Would USA have beaten Nazi Germany 1v1?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Apocrypha
The question is hypothetical yes, the best response is 'In a conventional war'
Not 'Well, US could just nuke Germany if they wait till 1945 doing nothing and then send an aircraft carrier with a b-52 and a nuke on it and win the war easy'
Not 'Well, US could just nuke Germany if they wait till 1945 doing nothing and then send an aircraft carrier with a b-52 and a nuke on it and win the war easy'
Why would the US have waged conventional war though? It's not like they ran in without assessing the situation.
And don't try and alter what I said, it's not a good argument technique. I made my point and addressed all yours, don't get pissy.
Original post by TheOriginalAng
Why would the US have waged conventional war though? It's not like they ran in without assessing the situation.
And don't try and alter what I said, it's not a good argument technique. I made my point and addressed all yours, don't get pissy.
And don't try and alter what I said, it's not a good argument technique. I made my point and addressed all yours, don't get pissy.
When country's go to war, there is normally a reason.
Unless youre imagining a scenario where the war between Nazi Germany and the US where its basically the cold war, where one day both countries decided to go to war, with the US saying 'It's ok we're not gonna fight for 5 years and then we'll nuke you with an aircraft carrier that we'll send' and US ends up nuking Germany..
The US, would of lost a 1v1 war with Germany, on an open battlefield, Germany had more advanced Armor, Fighters, and Weaponry and tactics.
THUS: The best way to imagine this scenario is CONVENTIONAL warfare, which the Germans would of won, goodnight, by the way can you answer this question for me please, who would win a war between the US and Russia in the present day, if both countries have equal numbers of nukes?
Original post by Apocrypha
When country's go to war, there is normally a reason.
Unless youre imagining a scenario where the war between Nazi Germany and the US where its basically the cold war, where one day both countries decided to go to war, with the US saying 'It's ok we're not gonna fight for 5 years and then we'll nuke you with an aircraft carrier that we'll send' and US ends up nuking Germany..
The US, would of lost a 1v1 war with Germany, on an open battlefield, Germany had more advanced Armor, Fighters, and Weaponry and tactics.
THUS: The best way to imagine this scenario is CONVENTIONAL warfare, which the Germans would of won, goodnight, by the way can you answer this question for me please, who would win a war between the US and Russia in the present day, if both countries have equal numbers of nukes?
Unless youre imagining a scenario where the war between Nazi Germany and the US where its basically the cold war, where one day both countries decided to go to war, with the US saying 'It's ok we're not gonna fight for 5 years and then we'll nuke you with an aircraft carrier that we'll send' and US ends up nuking Germany..
The US, would of lost a 1v1 war with Germany, on an open battlefield, Germany had more advanced Armor, Fighters, and Weaponry and tactics.
THUS: The best way to imagine this scenario is CONVENTIONAL warfare, which the Germans would of won, goodnight, by the way can you answer this question for me please, who would win a war between the US and Russia in the present day, if both countries have equal numbers of nukes?
I'm talking about a country defending then attacking unconventionally. I always have been. Wars tend to start with one country attacking another and, lets face it, it would have been Germany attacking the US. My point was, assuming that the US could mount a successful defence, they would have been able to launch a nuke.
I am not and never was talking about conventional war on an open battlefield. If you want to make the point, make it a stand-alone point
It's not really best to do anything. I assume that, when faced with an enemy that they know could defeat them conventionally, they would change tactics. You seem to be of the opinion that, knowing they were facing a superior opponent, they'd charge into battle like fools.
I don't know enough about the present Russian army to make that call. Why is it even important?
Original post by TheOriginalAng
I'm talking about a country defending then attacking unconventionally. I always have been. Wars tend to start with one country attacking another and, lets face it, it would have been Germany attacking the US. My point was, assuming that the US could mount a successful defence, they would have been able to launch a nuke.
I am not and never was talking about conventional war on an open battlefield. If you want to make the point, make it a stand-alone point
It's not really best to do anything. I assume that, when faced with an enemy that they know could defeat them conventionally, they would change tactics. You seem to be of the opinion that, knowing they were facing a superior opponent, they'd charge into battle like fools.
I don't know enough about the present Russian army to make that call. Why is it even important?
I am not and never was talking about conventional war on an open battlefield. If you want to make the point, make it a stand-alone point
It's not really best to do anything. I assume that, when faced with an enemy that they know could defeat them conventionally, they would change tactics. You seem to be of the opinion that, knowing they were facing a superior opponent, they'd charge into battle like fools.
I don't know enough about the present Russian army to make that call. Why is it even important?
Starting with your final point, both countries have nukes, now with your recent posts that means an actual Army doesnt even matter!
My response is, the US would be unable to mount a successful defence and lose.
Original post by Apocrypha
Starting with your final point, both countries have nukes, now with your recent posts that means an actual Army doesnt even matter!
My response is, the US would be unable to mount a successful defence and lose.
My response is, the US would be unable to mount a successful defence and lose.
It does now, you can't just choose to factor out the differences in WMD ownership, else we could factor out anything we choose.
If that's your opinion, that's your opinion. I think that they could have held the line for long enough to develop nukes.
Original post by MC armani
democratic society
Original post by Apocrypha
In a conventional 1v1 war between the US and Nazi Germany, how would they of lost the technological advantage in 1942? Not getting to specific here, but if you had Germany, and then the US, next to each other, landlocked, the Germans wouldve won. Adding to this, the whole long-lasting resource sapping thing is a result of them fighting on 2 fronts in the actual war, aswell as the Russian winter.
Due to autarky and German militarisation, Germany had to declare war by 1942 else the other major powers would have caught up technologically. I'll need to hunt down a source but I'm sure it's easily verifiable. If the Germans were incapable of fighting a long war, what makes you think they would win a war against USA who had more gold reserves, larger economic reserves, more man power, a superior (surface) navy and better Generals? Germany probably would have lost quicker if it was a land locked war - after all, if it's a simple 1v1, Germany can't steal resources from Eastern Europe nor Western Europe. They'd have a shortage of grain, rubber, oil, gold reserves...
Original post by TheOriginalAng
But the USA did get nukes first.
.
.
No they didn't. In truth, it was German progress that stimulated American progress.
Original post by garah
Revise your history before calling me a troll
you ignorant idiot
you ignorant idiot
Do you honestly expect any of your posts to be taken seriously? I'll bet you anything if this were titled "France v Germany WWII, who would win" your answers would be completely different
Spoiler
Original post by Savvy Sage
Due to autarky and German militarisation, Germany had to declare war by 1942 else the other major powers would have caught up technologically. I'll need to hunt down a source but I'm sure it's easily verifiable. If the Germans were incapable of fighting a long war, what makes you think they would win a war against USA who had more gold reserves, larger economic reserves, more man power, a superior (surface) navy and better Generals? Germany probably would have lost quicker if it was a land locked war - after all, if it's a simple 1v1, Germany can't steal resources from Eastern Europe nor Western Europe. They'd have a shortage of grain, rubber, oil, gold reserves...
Germany had better generals, better battlefield tactics, if we imagine the war as it happened, the US were alot less prepared, the allies had more casualties per german division than the Russians did, and there were less German divisions on the western front.
If Nazi Germany were at heightened power, and it was a landlocked war, Blitzkrieg alone would demolish the US forces, like it did the french, and for a huge part, the russians.
I think the question is just a bunch of 'If's' to be honest though.
Original post by Apocrypha
Germany had better generals, better battlefield tactics, if we imagine the war as it happened, the US were alot less prepared, the allies had more casualties per german division than the Russians did, and there were less German divisions on the western front.
If Nazi Germany were at heightened power, and it was a landlocked war, Blitzkrieg alone would demolish the US forces, like it did the french, and for a huge part, the russians.
I think the question is just a bunch of 'If's' to be honest though.
If Nazi Germany were at heightened power, and it was a landlocked war, Blitzkrieg alone would demolish the US forces, like it did the french, and for a huge part, the russians.
I think the question is just a bunch of 'If's' to be honest though.
When I say USA had better generals I mean they didn't have an incompetent Hitler preventing them from doing their job. No Blitzkrieg alone really would not demolish US forces - see the Ardennes offensive.
Original post by TheOriginalAng
Probably as, if they held out until 1945, they could have nuked Germany and won. So all they needed to do was hold out and defend until that time.
I doubt they could have won a conventional offensive though.
I doubt they could have won a conventional offensive though.
That may not be true. Some historians argue that Germany was closer to researching the nuclear bomb than the United States. Also, I wonder if the US would have nuked Germany. There's a difference in nuking a culture that's completely different to yours, and nuking a culture that's pretty similar in the middle of Europe.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MC armani
I don't see any reason why it couldn't. Britain and Russia stole all the headlines but it was US firepower and personnel that saved the day.
Might as well thank the US for ensuring Europe is still a democratic society
Might as well thank the US for ensuring Europe is still a democratic society
Never will I thank the US for Europe's freedom, I'd sooner thank the British
although in fairness, the British did help us a lot, America were late, lazy and tried to take over France and other parts of Europe once Nazi Germany was defeated which the US couldn't do One on One, it was only due to the failure of the Eastern Front that Germany lost, don't fight a war on two fronts, especially a freezing front 
But yes, the US wouldn't defeat Nazi Germany by themselves and nor will I thank those late ********s.
Original post by Savvy Sage
When I say USA had better generals I mean they didn't have an incompetent Hitler preventing them from doing their job. No Blitzkrieg alone really would not demolish US forces - see the Ardennes offensive.
Hitler's main mistake was Barbarossa, Russia had a different geographical setting that effected results, regardless the Germans still powered through most of civilised Russia.
The Germans were already losing the war when it came to the Ardennes offensive, they were fighting on two fronts, it was also largely dense forest, it shouldnt be used as a great indicator that Blitzkrieg tactics would fail on the US mainland (even though that was never likely to happen)
Original post by Apocrypha
Hitler's main mistake was Barbarossa, Russia had a different geographical setting that effected results, regardless the Germans still powered through most of civilised Russia.
The Germans were already losing the war when it came to the Ardennes offensive, they were fighting on two fronts, it was also largely dense forest, it shouldnt be used as a great indicator that Blitzkrieg tactics would fail on the US mainland (even though that was never likely to happen)
The Germans were already losing the war when it came to the Ardennes offensive, they were fighting on two fronts, it was also largely dense forest, it shouldnt be used as a great indicator that Blitzkrieg tactics would fail on the US mainland (even though that was never likely to happen)
LolWhat? Hitler made tonnes and tonnes of mistakes that directly went against advice from his military advisors. He failed to encircle Allied forces at Dunkirk, he failed to recognize the importance of the war in the Mediterranean and Africa, he spent his last reserve of forces incorrectly etc etc.
The Ardennes offensive is the ONLY indicator of what might have happened had USA gone to war with Germany considering it took the Allies completely by surprise and involved a massive push from the Germans. I really cannot see how this is not relevant to blitzkrieg tactics. 2v1 was irrelevant.
Original post by Savvy Sage
LolWhat? Hitler made tonnes and tonnes of mistakes that directly went against advice from his military advisors. He failed to encircle Allied forces at Dunkirk, he failed to recognize the importance of the war in the Mediterranean and Africa, he spent his last reserve of forces incorrectly etc etc.
The Ardennes offensive is the ONLY indicator of what might have happened had USA gone to war with Germany considering it took the Allies completely by surprise and involved a massive push from the Germans. I really cannot see how this is not relevant to blitzkrieg tactics. 2v1 was irrelevant.
The Ardennes offensive is the ONLY indicator of what might have happened had USA gone to war with Germany considering it took the Allies completely by surprise and involved a massive push from the Germans. I really cannot see how this is not relevant to blitzkrieg tactics. 2v1 was irrelevant.
Each event you speak of occurred after Barbarossa, where Germany were fighting on two fronts, thus its the main mistake..
I agree he failed in Africa, not listening to his generals and getting rid of Rommel were bad mistakes, and yes it was down to a misallocation of resources however during that point he was hellbent on invading through Russia and thus the focus of resources was there, if Hitler had used the same combined resources and divisions to fight on one front, against one enemy (the US) he probably would of won a 1v1.
I think if Hitler didnt invade Russia he would of eventually controlled the whole of Western Europe, and then mounted a one front attack on Russia and pretty much won the war.
(edited 10 years ago)
Keep in mind that ww2 was a baptism of fire for the Americans. They had no in depth tank or aircraft production prior to the War, with only their small arms being superior. The M1 Garand was the best service rifle of the war, the grease gun being incredibly good, they had the best trucks etc. They also relied on British combat experience for their own eventual tank development. Other issues they had was green troops, some small arms were not fit for purpose (aka the Bar Rifle) and they failed to up gun tanks when necessary.
The German 'advances' however had rather limited effects. Their Big Cats were expensive to produce (only later Panthers being as cheap and as reliable as Panzer IV's), they struggled to make a semi-auto battlerifle and the STG-44 was made in fairly limited numbers. Ok they had the MG-34, which was expensive and the MG-42 but that's only one of many components. The Geman industry could never keep up with the Soviets, never mind the USA, so that's why they went Quality>Quanitity, they recognised quite consciously that they could not win any protracted war, in fact the Germans were rather surprised with the Fall of France as it happened a lot faster than expected and also the Allies could of had caught the Germans off Guard if they had taken the initiate and invaded German while the War in Poland was going on.
The whole idea on a 1v1 vs America and Nazi Germany has too many what if's.
The first issue is, where is britain? Britain would of been cut off an defeated. Nazi Germany would of been stretched by occupation forces, but where would the US of invaded mainland Europe from? Next you have the USSR, Germany would of had to of defeated them as well, which however unlikely, could potentially of happened if they had taken Moscow. Both the USSR leadership and Germans felt if Moscow was taken it would be the end of the war, you could potentially have Stalin, or his generals if they overthrew his, surrender to the Germans.
But then, why would the USA enter the war? Whap about Japan? It's no longer a 1v1 and the USA relied on the Japanese striking first. Public opinion would never support the USA being the Aggressor against either Nazi Germany or Japan.
The German 'advances' however had rather limited effects. Their Big Cats were expensive to produce (only later Panthers being as cheap and as reliable as Panzer IV's), they struggled to make a semi-auto battlerifle and the STG-44 was made in fairly limited numbers. Ok they had the MG-34, which was expensive and the MG-42 but that's only one of many components. The Geman industry could never keep up with the Soviets, never mind the USA, so that's why they went Quality>Quanitity, they recognised quite consciously that they could not win any protracted war, in fact the Germans were rather surprised with the Fall of France as it happened a lot faster than expected and also the Allies could of had caught the Germans off Guard if they had taken the initiate and invaded German while the War in Poland was going on.
The whole idea on a 1v1 vs America and Nazi Germany has too many what if's.
The first issue is, where is britain? Britain would of been cut off an defeated. Nazi Germany would of been stretched by occupation forces, but where would the US of invaded mainland Europe from? Next you have the USSR, Germany would of had to of defeated them as well, which however unlikely, could potentially of happened if they had taken Moscow. Both the USSR leadership and Germans felt if Moscow was taken it would be the end of the war, you could potentially have Stalin, or his generals if they overthrew his, surrender to the Germans.
But then, why would the USA enter the war? Whap about Japan? It's no longer a 1v1 and the USA relied on the Japanese striking first. Public opinion would never support the USA being the Aggressor against either Nazi Germany or Japan.
As much as I hate counterfactuals i'll bite.
It's rather doubtful - not least of all because defeating imperial Japan was hard enough the idea that they could have also taken on the combined arms of all of europe would dubious.
Don't forget Nazi Germany would have, likely, had the largest fleet in the world by this point as it would have absorbed what was left of all the various European fleets. Their industrial base would have been spectacular and last but not least they would have had the home field advantage.
It's rather doubtful - not least of all because defeating imperial Japan was hard enough the idea that they could have also taken on the combined arms of all of europe would dubious.
Don't forget Nazi Germany would have, likely, had the largest fleet in the world by this point as it would have absorbed what was left of all the various European fleets. Their industrial base would have been spectacular and last but not least they would have had the home field advantage.
they only made two and used both in japan, germany was far larger, while it would had made a mark, i doubt it would make america win alone. also germany was developing nukes, along with the first jets far before any other nation would have had jets, since german scientist were transfered to America and other places. simply put, it most likely would be a stalemate, but i think germany would have a greater chance at winning, since they were more advance overall things. I think their main problem was reliability for vehicles, which is why I say stalemate, since its hard to invade over seas with vehicles that break down. But I have not looked too far into this. Lastly germany was the most advance nation at the start because no one else wanted to start another world war, while they aimed to become a glorious nation once again with brute force.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Edexcel IGCSE History | DEPTH STUDIES
- Edexcel GCSE History Paper 3 (1HI0 30-33) - 15th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE History Study Group 2023-2024
- Further Reading - History
- History A level,OCR- Pitt to Peel,Russia
- How many countries have you been to?
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (options 1A–1H) 9HI0 - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- History 2023 IGCSE Edexcel Question Predictions
- OCR A-Level History Unit 2 (Y201-Y224) - 13th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel History A level Section B
- What is Edexcel GCSE History like? And what was it like having it after Gcses?🙂
- consistency in Nazi policies towards the jews
- Where is the best place you have ever visited?
- How many countries have you been to?
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- Free GCSE textbooks - history of medicine
- history 2023 predictions gcse questions
- GSCE Cold war question help
- GCSE History Study Group 2022-2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
