Hypothetical World War 2 question..

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Wow, it is so obvious that this a US-dominated forum. So many dumb Americans in here.

The Nazis would have DESTROYED USA 1 on 1. nine of out ten would agree to that notion, the other one out of 10 is an American.

Nazi Germany took on the former hyperpower of Great Britain (though clearly not at their peak other wise Nazi Germany would've lost in weeks), a growing superpower known as the United States, a former large empire; France. And then there's the Soviet Union. Not only that, but Germany left half of Europe in ruins.

One on one, any country in the world during 1939-45 would lose to Nazi Germany.

Mozelleple112

Lol

You are a complete and total idiot... The USA already had the worlds largest economy in 1940... Over twice as large as Germany's in gross domestic product, nearly twice their population, their own strategic reserves of raw materials...

You mention Germany fighting all those other nations at once...

1) It's not hard to fight a defensive war (which after 1942, it was until the end), 2) Who do you think was supplying/paying for all of the other nations to fight? The US purchased BILLIONS in foreign securities to help the USSR/UK as well as produced much of their military equipment early in the war (and all of it in the case of the UK late in the war)...

And what are you going on about the US being weak? By 1945 the US Military was fielding over 12,100,000 ACTIVE soldiers at ONE TIME.

- 8,300,000 in the US Army

- 3,400,000 in the US Navy

- 475,000 in the US Marine Corps

Which represented A SMALL PORTION of the population and was planned to be expanded EVEN FARTHER in the event of invading the Japanese mainland...

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Postal_Guy

None of which matters, since you need to cross a huge ocean to invade the US. If the entire military output of Nazi Germany was directed towards naval maritime forces it would have taken a decade to amass anything close to a significant challenge to the USN. That is precisely why the US did not need ground forces and why they didn't bother investing in them.

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Postal_Guy

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

SUD123456

None of which matters, since you need to cross a huge ocean to invade the US. If the entire military output of Nazi Germany was directed towards naval maritime forces it would have taken a decade to amass anything close to a significant challenge to the USN. That is precisely why the US did not need ground forces and why they didn't bother investing in them.

USN 1939: 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers
Kriegsmarine 1939: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Postal_Guy

None of which matters, since you need to cross a huge ocean to invade the US. If the entire military output of Nazi Germany was directed towards naval maritime forces it would have taken a decade to amass anything close to a significant challenge to the USN. That is precisely why the US did not need ground forces and why they didn't bother investing in them.

USN 1939: 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers
Kriegsmarine 1939: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines

Because armies aren't expanded during times of war...

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

None of which matters, since you need to cross a huge ocean to invade the US. If the entire military output of Nazi Germany was directed towards naval maritime forces it would have taken a decade to amass anything close to a significant challenge to the USN. That is precisely why the US did not need ground forces and why they didn't bother investing in them.

C2N2

USN 1939: 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers
Kriegsmarine 1939: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines

Because armies aren't expanded during times of war...

They are, but if it the nazis had invaded the US on the 1st of september, 1939, I think the US wouldve been screwed

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

USN 1939: 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers
Kriegsmarine 1939: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines

Postal_Guy

Because armies aren't expanded during times of war...

They are, but if it the nazis had invaded the US on the 1st of september, 1939, I think the US wouldve been screwed

No... Germany not only had no means of invading the United States, but the US had massive coastal defensive systems in place... The United States was isolationist up to that point, and paranoid towards the world... Ever heard of the Rainbow Plans? The US was planning for war against Japan, Germany, even the UK and Canada as early as the 1920s and as late as the late 1930s... We trusted no one and prepared defenses against them... Not only that, but state militias (by then redubbed, the National Guard) numbered hundreds of thousands and was designed from the top down filled with an abundance of officers and NCOs to be quickly expanded in the event of war... They couldn't have even successfully attacked the North American continent, let alone invaded it...

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

Because armies aren't expanded during times of war...

C2N2

They are, but if it the nazis had invaded the US on the 1st of september, 1939, I think the US wouldve been screwed

No... Germany not only had no means of invading the United States, but the US had massive coastal defensive systems in place... The United States was isolationist up to that point, and paranoid towards the world... Ever heard of the Rainbow Plans? The US was planning for war against Japan, Germany, even the UK and Canada as early as the 1920s and as late as the late 1930s... We trusted no one and prepared defenses against them... Not only that, but state militias (by then redubbed, the National Guard) numbered hundreds of thousands and was designed from the top down filled with an abundance of officers and NCOs to be quickly expanded in the event of war... They couldn't have even successfully attacked the North American continent, let alone invaded it...

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

They are, but if it the nazis had invaded the US on the 1st of september, 1939, I think the US wouldve been screwed

Postal_Guy

No... Germany not only had no means of invading the United States, but the US had massive coastal defensive systems in place... The United States was isolationist up to that point, and paranoid towards the world... Ever heard of the Rainbow Plans? The US was planning for war against Japan, Germany, even the UK and Canada as early as the 1920s and as late as the late 1930s... We trusted no one and prepared defenses against them... Not only that, but state militias (by then redubbed, the National Guard) numbered hundreds of thousands and was designed from the top down filled with an abundance of officers and NCOs to be quickly expanded in the event of war... They couldn't have even successfully attacked the North American continent, let alone invaded it...

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

No... Germany not only had no means of invading the United States, but the US had massive coastal defensive systems in place... The United States was isolationist up to that point, and paranoid towards the world... Ever heard of the Rainbow Plans? The US was planning for war against Japan, Germany, even the UK and Canada as early as the 1920s and as late as the late 1930s... We trusted no one and prepared defenses against them... Not only that, but state militias (by then redubbed, the National Guard) numbered hundreds of thousands and was designed from the top down filled with an abundance of officers and NCOs to be quickly expanded in the event of war... They couldn't have even successfully attacked the North American continent, let alone invaded it...

C2N2

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

They couldnt get into the UK because A: It wasnt their highest priority and B: they were fighting a war on 2 fronts. Eastern Europe/Russia was the place the Nazis wanted most.

Also, 1v1 means no help from any allies whatsoever so no forward hubs and ofcourse the US would prepare, because anyone caught with their pants down is gonna get steamrolled.

And dont you think the germans would prepare to? like building a bigger fleet?

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

dercoo

Germany had a larger stock of physical industrial capital than the USA at the start of the war, when counting the physical capital used to produce munitions: All Germany's factories combined had more machine tools than the US's factories combined.

However it is true that German war production was about half of the USA's, but that's not because the production potential of Germany's factories were half of the USA, but because the number of workers employed in war related industries in Germany was half of the USA's (in 1943 there were 6 million workers employed in German war factories, compared to 12 million in the USA), as result the German factories usually operated with a single shift (90% of the german industrial workers were employed in the first shift), while the US factories operated with 2-3 shifts.

The American factories didn't have to sustain the manpower costs of losing milions of soldiers to the Eastern front nor had to bleed the manpower to an army of 300 divisions. If the USA needs to fight 300 German divisions in their own soil, expect that millions of would-be factory workers would be dead in the frontlines.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

Postal_Guy

Germany had a larger stock of physical industrial capital than the USA at the start of the war, when counting the physical capital used to produce munitions: All Germany's factories combined had more machine tools than the US's factories combined.

However it is true that German war production was about half of the USA's, but that's not because the production potential of Germany's factories were half of the USA, but because the number of workers employed in war related industries in Germany was half of the USA's (in 1943 there were 6 million workers employed in German war factories, compared to 12 million in the USA), as result the German factories usually operated with a single shift (90% of the german industrial workers were employed in the first shift), while the US factories operated with 2-3 shifts.

The American factories didn't have to sustain the manpower costs of losing milions of soldiers to the Eastern front nor had to bleed the manpower to an army of 300 divisions. If the USA needs to fight 300 German divisions in their own soil, expect that millions of would-be factory workers would be dead in the frontlines.

I actually wanna ask my own question, if nobody minds (I don't care if you mind anyway, I'm still gonna ask):

What if

now this is hypothetical

What if everyone in World War II used Civil War technology and gigantic robotic crab spiders?

How would that even work? I really doubt that no other country would get involved in some form or another.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

Postal_Guy

Germany had a larger stock of physical industrial capital than the USA at the start of the war, when counting the physical capital used to produce munitions: All Germany's factories combined had more machine tools than the US's factories combined.

However it is true that German war production was about half of the USA's, but that's not because the production potential of Germany's factories were half of the USA, but because the number of workers employed in war related industries in Germany was half of the USA's (in 1943 there were 6 million workers employed in German war factories, compared to 12 million in the USA), as result the German factories usually operated with a single shift (90% of the german industrial workers were employed in the first shift), while the US factories operated with 2-3 shifts.

The American factories didn't have to sustain the manpower costs of losing milions of soldiers to the Eastern front nor had to bleed the manpower to an army of 300 divisions. If the USA needs to fight 300 German divisions in their own soil, expect that millions of would-be factory workers would be dead in the frontlines.

I would expect the first US invasion of Germany to have Dieppe-like consequences the first time US forces encounter the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe which means it'd be a total disaster. But, subsequent US invasions will do better as numbers start to beef up US forces. The US could also take comfort knowing Hitler is in command of Germany and is bound to make some idiotic decisions that may further tilt the war in the US' favor.

usa

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Postal_Guy

None of which matters, since you need to cross a huge ocean to invade the US. If the entire military output of Nazi Germany was directed towards naval maritime forces it would have taken a decade to amass anything close to a significant challenge to the USN. That is precisely why the US did not need ground forces and why they didn't bother investing in them.

USN 1939: 15 battleships, 5 aircraft carriers, 18 heavy cruisers and 19 light cruisers
Kriegsmarine 1939: 2 battleships, 2 battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers, 3 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers and 59 submarines

When you cut & paste from a website you need to learn to use your common sense as well. Seeing as you missed even thinking about the 150+ US destroyers and 40+ submarines of the USN in 1939. LMAO.

Moreover, as WWII showed naval power was inferior to air power, which is why land based aircraft destroyed so many submarines and carrier based aircraft destroyed so many capital ships.

So in 1939 the Kreigsmarine, was outnumbered at least 4 to 1, with no aircraft carriers, no land based aircraft capable of crossing the atlantic, and no large scale transport capability let alone landing craft. They posed zero threat of landing a single troop on US soil.

Imagine the Kreigsmarine travelling and resupplying across thousands of miles of ocean with no air support against a navy 4+ times it size, that has massive land based air support, and hundreds of aircraft on mobile air support in the form of carriers.

It is laughable. And on day 2 the situation becomes worse, and worse still on day 3 etc because the US can massively outproduce Nazi Germany.

It isn't even close who wins this fantasy war.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

Postal_Guy

Germany had a larger stock of physical industrial capital than the USA at the start of the war, when counting the physical capital used to produce munitions: All Germany's factories combined had more machine tools than the US's factories combined.

However it is true that German war production was about half of the USA's, but that's not because the production potential of Germany's factories were half of the USA, but because the number of workers employed in war related industries in Germany was half of the USA's (in 1943 there were 6 million workers employed in German war factories, compared to 12 million in the USA), as result the German factories usually operated with a single shift (90% of the german industrial workers were employed in the first shift), while the US factories operated with 2-3 shifts.

The American factories didn't have to sustain the manpower costs of losing milions of soldiers to the Eastern front nor had to bleed the manpower to an army of 300 divisions. If the USA needs to fight 300 German divisions in their own soil, expect that millions of would-be factory workers would be dead in the frontlines.

As I noted, Germany could never get a single troop on US soil let alone 300 divisions :)

It really is simple.

Neither side can attack the other side without crossing a massive ocean.

At the start side A has:

4 times the starting size of navy

2 times the starting GDP and production capability

1.5 times the population

zero other enemies, major powers, or potential enemies on its borders.

If you want to play side B in this fantasy war go right ahead. I'll start practicing TAPS so you get the proper funeral you deserve :)

When you cut & paste from a website you need to learn to use your common sense as well. Seeing as you missed even thinking about the 150+ US destroyers and 40+ submarines of the USN in 1939. LMAO.

Moreover, as WWII showed naval power was inferior to air power, which is why land based aircraft destroyed so many submarines and carrier based aircraft destroyed so many capital ships.

So in 1939 the Kreigsmarine, was outnumbered at least 4 to 1, with no aircraft carriers, no land based aircraft capable of crossing the atlantic, and no large scale transport capability let alone landing craft. They posed zero threat of landing a single troop on US soil.

Imagine the Kreigsmarine travelling and resupplying across thousands of miles of ocean with no air support against a navy 4+ times it size, that has massive land based air support, and hundreds of aircraft on mobile air support in the form of carriers.

It is laughable. And on day 2 the situation becomes worse, and worse still on day 3 etc because the US can massively outproduce Nazi Germany.

It isn't even close who wins this fantasy war.

SUD123456

the only problem is that most of the US naval forces is at the other side of the ocean. the nazi invasion would have an advantage if they keep silence on the ocean.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

When you cut & paste from a website you need to learn to use your common sense as well. Seeing as you missed even thinking about the 150+ US destroyers and 40+ submarines of the USN in 1939. LMAO.

Moreover, as WWII showed naval power was inferior to air power, which is why land based aircraft destroyed so many submarines and carrier based aircraft destroyed so many capital ships.

So in 1939 the Kreigsmarine, was outnumbered at least 4 to 1, with no aircraft carriers, no land based aircraft capable of crossing the atlantic, and no large scale transport capability let alone landing craft. They posed zero threat of landing a single troop on US soil.

Imagine the Kreigsmarine travelling and resupplying across thousands of miles of ocean with no air support against a navy 4+ times it size, that has massive land based air support, and hundreds of aircraft on mobile air support in the form of carriers.

It is laughable. And on day 2 the situation becomes worse, and worse still on day 3 etc because the US can massively outproduce Nazi Germany.

It isn't even close who wins this fantasy war.

punkpunker

the only problem is that most of the US naval forces is at the other side of the ocean. the nazi invasion would have an advantage if they keep silence on the ocean.

Everyone is going to notice a wide scale mobilization.

That's a terrible hypothetical, waaaaay to many variables.

Let's put some of thos variables in.

1939, Hitler somehow builds up a navy capable of dominating the Atlantic, none of the US allies come to their its aid, Germany invades the US. Germany wins a long and brutal campaign.

Anytime after 1941, Germany couldn't beat the US. They wold never be able to snuff out all industrial capabilities and the logistics are far too great.

Realistically, the only nation in the world with the capabilities to ever actually def ate the US in the last century has been the USSR after WWII. Even China today couldn't beat the US. This nation is too large, has too much industry, too much national resources, too large of a population.

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

The US was out producing the entire Axis power(in terms of war supplies) by a factor of 3 as I recall.

Everything about the US was better was better(in a strategic war assets sense, like population & natural resources).

The German's only hope would be to blitz, but the US's geography prevented that.

In short, the US could beat Germany, but Germany could not beat the US.

Postal_Guy

Germany had a larger stock of physical industrial capital than the USA at the start of the war, when counting the physical capital used to produce munitions: All Germany's factories combined had more machine tools than the US's factories combined.

However it is true that German war production was about half of the USA's, but that's not because the production potential of Germany's factories were half of the USA, but because the number of workers employed in war related industries in Germany was half of the USA's (in 1943 there were 6 million workers employed in German war factories, compared to 12 million in the USA), as result the German factories usually operated with a single shift (90% of the german industrial workers were employed in the first shift), while the US factories operated with 2-3 shifts.

The American factories didn't have to sustain the manpower costs of losing milions of soldiers to the Eastern front nor had to bleed the manpower to an army of 300 divisions. If the USA needs to fight 300 German divisions in their own soil, expect that millions of would-be factory workers would be dead in the frontlines.

Alternate history is fiction. If you like it so much, I suggest reading 'The Man in the High Castle', by Philip K. Dick.

That's a terrible hypothetical, waaaaay to many variables.

Let's put some of thos variables in.

1939, Hitler somehow builds up a navy capable of dominating the Atlantic, none of the US allies come to their its aid, Germany invades the US. Germany wins a long and brutal campaign.

Anytime after 1941, Germany couldn't beat the US. They wold never be able to snuff out all industrial capabilities and the logistics are far too great.

Wasdie

That's true. A sample of US industrial capacity at the time was the difference in number of USN aircraft carriers alone before and after WW2.

In 1939, there were 5 US aircraft carriers: (Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, and Enterprise), all fleet carriers.

By the end of WW2, there were:

20 fleet carriers (offensive operations) + 1 new USS Midway-class which just missed the war.

10 light carriers (offensive operations)

80 escort carriers (antisubmarine, convoy escort, shore bombardment)

Edit:

The numbers above are after losses have been deducted from the totals.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/ships-cv.html

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Postal_Guy

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="wis3boi"]

Lol

C2N2

You are a complete and total idiot... The USA already had the worlds largest economy in 1940... Over twice as large as Germany's in gross domestic product, nearly twice their population, their own strategic reserves of raw materials...

You mention Germany fighting all those other nations at once...

1) It's not hard to fight a defensive war (which after 1942, it was until the end), 2) Who do you think was supplying/paying for all of the other nations to fight? The US purchased BILLIONS in foreign securities to help the USSR/UK as well as produced much of their military equipment early in the war (and all of it in the case of the UK late in the war)...

And what are you going on about the US being weak? By 1945 the US Military was fielding over 12,100,000 ACTIVE soldiers at ONE TIME.

- 8,300,000 in the US Army

- 3,400,000 in the US Navy

- 475,000 in the US Marine Corps

Which represented A SMALL PORTION of the population and was planned to be expanded EVEN FARTHER in the event of invading the Japanese mainland...

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

also:

The U.S. Army was a puny weakling when the war began

When the European war began in earnest on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland, the U.S. Army ranked seventeenth among armies of the world in size and combat power, just behind Romania. It numbered 190,000 soldiers. (It would grow to 8.3 million in 1945, a 44-fold increase.) When mobilization began in 1940, the Army had only 14,000 professional officers. The average age of majorsa middling rank, between captain and lieutenant colonelwas nearly 48; in the National Guard, nearly one-quarter of first lieutenants were over 40 years old, and the senior ranks were dominated by political hacks of certifiable military incompetence. Not a single officer on duty in 1941 had commanded a unit as large as a division in World War I. At the time of Pearl Harbor, in December 1941, only one American division was on a full war footing.

Some American coastal defense guns had not been test fired in 20 years, and the Army lacked enough antiaircraft guns to protect even a single American city. The senior British military officer in Washington told London that American forces are more unready for war than it is possible to imagine. In May 1940, the month that the German Blitzkrieg swept through the Low Countries and overran France, the U.S. Army owned a total of 464 tanks, mostly puny light tanks with the combat power of a coffee can.

There was also a mental unreadiness in many quarters. In 1941, the Armys cavalry chief assured Congress that four well-spaced horsemen could charge half a mile across an open field to destroy an enemy machine-gun nest, without sustaining a scratch. This ignored the evidence of not only World War II, which was already two years underway, but also World War I.

Mozelleple112

That still doesn't address how the Germans plan to get to the US without being noticed. The US Navy already had 5 aircraft carriers plus its surface fleet available to make attacks on the German invasion fleet which will travel the Atlantic without airpower of any sort. They'll be sitting ducks.

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

No... Germany not only had no means of invading the United States, but the US had massive coastal defensive systems in place... The United States was isolationist up to that point, and paranoid towards the world... Ever heard of the Rainbow Plans? The US was planning for war against Japan, Germany, even the UK and Canada as early as the 1920s and as late as the late 1930s... We trusted no one and prepared defenses against them... Not only that, but state militias (by then redubbed, the National Guard) numbered hundreds of thousands and was designed from the top down filled with an abundance of officers and NCOs to be quickly expanded in the event of war... They couldn't have even successfully attacked the North American continent, let alone invaded it...

C2N2

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

Semi-serious input below:

And I know this ESPECIALLY because at my gym, there's a crazy homeless looking guy who's a postman, like 50 years old and he knows everything, most people hate him but I enjoy discussing with him. if you ask him what time it is he'll give you lecture about time and how the first clocks were invented and how the ancient egyptians used time which will then make him change the subject to war and he'll talk about WW2 and mention every date and what time things happened which apparently brings up the topic of Japan and he talks about Samurais and etc and he'll follow you around the gym talking non stop about how come Mike Tyson is such a good boxer because of his genetics and brings up African history and how the British used slaves bla bla.................

Point is, he says Germany was clearly the strongest, like the strongest kid in school, but if his entire class attacked him, he'd get his ass beat.

SO OBVIOUSLY I AM RIGHT

semi-sarcasm.

On another note, this homeless guy also perfectly explained to me how come the U.S. can't beat Afhganistan.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

Mozelleple112

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

Show me German bombers that had the range to reach the US Atlantic coast or any German aircraft which could reach Pearl Harbor. The Germans didn't have aircraft carriers or long range bombers like most other combatants in WW2.

The only reason the Tirpitz was unsinkable at the time was because it spent most of its time achored in a Norwegian fjord. If it put out to sea all the time, it'd be sunk. Look at its sistership the Bismarck. A torpedo from one little biplane jammed its rudder, allowing the Royal Navy to bring its forces to bear and sink the Bismarck.

[QUOTE="C2N2"]

[QUOTE="Postal_Guy"]

1st: arent the Rainbow Plans from like 1938?

2nd: You didnt read my quote a couple of posts above

Mozelleple112

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

On another note, this homeless guy also perfectly explained to me how come the U.S. can't beat Afhganistan.

I can do that too: almost no country has the manpower and resources to sustain and win a war against a country that doesn't surrender after their infrastructure has been wrecked. Afghanistan barely had any structure to start with, so you were left dealing with small units practicing guerilla warfare - faster, more mobile, with better terrain recognition and significantly harder to spot than an American army unit.

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="C2N2"]

1: No, they were from around/after WW1 to that time, they were withdrawn around then...

2: It doesn't matter if they weren't... Germany lacked the means to land an amphibious force... They couldn't do it at all against the UK, so how do you think they would manage it across the entire Atlantic...? They couldn't just ship off from the North Sea and then land in the US... The US was able to project their forces throughout Asia and Europe because of allied hubs in the region... Millions of American troops passed through the UK, Austrailia, and North Africa en route to various fronts... Germany wouldn't have such forward operations in this "hypothetical 1v1," and even if it weren't 1v1 they wouldn't...

Not to mention, that in this scenario... I HIGHLY doubt there would simply be a war out of the blue one day with the US completely off guard... It wouldn't be peace one day and Germany bombing/invading a US city the next... The second there would be any hint of a breakdown in relations the US would quickly build up/expand... As they had done in ALL previous conflicts they were in...

jun_aka_pekto

Show me German bombers that had the range to reach the US Atlantic coast or any German aircraft which could reach Pearl Harbor. The Germans didn't have aircraft carriers or long range bombers like most other combatants in WW2.

The only reason the Tirpitz was unsinkable at the time was because it spent most of its time achored in a Norwegian fjord. If it put out to sea all the time, it'd be sunk. Look at its sistership the Bismarck. A torpedo from one little biplane jammed its rudder, allowing the Royal Navy to bring its forces to bear and sink the Bismarck.

No carriers or long range bombers, no way to fly fighter or bomber aircraft anywhere near that distance, no way to transport any size able army either. It's already been brought up, they couldn't launch a amphibious assault across the Channel to invade Britain, How could they then possibly do it across the Atlantic? They can't.

They can send what small naval force they have across, assuming they can make it across, and barring any type of costal defenses or forces, they'd have to face the Atlantic Squadron, which at that time would have been hell for them. Even before the US ramped up and starting shurning out ships, and even in the Atlantic which the US was not focused on and didn't see as too big of deal, the German Navy would face 3 superior battleships, a fleet carrier, brining over 70 aircraft to the fight, with nearly half dozen heavy cruisers and dozens of Destroyers for support.

The Germans did NOT have the Bismarck BBs at that time, the Bismarck was commisioned in Aug of 40, and the Tripitz in Feb 41. In sept of 39 all they have are 2 Schamhorst class BBs, 2 ancient pre-drednought era BBs that weren't worth a damn, and 3 "pocket battships" which were really just heavy cruisers with bigger guns.

no one is saying that the Either the German Army nor the German Airforce couldn't have beat the American counter parts in the September of 1939. That's obivious. But, the fact is, Neither have a way of reaching the US. The best the Germans could do in Sept of 1939 is launch a naval assault, which would not go well for them.

[QUOTE="General_X"]Probably depends a lot on where they were fighting and who was invading who.gamerguru100

I once asked a similar question about what would have happened if the U.S. was on the receiving end of Operation Barbarossa. Kind of hard to say since the sea invasion is completely untenable as you point out and if the U.S. and Germany were next to each other, they would probably both be very different places.

Hitler himself said that he tried his best to avoid conflict with the US. Of course, he was compelled to declare war on the US after the Pearl Harbor thing. Which kinda shows you that even Hitler knew who'd be victorious.

Hitler himself said that he tried his best to avoid conflict with the US. Of course, he was compelled to declare war on the US after the Pearl Harbor thing. Which kinda shows you that even Hitler knew who'd be victorious.

thebest31406

He did send a few subs to NYC in the harbor to scout out for 'possible invasion', but I just have to wonder....how i nthe flying fvck does any military besides post WW2 russia actually mount a successful attack no the US in that time period? Or now even.....it's surrounded by two huge oceans, and then two neutral antions on the north and south. You'd be seen comming waaaay before you got there. Then supply lines issues, the massive landscape, varying climates, huge population of the US, LOADS of cities (And good luck capturing something like NYC)

[QUOTE="thebest31406"]

Hitler himself said that he tried his best to avoid conflict with the US. Of course, he was compelled to declare war on the US after the Pearl Harbor thing. Which kinda shows you that even Hitler knew who'd be victorious.

wis3boi

He did send a few subs to NYC in the harbor to scout out for 'possible invasion', but I just have to wonder....how i nthe flying fvck does any military besides post WW2 russia actually mount a successful attack no the US in that time period? Or now even.....it's surrounded by two huge oceans, and then two neutral antions on the north and south. You'd be seen comming waaaay before you got there. Then supply lines issues, the massive landscape, varying climates, huge population of the US, LOADS of cities (And good luck capturing something like NYC)

This is stupid. Neither country can invade the other one, so whoever is the aggressor loses by default. Germany couldn't do jack sh!t to the continental U.S. - you're talking about building up enough naval power to destroy the U.S. fleet while simultanously producing a strong enough invasion force to smash the entire East Coast and keep supply lines open across the fvcking Atlantic ocean. Germany had a fraction of the U.S.'s industrial production and population and couldn't possibly pull that of without alerting the U.S. and starting an arms race that it would lose.

It's only marginally less impossible for the U.S. to smash up Germany too. Without allies the U.S. has no staging base with which to move onto Europe, meaning that its entire invasion force must cross the Atlantic Ocean. Now, if you think that the U.S. can supply a huge invasion army across that distance and hit Germany from the Baltic and North Seas then you should probably go back in time and tell the guys who planned Operation Overlord how unnecessary and convoluted their strategy was.

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="Pitbulllova"]id root for the allies btw (anscestors fought with the allies)TheFallenDemon

Now, if you think that the U.S. can supply a huge invasion army across that distance and hit Germany from the Baltic and North Seas then you should probably go back in time and tell the guys who planned Operation Overlord how unnecessary and convoluted their strategy was.

Barbariser

Why would the planners of Overlord choose to attack Germany directly from the North or Baltic Seas? Look at the map and see how far they are from air bases in England. The US didn't have carriers to spare either. They were all slated for the Pacific Theater. All air support had to come from bases in England. Obviously, the closer the invasion beaches are to England, the more fuel and ordnance aircraft can carry, resulting in longer loiter times over the invasion beaches.

The US can mount giant invasion fleets over long distances. The Pacific Theater of Operations in WW2 showed they can do it. Even back in late 1942 during Operation Torch, large units of US forces directly from ports on the Atlantic coast met up with Royal Navy units at the other side of the Atlantic.

In this hypothetical war, I expect air support from the US aircraft carriers. Approaching from the Baltic Sea would be far fetched. But, it wouldn't be from the North sea. Assuming both countries respect territorial boundaries, the flanks of the US invasion force would be almost secure from air attack with Norway on the left flank and Great Britain on the right. The US can concentrate its forces and deal with German air attacks up front.

I'm sure the US would like to occupy or at least neutralize that part of Germany near the North sea because that would be where a lot of German domestic oil production would come from. Germany also had to import a lot of natural resources such as iron ore. If the war was strictly between the US and Germany, one of the first things the US would do is cut the flow of natural resources to Germany. Without conquering other countries and taking their natural resources, Germany would have a hard time fighting a long and drawn out war.

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="Pitbulllova"]id root for the allies btw (anscestors fought with the allies)TheFallenDemon

One on one, with no alterations to anything? Germany by miles. They stockpiled military hardware for years before invading Poland... the US merely responded to attacks leveled against them. If Germany made the first strike into America, I don't doubt they could have easily conquered it. Especially if they ferried armored divisions to Mexico before the first strike.Zeviander

That too doesn't answer how the Germans would be able to ferry anything across the Atlantic without control of the Atlantic Ocean. Whoever has control of the Atlantic will determine who can do what.

In 1939 these are the comparative strengths of the two navies:

NAVAL STRENGTH 1939

TYPE----------------USA ---------GERMANY

Aircraft Carriers----5-----------------0

Battleships---------15----------------4

Cruisers------------36----------------11

Destroyers--------127---------------22

Submarines-------58----------------62

Patrol--------------20-----------------20

The aircraft carriers will be decisive because it means the US Navy can hit the German Navy hard without the latter being able to hit back at all.

Both sides can try to blockade each other. That too favors the US. The Germans will have to blockade both West and East Coasts which is a huge area to cover while the US have a much smaller area to deal with. War industries need huge amounts of resources and shipping is the best means of importing them in quantity. That's why it's important to have a strong navy.

Wow, it is so obvious that this a US-dominated forum. So many dumb Americans in here.

The Nazis would have DESTROYED USA 1 on 1. nine of out ten would agree to that notion, the other one out of 10 is an American.

Nazi Germany took on the former hyperpower of Great Britain (though clearly not at their peak other wise Nazi Germany would've lost in weeks), a growing superpower known as the United States, a former large empire; France. And then there's the Soviet Union. Not only that, but Germany left half of Europe in ruins.

One on one, any country in the world during 1939-45 would lose to Nazi Germany.

Mozelleple112

I am seeing alot of PRO USA to win, how is that with the argument of "there is alot of water in the way" only a single sided argument. That would then mean the USA couldnt defeat germany because of the water.

The question was completely hypothetical. I think its safe to say if it were a straight up top trumps style fight, the Nazis would win. If you want to remain geographically realistic, lets go with a Hitler and his generals rulling Europe, it would then be Europe vs America, you still think America would win? what with the combined European navy and air force, odds are Russia would follow suit, you now have america attacked from both sides. Either way ameria wasn't that powerful back then.

For sure, now if america wanted to roll out its army and attack everyone I recon they would win. They have the armed forces for it, they have supperior everything.

I have a feeling to many people watch WW2 films that feature american soliders and take what they see as fact xD.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"]One on one, with no alterations to anything? Germany by miles. They stockpiled military hardware for years before invading Poland... the US merely responded to attacks leveled against them. If Germany made the first strike into America, I don't doubt they could have easily conquered it. Especially if they ferried armored divisions to Mexico before the first strike.jun_aka_pekto

That too doesn't answer how the Germans would be able to ferry anything across the Atlantic without control of the Atlantic Ocean. Whoever has control of the Atlantic will determine who can do what.

In 1939 these are the comparative strengths of the two navies:

NAVAL STRENGTH 1939

TYPE----------------USA ---------GERMANY

Aircraft Carriers----5-----------------0

Battleships---------15----------------4

Cruisers------------36----------------11

Destroyers--------127---------------22

Submarines-------58----------------62

Patrol--------------20-----------------20

The aircraft carriers will be decisive because it means the US Navy can hit the German Navy hard without the latter being able to hit back at all.

Both sides can try to blockade each other. That too favors the US. The Germans will have to blockade both West and East Coasts which is a huge area to cover while the US have a much smaller area to deal with. War industries need huge amounts of resources and shipping is the best means of importing them in quantity. That's why it's important to have a strong navy.

Well, first off the hypothetical question does not dictate who is attacking who.

and by the question we can only assume it is at the beginning of the war, since any army at the end of any war is irellavant for any measurement of such a hypothetical question.

Answer would be that the attacker would lose in any of the cases.

Some people say Hitler could have possibly had the nuke before the Allies; if some light or is it heavy water wasn't sabotaged by the Swedish resistance or someone in that area. After all Oppenheimer helped build the nuke (a German scientist) for the Allies. And Werner von Braun helped build rockets which went into space.

So if Hitler's nuclear ability wasn't sabotaged then maybe Germany could win. I'm sure German engineers could build long-range bombers eventually to go over greenland, and get to the USA if Germany wasn't occpupied fighting a lot of the other world.

Also if the USA is allowed to use Black people, Hawaiins, and First Nations people, then Germany should be allowed to use the manpower of its occupied territories, France, collaborating Poles, Czechs and so on.

It would be a close fight. The US is known for its will to resist, but if the fight was brought home to its mainland, I bet the will of the people could be broken, especially by some people as cold-hearted as the Nazis.

This post is mainly meant for the people saying Germany would easily lose--I disagree. Also being one-on-one, I don't think bombers should be allowed to take off from Britain which is what some of you are assuming would happen. The USA didn't have any bombers that could reach Germany and make it back home either, if they didn't have allied bases to take-off from.

It's an impossible scenario though; and I am not able to read a crystal ball.

but I just have to wonder.... how i nthe flying fvck does any military besides post WW2 russia actually mount a successful attack no the US in that time period?wis3boi

Paradrop troops, bipassing the navy. Get people to Nazi collaborate, ideally a general, and some of his men. Actually get Mexico to collaborate, and stage an attack from there. Hitler wanted Mexico to collaborate against the USA, but they weren't into it. Or just nuke'em if you have them, and the other side doesn't.