It was Starlingrad that was the begginning of the end for Hitler and his people.
He lost over 300,000 men and the psycological effects on the german people had great reprocussians

Hitler could have won the war if instead of persecuting the Jews, using their vast financial as well as academic prowess to help the reich. Although that would have been against Nazi ideology and probably unacceptable to other party members. But if Hitler wanted it that way it would have been that way.

Yeah, Stalingrad was the turning point in WW2. Not the Americans, as they like to say.

Guys, you`re wrong. it was n`t stalingrad the turning point. Hitler launched a second major offensive after stalingrad. He should have had more SS, they being the true fanatics of nazi ideology, the would have fought the hardest and longest and until the bitter end or victory. i can`t guess. However, the german army was like nothing no one had ever seen before: blitzkrieg!
Superiror numbers of russians and allies made hitler lose the war. Stalin didn`t care how many men he lost and zhukof was an absolute moron. i hate russians. with little panzer tigers and men, the held out, following hitlers orders, against a huge swarm of the invaders. Poor hitler, he was really losing it in his bunker, screaming this is the end, in berlin as it was being shelled by russians. I miss the 3rd riech even thoought i never lived it. I wish i was. Heil Hitler!

Britain, USA, Russia, France everyone who joined in helped to defeat the Germans thank you everyone.
From Rob
From
England

I think he could of won if he guarded his enemies more in the D-Day war

For the benefit of those who have contrived somehow to leave the planet for a while, June 6 marked the 50th anniversary of the landing of the western allies on the beaches of Normandy.

It has been hailed as ``the decisive battle of the war'', and has led various heads of state and government such as Bill Clinton, Paul Keating and Elizabeth II, along with many of those who took part in those landings, to journey to the Norman coast for a series of ceremonies to mark the occasion. Any event which attracts so many heads of capitalist states must be fundamentally flawed somewhere.

Quite so. The ceremonies are not designed to commemorate an important date in the struggle against German fascism. They are to help people forget the lessons of the war and, most importantly, who bore its heaviest burden.

The D-Day landings were not the decisive act of the war. The outcome of the war had been largely decided in the previous year on the battlefields of Stalingrad and Kursk, and had been won by the Soviet Union, an entity the establishment press would like us to forget ever existed.

The invasion of Normandy was certainly an impressive feat of organisation, with 1.5 million troops being transported by 3000 landing craft and 500 warships. At the beginning of the operation the Anglo-American forces had an immense superiority over the Germans -- 3:1 in troops and tanks, more than 2:1 in artillery and 60:1 in warplanes. This Allied superiority was the result of the military defeats the Soviet Union had inflicted on Nazi Germany in the months before the Normandy landing.

In the early months of 1944, the USSR launched a powerful offensive which routed over 170 German divisions. From January to May 1944 the Nazi command was forced to transfer 40 divisions from Germany and France to the eastern front. Thus, at the beginning of the Anglo-American operation at Normandy, the Wehrmacht had 58 divisions in France, Belgium and Holland as against 239 divisions on the Soviet-German front.

But even with the immense superiority the Anglo-American forces enjoyed over the Germans at the beginning of their invasion of France, their advance was extremely slow. By July 25, 1944, the Anglo-American forces had established a strategic beachhead 30-50 kilometres deep and 100 kilometres across, having destroyed 116,000 German officers and troops. That same day, Soviet troops reached the Vistula River, 600 kilometres from Berlin, having breached German defences to a depth of 600 kilometres along 1000-kilometre front. The German forces lost more than half a million officers and troops to the Soviet offensive which began on June 6.

This is not to denigrate the bravery of those who fought during the Normandy invasion, nor indeed any of those who were unfortunate enough to see action on the western front. Western forces faced a formidable opponent, and British and US troops fought with courage and skill.

But just how ``decisive'' the Anglo-American invasion of France was to the outcome of the war, compared with the Soviet military effort, can be judged by the alignment of German forces after the Normandy landing. In September 1944, no more than 700,000 German troops confronted the Western Allies. On the eastern front, 4.3 million Axis troops were deployed against the Soviet army. Even by the beginning of 1945, 68.5% of Germany's 5.4 million troops were deployed on the eastern front.

The Nazi command suffered its heaviest losses on the Soviet-German front: more than 75% of its officers and troops, 75% of its tanks and aircraft, 74% of its artillery.

The sheer scale of the operations indicates that the decisive battles of the war took place on the eastern front, and that the bulk of the war effort was borne, on the one hand by the peoples of German-occupied Europe, and on the other the peoples of the USSR, whose human cost was more than 20 million dead.

The Western press has also largely forgotten the role of the European resistance movement in tying down quite a number of Axis divisions in security operations. It has forgotten that these movements were by and large led by the Communist parties of the respective countries.

Why the attempt to induce mass amnesia? The establishment press has a number of motives. The first is to hide the fact that, for the US and Britain, World War II was not just about the ``liberation of Europe from fascist rule''. If it had been, they would also have invaded Spain to oust the Franco dictatorship.

If Western powers were truly interested in remembering the defeat of Nazi Germany, the Western press and Western leaders would have spent much of 1993 in the former Soviet Union to remember the decisive battles fought there.

For the US, the war in Europe and the Pacific marked its transition to the world's hegemonic capitalist country. For the British ruling class, it was about retaining as much of the empire as possible, a policy which in any case began to unravel almost with the war's end.

Obscuring the historical record is also intended to make people forget that many of those who fought fascism were fighting not just a defensive war but for a socialist future. They believed that by fighting for socialism they were fighting for a better world.

The establishment press trumpets the idea that rulers of the West fought World War II to save freedom and democracy. But the fact that the war ended with capitalism preserved in western Europe created a legacy which includes millions of unemployed in the capitalist heartlands and millions of deaths by starvation in the Third World. It threatens destruction through environmental collapse. It has delivered wars somewhere on the planet on every day of every year since 1945.

No wonder the powers that be want to make people forget that the ideal of socialism is capable of inspiring millions.

Hitler - one mad and genius visionar
Stalin - only one barbaric madman

British in WW II - Supreme heroes
Americans in WW II - Stupid heroes
Russians in WW II - Barbaric heroes
German in WW II - Supreme heroes
Italian in WW II - Visionars and "lusers"
Franch in WW II - Only "lusers"

If Hitler won the war - now, for us, he will be The most great man!

History wrote the same hand who won the war!

Alies won - Hitler are the Devil
Hitler won - Alies are the Devil

there actually was a change for hitler to do peace with GB in 1940, and if he had he would organize all troops against the Soviet. and by the way, his sexuality is just like these people who "punish" people in the and build a heircistic system other in some prisons or in the army if we speak about Hitler.
that is probably true

hitlers scewed views of religious confirmation of his actions caused his own dowfall...he later realized the price he had to pay for blasphemy of the holy spirit, the unforgivable sin

Russia won the war they also kicked USA's ass in Berlin for trying to get all the goods for war machines.

As many know hitler is an evil man who started a war that ended up having the most casualites in the history of war..... could there be an american president trying to mimic hitler by starting a war just over greed? i think so

The cracking of the Enigma code made things tremendously easier for the allies. It may not have happened if one German had not given an Enigma machine to a French spy before the war.

The war was won by a combination of Great Britians tenacity, The sheer # of Russian troops and the vastness of the land Hitler tried to conquer, and the Industrial might of the US which enabled Russia and England continue the fight. The Turning point of the war was Hitlers failure to give Rommel the suppoies and manpower he needed to take the Suez cannal and expose the under belly of the Soviet Union to German attack. The US led invasion of Europe on D day was the finnal straw which hastened the defeat of Germany.

"Industrial might of the US which enabled Russia and England continue the fight"
Wrong. Russia produced about 95% of its weapons.
American contrubution to the Russian weapon was no more than 4-6%. Plus American weapons was mostly inferiour to Russian one. Russian tank T-34, the best midium tank of WWII, contributed to the victory not less than bravity of Russian soldiers and talent of Russian military leaders.

QUOTE:
"Alies won - Hitler are the Devil
Hitler won - Alies are the Devil"

FOOL! That's only with certain histroy books. Do you honistly think that had Hitler conquered the UK, people here would speak well of him? He may be able to hold the UK for a small amount of time, but as he just wanted to Ally with them because of the arian nature, I doubt that he'd be able to hold it with any native people alive.

What a shame that such a potentially interesting topic has been hi-jacked by a crowd of semi-literate morons. If you can't be bothered to spell or punctuate properly, don't expect others to take your views seriously. By the way, is it true that the Americans are doing their best to make up for the fact that they were late for the last two world wars by being really punctual for this one?

Hitler must of conquered the middle east first,then hold the line,muster his troops,and after the russian winter has passed ravage the russians with a full force blitzkrieg...after that the rest was a piece of cake..

Here are the numbers:
38 million battle casulties
7.5 russian(plus 20 civilians) 4.9 Germans.
0.2 million Brits.
0.175 French
.275 Americans

You do the math Dip ****.

The Soviet front tied up massive numbers of Nazi resources because the Nazi attack was launched too late in 1941. Hitler had planned his first assault in 1941 to launch in April. However, Mussolini got into trouble in the Balkans, and Hitler diverted troops to assist. This delayed the Russian offensive until late April. Had the offensive been launched a month earlier as originally planned, Germany would have captured Moscow in 1941, defeating the Soviet Union.

Great Britain survived the Battle of Britain because Hitler, against the wishes of his generals, ordered that the Luftwaffe begin attack British cities instead of continuing their assaults on RAF bases. The RAF was at 10% of it's prewar status at this point. The switch to attacking cities saved Britain. Had the attacks on RAF bases continued, the RAF would have been destroyed, and German invasion of Britain would have been possible. Britain's army had nowhere near the strength required to fight off the German army, and Britain would have been defeated.

Those were the major two mistakes Germany made in World War II. Japan screwed up as well, by attacking Pearl Harbor when the U.S. carriers were out at sea. Had they been destroyed in the attack as well, the U.S. would have had no chance at fighting the Japanese in the Pacific for at least months, likely years.

The Russians were feverishly building a series of fortification lines which would have been fully finished if Hitler had delayed . The incredible lack of intelligence regarding the size of the Red Army created initial bad planning . The lack of rail conversion crews also was a great mistake since the Russian road systems were very primitive in certain areas . The inablility of the heavy infantry to keep pace with the spearhead armour units created some fine counterattack opportunities for the Red Army around Smolensk . The belief that Russia would fall like a deck of cards was supported not only by Hitler but by most of his military planners . Basically the German planners had lost it right in the beginning . The initial success was largely due to the elite motivation and training of the Wermacht at a mid officer and NCO level . They continuously turned bad situations around but in the end were overwhelmed by the Soviet Steamroller . Thats my story and I am sticking to it .

THe bigest mistake that germany made was invading russia.

Not only that. Hitler believed that the war on Russia would be very short so he didn't even prepared his army for winter actions. By the way it was one of the reason why Kremlin was surprised with German incursion. Kremlin analists watched the world prices at the world commodity exchanges for such goods as fuel, cotton etc that would be necessary for a winter campaign. Prices didn't change because Hitler was so stupid that he believed all these commodities would be useless in "short" Russian compaign. Again they underestimated technical equipment of Russian army. For example they didn't even believed in extremely understated estimates of 10 thousand tanks in Russian army though real amount was about 30 000 tanks. During the war USSR manage to produce about 60 000 T-34 tanks the best medium tank of WWII, 10 000 "Katushas", one of the most technologically advanced and effective weapon of WWII based on reactive principles etc. Though eternal problem of Russia - bad organisation created many problems in the beginning of the war and helped Germans to have initial success, as well as caused incredible amounts of victims among Russians soldiers and civilians.

what are you chatting about, america played no major part in the war. and they also bombed japan not to stop them, but to show Russia that they are 'big tough boys'. well the big tough boys lost to Russia (CCCP), and now we could even resmeble George Bush to Hitler(though George Bush is also after oil). why not attack north korea, or israel, after all they have the 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION'. and who knows how far Bush plans to accuse countries of owing'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCION'. We could even have our next Hitler!

It was Russia's blood that paid the cost to stop Hilter. There is no way the USA could have fielded enough troops to stop Hilter in Eurasia.

"Pakistan sucks because it lost to India......but it isn't such a big deal cuz the pakis are used to it!!!"
You motherfucking Bengali...what **** do u know about Pakistan and India. We Pakis have kicked India's ass so many times even we have lost count. U fucking well know that u bastard. So don't go around fuckin sayin **** that ur illiterate parents tell u.

The biggest mistake Hitler made was to not finish off the retreating British forces at Dunkirk. This was a costly mistake...it allowed Britain to rally.

Okay. Some of you bring up great points... while others... well, let's not even go there. Hitler made so many mistakes that it's no real wonder why he lost the war. Split fronts, unfinished battles, untimely attacks, etc, etc all cost him major losses. Maybe Hitler was gay. Maybe he had good views. Or maybe Hitler was a psychopath. Who. Cares. Anymore. I mean, seriously. It's over. Done with. Let's try to move on with out lives. If there comes a point that we need to refer back to this war as an example to others or something, then that's wonderful. But until then, what good will it do us to argue how Hitler "COULD HAVE" won the war? He didn't. And now he's dead. Whoop-de-doo.

His big mistake was invading the soviet union before finishing off england

Hitler did many good things for Germany but he had to go and spoil it by making war. He also had the opptunity to take England but failed to take it then Japan made a huge mistake

Hitler did many good things for Germany but he had to go and spoil it by making war. He also had the opptunity to take England but failed to take it then Japan made a huge mistake

If Germany hadn't taken the appeasement they could have taken over England and then struck Russia before winter set in. So Hitler made two grave errors. He took the appeasement and he attacked Russia too close to winter.

As anyone with an iota of intelligence would know, Hitler lost by many of these factors ((Save the Gayness, naturally)), and more yet. You could ramble on here for days, years even, and still not be able to completely list the failures he committed himself to in this conflict. Bah. Monkeys.

Russia may have the best tanks and submarines...
But USA has aerospace airforces and and England to back him up..
All in all who ever dares to fight this 2 forces will be raped.So stop babbling about whos better and whos not,history can tell you.

Germany could have easily won the war if they decided to lead all their divisions toward moscow, and not divert their armies to Kiev and Leningrad, thus Moscow would have easily fallen and people can finally shut up, because it is possible to fight on TWO FRONTS.

Yes, that would have worked. The sad thing was that they were within 5 miles of Moscow at one point, but waited winter out instead of the final push....

so sad!

The FBI finally gave up looking for Hitler and closed it's file on him in 1978. . .I know this may come as a shock to most of you, but when I was on holiday in South America in the early 1970's I bumped into a man who was adamant that he'd met Hitler in the late 1960's, still alive and in rude good health in Argentina. I asked him what he said about reports of his death a few decades earlier, to which he said he'd replied, "I never did die, I merely evaded capture against all the odds, and, via Submarine miraculously escaped to South America, whereupon Dr Mengle administered the health serum which makes me even to this day!..as potent a threat to the status quo as I was back in the ruins of Berlin in 1945."

Ok. You all bring up excellent points, but can anyone tell me what the Allied casulties were at D-Day?

does anybody have a map of the invasion of france by hitler in 1940, if so please post how you got it or where to find it and if its is an book i'm not going to get it and HITLER was not pyhscotic, he had problems and he was a genius but he just used his brilliancy for a bad cause and he commited genocied, not homocied.

I the United States had sat out WW II, most of the world would now be speaking German. Except for the U.S., which is unconquerable because we are so great. Oh, and France would be too busy surrendering to somebody to be speaking at all. They'd just be whimpering. Heh. Heh-heh. Heh-heh-heh...(It's so wonderful to be an American. We are the greatest people in the world & everyone knows it! Even losers in Socialists countries.).

For the people who disagree that Germany could not have won on two fronts--they're idiots because the United States did on the Japanese and the Nazis. Also Germany had planned to build a naval base in Morocco and crush the U.s. by 1943. Also the germans had a radio-active bomb that was finished in December 1944, and was going to deliver it with its all-winged jet (looks similar to the B-2 stealth bomber) to New York which would have wiped out 2/3's of the city and exposed many to radiation. Germany could have also begun their campaign against Russia in April 1941 instead of June 22, 1941, however, Benito Mussolina had trouble in with Yugoslavia and Romania, so the Germans stormed in and cleaned everything up. The germans are undoubtedly the most powerful war machine of thier time and they had 72 countries against Germany by 1945. Also they should have built more four-engined bombers - like the B-17.

Yes Hitler could have won WWII, but why isnt it considered he didnt want to win it at all. Theres certainly a ton of evidence to support this conclusion. From a military perspective invading Russia already having Poland as a buffer is so crazy it must have been desired by Hitler to wipe out his forces.
In my opinion Rommel figured this ultimate deception by Hitler and refused to subject his men to planned defeat. Revealing his opinion on the matter led certain high ranking Germans to murder him.(forced suicide).
Then also take into account the assasination attempt on Hitler by high ranking Nazi officials, this is written off as an attempt by people to off an increasingly erratic Hitler. In my estimation it was due to the fact they believed Hitler was purposefully trying to lose the war.
A better title for this book would have been:
Why did Hitler try to Lose WWII?

If Hitler had waited after takeing poland, consolidated his forces, tried using diplomacy ,then attacked the soviet union, conscripted the Russians, had more control over the Japanese(the Americans stayed out of the war till pearl harbour) And gave Rommel the troops he requested,
We would probably all be speaking German.

Dont you get it? Hitler Could not have "finish off" Britain, Imagine swim across a river full of crocs. The British Home Fleet is many many times more powerful than Kerigsmarine.

Hitler was forced to make the mistake by attacking USSR for the Caucasus oil fields to solve Germany oil problem. no oil, tanks wont go, get it?

He however did not recognise the importance of Middle East, with its vast oil reserve. Rommel could have easily taken the whole of Africa with 6 armour divisions.

By the way, to you racist people out there. Our gene pool need some Chlorine, cause of bacteria like you.

he had gas, and a little pecker,the jews where hung and he couldn't deal with that, he was to busy tring to make his dick bigger than tring to win the war, that JACKA$$

After Lincoln assination left Vice President Andrew Johnson a democrat or unionist(depending on which history book you read).
When Andrew Johnson fired cabinet member Sectretary of War (tile since changed to Secretary of Defense re: same job) The Congress voted to impeach Johnson for violating the command of the Army Act, and the Tenure of Office Act, the impeachment failed by one vote 50 years later the U.S. Supreme Court voted the Command of the Army act, and the tenure of Office Act
unconstitutional in the nineteen seventies Congress passed the Bolin Amendment a vague and ambigious 50 statement requiring the President to have approval of Congress, and the War powers act
(the war power act was more length and it had the same verbiage Do you feel there should of been a constitutional challene of these to bills when congress attepted to limit Presidential powers

ok the germans gave up on England, because they couldnt beat the british navy. the british navy where the best in the world, during and just after ww2 the british navy ruled the seas, thats why hitler attacked russia he had no chance attacking the british with there fleet in the water, dont forget the british empire controled most of the world for about 200yrs, so we knew how to attack people, not a good thing but it helped win the war.

weather ur british , american, russian, everyone played a role, its lucky for us russia did take such a lose of life, otherwise the cold war might have turned out diffrent

The Germans gave up on Britain because they thought the raf to be destroyed and wanted to concentrate on Russia with the knowledge that the US who was tightly allied with Britain and certainly not coincidentaly a major nemesis of Russia would stay out of the war. Hitler's indesiciveness and his inability to listen to his generals (Halder,Bock) led to the German demise(Italy and its joke of an army that Germany bailed out time and time again needs mention.) Hitler's obsession with crimea instead of a direct assault on Stalingrda allowed the city to reinforce itself until the German's eventually became surrounded when the real offensive began. The loss of the 6th army which consisted of like 250,000 of germany's most able soldiers is what broke the Nazi's back. The Americans were second most influencial. Not militarily but in the shipment of goods and monetary to the allies before we even sent in troops. Britain for some reason likes to think they were really matching up with Germnay when in reality all they did was hold onto an island. If Britain was part of a continent they would have succumbed in a month. The German forces matched one on one with any army in the world at that time would have been victorious even over the Americans(Dont get me wrong Germany never could have launched an offensive on the states. Just saying that if the whole American army and the whole German army met on a neutral field and duked it out Germany would probably win.) The German generals outmatched and outclassed every general the allies produced only Patton matched up with them not Monty's overrated smug ass. Hitler's insane ideologies and belief that he was a great military commander was the cause of the German downfall. France well France is France. The French are awful at war. The Free French army was a joke too. Britain although resilient are not great in battle either. To stuck in traditional warfare and unable to adapt to their enemies. Britain's style seems to be im going to let you punch me in the face until you get tired then i'll push you over. With Americans its an ego thing. Punch me in the mouth im going to punch you twice in the mouth and maybe your kid too. A major force that is overlooked is Canada which doesnt get the respect it deserves for WWII. All in all it was Hitler who beat the Germans. The Germans were ans still are the true elite of Europe despite of what the French aka Germany minor and the UK believe. Germans have it in their blood to fight. As an American im glad the Germans are usually anti war because if they started their war machines back up the world would tremble to the real military juggernaut. In closing the ungrateful and always in denial Brits didnt win the war. The weak and joke of a super power France did nothing but provide 5 star hotels to German generals didnt win the war. The big headed and over credit taking americans didnt win the war. The overpopulated moronic lucky ditsy's of Russia didnt win the war. All of them combined maybe could have prevented Germany from gaining more territory but couldnt ultimately wipe the German army out. In the end Hitler made and lost the war. The Germans never could have won completely anyway.

PS: The British Navy was tied for the 3rd best navy at the time. The Us and Japan dominated in commanders and material. You were merely tied with Germany. We americans supposedly have the big egos?

the british navy controled most of the world so to say all we did was hold out is wrong. hitler "thought" wrong if he thought he got rid of the RAF, by WW1 the british had the biggest empire in history and we still had it after WW1, WW2 made a big blow to that empire, but to say we just held out of so far from the truth.

the british as well as the americans are always on the front line, now germany is a crap hole and is losing money most unemployed in europe, and the UK is the 4th largest economy in the world. the british and the americans are the best forces in this world and we always have been, we might have not been at our best in some points in history but our armys are trained to be the best, and we where then and are now.

the only reason hitler got at far as he did is because the US and UK looked the other way when he went in to poland. if we did to hitler what we did to saddam when he invaded quwait then WW2 might not have happend.

France and Britian had the pact to support Poland. The States had nothing to do with it. Your countries sat back as Germany Blitzed Czechoslavakia. You knew what was happening and did nothing. Only after the wehrmacht ripped Poland to pieces in weeks did you start to do anything. If you would have only listened to Wilson after WWI. No! you greedy F***ers wanted territory and to punish Germany. You and France created Nazi Germany. You sat idle and allowed Germany to deteriorate until someone like Hitler could rise. America helps the countries they destroy. European countries lack forsight. The British navy lost its grip in WWI at Jutland. You guys love to claim that victory however. Your glory days ended with Nelson. America's navy and Japan's navy were one and two. America knew war with Japan was imminant after we placed the embargo on them for the invasion of China. We were armed to the teeth on the seas. You launched no offensives on the Eurpeon mainland until the US joined. Even with sonar the u-boats were sinking your ships daily. If Germany breaks Russia they break the UK it is that simple. If Hitler had his entire back cleared he would have pushed all of his troops on you. The German army was a machine. With open oil pipelines in Crimea and the gained resources to support afrika korps the UK would have been a massive German harbour. You lacked the skill to take on a German army one on one. America probably did too. Fortunately the Russian winter and Hitler's insistent micromanaging didnt allow this to happen. Germany is the only inventive European power. In 2002 Germany had a better economy then the UK. The Gdp was 1.9 trillion yours was like 1.3. You could blame that on population but how do you explain their per capita income which was about a 1k US dollars higher? Germany is hard working and much of their trouble is still the dead weight which is Eastern Germany. Germany's slight recession will not last. Germany dominates the UK in educational scoring figures and all of Europe for that matter. Only Russian children score's come close to them. Britian will always be second to Germany in strength and intellect. Your final sentence made zero sense. Hitler made WWII he was a corporal in WWI. What are you saying if the British and US would have killed a random corporal WWII would have never happened? We offered you our hand and you wrecked our 14 points. Clemenceau and David Lloyd George's greediness made WWII. America had zero to do with it. The millions of dead are on yours and France's weak shoulders.

Britian will always be second to Germany in strength and intellect - ur joking right ur trying to tell me that germany had something over on the british empire, the bigget empire in the world. the british controled the seas after WW1 and lost that empire in WW2.

and if i remember correctly the US was trying to make peace with japan. germany still has high unemployment, the UK doesnt like i said we have the 4th largest economy in the world. germany could have never taken the UK without killing every armed person in the counry, the UK has never been taken over, and killed ass when people have tried, we saw the spanish away, we saw the frecnh away, and we saw the germans away, the spanish sent 150ships to invaded the UK the next day they went home backing, because of that british navy, plus ur navy was pretty crap after pearl.

the only reason we didnt go in to europe was because we laked the man power to do something that big, the UK suffer because we didnt deal with hitler when he went in poland.

and if u did read the last bit, i said if we stoped hitler like we stoped saddam in quwait then WW2 wouldnt have happend, because they wouldnt have been so big. hitlers mistake was to attack russia before he finished the UK but like i said he couldnt have done that with the british navy in the water, we had been running the seas for almost 300yrs, and knew how to fight on them.

On the outbreak of the First World War President Woodrow Wilson declared a policy of strict neutrality. hardly someone who wanted to help there allies. the US had the power to change and even the score but they sat back and done nothing.

America helps the countries they destroy? the americans are doing the same thing the british did back in the day, i am half american, and i can see why some people say some americans are sooooo big headed, the british where around a lot longer than the US bring order to countrys, and like all empires and super powers they fall, this isnt an insult to american but its true the british tried to police the world and it didnt work, well it did for 300yrs then went wrong, if some american dont start to be humble when it does happen every country is gonna look the other way, and not help u out, and dont say it wouldnt happen every empire, super has fallen, america is no diffrent. the only country that would help u out would be the UK, the rest would look and laugh.

True Britian had the biggest empire and did rule the sea from the victory against the Armada(the victory was helped by the lucky storm no doubt) until WWI when Germnay became equal with you at the battle of Jutland. By 1943 you were a distant third. America was bruised not beaton we were at 80% just two months after harbour and the US at 80% was still better then anybody. (I will get the material report on our navy vessel's quanitity, build and armaments if you like and you can compare our totals with Britain.) This isnt a mark of superiority over Germany though. For god's sake Germnay didn't even unify until 1871! It took them 50 years to catch up to you. If Germany would have unified before their would be no UK. Europe's premiere doctors and scientists almost always come from Germany or Russia that is a very known fact. Sorry you remember incorrectly. Have you ever heard of the rape of Nanking? America had placed a major oil and machinery embargo on Japan because they launched an attack on China. Americans at this time loved China we had a connection with the ruling party and we were eager to take advantage of China's great market possibilities. So NO we were not trying to make peace with Japan. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour because it wanted to knock out our fleet in a single shot. They had to do it because the embargo had put their fuel and resources to the breaking point. The whole point is that just last year germnay had the third best economy in the world(http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/facts/facts_about/economy.html)Look it up genius. You are naive and insane if you dont understand how close germany came to taking you over. Germany is renown for taking on multiple enemies at once. Germany matched against Britaian one on one. 100 percent fact you guys would be speaking German by the end of the year. The luftwaffte thought thata the Raf was destroyed and you nearly were. They outnumbered in the sky like three two one. Britains army is massively overrated by both the US and Britain. Wilson did declare neutrality to get elected. WWI wasn't clear cut on who's side to enter. We didnt join the allies because many of you were only in war because of ancient alliances. Germany is ultimately blamed for the being the bad guy but have you ever researched WWI? Look at Britian and France. America was split on whose side to join. However after the sinking of the louisitania and the Zimmerman telegram we declared war. 14 point came after the war genius. The fact that Wilson was neutral before the war is pointless. Plus we did nothing France was hurting bad. We came in at a critical juncture. We still turned the tide. Yes America helps the countries it destroys. Ever heard of the major industrial powers Japan and Germany? Britian conquered and then set up puppet governments with intent of taking directly from the economy. The US rebuilds and becomes the foremost trading partner. We work indirectly we are totally different. Why are British people so stupid in the belief that sinse ever other super power has fallen we must. This theory is retarted. Point A why did the other nations fall? 1.They stretched their empire to thinly until they lacked the man power to control it. 2. They were overcome economically by a younger and growing nation. 3. They were conquered by a nearby rival. Now look at America. 1. WE are pretty much sessile in America we dont have imperialism and well we have 300 million die hard people. 2. The world is discovered we were the last growing country. We use 3 percent of our land for crops yet we produce the most food in the world we have only just began to tap into our resources. Their is no up and coming power the world is settled. 3. We have no nearby rivals. We are not geographically located by any even halfway militarily powerful country. So you fuckin idiot America will dominate the world until their isnt a world anymore. It is 100 percent impossible for us to collapse. We are completly unlike any super power that has ever been so to compare us is not only ignorant but not applicable. Dont let your wishes override reality. America will never fall.

like i said, i am half american but ur last bit in ur post was stupid, u think america isnt able to fall? all it takes is a large EMP burst and ur a gonna, all them 1 and 0 turn in to big fat zeros, and u will be one of the people it hits hard on. and before u say it couldnt happen, who thought 9/11 would happen?

America will dominate - ur right america is dominating the world, and people dont like it, i for one dont care im half american. america will turn out like the romans, the british empires, maybe not in my life time, but it will happen.

one thing i will say, when it does happen i wouldnt go asking other countrys to "help" u out, cause they will turn and laugh, stick there finger up, and say, sorry i thought u where a super power..guess not.

this isnt a dig at americans, i am half american my dad is american, i just dont like big headed americans, as i dont live there i can see it from the out side, and look in. america is a great country but people like this person make it look big headed.

A large emp burst? It better be 500,000 times larger then any current invention on the market. We have ICBM missle deflectors so no nukes. Our silos are located all over the states not to mention the ones we no doubt have hidden in allied countries(What you think all our silos are clumped together in one space?). The Uk simply has no understanding on how massive the US is. The twin towers fewer then 3,000 people died. I have more people in my high school then that! It is going to take something a quadrillion times larger to knock us off. Wishful thinking but their is no threat nor is their an oncoming threat that the US will even be challenged let alone conquered. I STRESS ONCE AGAIN THE US IS COMPLETLEY DIFFERENT THEN EVERY OTHER SUPER POWER THAT HAS EVER EXISTED. You have zero logic and fact to support you idiotic thesis. You Brits simply say thing's like that because that is the only way you can cope and deal with reality. You feel as long as their is a chance maybe just maybe it could happen. It isnt, it is impossible. In order for that to happen their would have to be an illogical string of like a million flukes. Keep hoping and praying America will fall we love it because we no it has NO CHANCE OF HAPPENING. Research how empires fall and compare their cause and effects with the situation in the States. Their is nothing in common. Barring an alien invasion you are eternally stuck with us so deal with it. It isn't being big headed it is simply the logical truth. All you are saying is the pipe dreams of envious countries. We are set up for long term success. We are fifty autonomous states happily living in a supreme federal entity. You cant knock out our power because we can switch so quickly. We are like socialistic capitalists. We cannot be hurt. We have been set up perfectly.

PS: Please stop telling me about your American father you being half US irks me. Why would an American lower themselves to procreate with a Brit? Madness i tell ya.

if all u can do is insult me dont bother, what if all the europen countrys join as 1, u may think its not possible, but the british didnt think america would win agaisnt them.

like i said i have nothing agisnt americans, but being big headed will only make us more hated in the world.

being big headed will be your down fall. and for u to think ur better than anyone else is stupid, and wrong.

the british where the biggest empire in the world, they didnt think they could fall either but they did after 300yrs, it might not happen, but if it does, u for one thing shouldnt be asking for any help.

i must stress i dont mean harm to anyone in the US, im sure fmr pres.washington wouldnt want u to be big headed with all the power america has. he would be proud but not big headed.

Listen i do not want to insult you and i am not big headed. We have killed, lied and stolen our way to the top. Americans know this. We are taught this. It isnt like were all oblivious walking through life thinking god gave us this land we have accomplished this by taking the moral highground and blah blah blah. You have to be dirty to hold our position. I always speak logically and I am extremely balanced. If you paid close attention to my posts you would understand. I have never said that the US won WWII in fact i said "The bigheaded and over credit taking Americans didnt win the war". However i am logical and Europe will not form an alliance. The UK has stronger ties to the US then the UK has with the rest of Europe. Then again when Blair is out of office who knows. The thing is Europeans from what i have read and been told liked Bill Clinton probably because he wasn't a moron. The hatred generally is directed towards Bush and his lack of respect for the UN. When Bush loses in 2004 (I hope not pray because i am an atheist) Europe will lighten up towards America. Most people in the States do not even like Bush he did lose the popular vote. I no some redneck will get on here and say Bush is Great!!! This however is not the sentiment of me the people i know or most Americans. My verbal abuse on you is directed more at the British people who stereotype and generalize Americans. That really pisses me off when someone who lives 3,000 miles (over 4,800 km) away acts like they know you. Im sick of the belief that Americans are not as intelligent as Brits. It is mainly Brits who say it too. I mean if the person was Chinese, German or Russian i wouldnt get angry because they perform better in international olympiads. I scored a 126 on your "test the nation" IQ test. Even with questions that were for logical reasons British biased. The national average of your country was like 106. I am just a guy of fairly average intelligence. I just found it ironic. Reality check as long as we are the dominate nation in the world we will be hated thats life and we knowingly deal with it. Why do people not understand that in order to stay on top you have to be big headed and cocky. You have to know it. It is a biproduct of being a super power. Plus you are right i wouldnt expect countries who we have given huge sums of aid to return the favor. I mean maybe if the impossible did happen the Uk, Australia, Japan and Canada would but i think they are too dependant on us anyway so they would be asking for help right along with US. Yep Canada would be hurting if the US collapsed. Anyway it is all in fun dont get offended.

Don't be silly. -I- won the war! I was a french woman in the Resistance for most of it, but then I turned into a male American pilot to fight walking dogs who could drive tanks.

I even received a Medal Of Honor, for my time in the Underground.

My favored weapon was the sten gun and I mostly hit in the head, so I have the nickname of Mad Hatter.

congratualtions manon! Did you link up with Jimmy Patterson? The Stutz Staffel (SS) were pretty tough huh? I mean who would have thought that chicken farmer Himmler would create s seperate waffen state based on an occult ideology. It is the Thule Society just ask Alfred Rosenburg.

ok i didnt mean u are big headed well maybe i did, but me being half american i can see things form a diffrent point of view, as i have grown up around a country well some people dont like the US. and my reply to them is they cant say nothing, because england was just the same with the empire, apart from we took land and didnt give it back.

then i do see some americans that are like " we will never fall..ect" and some do think they are better, but i say we are all the same, we all helped to win the war, and wars to come. as for the president, i have to say i respect Bush for his action on iraq or we would be sitting pushing pens for the next 6months which would have got us no where, and after 12yrs something needed to be done. the world is a safer place without saddam in it, he was just like hitler.

i dont like war, but seeing saddam getting pay back for the last 12yrs of making his people suffer is a good thing, hes in on the run and scared of what the people will do when they find him.

See i understand that you are trying to show me the light but i dont have a skewed and biased opinion on America. I know our shortcomings. I however see zero threats to the US global standing. In order for the US to fall someone must take our place and force that fall. I mean i simply do not see in this conquered and established world someone all of the suddem challenging America. This isnt arrogance but you cant just say America will fall because the others did. We are nothing like any other super power. England colonized land and that is the descrepency. It isnt like American settlers are packing their bags for Iraq or Afghanistan. WE do not practice imperielism. WE are not colonizers. It is the taking over of a people in a formerly sovereign land that causes unrest. Our military is the only thing in these countries. I mean how do u lauch a rebellion against a military? All a military is is a controlled and organized rebellion crusher. We are big enough as is. Just because Americans dont believe we can fall doesnt mean we think we are superior. How can one human be better then another? It isnt logical. No human can be better then another. Some do insist on being worse aka as biased as this sounds alot of the Muslim world. I am an atheist so im not pushing some zionist christian or Jewish ideology im just stating the obvious that Muslims are an ill tempered and violent people. Before anyone goes into a rift about i know tons of good muslims and blah blah blah i understand that their are good muslims millions of them probably. However they are to stubborn and angry at the world because of their military and economic shortcomings. Pride is a bad thing when it comes to government. Religion is too and the white house doesnt escape this statement. Good vs Evil is what caused alot of this unrest and well when you bring up evil to these religious fanatics or in N.Korea just plain fanatics the response is usually going to be negative. I wish Bush would bury his bible for the next year or so. Hopefully just a year. Anyway muslims hate Americas because they have this huge desire to wipe Israel off the map(How many times must they try and get destroyed before they realize their not strong enough?) America is a major block to that combined effort. Alot of the European communities are still anti-semetic. This is where a lot of hatred stems. As for the attack on Iraq im not against it. I would bet my life they dont and have never had nuclear ( kudos to Israel 1981) weopens. Plus im willing to bet that they detroyed their chem. and bio ones years ago. I never belived any of it or the weak ass report Powell gave the UN. I mean who cares? Saddam needs to die. He has been killing long enough and the US is largely responsible for not stopping it before. Afghanistan well we had every right to wipe them out. They were hiding Bin Laden and refused to give him up so they were punished properly. The taliban was probably worse then the baath party anyway. Now after that we shouldnt have disrespected France like that. It was inappropriate all they were asking for was more time for un inspectors. Sure Saddam has played the let em see dont let them see game for years and they would no doubt have done it again. Sure France was playing a political game and seeing how strong they were by using this ploy. America should have respected France and the UN. We didnt but you simplify the situation what do u get? America who was willing to rid the world of Saddamm and the French who would rather play games and allow Saddam to continue his rule. I do not believe in an al quada Iraq alliance the two people have major religious and fundamentalist differences. The Us should have said Saddam has aspirations of harming Americans and he will not allow un weopens inspectors to view his country we can only assume he is making chemical weopens so we must defend ourselves. This statement would have made us look so much better. It would have placed all the pressure on Iraq and when they kicked inspectors out again we would be well justified to lunch an attack on them. I dont like war either but it is unfortunatly necessary. This is an endless cycle. America goes dormant for a few years and countries forget about us then you start acting up we retaliate you complain and yell not fair the world hates us and blah blah blah. At the end of the day what has the US and the Uk done? Kept the world sane.

well i have to say i agree with yr post, apart from one thing, the french said they wouldnt back anything that said about going to war, they even vetoed a resolution that hadnt been given to the UN and iraq had not seen it yet

Can anyone tell me what would happen if Germany won the war?

Nothing much. Hitler's health was deterioating and we he died Germany couldnt have produced a capable leader. Himmler, Goering and Goebbels lacked Hitlers verbal hypnotism. The empire would have been to huge and uprisings would have topples the regime in under 10 years. Every Jew in Afirca,Middle East and Europe may have been killed though. The empire was doomed to failure.

Wasn't it very possible for Hitler to decide to let the Russians off the hook and turn their forces against the UK. After carving out poland and the rest of eastern Europe, he could have diverged his forces to the UK to hold the Island to subversion after taking out the RAF. The UK without a choice would have to settle for a cease fire. Europe would belong to Germany and would easily defeat the States in naval war. This would all happen if he could have just kept his promise to Stalin. I'm saying, it would be very unlikely that Stalin posed a threat to Hitler since he idolized him so Hitler would not have a reason to war with Russia. Hitler was launching the war on a crusade for a German state that stretched towards the east, and to end the threat of the Russians. Hitler and Stalin seemed to be very close, i think it could have been very possible that there could have been a German-Russian alliance at least throughout the war. This would have surely turned the world around.

There is a lot of anti-semetic sentiment arrising with wars the US poses in the middle east. I believe the US will see the day when he goes to far, something goes wrong, and the world in general will turn against the States(execept strong US allies like UK, AUS, CAN). I'd say a country as strong as Russia will end the purpose of the American crusade in the middle east by attempting to wipe out Israel in attempt to peace. It seems logical that in times of deep anti-semetic and deep anti war sentiment arises, Israel is doomed to be a target of destruction. And inevitably drag the US and it's allies into war. It sounds crazy but what do you guys think???

Interesting thoughts, Alvinman. Today, the only country that is near the size and power of mid-twentieth century Russia is China. And if a war between the US and China happened, I think it would end up being all nukes. I think Bush and the leaders of China realize this, so they're trying to avoid confrontation at all costs and instead do everything "diplomatically".

As for the first part of your post: Yes, I too believe that if Hitler had left Russia alone, he probably would have won the war or at least made it last a very long time.

Yes if Germany would have stuck to the non-agression pact the UK would have been subdued. Hitler actually liked Britian as a nordic brother so a cease fire would probably have been accepted. As for Germany defeating the US in a naval war? Im not so sure. The u-boats were almost neutralized because of the convoy systems and sonar. We took Japan in the seas even after pearl harbor and the Japanese naval pride that was a direct result of the russo-Japanese war. I think the US navy was on par with if not better then anyone in the world. Russia isnt so strong now and would be beaten by several nations currently. Maybe in the futute when they develop their oil capabilities. Certain things need to be brought up in my opinion. The fighting history of nations. Currently I would say the greatest military nations during armed combat are in no order the US/Japan/UK/Germany. These nations have proven able to not just beat but annihilate enemies. Other supposed great war nations France/Russia/Italy/China have proven time and time again outmatched on the battlefield. With Franc I could go on and on. Russia loses to Japan struggles mightily with little Finland/fails to take over afghanistan in 10 years while the US accomplishes it in a few weeks, gets pushed around by Germany and only wins because of German military blunders. Italy has lost much since the antiquity days. They were thrown around like rag dolls in WWII and Germany had to bail them out time and time again. China historically beaten badly by mongols. Punished by much smaller japan, never showed anything militarily in fact struggled taking Tibet. Now you look at the 4 who are good in battle. The US never lost a war militarily and has never suffered more casualties then our adversary in a given war(civil doesnt count!), Japan beats Russia, Invades and throws china around like a rag doll even though outnumbered massively, fights the Americans like the devil, would have destroyed Australia. ThE UK historically about Germany's military equal,held a huge empire together, dominated smaller wars like the Falklands not so much the Boars though, Germany just a militarized nation. Country destroyer beats anyone mono e mono in any given war, skilled enough to nearly bring a whole continent to their knees twice virtually by themselves. Some nations can simply fight while others cannot. Canada was impressive in the great wars as well and I would place them 5th.
I am not fearful of Russia or China because I respect their military its only because they have long range nuclear capabilities.

Argonius, you're hilarious in that morbidly affected, armchair historian kind of way. Maybe it's your pontifical attitude of writing giving off this impression, but you need more than what you learned in your survey high school courses to correctly appraise any country, and even then I will have reservations. Hell, even me being an American, your sunshine patriotism is beyond frickin' annoying. The US has never lost a military war? How about the two proxy wars, Vietnam and Korea? Knowing your jingoistic routine, you would probably regard the defeat in Vietnam as a "withdrawal," even though America committed more explosives in Vietnam than all the operations during WWII. One out of seven troops that had served in vietnam witnessed some trauma grievous enough for them to end their lives. But please, amuse me by whitewashing the defeat by attributing it to the environment, poor leadership, even the malarial mosquitoes, or any other rationalization you think would suffice. Now as for Korea, it did end in an armistice, but the awe-inspiring American forces were fighting what you probably perceived as ill-equipped rustics. What went wrong, tot? Why didn't McArthur push across the Yalu river as he intended? After all, China was in complete shambles then -- just a year after the civil war and the Nationalist exodus to Taiwan. Hell, Mao Zedong didn't even want to fight the war. The Chinese and North Koreans had shitty and primitive logistics support and some didn't even have weapons, but they had something better -- American ignorance and underreckoning of the local tenacity, something you are displaying more than your fair share of (feel free to divulge what you have accomplished in your individual life for you to feel so haughty). Or are you one of those vain "we" guys, who ascribe their country's deeds as personal triumphs?

"Russia loses to Japan struggles mightily with little Finland/fails to take over afghanistan in 10 years while the US accomplishes it in a few weeks, gets pushed around by Germany and only wins because of German military blunders."

The Mujaheddin was supported for years by American aid, and masses of young Islamic jihadist from all over the globe. Let me put this into context for you -- Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. Now as for you minimizing Soviet intrepidity in WWII, John Nebauer's eloquent post seven months ago pre-emptively negates that garbage.

"China historically beaten badly by mongols. Punished by much smaller japan, never showed anything militarily in fact struggled taking Tibet."

What applicability does having been beaten by the Mongols 600-700 years ago to present day, developing China? Even more ludicrous, do you really believe a nation's landmass to have direct correlation with its war powers? Japan was decades more prepared for war particularly with the military ascendency in government in the '30s, while China was still agonizing over the past decades of turmoil and revolution, and the nursing the scars of western imperialism that were still fresh. Besides, Chiang kai-Shek let the Japanese walk all over him. He forbid his army to defend against the invasion after the contrived Manchurian incident as an appeaser gesture. That was so unpopular, one of his subordinates kidnapped him for a while. The man couldn't even focus his mind entirely on the Japanese invaders, and took intermittent stabs at the CCP. It was all one big clusterfuck on the Nationalist part. But even out-equipped, the Chinese were gaining ground and holding the rural areas. Of course with Vinegar Joe's disdain for Chiang, it probably appears in American media that US was the only thing between China and annexation.

And no, China did not struggle in taking Tibet at all.

"Canada was impressive in the great wars as well and I would place them 5th. I am not fearful of Russia or China because I respect their military its only because they have long range nuclear capabilities."

...
Like I said before, you are hilarious.

Oddly enough many people today see Hitler as the bearer of the Arian nation?! People that uphold this point of view today must realize that the Arian nation that Hitler envisoned was not that of simply "white people". Hitler thought that all slavic people were sub human therefore that would include people from Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Russia, and all of the Balkans. As well, Hitler - although simpathetic towards other Arians - like people from Norway , Sweden , Denmark and even the United Kingdom - they were all still non Germanic. Therefore, anyone born outside of Germany were "subhumans" .

Disenchanted You are an idiot! I said the US has never lost a war militarily. Check the body bag totals for Vietnam and Korea as compared to the US for both wars einstein. Not comparable. The US dominated. I wasnt speaking of political war. As for Japan and China I wasnt talking about land mass i was speaking about population and China was 20 to 1 in that department. China was starting to gain ground(pause for an hour long laugh) China held the rural areas you say hmmmmm no shit dumbass? Iraq holds the rural areas of Iraq does that mean the US is overmatched???? Japan attacked the cities and industrial centers. Canada was a major help in the second world war??? Behind the US they added the most force from a non European nation in that war. Germany was annihilating Russia! In fact they pushed so quick and hard they they stalled their attack to focus on the Crimea and the rich oilfields which the end result showed they desperatly needed. Germany ran out of fuel and could not push out this is common knowledge. You bring up that Korea and China were not as prepared so that would nullify the military strength notion in your idiotic head but only bolsters my opinion. The US against GB hmmmmmmm hay we were the underdogs. Japan against Russia hmmmmmmmm Japan wasnt equiped as well as russia. Finland against Russia hmmmmmmmmmm Finland was outgunned. Notice the trend???? The nations I claim are great militarily oh my god!!!! they win!!! as underdogs. Russia as a favorite hmmmmmmmmmmmmm they lose. France in Haiti????? they lose. France in nam guess what dumb fuck??? They lose. China against japan with such an overwhelming man power advantage was a joke. China offered zero resistence not the mark of military might. Russia in Afghanistan who cares who aided the afghanies they were starving and outnumbered and it was only their ability to hurt the Russians that prompted the support in the first place and soviet Russia still outgunned them in an extreme matter and no it isnt like Nam because the casualty list isnt close idiot. Germany in WWI against every nation including France and Russia should put your stupid ass back in your seat. You have offered nothing to either bolster the nations I lessened or anything to diminish the ones I credited. You only attacked me personally because you dont have shit. Im not some Us patriotic fanatic I am a fact relayer. I hate George Bush and think he is one of the shittiest presidents the uS has ever had is that patriotic enough for you???????

Let's have a firm reality check -- you are a definitive nonentity in this world, complemented with the writing panache of a 13-year old, and frankly, that's all I have the patience to treat you as right now. I'm not going to squander my time spotlighting particulars or expatiating my points too much in accordance to your little disheveled hissy fit, but here's one thing you need to mull over on how not to present unidimensional bullshit.

Casualty counts and human resource power are not barometers for victory or defeat. By your perverted logic, the Union armies would have been routed because Confederacy casualties number only half of the North. By that same blockheaded train of thought, McClellan should have quashed the southern insurrectionists in months simply due to numeric strength of Union servicemen. But please, dwell on the numbers, and toss out the geopolitical context, the domestic circumstance, soldier pugnacity/morale/preparation, operational logistics...and I just got a scary little glimpse into your one-dimensional mind. You would reckon this as trivial, but a bulk of the deaths in Vietnam and Korea were civilian, and incidents in Korea caused by American soldiers number as high as 100 fatalities per incident (from reckless air strikes and strafing), on grounds as fraught with ridiculosity as 'they looked suspicious.' This is where the anti-American sentiments of North Koreans originate.

"I wasnt speaking of political war. As for Japan and China I wasnt talking about land mass i was speaking about population and China was 20 to 1 in that department."

What was the Chinese demography in the '30s, tot? 20 to 1 as in the proportion of the two nations' general population (wait, that sounds fishy as hell, or are you commmensurating Japanese troop figures with China's entire populace? Either way, you're a complete nincompoop)...nevermind, your ratio is just wrong in every contingency I can think of. Summed up briefly -- a nation with a socio-economic class of 95% peasantry is not going to effectively repel a mobilized, and most importantly, concerting army, coupled with the fact Japan had been preparing for war since the 100-year plan was drafted after their first contact with the West. Inaptitude was never really the question -- China plainly was not machinated for a war because of the civil quarrels and poor logistic ability. Objectively, the numeric ratio of soldiers was far from equal -- Japan at peak strength was over 6 million, while China was at 5 with inferiority in almost every area compounded by a factitious air that led to both CCP and GMD leadership conserving their strength for the ineluctable civil war. Nevertheless, Japanese advancement was stopped dead at Zhejiang, and with the atom bombs formal surrender. Without the bombs, Japanese defeat would have probably taken one extra year.

"Germany was annihilating Russia! In fact they pushed so quick and hard they they stalled their attack to focus on the Crimea and the rich oilfields which the end result showed they desperatly needed. Germany ran out of fuel and could not push out this is common knowledge. "

Crimea was von Manstein-commanded 11th Army’s objective as an offshoot of Army Group South’s advance. This did little to effectuate Army Group Center and North’s movements, whose concurrent objectives were Leningrad and Moscow. It’s hysterical you’re endeavoring so hard to mitigate the German defeat by playing up Barbarossa, whose potency was annulled after six months -- in a context of a four year German-Soviet war that is of superficial bearing, especially given its aftermath. Admittedly, the Wehrmacht campaign was still very much virile even after the disastrous destruction of Paulus’s Sixth Army due to Uranus and right up to von Manstein’s counterstroke at Donbas in Spring ’43, but after Stavka’s Proskurov-Chernovtsy offensives into Ukraine in December, and Soviet troops creeping to the Balkan and Polish borders in early ‘44, Hitler’s Lebensraum was fading back to being a hopeless ideology. Hopeless, just like your callow sentiment of likening truculence to might.

“Behind the US they added the most force from a non European nation in that war.”

The most effective non-European, non-American, non-Asian force in the European theater, and even then that accolade will receive competition of Australia. It’s funny, yet so characteristic, that you can praise Canada (whose entire enlisted servicemen figures barely meets the number that perished during the Nanjing massacre and Zhukov’s Operation Mars failure) and minimize China and the Soviets at the same time.

[Miscellaneous nonsense]

- Britain and America managed to endure the war, because Soviets bore the brunt of Germany’s belligerence. See John Debauer’s post seven months ago once more.
- Finland’s struggle did not subsist four months. Rather formidable for Finland, but makes as much sound as one hand clapping.
- America had more fatalities in Vietnam than Soviets had in Afghanistan.
- The Japanese-Russo war is nearly tangential in appraising Russia, bearing in mind the massive military mobilization ensuant to the Bolshevik revolution. Almost as risible as the China/Mongol evaluation. At any rate, the Japanese had strategic surprise by not even formally declaring war.
- I failed to even cite France, so you’re a half-wit without an audience. But I urge you to continue digging up digressive trumperies, if only for my amusement.

“You have offered nothing to either bolster the nations I lessened or anything to diminish the ones I credited."

You didn't lessen anyone, junior, and being credited by you is about as coveted as winning the Redneck Olympics.

They are measuring scales in my initial posts which was my topic which you joined in on. Military dominance not poltical quagmires. Your trying to teach me on a subject I brought up. Yes for your information the casualty count is indicative of military superiority. The CSA was a better military body then the south. Mccleland should have pummeled the south? Absolutely. He was a hesitant general and his only success came at Antietam when he was granted a gift from the gods when Jackson's officer left a copy of orders for the union to pick up. Grant further proves numerical superiority when he assumes command so the theory stands. Grant was an attacking general who realized that no matter how many casualties he incurred he could replenish his forces of which the south could not. Even the TET offensives was militarily destructive for Nam? 48,000 to over 500,000 thousand is militray dominance. I could give a fuck less if we lost on the poltical front because as I stated multiple times and your saggital crested head cannot comprehend I am speaking on MILITARY DOMINANCE. The Soviets lost more then 35 thousand in Afghanistan and do you think they killed 500,000 afghanis? Hell no. I bet your some lame ass high school history teacher because that is the only person I have ever met that has ever had the balls or the stupidity to think Russia and Afghanistan was similiar to the US versus Nam. The 6th army was halted Von Paalus waited for days have you ever heard of Stalins "Not a Step Back?" Stalingrad reinforced itself and precious fuel was lost. The concentration on Crimea was mansteins yes but it became the objective becasue Stalingrad was a given and that is where germany fucked up. Proskurov Chernovsky was shit! Zhuikov I will give you him. I assume you have read Enemy at the Gates so you above anyone should know the fuel shortages allowed the encirclement. No Im comparing people population look at the figures 15-1 is probably better but the number still overwhelming. No shit Australia added alot so? Canada added more what was the point of that trying to push out some random as facts because they were struggling in Britian. After Hitler fucked up and thought the RAF was done and went to city bombing, Britian rebuilt itself. As for bringing in America surviving the Germans????????Yep your an idiot. Finland performed so well that the US/UK almost sent aid. The ski units were whipping the shit out of the reds. See compare this to Germany pushing through Beligium where the Beligium resistence was given so much respect for holding out FOR 2 FUCKING DAYS. Finland for 4 months against Russia is an astronomical achievement and another indicator of the difference between a Germany and a Russia get it 2 days as compared to 4 months????????? Excuses excuses on Russo- Japanese war. The Japanese did think they were inferior to a white army. This is why the war was such a boost to their morale and made the future conflicts possible. The effect was so startling to the Japanese and so much pride ensued that it necessitated the sending of the great white fleet by Teddy. So to act like ot was Russia who wasnt confident is bullshit. Believe me I would never compliment your bias and natural tendency to dismiss America for some guilt trip you have or more likely that ypur European or possibly just a far left nutbag. For reference I am a liberal and lean to the left but your probably off the fucking map. If I had to guess you are the offspring of Russian Immigrants and probably on of those EU loving freaks. Get a life.

I have an idea. How about you get a life? The question was, how could have Hitler won the war? Not why is America so great? I think my country is great, but I do not waste descent people's time by writng rubbish about a totally unrelated topic, 'why is America so great? One more thing,I along with every one else does not care about your IQ.

Your idea has been realized. This forum has taken detours before including the author of this very post if you scroll up. This isnt a communistic board we do elaborate on ideas if you have trouble keeping up I suggest you get a life and go elsewhere. My post has nothing to do with arrogance or any of the other retarted stereotypes the British love to throw at us as they still have deep seeded anger that the world no longer bends to their will. This isnt unrelated read all the posts. You think that I believe some stupid British test the nation show is indicative of IQ? It was a show I was just commenting on the irony of me being able to do quite well on it and smirking at the British we are better then everyone eliteist bullshit they love to push in peoples faces all the while claiming everyone else is arrogant but themselves.

i think that it was a combined effort of britain, france, US, and russian that won the war. everyone did their part and the allies won. and to the guy who plegded alliance with hilter, you are a bad man and you are going to go to hell.

I would agree with that on a simplistic front. Except for France. France's ultra fast surrender actually prolonged the war and made it evn more difficult to win. The Free French armies minor accomplishment after that never made up for the surrender.

Look. Canada needs alot of credit for this war. Over 1.1 million CANADIAN soldiers fought in the Second World War. The stupid fuckin retard americans think they did all the nasty shit when they dropped the A-bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, well fuck you USA, you guys joined in 1943-44, Cananda, France, and the U.K. (excuse me if i forgot any other country, i mean no disrespect) begun and alliance in 1939 after the invasion of Poland.
Americans think they won the war? Yes, they did help alot, but the fact of the matter is that Americans had made WW2 to look like they were the only ones to fight in it. Us CANADIANS may not be that big now, but we've pulled our own weight in the past. I would also like to give Russia my compliments to their endless effort in the second world war, they fought regardless whether it was suicide or not. they were brave.

Lustin I agree with all you say but people liek to jimp on the US because canada joined before us thats because Canada is a commonwealth of the UK. You didnt have a choice. I put Canada 6th as the greatest fighting nation. Not because the others are better but because they are bigger. It was France and the UK that had the pact to defend Poland. Canada got pulled in being a commonwealth but undoubtable fought bravely and hard. I have the utmost respect for Canada its a cleaner more hospitable less violent US. I am not sure where this animosity Canada has for us has came from maybe the US pilots who killed those Canadians. Maybe because you hate Bush as most Americans do but the US loves Canada. I mean South Park aside what can you say bad about Canada. Honestly what does Canada do to be disliked? Nothing

Hitlers mistakes

-fighting a dual war on two fronts which led to simialar results as in the First World War
-not waiting until the German economy was prepared for all out total war which it would have been in 1942
-helping mussolini in the balkans and delaying the operation Barberossa
-stopping the attacks on british airports which were severly harming the RAF and switching to bombing london which had little impact on overall outcome of battle for britain.
-not having better communicated with Japan and their at that time foolish attck on pearl harbour. Had Japan for example assisted germany by attacking USSR from the east and Russia had fallen then pearl harbour and destroying america as a joint effort by Germany Japan Italy may have been quite possible.
-not knocking out britain by a full scale invasion before operation barberossa.

Whoa what a discussion u guys are having there where many factors leading to the down fall of the third reich but lets first put a few things straight at the begining Stalin and Hitler had made an nonagression pact and history reveals that stalin didnt have any intensions on breaking this in fact he looked up to hitler and wanted to avoid a war at any cost so if you (imagine) that hitler did not break this pact with the soviet union and concentrated all his efforts at the U.K. wich in the begining was going smoothly (the air and sea campaing was taking its toll on the U.K.) "read the statistics" it would have been only a matter of time before the U.K. would have been counqered (only on the islands) after this hitler could or should have turned his attention on the colonies there by elimenating Vichy france and perhaps the remaning british forces
after doing this and securing supplies oil ect. ect. at this point we are probably in the 1943-44 era of the war at this it would be critical for him to turn his attention on the U.S. Having in mind that the german technology was far more advancede then in the rest of the world (in many aspects) defeating both the U.S. and The Canadians would present a difficult task even for the third reich but having in mind that the reich also has allies such as japan italy and at this point maybe the soviets (who knows Stalin really admired hitler) so now speak the era of 1946-47 the only enemy left is russia there has been almost ten years of war the resources have been used so mayby hitler be wise wait a year or two building up the strenght of the reich and in starts the spring offensive 49-50 fighting for approximate 2-3 years before final victory now The third reich exist and the world would be a lot diffrent then we know today ((But remember that hitler was only a man of visions like so many others he believed he'd be doing the right things just like lenin did and stalin and cesar and charon and bush and so on and so on)) please learn from history do not grow hatred from it.

My Grandfather who i never met was a nazi and served on one of the u-boats in world war 2iwas born in the us,and he died during world war 2. Now if i tell people some of the look at me strange. My grandma told me a lot of stories about it is interesting but i wish it never happend.so now i won't tell people so they wont think im a nazi is this makes me starnge or bad person? I can send pic if anyone is interested.

World War II was won by the allies due to many reasons:

a. Mistakes by Germany (Attacking Russia, killing Rommel, and others)

b. The allies capturing the Enigma code machines of Germany

c. Manufacturing of United States that out of reach of German attack

It cannot be denied that the United States was the major factor in winning the war. Without the backing of the United States, England would have fallen pretty quickly. It is only due to weapons, ships, and planes from the United States that kept England going.

Hitler made goofs yes, but it was the United States and England who won the war. Had it not been for the United States and England the French would be speaking German today!!

hitler was a moron, Rommel, Manstein, and Guderian could have won the war for him, but thankfully he was insane and did not listen to his army staff. herman goring was gay...literally, need a say more? fuck nazis and "Joel of the Waffen SS" you don't know shit about what happened back then, and you're just some ignorant bastard who needs to go read something besides your right-wing magazines and NRA editorials...go fuck yourself and that goes to any other self-proclaimed "nazi"

I agree with dienazipigs, Hitler was a f@#king bastard, and he did not know what he was doing. And that "Joel of the Waffen SS" needs an ass wipin' and i can give it to him. Stalin was an idiot for letting out so many people die, but he was a satinist, so was hitler, and they will go to hell. America did not do anything to help the war it was Russia, face the facts and "Joel" e-mail me you loser, i want to straighten you up!

Why are you guys arguing like this? This is nuts...this is exactly how the first and second world wars happened..Both sides were wrong by entering a war...but I believe Hitler was the one to blame mostly...I think he was stupid..but I have heard that he may have even had a tumour in the brain..Which would explain his psycotic ways. No Jew, caucasion or african deserves to be a victim of Genocide.. For that to happen again would be so tragic. I came on this site to hopefully find out what would have happened if the Axis won the war...but instead I found you guys calling each other names, but some made some very helpful points.. I also want to make a controversial remark....Presedent Bush is digging his own grave along with thousands of others. So there is oil in Afganistan...big whoop-de-doo...Does that mean that there has to be a WWIII? Also, the NeoConservatives has to be removed..They thought September 11th was a blessing...an opportunity for them to take over the world..why else would they call themselves 'pax Americana' after the ancient 'Pax Romania'...a roman group who "ruled the world". I am sorry if I insulted anyone..but to some of you, thank you for your opinions and information...and to others...I suggest you rethink your opinions...Thank you

I would like to say to dienazipigs....What about Canada? The 43 000 lives sacrificed in the war meant nothing? The many many factories which supplied the war with ammunition and weapons meant nothing? The allies were victorious because of the contributions of the many many soldiers who signed themselves up to go overseas, not knowing their faith...Never...Ever leave Canada out..We contributed just as much...maybe more than the US..who entered near the end of the war..just because they felt they were in danger..and who is most likely the cause of a future WWIII...I think we do have the US to thank...for disrupting peace around the world..and not contributing to peace keeping efforts..unlike Canada...Too many lives were lost within the past few years overseas in peace keeping missions..Individuals, who with some I was close...who gave their lives to improve the lives and future lives of generations to come...I think we have to thank Canada for more than you can fathom...
Thank you

Sorry I meant Luke...i give my appologies to Duebazipigs

Are you all completely stupid!?! Don't you have anything better to do than discussing this extremely trivial question?!? Why can't we just all be very, very happy that this stupid little corporal from Braunau DID NOT win the war. I for my part am very thankful for that. Many greetings from Germany, Patrick

Stalin should not have called on for everyone to fight the invaders, how stupid of him! He should have surrendered, like France. Hitler could then nuke the hell out of USA. Controlling millions Europe plus millions of Russians, no stop in him then.

That's what Stalin should have done, just say "Screw you guys, I'm joining Germany on this one!" And besides all Eastern block countries said that (only Rumania didn't really fight Russia), a lot of Ukranians were also fighting against Russia.

Then it would be Just like in the good old Nepoleon days Germany-land fighting alongside with Russia-land.

Nothing bad comes when you surrender, look at Germany! and they have lost 2 wars in a row!

I have read the majority of the posts on this page, and there certainly is a wide variation in opinions. So, I will put forth my own opinions on subjects that have arose here:

For the main question: "What would have happened if Hitler had won the war?" The answer to that question depends on what time period it applies to. If Hitler focused on Britain in 1941 and kept his peace treaty with Russia, he probably would have won. But, before I elaborate on that theory, I have one major aspect that attributed to Germany's losing the war:

Hitler was too 'honorable' to his allies. He wasted troops when he protected Mussolini's army instead of fighting Russia. He didn't invade fascist Spain for not supporting him in the beginning of the war. Had he done that, he would have acquired more land for attacking Africa and the UK. The only alliance he didn't honor was, of course, Stalin by invading Russia. But his biggest mistake was declaring war on the U.S. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor without consulting Germany. Therefore, Germany was responsible for bringing the U.S. into the European war because they honored their alliance with Japan. Had they ignored Japan for betraying them, Japan would have fell, Germany could've taken Britian and then Russia, and then hold off the U.S. once Europe was secure.

Now, considering that the topic question is asked later on, after the U.S. becomes involved and after Germany fights on two fronts, then the Third Reich wouldn't have lasted past the 1950s. Hitler felt that he had to make all of the military decisions for Germany, and thusly disregarded his more knowledgable generals. He then worked himself into bad health, making bad choices at the same time. If he managed to come back and win the war, he would be in such bad health that he wouldn't live longer than another decade, and no one could adequately succeed him as leader, so the Third Reich would collapse.

As for the sub-topic discussions about the United States and its involvement in the war, let me say this: Canada may have been involved in the war from the beginning, and it may have been a factor in Allied victory, but let's face it, without the U.S. England would have fallen to Germany, granted that Hitler focused on Britain more than Russia. Canada was not the deciding factor in the war, the United States was. Canada, Britain, France, Russia, they may all have been contributors to the Allied victory, but the U.S. was the force that tipped the scales over both Germany and Japan. U.S. generals were heavily responsible in D-Day, as well as the liberation of France and the replacement of fresh soldiers to the Allied forces to help them win. Without the U.S., the war would've taken many more years for Russia and England to fight off Germany, if they actually could.

And as for the U.S. following in the footsteps of all other major empires, I laugh at that remark. As was stated before, all other empires, and I mean ALL, held ground that was nearby enemies. England, France, Germany, and even ancient empires like the Romans and Greeks all had enemies within hundreds of miles of their border. The U.S. will be different because of several factors.

One of those factors is its government. The U.S. is, as in its name, UNITED, meaning that all of its population is united. There is little to no chance of even a tiny revolution in the United States. The people are one. If the president dies, he has a successor. If the vice president dies, he has a successor. And all of these successors are pre-determined and they are all out for, ultimately, the same goals.

In ancient times, Athens fell to another Greek civilization because the country wasn't completely unified. The Romans fell partly due to weak emperors as well as too big of an empire. The U.S. has a 'stable' government, and they have very little interest in official expansion anymore. If they were attacked, the only countries with any advantage would be Canada and Mexico. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the U.S. hasn't had any physical wars fought on its soil since the American Revolution (exempting the previously mentioned Mexico). And, lets face it, Canada and Mexico pose no threat to the United States in solo warfare.

Just as Japan was able to thrive for centuries due to its isolation, the United States will do the same. Because it is so far away from any true threat (can any country today be a threat to the United States?) it would be very hard to 'conquer' the United States. It is here to stay.

The only true way to defeat the U.S. would be nuclear warfare, and the U.S. is probably one of the most advanced nations in the world in that category. They can probably predict and stop any such threat before it drastically destroys them. The Cuban Missile Crisis and (dare I say) 9-11 were both insignificant attempts to stop the U.S. Despite the loss of life, the U.S. merely came in and eliminated the Afganistan and Iraqi regimes. If any other country were to try and attack on American soil, the U.S. would find some excuse to go and destroy that country's government before any large-scale warfare could be created (i.e. major alliances and war tactics such as weaponry and positions).

And that whole 'when the U.S. looks for help in a time of need, all other countries will laugh' is a bunch of crap as well. The Unites States are a major factor in some way in just about any country that can pose a threat, such as Canada, England, Germany, Russia, and the Middle East. None of these countries would definately turn their backs on the U.S. just to see it fall. In fact, whatever country is insane enough to attack the U.S. will probably feel the wrath of its neighbors, rather than alliances with them. So, my point in that discussion is that the United States won't follow in the footsteps of any previous empire, because it is drastically different from all of these empires. It will take some impossible force many centuries in the future (perhaps even the before-mentioned 'alien invasion') until the United States completely loses its status as the world's premier super power. And that is a fact.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel that it is full of truth and fact. Feel free to dispute in any way.

what the hell, USA and Canada didnt eaven have to go into Europe.

How did USA "tip the balance"?

Hitler would have been defeated by Russia either way.

Germany didnt have 2 fronts! The U-boat operations can hardly be called a front!

yes, "the truth hurts" you Americans, some of you think the world should bow down to you.. Hitler should have nuked those when he had the chance.

well we all have our opinions. opinions opinions well now heres mine well hitler was not evil but stupid verry stupid but he may have had have good veiws but my piont is that instead of fighting the brittish and the americans and the russins, make em fight each other till they blow each other apart if he was say here in america and did what he did say to the mexicans and the canadians would be like us americans fighting the rest of the world comeing from every side (just an exaple) to be continued....

I honestly think Hitler tried to conquer too much too fast, he spend his troops out to thin to hold up against any major offensive. Hitler had the men, tanks, planes, and mainly the morale to do anything he wanted he just got too greedy. If he would have waited untill after he defeated the Americans & their allies to attack the USSR he would have noone else to stand in his way. He could have repelled the landings in Normandy if he would have listened to the Generals and sent in ALL reserve Panzer divisions. The U.S. had Hitler fooled into thinking that the landings were going to be 150 north of their intended landing so he sent all availible troops there. If he would have waited until the allies made it ashore and all naval bombing ended to attack he could have pushed everyone and everything back into the sea. Hitler was not a patient man he was also very confident and greedy, but he was also a GREAT public speaker who could probably sell a chocolate popcicle to a woman in white gloves the man could motivate anyone to do anything he wanted. He had high hopes for Germany and I'm sad that he didn't get to see them happen. Hitler lost the war not to the USSR, I bet if the people of Russia had a choice in that war a lot of them would have fought for Germany and a lot did. Stalin had such a grip on the people of Russia that they had two choices fight for us or we will kill you and get another poor soul to fight in your place. Russian soldiers were pawns to Stalin and he could care less if they died, he just wanted his victory. Mass soldiers and harsh weather helped Stalin in his Victories not military tactics. When Russian troops captured German soldiers they were either executed on the spot and left to rot or sent to a concentration camp inside Russia and kept there until 1965, most of the prisoners never made it home and there was no German government to demand for their release and we as Americans sat back and let this happen. The allies made Hitler look like the most ruthless man when Stalin was even worse, but like the saying goes "TO the Victor goes the spoils". Every war the U.S. has been involved in we have never been the "bad guys" we have always said that we had a just cause to fight and it gets worse as the years goes by. Starting with the Civil war- the north said they wanted to put an end to slavery( slavery didn't become an issue in the war until 1863 the war was almost over!)WWI- hell i still don't know why we were in this forsaken war. WWII involving Nazi Germany-to put an end to the murdering of jews( we didn't find out about the jews until we invaded europe in 1944 the war was almost over!)WWII involving Japan- all I have to say is we had all the clues that someone was about to attack us and we did nothing to prepare for it, the U.S. needed a war to help the economy after the the Great Depression that might be a reason,I don't know. Korean war- We were helping to stop the spread of communism BULLCRAP all we were doing was sending brave men to fight and die so we wouldn't look like we were a push over to the Soviets. Vietnam-I lost my grandfather there for the same reason we fought in Korea. Persian Gulf- to keep Iraq from invading Kuwait BULLCRAP while our men were fighting the people of Kuwait were going to clubs and having a good time, we went there for one thing OIL!! Afganistan- That sorry SOB deserves whats coming to him. I FULLY SUPPORT THIS WAR!!! Operation Iraqi Freedom-( started off) to stop the production and distribution of weapons of mass destruction( which we haven't found)and (Ending reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom) to stop the cruel regime of saddam hussein and his sons . As you can see we never look like we are doing anything wrong and that we are fighting for a just cause. Well what do you think Hitler was thinking when his men were out fighting for Reich, he also thought his war was just so who are we to say that we were just and he wasn't. We can't be just and right all the time, but if we win we can tell everyone we were right and they have no choice but to believe us because we leave noone to argue against us. Don't get me wrong I LOVE my country but I think Hitler had a right to run his country as he saw fit. If people didn't like it they could have revolted but they didn't. People protest and plot against our government daily but you don't want another country intervening in our affairs do you? Hitler saw the British,Americans,French, and Russians as a threat and he and his men were prepared to defend any and all invasion, he just happened to bite off more than his military could handle

AMERICA WAS NOT THE COUNTRY THAT WON WORLD WAR II!

Why did America join World War II? Because of Pearl Harbour. It was NOT the bombing of innocent civilians, I mean come on, it was a naval base. Japan threatened America's Empire. Maybe you believe it was because Japan and Germany had to be defeated and America decided to "save the world from evil". Well then, they stood by while Mussolini's Italy attacked and took Ethiopia - while Hitler invaded Austrian, Czechslovakia, Poland and many other European countries. They weren't eager to join after they found out about Japan's bombing of CIVILIANS at Nanking. It was the fact that Japan dared to attack America! When Roosevelt joined the war, he said to Churchill "They have attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We are all in the same boat now." It was a terrible thing for the Japanese to do, yes. But Britain had been fighting pretty much on her own (with the help of Canada) against Hitler's third Reich for a long time. The U.S.S.R was holding her own against the superior German army (Which they eventually pushed to Ber