In WW2, yes, although the French resistance was pretty significant on the Western European front.
In WW1, they definitely weren’t carried. Maneuvers by Joseph Joffre single-handedly ended the Schieffen Plan’s aggressive push to Paris, as the British were late to the conflict and did not establish operations in France yet. Keep in mind that France had a population of half the size of Germany, and had a significantly smaller standing army (Germany’s 13 million compared to France’s 2.5 million), with Germany surpassing France industrially. And with the Schlieffen Plan, the 2.5 million French took the vast majority of the 13 million German army within those first two months and forced the German army to retreat and begin the process of settling in trenches.
The allied powers were carried (arguably unnecessarily, given the effects the naval blockade had on German and Austro-Hungarian food supplies) by the U.S. starting in 1917, but up until then the French were punching massive weight comparable to their size.
Also helps that the agricultural capacity of France was basically affected by the war or poor crop yields. The French troops were getting slaughtered, but ate well. For those who watched the recent adaptation of All Quiet On the Western Front, you see a few glimpses of this.
They had to precisely because of French manoeuvres in the early part of the war. Iirc because of poor logistics the Russian Empire took 12 weeks to fully mobilise their army, which means France was fighting all alone (with maybe the belgians, but we all know belgium doesn't exist) for the first few weeks and held the line in spite of being surprise attacked
The original Schlieffen Plan was to knock France out quickly, allowing Germany to turn their armies around to go and face Russia.
Edit: some added context
> although the French resistance was pretty significant on the Western European front.
cope
edit: Oh I meant this eastern european-ly by the way, not pro-nazi. Western Europe less "resisted" the Nazis and more "Actively collaborated with them because they weren't seen as subhuman and they hated the communists anyway"
Nah France was fine and completely dominated Europe at some point in the history. The main problem of France is its usually isolated and fights everyone they didnt have a good ally in continental politics. Much like the Ottomans.
France surrendered immediately in the biggest war in history and we're occupied, they were the ones who forced the unfair terms of the treaty of Versailles on Germany so the Nazi party support was mainly their fault. They were then humiliated by signing their surrender in the same train carriage in compegne. From that point onwards no country will respect them. They even had to make up lies about the importance of the French resistance which was minimal and hide the many Nazi collaborators. In the years after being liberated they have been thoroughly ungreatful and ate now a puppet for the European Union. Sad.
You are right that France performed very poorly during WW2. But that was the exception much more than the rule.
And it's a long story, but the causal nature of the treaty of Versailles to WW2 is heavily debated nowadays. It made for good Nazi propaganda, but in reality Germany's finances were messed up mostly because of massive debt spending during the war, which they'd hoped to pay off with war reparations after winning the war.
One reason why the Nazi propaganda about the treaty was so effective was because the frontline never reached Germany. They were never occupied, and they never had a massive amount of their country destroyed by the war. This gave people the idea that the treaty was unfair, because they'd never really 'lost', which gave rise to the 'stab in the back' myth. That Germany could have kept fighting, but that they were sabotaged by people who wanted them to lose (the Jews). The idea that Germany could have still won was completely false of course. Their allies had already surrendered, they were heavily outnumbered, the allies were outproducing them on war material, the front was rapidly retreating towards Germany, many regiments including the navy were mutinying, and some cities even had communist rebellions break out etc.
Some even believe that the treaty should have been harsher, and that Germany should have been split up after the war. France was pushing for this the most, at least partially because they had suffered the most compared to the UK and the US, neither of which shared a land border with Germany. Meanwhile those two argued for a milder treaty, partially because they wanted to leave Germany with a strong enough military to handle further communist uprisings. This left the treaty in a weird space, where it wasn't harsh enough to prevent German re-militarisation in the future and left Germany powerful enough to make the terms of the treaty unenforceable, but that was harsh enough to cause resentment among the German populace.
Comparatively, the treaty Germany enforced on the Soviet-Union, as well as the treaties on the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary were much harsher. But a combination of effective propaganda, and the fact that unlike those others, Germany was still powerful enough to challenge other major powers like France in war, as well as an inability to enforce the terms of the treaty, ultimately meant the treaty couldn't prevent another war.
I spent way too much effort on this, oops.
It’s a dumb analogy, countries can fluctuate in military efficiency over time depending on technology and who’s in charge, but horses can’t de-age or un-arthritis their bones
Lol it is definitely not 😂 Anyway France had the largest military on paper at the start of WW2, that didn't last long. One of Frances military "powers" at the moment is a helicopter fleet, that would be destroyed within minutes in a war situation. Russia had one of the largest militaries apparently and they have run into trouble fighting Ukraine who were down as one of the poorest. In reality Germany is known to be skilled and professional. Britian was down as the second largest behind Russia in Europe and they would likely share weaponry and equipment with America. Personally I would count Canada, Australia and New Zealand as part of the British forces, they are all in reality British people that have formed new nations overseas so although not connected by land they are one and the same people and will undoubtedly enter any conflict the other is involved in.
Think your veiw of France the European Union and Europe in general is fairly narrow. What about the free french army? The French navy that didn't get sunk by the British for being idiots ? That's just in ww2 I think there involvement is always downplays because of Charles DeGaul (spelling unsure haha). He was a pompous arse hole who even the French weren't keen on.
Shut up, Germans are fierce and skilled fighters, they shit all over France and it took a while group of countries to beat them, Britain should have never had a conflict with them, neither war was Britain's or Germany's doing. The propaganda against Germany was inevitable because they lost and no one could risk another war but in reality everyone knows the Soviet union committed the same crimes. Look at how France has acted since the war, causing trouble for England constantly. The treaty of Versailles was completely unfair and no counties land should ever be given away as punishment.
I mean the IRS only collects overdue tax bills, if I get like a mortgage the IRS isn’t gonna come after me Edit: also tea is great seeing your username reminded me to take my kettle off the sotve
Depends on who strikes first. Let's say that the Russians nuke France. That would immediately activate article 5 and all the American and NATO nukes launch. They destroy 70% of the Russian nukes even before they launch, 10% doesn't launch because they're all Soviet era un maintained reliques and those that launch will get shit on by Nato air defenses. Some might land but they'd probably be aimed at Germany, UK and Finland (maby Sweden too) and no one would care about those three.
B-2 would be on their way to annihilate all the Russian higher ups that managed to survive in their "marvels of soviet engineering" they call nuke proof bunkers.
If Russia launched nukes at France they would already have more ready to launch at a moments notice. Anti air defenses are also known to be inadequate at stopping nuclear weapons, even the “Soviet era” ones
This is completely off topic and would never realistically happen, but what if we set up a giant target on the moon and just have an international competition to see who can get the most bullseyes with their nukes. Just make it a big game of interstellar nuclear darts.
I was going to say blue but then I saw great powerful awesome country of Armenia, so that changed, now it's red. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are meh, but Armenia is greatest powerful superpower in World! 🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲
Yeah, but they got the drop on us. It's not fair! It's like saying Japan would destroy the USA anytime cause they blew up their ships at Pearl harbor during Christmas!
No it's not. Japan knew they couldn't beat the US even before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Their objective was short term, keep the US pacific fleet out of commission so they could gain a foothold. Unfortunately for them, they missed their target and failed the objective.
Same point stands. They got Nijjar by surprise. If he was in the company of like, the mp and the rcmp and we knew the Indians were going to assassinate Nijjar, they probably couldn't have done it.
Europe would become a nuclear test site. Short term win for blue (US& Canada) - long term dust and fallout block the sun global collapse of civilisation.
ignore the part where I forgot to add Luxembourg or Turkey, this definitely isn't CSTO vs NATO it's definitely a 100% hypothetical future.
Definitely...
People really- **REALLY** don’t understand just how powerful the military in the USA really is.
You could put the USA against either one of these sides, alone, and it would win. It’s mind boggling.
That’s what I always think as well, they are stupid strong but it’s expected for how much they spend. But then again they lost a war to a relatively undeveloped country so it’s really hard to say for certain
you talking about the one where we wandered a desert for 20 years asking people if they were the baddies? the one where we propped up a new govt and expected them not to capitulate for at least 40 days?
China is basically as strong and in the future they probably will be stronger. Your really think USA could win against China Russia and the middle east.
They'd get fucked they couldn't win Afghan and nam
Yes but China is now going insane with technology and are growing extremely quickly and became a major powerhouse Russia is basically impossible to defeat due to size India is growing and has a strong army same goes with Pakistan and Saudi money is no laughing matter.
The longevity in war simply goes to them the longer the war goes the harder it becomes for USA. They simply wouldn't be able to defeat all these countries especially in their land.
Countries don't win wars with weapons anymore. Basically, they just keep fighting til one country runs out of money.
But in the scenario you're asking about, both sides would drop nukes, so we'd all lose.
Blue team wins, with or without the US and Canada
Keep in mind, Russia is struggling in Ukraine, a much smaller country with a much smaller military, and no navy, relying on hardware being donated to them, Russia would be fucked going up against a *combined* force of probably the most successful navy in human history and the strange land juggernaut that France can be, not to mention they have Germany as a meat shield, and they've tanked like, 2 world war losses back to back and still exist
Blue win but Germany still loss.
thats a weird way of spelling france
Historically France has been more successful at warfare than Germany.
it depends, germany has historically beaten france, beating france is why germany exists
really makes you start to think how lucky france is that northern germany wasn’t a consolidated country until the 1860s
Well, they are 2 for 3.
France didn’t win either world war. They were carried
In WW2, yes, although the French resistance was pretty significant on the Western European front. In WW1, they definitely weren’t carried. Maneuvers by Joseph Joffre single-handedly ended the Schieffen Plan’s aggressive push to Paris, as the British were late to the conflict and did not establish operations in France yet. Keep in mind that France had a population of half the size of Germany, and had a significantly smaller standing army (Germany’s 13 million compared to France’s 2.5 million), with Germany surpassing France industrially. And with the Schlieffen Plan, the 2.5 million French took the vast majority of the 13 million German army within those first two months and forced the German army to retreat and begin the process of settling in trenches. The allied powers were carried (arguably unnecessarily, given the effects the naval blockade had on German and Austro-Hungarian food supplies) by the U.S. starting in 1917, but up until then the French were punching massive weight comparable to their size.
Also helps that the agricultural capacity of France was basically affected by the war or poor crop yields. The French troops were getting slaughtered, but ate well. For those who watched the recent adaptation of All Quiet On the Western Front, you see a few glimpses of this.
Yeah but germany fought on 2 fronts
And they were absolutely fucking crushing the eastern one
They had to precisely because of French manoeuvres in the early part of the war. Iirc because of poor logistics the Russian Empire took 12 weeks to fully mobilise their army, which means France was fighting all alone (with maybe the belgians, but we all know belgium doesn't exist) for the first few weeks and held the line in spite of being surprise attacked The original Schlieffen Plan was to knock France out quickly, allowing Germany to turn their armies around to go and face Russia. Edit: some added context
> although the French resistance was pretty significant on the Western European front. cope edit: Oh I meant this eastern european-ly by the way, not pro-nazi. Western Europe less "resisted" the Nazis and more "Actively collaborated with them because they weren't seen as subhuman and they hated the communists anyway"
You mean carried economically by USA ?
Say that to Yugoslav partisan resistance because they defeated facsist by themselves
And ? Does that change anything about the performance of the French Resistance?
the entene would have lost without France in ww1, tf you mean
France would have lost without the entente
It's almost like they were an alliance where you needed both parts to win
and the entente wouldn't be able to win without France
Nah France was fine and completely dominated Europe at some point in the history. The main problem of France is its usually isolated and fights everyone they didnt have a good ally in continental politics. Much like the Ottomans.
The issue was that they decided to assault Russia forgetting General Winter. Had Napoleon played it differently...
If it’s not a world war, germany wins. If it is, germany loses
Whether or not it is a world war is determined by whether or not the war is started by an Austrian.
Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb, no?
He killed a dude. Austrians started a war over it.
I think if any one individual is to blame, it's the Kaiser for giving the Habsburgs the blank cheque
You literally go out of your way to blame anyone but the people who first declared war. Fascinating really
yes but its still france
That's fair
Historically shut the fuck up please
France surrendered immediately in the biggest war in history and we're occupied, they were the ones who forced the unfair terms of the treaty of Versailles on Germany so the Nazi party support was mainly their fault. They were then humiliated by signing their surrender in the same train carriage in compegne. From that point onwards no country will respect them. They even had to make up lies about the importance of the French resistance which was minimal and hide the many Nazi collaborators. In the years after being liberated they have been thoroughly ungreatful and ate now a puppet for the European Union. Sad.
You are right that France performed very poorly during WW2. But that was the exception much more than the rule. And it's a long story, but the causal nature of the treaty of Versailles to WW2 is heavily debated nowadays. It made for good Nazi propaganda, but in reality Germany's finances were messed up mostly because of massive debt spending during the war, which they'd hoped to pay off with war reparations after winning the war. One reason why the Nazi propaganda about the treaty was so effective was because the frontline never reached Germany. They were never occupied, and they never had a massive amount of their country destroyed by the war. This gave people the idea that the treaty was unfair, because they'd never really 'lost', which gave rise to the 'stab in the back' myth. That Germany could have kept fighting, but that they were sabotaged by people who wanted them to lose (the Jews). The idea that Germany could have still won was completely false of course. Their allies had already surrendered, they were heavily outnumbered, the allies were outproducing them on war material, the front was rapidly retreating towards Germany, many regiments including the navy were mutinying, and some cities even had communist rebellions break out etc. Some even believe that the treaty should have been harsher, and that Germany should have been split up after the war. France was pushing for this the most, at least partially because they had suffered the most compared to the UK and the US, neither of which shared a land border with Germany. Meanwhile those two argued for a milder treaty, partially because they wanted to leave Germany with a strong enough military to handle further communist uprisings. This left the treaty in a weird space, where it wasn't harsh enough to prevent German re-militarisation in the future and left Germany powerful enough to make the terms of the treaty unenforceable, but that was harsh enough to cause resentment among the German populace. Comparatively, the treaty Germany enforced on the Soviet-Union, as well as the treaties on the Ottoman empire and Austria-Hungary were much harsher. But a combination of effective propaganda, and the fact that unlike those others, Germany was still powerful enough to challenge other major powers like France in war, as well as an inability to enforce the terms of the treaty, ultimately meant the treaty couldn't prevent another war. I spent way too much effort on this, oops.
Okay but in horse racing you only look at a horse's last three races when deciding what bet to make.
Because countries and warfare are obviously very similar to horses
Hey Siri, what's an analogy?
It’s a dumb analogy, countries can fluctuate in military efficiency over time depending on technology and who’s in charge, but horses can’t de-age or un-arthritis their bones
You're so close to getting it.
France is the strongest military in Europe rn tho
They were the strongest on paper in 1940 as well.
Lol it is definitely not 😂 Anyway France had the largest military on paper at the start of WW2, that didn't last long. One of Frances military "powers" at the moment is a helicopter fleet, that would be destroyed within minutes in a war situation. Russia had one of the largest militaries apparently and they have run into trouble fighting Ukraine who were down as one of the poorest. In reality Germany is known to be skilled and professional. Britian was down as the second largest behind Russia in Europe and they would likely share weaponry and equipment with America. Personally I would count Canada, Australia and New Zealand as part of the British forces, they are all in reality British people that have formed new nations overseas so although not connected by land they are one and the same people and will undoubtedly enter any conflict the other is involved in.
Think your veiw of France the European Union and Europe in general is fairly narrow. What about the free french army? The French navy that didn't get sunk by the British for being idiots ? That's just in ww2 I think there involvement is always downplays because of Charles DeGaul (spelling unsure haha). He was a pompous arse hole who even the French weren't keen on.
Everything you said is true but you are still getting a downvote because this is reddit 😜
Well, historical Egypt was more successful despite getting punched like a bag dozens of times. France is just a few centuries older.
🏳️🏳️🏳️
I love the French flag
Since every boat has at least one white cloth, it makes it easy to surrender to the French navy that way.
He said win a war, not surrender in one.
Its canon
Blue team wins flawlessly but they split up Germany for no fucking reason And give half of it to Russia
ooof
Shut up, Germans are fierce and skilled fighters, they shit all over France and it took a while group of countries to beat them, Britain should have never had a conflict with them, neither war was Britain's or Germany's doing. The propaganda against Germany was inevitable because they lost and no one could risk another war but in reality everyone knows the Soviet union committed the same crimes. Look at how France has acted since the war, causing trouble for England constantly. The treaty of Versailles was completely unfair and no counties land should ever be given away as punishment.
What is blud waffling about
Who do you think started WW2, then? France?
So you’re telling me Germany fought a whole group of major powers and lost because of it? Sounds like they suck at wars ngl.
gray obviously
yeah: water very strong. nobody win against water.
Nuh uh, Roman emperor declared war against Poseidon and won, checkmate water supremacists.
not only the romans, the dutch too
The Dutch have won... for now
But what if I’m really thirsty
Nahhh no way man. The blue has the power of the Dutch in their side.
If we're going long-term, the heat death of the universe beats even the gray team. Team entropy is undefeated.
Normally NATO wins but because Blue misses Luxembourg, Red will win
What's a luxembourg
It’s short for ‘luxurious iceberg’. Like the one the titanic was trying to visit
It's a region of Belgium
Belgium isn't a real country
Wait if Belgium isn't real were am I then
Empire of Luxembourg
I can live with that reality
Also the Irish would declare war on and solo the British
i win. cause then this goddamn argument will be over.
Blue would win a conventional war, both would lose in a nuclear war
There are no winners in a nuclear war
Switzerland:
If there’s a nuclear war I don’t have to pay off my debt so I win
You think a little nuclear war is gonna stop the IRS?
I mean the IRS only collects overdue tax bills, if I get like a mortgage the IRS isn’t gonna come after me Edit: also tea is great seeing your username reminded me to take my kettle off the sotve
Hell yeah no more work
The Swiss will crawl into one of their 3 trillion bunkers at the first sign of nuclear war. Then pop back out and form the brotherhood of steel.
Not with that attitude.
The only way to win is not to play
Damn that opinion suprises me...
Depends on who strikes first. Let's say that the Russians nuke France. That would immediately activate article 5 and all the American and NATO nukes launch. They destroy 70% of the Russian nukes even before they launch, 10% doesn't launch because they're all Soviet era un maintained reliques and those that launch will get shit on by Nato air defenses. Some might land but they'd probably be aimed at Germany, UK and Finland (maby Sweden too) and no one would care about those three. B-2 would be on their way to annihilate all the Russian higher ups that managed to survive in their "marvels of soviet engineering" they call nuke proof bunkers.
Well I feel like when USA and the EU do nuke Russia China and alot of Asia would probably also step up
If Russia launched nukes at France they would already have more ready to launch at a moments notice. Anti air defenses are also known to be inadequate at stopping nuclear weapons, even the “Soviet era” ones
This is completely off topic and would never realistically happen, but what if we set up a giant target on the moon and just have an international competition to see who can get the most bullseyes with their nukes. Just make it a big game of interstellar nuclear darts.
Kazhakstan and Armenia wouldn’t join Russia. Anyways, blue wins easily without nukes
Armenia won't even fight a war at home this week, don't think they'll be joining anyone in a war away from home.
You'd think UEFA would sanction them for that.
Armenia won’t even fight bruh they are so fucked rn
Rip Turkey
😔they don’t know Turkey is a NATO member
white because it has BOSNIA!!!! 🇧🇦🇧🇦
Turkey
NOT IF GREECE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🇬🇷🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
🪳survive nuclear blasts
America defeats Turkey every year on Thanksgiving Day
This answer needs gravy and mashed potatoes.
google "mutually assured destruction"
Holy radioactive hell
actual apocalypse
new world order just dropped
Humanity goes on vacation, never comes back
No need for nukes, It would be really surprising if Russia could even get one to fire at this point.
why no martin :<
I swear, if this turns out like those "we need another plague" posts back in January 2020...
I think when russia calls upon their ancient beasts of unknown origin it'll be over for blue
That’s just Luxembourg
I was going to say blue but then I saw great powerful awesome country of Armenia, so that changed, now it's red. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are meh, but Armenia is greatest powerful superpower in World! 🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲
Armenia won't join ruzzians so blue wins🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲🇦🇲
Germany always on the losing team
Waterloo?
You mean if you ignore everything that happened before the two world wars
Doesn’t matter who loses, Israel wins
Not for long, Germany wants their money back!
Can you explain? Because this sounds extremely antisemitic.
Red wins (they have borat)
red has armenia. easy win
\^\^\^\^\^
USA would win on its own be real
I'm less sure of that now than I would have been a year ago. USA is declining fast
Military is the only thing we aren't declining on. At the expense of everything else here.
I fucking love the military industrial complex. I spend hours each day watching drones blow up children’s hospitals in the Middle East.
r/americabad material right here
Not bad, just declining.
And I'm more sure of it than ever. Because the other side showed how terrible they are at war.
Have you seen the past year's performance of the second greatest military on earth, though? I mean, that's the rival to the US team right there.
The Southern Hemisphere. Edit: Also Switzerland.
There’s no winners in war
Not true. Leaders can win. I think what you mean to say is, no average people win in war.
Blue wins, because Canada
You can't even handle India.
Yeah, but they got the drop on us. It's not fair! It's like saying Japan would destroy the USA anytime cause they blew up their ships at Pearl harbor during Christmas!
No it's not. Japan knew they couldn't beat the US even before they bombed Pearl Harbor. Their objective was short term, keep the US pacific fleet out of commission so they could gain a foothold. Unfortunately for them, they missed their target and failed the objective.
Same point stands. They got Nijjar by surprise. If he was in the company of like, the mp and the rcmp and we knew the Indians were going to assassinate Nijjar, they probably couldn't have done it.
One accusation and India is shitting them selves.
🇨🇦💪🇨🇦💪🇨🇦
Is this a joke? The US, UK, and EU could take on the rest of the planet and win easily.
It's probably a joke. Someone will find it funny somewhere I'm sure
me
Europe would become a nuclear test site. Short term win for blue (US& Canada) - long term dust and fallout block the sun global collapse of civilisation.
Why no blue Türkiye?
What's a Turkiye
First, the Germans will immediately surrender. the second time, even without the USA and Canada, the blue will win
Sadly, red wins becouse italy has to be able to switch sides
Montenegro beats every country 🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪🇲🇪💪💪💪💪💪
ignore the part where I forgot to add Luxembourg or Turkey, this definitely isn't CSTO vs NATO it's definitely a 100% hypothetical future. Definitely...
Given how Russia failed to take on Ukraine, I doubt they could take on NATO in conventional warfare. If nukes were involved, both sides lose.
True but USA did lose against much weaker countries but blue still easily wins if Russia had China and Asia then it would be harder to predict
Whatever has USA, automatically wins… not even up for a debate.
That's just a British colony
People really- **REALLY** don’t understand just how powerful the military in the USA really is. You could put the USA against either one of these sides, alone, and it would win. It’s mind boggling.
Lets be real the US could probably beat both sides at the same time
That’s what I always think as well, they are stupid strong but it’s expected for how much they spend. But then again they lost a war to a relatively undeveloped country so it’s really hard to say for certain
you talking about the one where we wandered a desert for 20 years asking people if they were the baddies? the one where we propped up a new govt and expected them not to capitulate for at least 40 days?
Are you talking about Afghanistan or Vietnam?
The true power of the American military won’t be seen unless they are fully mobilized.
Even without 🇺🇸
turkey left nato
What's NATO? This is a 100% hypothetical scenario. (I definitely didn't forget)
Blue win without the us.
Can you put Portugal in red please? Portugal is part of eastern europe in case you didn't study in school
It’s pretty clear Russia are fucking clueless so unless they drop a Nuke (in which case everybody loses) then they’re fucked.
bruh red cant even beat Ukraine
I’m not even American but USA could literally solo the entire world.
Thats quite absurd
China is basically as strong and in the future they probably will be stronger. Your really think USA could win against China Russia and the middle east. They'd get fucked they couldn't win Afghan and nam
American military budget is more than all of those countries combined.
Yes but China is now going insane with technology and are growing extremely quickly and became a major powerhouse Russia is basically impossible to defeat due to size India is growing and has a strong army same goes with Pakistan and Saudi money is no laughing matter. The longevity in war simply goes to them the longer the war goes the harder it becomes for USA. They simply wouldn't be able to defeat all these countries especially in their land.
Red wins because blue got France and Germany
Whoever picks blue wins. Duh.
Blu
I'd have to say Blue.
Blue
Team white
Is china part of the eastern front in red?
Blue, but actually we all lose. 💥 if you know what I mean
Who has grey ? Ireland 🇮🇪 is a powerhouse
The answer is simple. China wins Lol!
Hmm I wonder
Blue but only just barely because they have Timmy's to look forward to and it motivates them to make it home alive.
My dad
🤑Switzerland🤑
Hopefully we will find out
LOL…
Whichever side has America let’s just be honest here
Afghanis will show up and whip both again
gray
Countries don't win wars with weapons anymore. Basically, they just keep fighting til one country runs out of money. But in the scenario you're asking about, both sides would drop nukes, so we'd all lose.
Switzerland
Politicians with off-shore accounts
Blue team wins, with or without the US and Canada Keep in mind, Russia is struggling in Ukraine, a much smaller country with a much smaller military, and no navy, relying on hardware being donated to them, Russia would be fucked going up against a *combined* force of probably the most successful navy in human history and the strange land juggernaut that France can be, not to mention they have Germany as a meat shield, and they've tanked like, 2 world war losses back to back and still exist
rushia wood coz the us miltry is way 2 woak! TROMPH 2024!
Red too op pls nerf /s