Which countries would Nazi Germany be able to defeat today?

Which countries would Nazi Germany be able to defeat today?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=My_GZgYllno
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands
youtube.com/watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Do they have modern weapons?

No, but they can pick them up from defeated enemies.

I guess some african and latam countries.Definitely Belize.

Considering that the countries the nazis attack won't have any other ally.

Probably most of the world tbqh plus in most countries i'd imagine the citizens would probably even help nazis if they made it clear they were only there to kill their leaders

>weapons out of date by almost 80 years
Interesting but boring fight, especially against any member of NATO.

I guess they'd have fun in Africa.

A bunch of already weakened ones before surrendering and mading up excuses.

France, nowadays, can beat any country that existed before 1950.

Several million motivated troops with simple aircrafts and light tanks? Russia, China, US, North Korea, India would be able to defend, brits too, probably Japan because it's too far apart

Rest would fold easily without international help. Most won't have enough ammo to lasy a week of fighting and almost no domestic production.

Depends on where they start and the disposition of their forces.

Most people around the world according to surveys at least are very distrustful of their government. Many young people survey that they would probably not defend their country.

Interesting to wonder how many people of these countries would aid the nazis and let them do their thing tbqfh

any nuclear country would win easily also.

Realistically speaking just introducing them to porn and anime would do a great deal

modern germany

underrated

Agreed, France is safe this time around

Italy.

Also any ex USSR country with large stockpiles of tanks/ammo

They might defeat North Korea if they do their best

That's all. All their strategies, weapons, technologies are outdated. Fucking outdated.

Distrustful of their government =/= sympathetic to foreign invaders. People like sovereignty.

I bet even Syria or Qatar could defend as well if UNSC help them

fuck it has to be sad to be a Sup Forumsedditor

The technology difference is too great. They probably couldn't even beat the modern Dutch army.

The bombers wouldn't be able to pass the F-16's and patriot missiles. And a couple apache's and artilleries would wipe most invaders out. And the armored vehicles are superior to WW2 tanks and are capable of firing a lot faster.

A heavily armored battle vehicle?

they got fucking beaten 70 years ago, what makes you think they stand a chance now?

My teacher warned me of debbie downers like you, I say to the Nazis 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again'

Yeah, those things we bought from you.

youtube.com/watch?v=My_GZgYllno

I swear, They can't beat Iowa national guard or well-regulated texan militant

Belize's defense is handled by the British. Even Central American nations have radar systems toay that are at least far more capable than what the Nazis had in WWII, nevermind access to satelite imaging services, access to light armored vehicles designed in the 1960's, effective use of modern combat tactics built around the use of modern assault rifles, turbo props that can beat anything in the old Luftwaffe and can use smart bombs, drone technology, modern communication networks using sat phones and even plain smartphone. WWII era forces relied on fucking telegraphsb ffs. On just the logistics side, their current civil aviation would be more than enough to comfortably outmatch anything the third reich had access to.

Nah, you might as well be pitting them against Napoleon era forces.

what did you mean by this?

Texas militias are nothing compared to the organized efficiency of North Carolinian private military corps

thank fucking god we didn't end up buying this garbage

>I guess they'd have fun in Africa.
Just like in my british films

The CV90 is ok and all, but it's an infantry transport and support vehicle, not an MBT.

Your stealth tank, PL-01, is literally just a modified CV90120.

You're forgetting stockpiles of weapons and sheer manpower
Sure a small but hot teen country like yours will wreck their airforce quickly, and attack helicopters will make short work of their first tank assault

But Dutch military probably doesn't have a hundred hellfire-like missiles and even south Korean domestic production of AA missiles might be strained. Maybe SK could fight them to a standstill with supreme effort, since it's one of few countries with domestic military production but I wouldn't bet on it

You can buy guns in California? I thought guns are banned in NY, DC, CA.

You know how many tanks we had in WW2? 1.

We can just put some artillery behind our canals and bomb across them. We only surrendered because we had insufficient anti air in WW2, so the Germans could freely bomb our
cities, which we do have now.

Concealed carry is "banned" in those states, not gun ownership as that is a constitutional right all Americans, regardless of state, enjoy.

We actually have a stash of 1600 American tanks here. And 24 nukes. But I didn't want to put those into the equation.

>Your
a hype-generator, non-functional prototype made by BAE
>stealth
lel
>tank
afv

hello Sup Forums

how much of a pathetic cuckhold do you have to be to project your desire to be subjugated by foreign invaders onto an entire country?

kek
tell me doctor, do you have any plans to "rise through the ranks" in sudanese government?
pls dont gas darfur

Absolutely not, but when I read local news I have these daydreams where I absolutely annihilate them

He can defeat me that's for sure ;)

>manpower
*apaches appear*

You know, Nazis don't have satellites, working missiles, and aircraft carriers. I bet dutch will btfo them

Remember, WW2 happened in 1930s

what changes would you make if you were el presidente
apart from exterminating all the islamists

>The vehicle chassis is based on that of the Combat Vehicle 90.
>mfw its true
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-01

You still need quantity. Nazi Germany produced nearly 100 thousand airplanes during the duration of the war. You don't have that many missiles for your jet fighters and SAMs in stock. You'd barely be able to make a dent.

Remove the theocracy, secularize and establish a technocracy

Place ambitious goals, make English the primary language instead of Arabic, reform education

Play with investment opportunities, proportionately develop the country, establish rigorous new standards for post-graduate education and accreditation

Limit foreign influence but invite again in a mutually beneficial and constructive manner

Build countless health centres in anticipation of a medical system overhaul

Lots more needs to be done desu

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Netherlands

When they invaded us we had 145 aircrafts. They had 830 aircrafts.
We had 1 tank. They had 759 tanks.
We had 280k soldiers. They had 750k soldiers.

And our losses were about equal. And they were stuck at the water lines. Until we surrendered.
If they can spend their time building more shit, then so can we spend our time purchasing more shit.

No, you illiterate animal, WW2 barely happened in 1930, only 4 months of a 6 years conflict was in 1939.

If the war would have lasted on we could also buy new shit.
Before the end of the cold war our army was actually larger than the British army.

>Which countries would Nazi Germany be able to defeat today?
They could beat today's Russia.

>I don't know what 'happened' means

Kazakhstan actually would annihilate them

luxembourg

It's all about numbers
You can easily deal with as many nazi armored vehicles as you have ammo. Dutch, since we are taking them as example, probably have enough firepower to deal with day a thousand vehicles. Once they've done, Germans will have dozens of thousands more, and millions of troops

And during WW2 we were a country of 9 million. Now 17 million.

Nukes

Yes, you put up some decent resistance. No one is questioning that. However, in this theoretical scenario you're up against the ENTIRETY of the German wehrmacht. You aren't just some region the Germans wanted out of the way to focus on stuff that they actually worried about, but their primary target.

This time you're up against nearly 100k aircraft, 50k tanks and some 6.5 million soldiers.

Non meme answer, they would steamroll some of the western countries because modern day people are turbo pussified. But before they can even start to do serious damage they would get completely btfo by modern weaponry and technology .

There's also a lot more people though

Sorry, no. Kazakh Might 31s can take down maybe a hundred junkers before they're out of ammo, then say 500 more for advice missiles in air defense you have and you're down to shilkas.

Which would be very good, but unable to cover all population centers. You'll lose hundreds of thousands of civilians to bombing raids. Your Soviet guns will help you on the ground, but half of the male population would have to be conscripted before you can stop them

You know tanks are useless here. If we flood the water lines you have kilometers wide canals.

youtube.com/watch?v=TCXwgPZXScM

And a graveyard of tanks acting as a natural barrier. after the first few waves, the number's advantage starts to becomes a disadvantage.

Some of the water lines in the west of the country.

We also have some new cold war waterlines.

Forgot the image.

...

The Wehrmach had over 18 million personnel working for it. As long as you're not on the other side shelling the Germans (unlikely as the Germans would mostly enjoy air superiority once your missiles runs out) they can simply drain or build bridges where necessary.

No one is questioning that the Dutch fought bravely against nazi Germany. By all means you did. However to go from that to suggesting that beating them one-to-one would be an easy or even realistic task is quite frankly ridiculous. If you swallow your pride for a second, you'll see that you really don't have the numbers to beat them.

With preparation of course the outcome would probably be different, but that's not part of the theoretical scenario.

Real world is not starctaft. 50000 ww2 tanks don't really take that much space compared to an actual country. But they do take a whole lot of firepower to kill

So basically be Assad?

That map misses some cold war lines.

Must be some impressive bridges then. If you want to build kilometers of bridges under artillery fire.

>under artillery fire
We just established that would be unlikely considering the sheer size of the luftwaffe.

The Netherlands has even fought Indonesia. Surely can buy some extra ammo.

I think a single tank coul take my country

If you can buy extra ammo then Germany can buy modern arms in which case you're fucked beyond repair.

They don't have our economy. Besides, our pension savings are unironically high enough to buy the entire American army for a year. :^)

Actually, our pension funds are enough to fund the American military for three years.

And then our pension funds end up on the same level as Germany and France.. who have none.

Modern Day Germany.

In modern currency Nazi Germany would have a laughable economy.

>21st century Norway
Even if they invade from North(most fortified position), and walked alongside land, Norway simply lacks the stockpile of ammo, conscripts and logistics to really fight back.
Lack of any significant mass produced gear or vehicles means that even if the defence where maintained(80s), they are too insufficient in numbers to do anything. And thats assuming it doens't turn into a Blitz 2.0, because somebody thought it was a good idea to have straight roads in the same landscape as airports or docks.

Then again, Israel is in the same boat, because quite a bit of their war production is externalized to USA. Same is true of most of NATO, ex Soviets, and most Asian states that isn't China.
War Production is a amazing drug, and so is mass mobilization.

>3 million soldiers
Tie with North Korea.