Has russia ever been invaded sucessfully and if it wasn't for USA would the Germans have defeated them?
488597
yes i just had a test on it
408090
First of all it was not only Soviet Russia, but all the nations that lived at that moment in USSR. because all of them fought in that war.\nYou can simply compare how many people died in that war from each country. USSR never gave a trues estimation, the last number I hear was 26 million, though I might be wrong, but for sure not even today Russia is interested in giving the true figures. Why because too many people died during that war and they did not want to demoralize the population.\nIf it weren't for the Russian winters, and several great victories like at Stalingrad..., Germany would have one, the war.Russia was the only country on the European Continent that had still a lot of reserves, and was partially occupied by Germany and it could defeat Germany. The rest of the countries whether either completely occupied or where too far away from the continent.
622012
I don't think so. And it was the Army, not the national guard. Some Russians liberated them as well!
781763
I'm not sure what you are trying to really ask but I'll guess. During Russia's illegal invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan. The US and Pakistan did send advisors and aid to Afghanistan to assist the Mujaheddin insurgents? Even with the assistance Russia still killed over 2 million Afghan civilians and militia. But in the end Russia got their butts handed to them on a platter and kicked back across their border. Only difference between the movie and the real thing was it was the Afghan militia that kicked Russia's butt not a Hollywood actor with a speak impediment.
341288
Hitler tried to invade Russia.\n\nDo you know why he failed?\n\nCause back then, they didn't have anti-freeze, and the tanks FROZE.\n\nPoor sorry sacks had to walk it back to Germany.\n\nLoL!
810648
No the Russians held an armistice with Germany in 1917. The armistice we all celebrate was on 11 November 1918.
29314
If you mean "invaded but not conquered" then Russia.\n\nIf you mean "not invaded" then England.\n\n(Just like Hitler)\n\nRussia, Scandinavia, British Isles, most of Portugal, the Balkans, Greece, north Africa, Slavic countries, Asia Minor. Tahiti.\n\nNapoleon did not hold onto much of what he conquered.
374127
Yes.  It was necessary to open another front against Germany.  The Soviet Union and Germany were basically slugging it out on the Eastern Front, but the introduction of American and British troops into Western Europe drew resources away from the Eastern Front, allowing the Soviet Army to advance farther.  The war would have lasted about two to three years longer without the D-Day invasion and probably cost 2-3 million more lives (not counting more lives lost in Nazi death camps)
1178394
Yes, you don't go from being the deadliest enemies for 40 years and become good friends.  Even today you can see it in the UN and other affairs, when the US brings up something, Russia is usually the first one to speak against it.\n\nWe and Russia today might not be enemies but make no mistake, we definitely are not friends either.
74736
I wouldn't count on the US... global warming is melting the frozen lands of Siberia, where there are vast ammounts of natural resources. So if your choice is just because you think Russia is a pour country, think again. And remember that noone defeated Russia, they couldn't even take over one single town! (Stallingrad). And if you're just being patriotic when you say that US will rule, good for you. I love america too. I'm from Europe.
618764
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.
374290
I think the russians would have took most of Europe if not for the nukes
490964
Well, I suppose youd have to put them ahead of Japan, but Germany didnt get nuked either. So yeah, they came in second, but only by our mercy.
405764
If the ivasion of Normandy failed and if Germany didn't invade the USSR, then Germany would have held onto Europe until the Allied victory over Japan.  The question at that point is whether Germany would have been able to develop the atomic bomb prior the US being able to use its atomic weapons on Germany.  This may have been possible.\n\nAfter the US dropped the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the US didn't have a third bomb that was ready for use.  And I believe Germany was about one or two years away from developing their own atomic bomb.\n\nAnother key element is that Germany would need long range bombers that could reach the US East Coast.  If Germany had this and the bomb, then Germany may have had enough leverage to sue for peace with the US.\n\nIn such an event, Europe would have remained German occupied.  The cold war would have had 3 players:  US, USSR and Germany.  Mutually assured destruction would have resulted in a German Europe being intact until today.\n\nThe unified German/European state would be perhaps the largest economy, with the US coming in second and Japan third.  The fall of the USSR would have occurred earlier since it would have had to spend even more on its military to cope with 2 competing superpowers.  The US would be less influential, as its economy would be tapped to fund a contined cold war with strategic weapons until today.\n\nThe Middle East would again be the flashpoint.  The need for oil would force both the US and Germany to colonize the Middle East.  The US/Vietnam War and the Afghanistan/USSR War would have been avoided since both the US and USSR would not have wasted their resources on those territories.  Conflicts between superpowers would have been funneled towards the Middle East as the super powers' militaries would have more quickly depleted oil supplies and forced them to claim their stakes in the Middle East.\n\nWorld War 3 would have been fought in the Middle East using 1980s technology.  The superpowers would have refrained from using nuclear weapons which would have rendered the oil fields useless.  A stalemate would eventually be declared and different areas of the Middle East would be occupied with demilitarized zones.  The three territories would be owned by the US, Germany and a Russian and Chinese alliance.\n\nThe world as a whole would have less wealth.  Much more money would have been spent fighting wars.  Our lives would be consumed with the "enemy".
1181119
Frightening!!\n\nActually, I wouldn't consider it a win because it would have been a detriment to the rest of the world.\n\nOne would hope there would have been a revolt afterwards....\n\nOr you never know....Hitler could have come out of the closet and put a new spin on things
545158
If they had used the tactics they used in WW2.  Namely faster more mobile mechanized warfare (blitzkrieg) instead of getting bogged down in trench warfare and attrition.\n\nAirplanes and tanks were being developed and refined.  The tools and technology were there, they just hadn't learned how to use them effectively yet.\n\nThe Allies were the first to figure out that tanks could be used to pass over the trenches and that air support meant more than just reconnaisance.\n\nBy giving the Americans time to mobilize and enter the war, the Germans sealed their fate.  This is not to say that the Americans alone defeated the Germans but they did tip the scale in favor of the Allies and I'm grateful they did.
789665
no, cos the two wars they fought with the oppostion haveing air and sea power proved america can not fight a country with those capabilities, the second world war the soviets won as even the german admitted after, the pacific war ,america resorted to use two atom bombs to make the japs surrender, there is a saying, "never fight an enemy who could hit you back twice as hard"