the original question, I think the costs of ruling over a large sphere of disparate, nationalistic peoples would have exhausted Germany after a few decades, just as it did the USSR.
Wars of attrition are usually not a winning plan when the other side has triple your population. Notice how almost every Nazi victory was the result of high-intensity, rapid-deployment tactics. You could go so far as to argue that Soviet attrition tactics are what ultimately defeated Germany.
A better question would be what if WWII never happened? Germany would likely be a superpower today, especially with Hitler's level of political prowess. But I think Russia was a pretty important factor in the war too. I think that Germany and Japan would attack Russia at 2 fronts(like the Allies did to Germany), and eventually take it. Then They would have taken Britain, then with help from Mexico, America would have to fight a war from 3 sides. We prolly wouldn't have the atom bomb, so things would be a lot better.
What makes america so great in this hypothetical scenario that Germany and Japan can so easily take Britain AND the USSR but there is not even the slightest question that the same thing would happen to your beloved america?
because every man, woman, and child in the nation would have picked up a gun (yes, there are that many) and shot a soldier dead before allowing an enemy to take a meter of american soil. that is without considering the national guard, and the countless militia groups (most notably in michigan and montana). no foreign power will ever successfully invade the US while it is still the US, specifically for the reasons i give above. the invader would have to kill every living soul in the country.
Basically..the UK and Russia are pussies compare the the greatest generation of Americans(from WWII era).
Nazis would have lasted for a really long time if they stayed united. I've read somewhere that SS planned a creation of their own country so this could mean war. But anyway, after of defeat of Russia they would have enough slaves (Slavs) for producing food and preparations, etc. They had the best scientists in the world (who mostly escaped to USA after the WWII) and of course they would develop nuclear weapons. So there would be only a matter of time when they would totally destroy Britain and USA.
Rubbish. Except for the fact that they didn't actually belive in "Jewish science" and were going off at tangents to accepted nuclear theory.
LOL....more proof that americans think they are better than the rest of the world simply because they were born in the US. Is there something in the water we don't know about that makes you superhuman?
Americans make nice wide targets for invaders. And Schleebenhorst makes a good point here. Having guns or militia will not stop an invading army. There were more assault rifles in Iraq then there will ever be in the US among the civilian population. My iranian friend actually had 2 kalashnikovs when he was still in Iran because they were so cheap and easy to get. Mentality of the people is what counts. Interestingly during WW2 the Soviets were expecting that the german people would fight them as guerillas when they entered german soil. Because that is what a russian would do. To their surprise they were as docile as sheep and obedient. All the german civilians wanted was to get some order again. Not fight. What are the americans like? They can't get anywhere without their cars. They put up with corruption, bureacracy and rights being taken away without any protest. Is that the people who will get of their fat arses when a foreign army invades? I seriously doubt it. A few militia will make the difference? Does it make a difference in Iraq?
Sure, now America couldn't defend itself from invaders, but in WWII, I think we could have. I mean it was the greatest generation we've had. Plus, people didn't know how to control their emotions back then, which I'm not sure, but I think was a result of the depression. They weren't nearly as pussy as America is today.
Could be. The best units in the American army were easily as good as the best german ones during WW2. But that was then. Past glory.
uh, i never said i was better than anyone. but having lived in america for a quarter century, i think i am qualified to have an opinion about what would happen....at least moreso than you are. and yes: flouride.
