如果二战是统一的欧洲与美国一对一较量，谁会获胜？
正文翻译
如果二战是统一的欧洲与美国一对一较量，谁会获胜？ 
评论翻译
如果二战是统一的欧洲与美国一对一较量，谁会获胜？
Cem Arslan
Amateur military historian and fiction writer
阿姆·阿尔斯兰
业余军事历史学家、小说作家
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
Depending on how you qualify a victory, the answer is either 'nobody' or 'Germany'.
衡量胜利的标准不同，答案要么是“两败俱伤”，要么是“德国获胜”。
An 'one to one battle' between the US and Germany starting, say, 1941 with no country on either side involving itself openly, is not going to be much of a war and I can assure you won't be particularly exciting. Without the Soviets to do the bulk of the bleeding on land and Britain to be a massive unsinkable aircraft carrier and supply base fifty kilometers off Europe, the US plain and simply lacks the ability to present the kind of force across the Atlantic required to face the Wehrmacht on its home ground and have a snowball's chance in Hell at victory, and Germany doesn't even have the ability to present any force larger than a sabotage team across the Atlantic.
假设美德一对一战争始于1941年，且双方均无其他国家公开介入，那么这场战争大概率不会有太大规模，也绝不会像人们想象中那样惊心动魄。要知道，若没有苏联在陆地战场承担主要伤亡，也没有英国这个距离欧洲仅50公里、庞大且不沉的航空母舰与补给基地，美国根本没有能力跨大西洋投送足够兵力，在德国本土与国防军抗衡，更别提获胜的可能；而德国甚至连派遣破坏小组以上规模的部队跨大西洋作战都做不到。
This means, quite simply, that this war is going to be nothing more than a long naval skirmish the results of which are utterly irrelevant to the final settlement… which is going to be status quo ante bellum as far as the two countries are concerned. So, it's a victory of nobody.
很简单，这意味着这场战争充其量只是一场漫长的海军小规模冲突，其结果对最终的和解毫无影响——两国最终只会恢复战前状态。从这个角度来说，这场战争没有胜利者。
That being said… Germany had no designs over the continental US, and the only reason she ever declared war on the US to begin with was to actually permit the Kriegsmarine to fire back after the USN hunted Kriegsmarine vessels across the Atlantic under the umbrella of Roosevelt's so-called Pan-American Security Zone and in violation of some half a dozen international laws with the precise intent to make Germany do that. So, going into this war, the US' aim is, and it would always be in any war with Germany, would be to get over all the way into Berlin, kick out the German government, dismantle the German state, and if Roosevelt and Morgenthau have their way send the country to the Early Modern Era. Germany's aim is basically getting the US to bugger off from the European affairs.
尽管如此……德国从未觊觎过美国本土，当初对美宣战的唯一原因，是为了让德国海军能够合法反击——此前美国海军在罗斯福所谓的“泛美安全区”旗号下，跨越大西洋追击德国舰艇，违反了近六项国际法，其目的就是逼迫德国宣战。因此，美国发动这场战争的目标（以及任何对德战争的目标）始终是：进军柏林，推翻德国政府，瓦解德国政权；如果按照罗斯福和摩根索的计划，甚至要将德国打回近代早期的状态。而德国的目标其实很简单：让美国别插手欧洲事务。
So, the status quo ante bellum peace actually fulfills Germany's war obxtives, but not the US', so depending on your definition of victory you could say Germany would win.
由此可见，恢复战前状态的和平实际上达成了德国的战争目标，却未实现美国的目标。因此，根据对胜利的不同定义，也可以说德国会赢得这场战争。
OSKY3033
Originally Answered: Who would win if the usa and europe had a war?
Although I hate this answer no one would win but here's why.
最初回答：如果美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
虽然我不想这么说，但答案是“没有赢家”，原因如下。
Before I say why I'm gonna say 3 things. I'm not gonna count nukes since everyone loses and it's just boring. I'm also not counting other countries or allies outside Europe. So no USA can't invade from Africa or asia and no Europe can't invade through Canada. Also I'm not countering Russia since I'll be talking about the EU.
在阐述原因之前，我先声明三点：第一，我不会考虑核武器，因为核战争没有赢家，而且讨论这个话题毫无意义；第二，我不考虑欧洲以外的其他国家或盟友，也就是说美国不能从非洲或亚洲发起进攻，欧洲也不能借道加拿大进攻美国；第三，我不将俄罗斯纳入讨论范围，这里的“欧洲”仅指欧盟。
the USA has the strongest army, navy and Air Force. Their air carriers alone are a force to be reckon and with the upcoming addiction to the new super carriers the USA is so strong on the sea and air were ALL the battles will be fought.
美国拥有全球最强大的陆军、海军和空军。单是其航空母舰就足以构成一支不容小觑的力量，随着新型超级航母即将服役，美国在海空领域的优势将更加明显——而未来所有的战场都将集中在海空领域。
just taking into consideration D-Day which took months to carry through now imagine if you had to cross a whole ocean not just a small strait.
想想诺曼底登陆吧，那场战役筹备了数月之久。而现在我们要设想的是跨越整个大洋，而不是仅仅渡过一条狭窄的海峡。
The Usa would honestly destroy most of the EU navy and air forces with constant fighting. They should worry about UK, France and Germany the most. Specially with Germany budget in the army increased after the Ukrainian conflict. This makes it harder for the USA but they are so far up ahead they won't be able to catch up if theoretically the war just starts today.
说实话，通过持续作战，美国能够摧毁欧盟的大部分海军和空军力量。不过美国需要重点提防英国、法国和德国，尤其是乌克兰冲突后德国增加了军费预算，这会给美国带来更大挑战。但即便如此，美国的领先优势依然巨大，如果战争理论上今天就爆发，欧盟短期内根本无法追赶。
now most countries in NATO are just for show and most countries in the organization don't even accomplish what they said they would. Europe has a really old military since they don't have a reason to make it better (Although Russia is making them change their mind). But like I said if the war starts now they won't compare.
如今北约的大多数成员国只是装装样子，很多国家甚至连承诺的防务投入都无法兑现。欧洲的军事装备普遍陈旧，因为长期以来他们没有更新装备的动力（不过现在俄罗斯正迫使他们改变想法）。但正如我所说，如果战争现在爆发，欧洲的军力根本无法与美国抗衡。
If we take into consideration the IBMs the USA could destroy a lot of the key cities of the EU but they are also capable of doing the same. I'm not going to undermine EU. The force they have is enough to push back the USA and cripple them if they make even 1 small error. Most key cities in near the ocean would be attacked by EU boats and planes also including missiles and now the new drones.
如果考虑到洲际弹道导弹，美国可以摧毁欧盟的许多重要城市，但欧盟同样具备这种能力。我并不是在贬低欧盟，他们的军事实力足以在美国犯下哪怕一个小错误时，发起反击并使其遭受重创。欧盟的舰艇、飞机、导弹以及新型无人机，能够袭击美国大多数沿海重要城市。
All of this in mind it would just be a battle of attrition until one side capitulates. Not taking into consideration the economy nor civil uprisings. Neither side would be able to invade from land. Either side would completely destroy anyone trying to try it. So it would just be stalemate. If the USA tries to invade by land they would have to fought hundred of thousands of soldiers just to reach Paris or London. And the same goes to the EU. So it's honestly impossible.
综合来看，这场战争只会是一场消耗战，直到一方屈服为止——这里我们暂且不考虑经济因素和国内民众起义。双方都无法从陆地入侵对方，任何一方试图这么做，都会被彻底击溃，因此战争大概率会陷入僵局。如果美国尝试陆地入侵欧洲，他们需要击败数十万敌军才能抵达巴黎或伦敦；欧盟入侵美国也是同样的道理，这在现实中根本不可能实现。
Just as a fast if. If we include nukes the USA wins (if we don't include Russia). And if Russia joins without nukes now that opens another possibility since they could now attack from the east and west. Also taking into consideration Alaska.
最后补充一点假设：如果考虑核武器（不包括俄罗斯），美国会获胜；如果俄罗斯不使用核武器加入欧盟阵营，那就另当别论了，因为届时俄罗斯可以从东西两线夹击美国，阿拉斯加也会面临威胁。
But it's impossible that it will happen. USA has a strong bond with the EU and It will never happen. Also English is not my first language and I do not live in any EU country not in America's so I believe it's a kinda biased point.
不过，美欧开战的可能性微乎其微。美国和欧盟有着深厚的同盟关系，这种情况永远不会发生。另外，英语不是我的母语，我既不住在欧盟国家，也不在美国，所以我的观点可能带有一定的偏见。
Marcus Brook
Student of people and history.
马库斯·布鲁克
人类与历史专业学生
Originally Answered: Who would win if the usa and europe had a war?
最初回答：如果美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
Europe hands down; USA got its collective ass kicked out of Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc…. where the only opposition was small-arms weilding farmers. They'd stand no chance at all against anything like a peer adversary, and Europe has several of those.
欧洲会轻而易举地获胜。美国在阿富汗、索马里、越南、古巴等地都遭遇了惨败，而这些地方的对手不过是些手持轻武器的平民百姓。面对势均力敌的对手，美国毫无胜算，而欧洲恰恰拥有多个这样的强国。
America believes numbers and hardware are the only things that matter, despite several painful lessons proving the contrary which it refuses to learn from, and the WW2-era comment of “All the gear, but no idea” still holds true.
美国始终认为兵力规模和武器装备是决定胜负的唯一关键，尽管历史上多次惨痛的教训早已证明事实并非如此，但他们却拒绝吸取教训。二战时期那句评价——“装备精良，却毫无战术”，放在今天的美国身上依然适用。
Tim Doherty
蒂姆·多尔蒂
Originally Answered: Who would win a war between USA and European unx?
最初回答：美国和欧盟开战，谁会获胜？
The US. Europe has a clear strategy of letting NATO handle the security. And NATO is the US Military in a multinational format. The US played along, ad they were allowed to intervene and protect their interests pretty much anywhere. And they’ve had to have a strong Army anyway, so two birds, one stone.
美国会赢。欧洲的战略很明确，就是让北约负责安全防务，而北约本质上就是美国军队的多国化形式。美国顺水推舟，借此得以在全球几乎任何地方进行干预，保护自身利益。同时，美国本身就需要维持一支强大的军队，这样做可谓一举两得。
The problem is that while the US Economy was booming, there was no need for affordable healthcare, Social protection, infrastructure heavy spending, etc. (all things that the Europeans were very keen on investing into). Now the US is stuck with a pricey Military that does not create wealth and welfare, while the European population is enjoying what you can call Socialist treatment and is appaled at how bad the Anericans have it.
问题在于，在美国经济蓬勃发展时期，他们认为没有必要投入资金用于平价医疗、社会保障、大规模基础设施建设等领域——而这些都是欧洲一直热衷投资的方向。如今，美国被一支耗资巨大却无法创造财富和福利的军队所拖累，而欧洲民众却享受着堪称“社会主义式”的福利待遇，他们对美国民众的糟糕处境感到震惊。
In my opinion this will change soon, and it is one of the things Trump had clearly outlined (I hate to say that Trump is right about anything, but he’s got this one right): You want security, you have to pay for it.
在我看来，这种情况很快就会改变，特朗普曾明确指出过这一点（虽然我不想承认特朗普在任何事情上是对的，但这件事他确实说对了）：想要获得安全保障，就必须为此付出代价。
John Cate
Freelance Public Relations Specialist, Bethel, NC
约翰·凯特
北卡罗来纳州贝塞尔市自由公关专员
Originally Answered: Could the EU win a war against the US?
最初回答：欧盟能打赢美国吗？
No. They’d be lucky if they could sustain a war effort against the United States for a month, let alone win such a war.
不能。欧盟要是能撑住一个月对美作战就已经算幸运了，更别说打赢这场战争。
The countries of the EU have neglected their military establishments for so long and depended on the United States for decades (most of them are NATO members anyway) that they have very little military capability that could pose a threat to any first-rate world power. The British had a time beating Argentina in the Falklands War 34 years ago—and their military is even weaker now than it was then. The French needed our help with transport to help Mali fight Islamic radicals a few years back. About the only military in Europe that’s worth a hoot anymore belongs to Poland, and something tells me that if the EU were to do something as stupid as collectively declare war on the United States, there would be a quick “Polskidaddle” from the EU.
欧盟各国长期忽视军事建设，数十年来一直依赖美国的保护（毕竟大多数国家都是北约成员国），以至于他们的军事实力根本不足以对任何世界一流强国构成威胁。想想34年前，英国打赢阿根廷的马岛战争都费了不少劲，而如今英国的军事实力比当年还要弱。
几年前，法国甚至需要美国帮忙提供运输支持，才能协助马里打击伊斯兰激进分子。如今欧洲大概只有波兰的军队还算有点战斗力，但我有种预感，如果欧盟真傻到要集体对美宣战，波兰肯定会第一时间“溜之大吉”。
If the EU were ever to get serious about collective defense and built up their militaries, they could probably challenge any country in the world on even terms in less than 10 years, assuming they could talk the UK (and its navy) out of Brexit. But there’s no way that’s ever going to happen, because that would mean giving up a lot of the socialist bread and circuses that keep the masses content. Half of them won’t even live up to their NATO commitments.
如果欧盟真的认真对待集体防御，大力发展军事力量，并且能说服英国（及其海军）放弃脱欧，那么不出10年，他们或许能与世界上任何一个国家势均力敌地抗衡。但这种情况根本不可能发生，因为这意味着他们要放弃那些让民众安于现状的社会主义福利政策。毕竟现在欧盟里有一半的国家连北约规定的防务投入承诺都做不到。
Harsha Vardhan
Former Research student at Max planck Society
哈沙·瓦尔丹
马克斯·普朗克学会前研究员
Originally Answered: Who would win in a war between US and Europe?
最初回答：美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
This is one of the least possible situations, considering the fact that USA stationed around 130 nuclear warheads on European soils, as a part of nuclear sharing policy. This means that there are most important type of Investments USA have in Europe.
Anyway, if a war breaks out, let’s assume it shan’t be a nuclear one as, Europe that includes Russia, has world’s second largest nuclear arsenal. A war with a nuclear Armageddon results in a stalemate with mutual destruction.
考虑到美国依据核共享政策，在欧洲部署了约130枚核弹头，美欧开战是可能性最低的情况之一。这意味着美国在欧洲有着至关重要的战略投入。
不过，假设真的爆发战争，我们可以认定这不会是核战争。因为包含俄罗斯在内的欧洲，拥有全球第二大核武库，核战争只会导致双方同归于尽，最终陷入僵局。
Also the Russian federation, in it’s USSR day, posed a formidable side. In the present day fact that entire Europe is in the Russian bloc must give a shiver to not just USA but for the entire world about the the most destructive war.
要知道，俄罗斯联邦在苏联时期就已是令人敬畏的军事强国。而如今如果整个欧洲都加入俄罗斯阵营，这种局面不仅会让美国感到胆寒，更会让全世界都为这场极具毁灭性的战争而战栗。
So the war machines of the two sides go head to head in various aspects as below
GDP (nominal)
Europe ~ 20 trillion USD in 2010
USA ~ is yet to reach 19 trillion USD by 2017
Although GDP may not be decisive in a war…..it sure shows their strength of economies.
接下来我们从以下几个方面，对比双方的战争机器实力：
名义国内生产总值
欧洲2010年约为20万亿美元
美国到2017年才接近19万亿美元
虽然GDP不能决定战争胜负，但它无疑能体现双方的经济实力。
Military Expenditure (2015)
USA ~600 billion USD
Europe ~ 420 billion USD
军费开支（2015年）
美国约6000亿美元
欧洲约4200亿美元
Military Strength
European unx,if it commands a single unified army of it’s own, is estimated to be the second most powerful army in the world after the USA. Russia is, arguably, the second most powerful military if separate nations are concerned. Thus there is a good chance that two number seconds can prove to be an equal match if not more.
May be this war is too hard to be guessed for an outcome.
军事实力
如果欧盟能够组建一支统一的军队，其战力预计将位居全球第二，仅次于美国。而如果以单个国家计算，俄罗斯则堪称全球第二军事强国。因此，这两个“世界第二”的军事力量联手，即便不能占据上风，也很有可能与美国势均力敌。
或许这场战争的结果实在难以预料。
But hey! As Mustafa Kemel Pasha has once quoted to the defeated Greek generals “War is game, where even the best are sometimes worsted.” So even if we could have concluded the best of the two sides…..outcome continues to be elusive.
不过，正如穆斯塔法·凯末尔·帕夏曾对战败的希腊将军们说过的那样：“战争就像一场游戏，即使是最强者也可能偶尔失手。” 因此，即便我们能判断出双方的优劣，战争的最终结果依然充满变数。
Roger Shepard
Former Lt. Col at U.S. Army (1975–2005)
罗杰·谢泼德
美国陆军前中校（1975-2005年服役）
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
The American Army Chief of Staff, General of the Army George C. Marshall would have said if they were evenly matched with materials and manpower, the Germans would have won.
美国陆军参谋长、陆军五星上将乔治·C·马歇尔曾说过，如果双方在物资和人力上势均力敌，德国将会获胜。
But luckily for us it wasn’t a ”fair fight”. We buried them literally with more targets than they had the ammunition for. It was too much for Japan too. For Japan, as I’ve pointed out in this forum elsewhere, the US launched more tonnage of combatant ships in 1943 - 1944 than that which comprised the entire US Navy in 1940 - 1941
但幸运的是，那场战争并非一场“公平的较量”。我们的物资投入多到让德军应接不暇，他们的弹药根本不够用来对付这么多目标。日本也同样承受不住这样的压力。正如我在论坛其他地方提到的，美国在1943至1944年间下水的作战舰艇总吨位，超过了1940至1941年整个美国海军的舰艇总吨位。
Dominic Roy Accampo
Material Handler, Offload Operations (2001–present)
多米尼克·罗伊·阿坎波
卸货作业物料管理员（2001年至今任职）
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
I would say Germany but…
Which one to one?
我倾向于德国会赢，但这取决于具体的“一对一”是指什么。
是哪种形式的一对一？
During the Battle of the Bulge one entire German division was using bicycles in order to try and keep up, as much or more due to limitations on fuel reserves as in lack of motorized vehicles.
Most of the German tanks used in France during World War Two were renovated French vehicles, many of which were obsolete at the beginning of the war and even more so when the allies returned to France.
突出部战役期间，德军有整整一个师靠骑自行车来机动，这在很大程度上是因为燃料储备不足，而非缺乏机动车辆。
二战期间，德军在法国战场使用的坦克大多是翻新的法国装备，其中许多在战争初期就已过时，等到盟军反攻法国时，这些坦克就更是老旧不堪了。
On the ground the best equipped and trained German troops would have probably defeated the best equipped and trained American troops on a one to one basis fairly easily, but with heavy casualties. But in real life, most average American units had more firepower than most German units, with every American having a semiautomatic rifle and most Germans having a bolt action rifle. So on the ground I believe there would have been as many American as German victories.
在地面战场上，装备最精良、训练最有素的德军部队，在一对一的较量中或许能轻松击败同等条件的美军部队，但自身也会付出惨重伤亡。不过在现实中，大多数普通美军单位的火力都超过德军单位——每个美军士兵都配备半自动步枪，而大多数德军士兵使用的还是栓动步枪。因此，在地面战场上，我认为美军和德军的胜场次数可能不相上下。
In the air, the best Germany had could not have overwhelmed our P-51s, with the air battle being, perhaps, a draw, if it was one to one.
在空中战场，德军最先进的战机也无法压制我们的P-51战斗机，如果是一对一空战，双方很可能打成平手。
I think America could have won, one to one, with our troops already in Europe. But the fighting would have been a lot longer with a lot more American casualties if you nullified out advantages in numbers.
我认为，如果美军已经部署在欧洲大陆，那么一对一较量中美国有可能获胜。但如果我们失去了兵力优势，战争将会持续更长时间，美军的伤亡也会大幅增加。
Steven Pace
Lives in Australia (1999–present)
史蒂文·佩斯
现居澳大利亚（1999年至今）
Originally Answered: Who would win if 1940s America fought Nazi Germany 1 versus 1?
最初回答：如果二战时期的美国与纳粹德国一对一开战，谁会赢？
If the US and germany were neighbors, then Germany would win. Otherwise, the US would have the time to build a Gigantic army. And the germans would never make any dent in the US naval advantage. And navy means free use of the seas worldwide. It would be a long war, and it his hard to imagine every other country would be completely uninvolved. Would the US blockade germany and threaten neutral shipping?
如果美国和德国是邻国，那么德国会赢。但现实是两国远隔大洋，美国有足够时间组建一支庞大的军队，而德国永远无法撼动美国的海军优势。海军优势意味着可以自由掌控全球海域，这会是一场漫长的战争，而且很难想象其他国家会完全置身事外。届时美国是否会对德国实施封锁，并威胁中立国的航运呢？
Daniel Lee
Long term interest.
丹尼尔·李 长期关注军事历史
All of Europe and Japan vs the USA in 1939, who would win?
1939年，整个欧洲和日本联手对抗美国，谁会赢？
If in 1939, European and Japanese leaders all met at some secret conference, and all agreed to attack the USA instead of each other, then the USA would lose. In this counterfactual history, we must assume that a) there needs to be an agreement in place between these countries before they can all coordinate a joint war, b) this would be kept secret from the USA, c) no country would attack another without preparing for it in some way i.e. they would not invade the day after the agreement.
如果1939年欧洲和日本的领导人召开秘密会议，达成一致协议，决定互不攻击，转而联手进攻美国，那么美国将会战败。在这个反事实的历史假设中，我们必须设定三个前提：第一，这些国家必须先达成协议，才能协调发动联合战争；第二，该协议必须对美国严格保密；第三，各国不会毫无准备就发动进攻，也就是说不会在达成协议的第二天就入侵美国。
In 1939 the USA had an army of 180,000 men, a small air force and a navy that was not the equal of the Royal Navy, let alone the RN combined with the Imperial Japanese Navy, the French Navy and the German Navy. To give you an idea of the numbers, the French army alone numbered 900,000 and 5,000,000 reservists. Belgium could contribute another 550,000 including reservists. Germany in 1939 fielded 3,700,000 men. Combined, Europe had thousands of tanks, admittedly not all of them particularly good, but then the US Army had little armour, of its own, and a small air force.
1939年，美国陆军仅有18万人，空军规模较小，海军实力甚至不及英国皇家海军，更不用说与英国、日本、法国和德国的联合海军相抗衡了。我们不妨看看具体数字：仅法国陆军就有90万现役军人和500万预备役人员，比利时可动员的兵力（包括预备役）达55万，1939年德国的作战兵力为370万。欧洲各国拥有数千辆坦克，诚然这些坦克并非都性能优良，但当时美国陆军自身的装甲力量也极为薄弱，空军规模同样有限。
The USSR, Japanese, British Indian Army and the ANZACs could conceivably invade through Alaska, and we’re talking about the British Empire here, so the British, French, Germans, Polish, Italians et al could all invade through Canada. Allied tanks sweep down the eastern seaboard, swiftly capturing all major cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, while a Royal Navy operation quickly establishes a beachhead in New Orleans and fans out from there.
苏联、日本、英属印度军队和澳新军团可以从阿拉斯加发动进攻，而大英帝国麾下的英国、法国、德国、波兰、意大利等国军队则可借道加拿大入侵。盟军坦克将横扫美国东海岸，迅速占领纽约、波士顿、费城、华盛顿等主要城市，同时英国皇家海军会在新奥尔良迅速建立滩头阵地，并向周边扩张。
In the West, Alaska, cut off from the rest of the USA, falls quickly, troops quickly overrun the western seaboard. The USA simply did not have the troop numbers, planes or tanks to prevent this happening. Throw into the mix such talented commanders as Rommel, Manstein, and Guderian then it looks like it could be over pretty quickly. The US population at first refuses to submit, however, their weapons are confiscated, those that resist are treated harshly and, in the face of the overwhelming strength of the occupiers, are cowed into submission.
在西海岸，与美国本土隔绝的阿拉斯加会迅速沦陷，敌军将很快席卷整个西海岸。当时的美国根本没有足够的兵力、飞机和坦克来阻止这一切发生。再加上隆美尔、曼施坦因、古德里安等杰出将领的指挥，这场战争可能很快就会结束。美国民众起初会拒绝投降，但他们的武器会被没收，抵抗者会遭到残酷镇压，在占领军的绝对优势面前，最终只能被迫屈服。
Lucas J Hofler
Grandfather in WWII (2. SS-Panzer-Division, Pz.Gren.Regt.4)
卢卡斯·J·霍夫勒
祖父曾服役于二战时期党卫军第2装甲师第4装甲掷弹兵团
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
Neither of the 2 would have had any chance to invade the other.
Even in real life it would’ve been impossible to invade mainland Europe without using the UK as a base. How do you achieve air superiority? Crossing the Atlantic??!
Also in 1944 the Allies had to face only about 1/3 of the Wehrmacht, being the best units deployed east to fight the Soviets.
So a war between Germany and the US would have been inconclusive and it would’ve only consisted in a few naval battles (mostly German U-Boats vs US’ surface).
两国都没有任何机会入侵对方本土。
即便是在真实历史中，如果没有英国作为基地，盟军也根本无法入侵欧洲大陆。试想一下，跨越大西洋去争夺制空权，这怎么可能实现？
而且1944年盟军在西线面对的德军仅为其总兵力的三分之一，德军最精锐的部队都被部署在东线与苏军作战。
因此，美德之间的战争很可能会陷入僵局，双方只会爆发几场海战，而且大多是德国U型潜艇与美国水面舰艇之间的对抗。
Lance Bird
Lived in The United States of America
兰斯·伯德 曾居住于美国
If it was only Germany and the United States in combat during WW2 with no other interfering countries, who would have won?
如果二战中只有德国和美国交战，没有其他国家干涉，谁会获胜？
The US would win.
First, the US was much further along in the development of atomic weapons. Which is the most logical way that war would have ended. But beyond that…
美国会赢。
首先，美国的原子弹研发进度远远领先于德国，这很可能是战争最合理的终结方式。但除此之外，美国还有其他优势。
Germany’s only chance at winning would be an early invasion while the US army was still small and poorly equipped. That would have been very difficult to pull off, as even the part of the US navy in the Atlantic was significantly stronger than what Germany had. Add in the Pacific fleet and Germany’s chances go from very, very slim to virtually no chance at all. On top of that Germany simply didn’t have the transport capacity to do it.
德国获胜的唯一机会，是在美国陆军规模尚小、装备还未完善时发动早期入侵。但这几乎不可能实现，因为即便是美国部署在大西洋的海军力量，也远胜于德国海军；再加上太平洋舰队的支援，德国的胜算会从微乎其微变为完全没有可能。更重要的是，德国根本没有足够的运输能力来实施这种跨海入侵。
After that it basically becomes a competition of industrial might. Germany simply couldn’t have won that. Even with all of its conquests during WW2 Germany was outproduced by the US at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1. Without those conquests and support from its allies German production is going to be much smaller and will be missing important things like Romanian oil or Swedish steel.
一旦错过这个时机，战争就会演变为工业实力的较量，而德国在这方面毫无胜算。即便是在二战期间占领大片领土后，德国的工业产能也仅为美国的三分之一到四分之一。如果没有那些被占领土和盟友的支持，德国的产能会大幅下降，还会缺少罗马尼亚石油、瑞典钢铁等重要战略物资。
Germany would never been in a position where it could launch a naval invasion of the US, while the US would ultimately build up such a large material advantage that it could invade.
德国永远没有能力对美国发动跨海入侵，而美国最终会积累起压倒性的物资优势，具备入侵德国的能力。
Pat Payne
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, University of Oregon (Graduated 2003)
帕特·佩恩
俄勒冈大学新闻学学士（2003年毕业）
Who would win, The United States (1939) or Nazi Germany (1939)?
1939年的美国与纳粹德国开战，谁会赢？
Neither. If it was a war between the two with no other combatants, there would likely be a negotiated peace after a naval war. There was no way for Germany to invade and conquer the United States, even with the extremely limited armed forces we had in 1939.
双方都不会赢。如果两国单独开战，没有其他参战国，那么这场战争很可能会在一系列海战后以和谈告终。即便1939年美国的军事力量还极为有限，德国也根本没有能力入侵并征服美国。
Germany had shown that just a year later, with command of the French coast of the English Channel, that they could not mount a credible amphibious invasion of England. Even before they had commenced war with the Soviet unx, Germany never attempted landings in England. They didn’t have the technical capacity or the command of the air to pull it off. They didn’t have the Higgins Landing Craft that the Allies used at D-Day (and remember that D-Day itself was a very close-run thing, considered so iffy and such a “Hail Mary” pass that Eisenhower kept on his person a Communique that essentially took responsibility for it failing anticipating the landings being repulsed), and Germany had little to none of the transatlantic logistics infrastructure that would be necessary to initiate and sustain a full-on invasion of the United States.
一年后，德国虽然控制了英吉利海峡的法国海岸，却连对英国发动一次像样的两栖登陆都做不到。甚至在对苏开战之前，德国从未尝试过登陆英国本土——他们既没有足够的技术能力，也没有掌握制空权。德国没有盟军在诺曼底登陆时使用的希金斯登陆艇（要知道，诺曼底登陆本身就是一场险象环生的豪赌，艾森豪威尔甚至随身携带了一份准备在登陆失败时发布的声明，主动承担全部责任），更没有任何能够发起并维持对美国全面入侵的跨大西洋后勤保障体系。
Not to mention the logistics for a protracted war over a continent-spanning nation like the United States. We only have to look as far as Germany’s ultimately ruinous decision to invade the USSR in 1941, which saw the Germans almost immediately wrong-footed after the initial surprise, largely due to the Wehrmacht not realizing the enormity of the challenge set before them and not planning logistically for winter warfare (Hitler’s boast that “we kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice collapses” was far, far from the truth).
更不用说在像美国这样幅员辽阔的国家打一场持久战，需要多么庞大的后勤支持。我们只需看看1941年德国入侵苏联的灾难性决策就明白了：德军在初期突袭得手后，很快就陷入了困境，这在很大程度上是因为德军根本没有意识到他们面临的挑战有多艰巨，也没有为冬季作战做好后勤准备（希特勒吹嘘的“我们一脚踹开门，整个腐朽的大厦就会倒塌”，与现实相差甚远）。
Even if Germany were somehow able to land an invasion force, they would have had to have fought through the formidable US Navy, and even though the US Army was relatively puny in 1939 and outnumbered in men and equipment by Germany, the Germans would have to face armed civilians, the “rifle behind every blade of grass” Yamamoto warned of. It would have been “open season” on the Germans, and while a German invasion would likely have taken obxtives on the coast, they would be hard pressed to hold onto territory further inland.
就算德国奇迹般地将入侵部队送上美国海岸，他们首先要突破强大的美国海军防线。而且尽管1939年美国陆军规模相对较小，在兵力和装备上都不及德国，但德军还要面对武装起来的美国民众——正如山本五十六警告的那样，“美国的每一片草丛后面都有一支步枪”。届时德军将陷入全民皆兵的汪洋大海，即便他们能占领沿海目标，也很难守住深入内陆的领土。
America’s side would be just as hard. Torch in 1942 was the first ever transatlantic contested invasion, and the early days of the operation almost ended in disaster. And that was after the crash rearmament that we undertook late in 1939. A United States Army of under 200,000 successfully taking on a Wehrmacht of nearly 5 million was an impossibility. Not to mention that the US had a lot of the same logistical issues that Germany would have, including fighting through the Kriegsmarine.
On top of that, there is only a small parcel of coastland to invade in Germany on the North Sea and Baltic coasts, so there is less territory for Germany to directly defend as opposed to the entire Eastern Seaboard on our side of the Atlantic.
美国这边的处境同样艰难。1942年的“火炬行动”是历史上首次跨大西洋两栖登陆作战，行动初期几乎以灾难告终，而这还是美国在1939年底开始紧急重整军备之后的结果。让一支不到20万人的美国陆军去对抗近500万人的德国国防军，这根本不可能。更不用说美国也会面临和德国类似的后勤问题，还要突破德国海军的封锁。此外，德国只有北海和波罗的海沿岸的一小片区域适合登陆，相比美国大西洋沿岸的整个东海岸，德国需要直接防御的领土要少得多。
And the US would have to transit warships and troop transports, belligerent craft, through British, French, or Norwegian/Danish/Swedish waters to get to the only amphibious landing spots in Germany, and if any of those nations decided to be strict about neutrality, they could forcibly impound the invasion force as soon as they entered territorial waters (Germany would have the same problem as well), meaning that the US Navy would be suddenly facing the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy/French Navy/Norwegian Navy etc.
而且美国的军舰和运兵船等作战舰艇，必须经过英国、法国、挪威、丹麦或瑞典的海域，才能抵达德国仅有的几个两栖登陆点。如果这些国家严格执行中立政策，一旦美国舰队进入其领海，就可能被强行扣押（德国也会面临同样的问题），这意味着美国海军可能会突然同时面对德国海军、英国皇家海军、法国海军、挪威海军等多国舰队的夹击。
The only way a war between the US and Germany would have been fought with them as the only two combatants would be at sea. It would potentially involve a few naval skirmishes, possibly a grand clash of fleets in the Atlantic, but would not touch either nation’s homeland, because neither nation would be practically capable of bringing the war to the other nation.
如果美德两国单独开战，唯一的作战方式就是海战。双方可能会爆发几场小规模海战，甚至在大西洋上发生大规模舰队决战，但战争绝不会波及任何一方的本土，因为两国实际上都没有能力将战火引向对方的领土。
Scottie Odom
American Citizen interested in history and politics
斯科蒂·奥多姆
美国公民，对历史和政治感兴趣
If a war between the European unx and the United States somehow occurred, who would win and why?
This is a bit of a loaded question given that right now, we don’t know what Europe could achieve.
如果欧盟和美国之间爆发战争，谁会赢？为什么？
这是个有点复杂的问题，因为目前我们很难判断欧洲究竟能发挥出多大的实力。
Right now, the European unx is made up of small nations who have joined together economically to prosper, but they are not a federal unx similar to the United States. Most nations are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but those are holdovers from when the WARSAW pack in Eastern Europe was a major threat. They still are, but not near to the same degree as when the Soviets had tanks parked on the border on a regular basis.
如今的欧盟是由多个小国为了经济繁荣而组成的联盟，并非像美国那样的联邦制国家。大多数欧盟国家都是北约成员国，但这是东欧华约组织曾构成重大威胁时期的遗留产物。虽然俄罗斯现在仍是一个威胁，但远不及当年苏联坦克常年驻扎在边境时的程度。
Also, at the moment the majority of NATO spending is done by the United States, who maintains bases across Europe at the behest of their host nations. Germany is one such nation, and they are considered the most prosperous at the moment. Germany is also a bit hesitant to rearm themselves, still feeling rather penitent after World War II. They would need the consensus of their neighbors to avoid appearing like they’re warmongering again.
此外，目前北约的军费开支大部分由美国承担，美国应各东道国的要求在欧洲各地维持着军事基地。德国就是其中之一，它被认为是目前欧盟中最富裕的国家。但德国在重整军备方面仍有些犹豫，二战后的负罪感依然存在，他们需要获得邻国的共识，以避免再次被视为好战分子。
And really, that’s all well and good except that the EU is mainly defensive in its posture. The United States at present maintains 10 aircraft carriers in operation, while the combined navies of Europe maintain 5, and they are not the full size carriers. In addition, most do not maintain large fleets like the United States, and the key to getting troops anywhere would be via the oceans.
不过，欧盟的军事姿态主要是防御性的，这一点很关键。美国目前拥有10艘现役航空母舰，而欧洲各国海军加起来只有5艘，而且都不是全尺寸的大型航母。此外，大多数欧洲国家都没有像美国那样庞大的舰队，而向任何地方投送兵力的关键都在于控制海洋。
That doesn’t mean that the EU would be easy to just topple. The United Kingdom and France both maintain nuclear arsenals, both strategic and tactical. While the US certainly has a much larger arsenal, kicking off WWIII isn’t in anyone’s best interest.
但这并不意味着欧盟可以轻易被击败。英国和法国都拥有战略和战术核武库，虽然美国的核武库规模要大得多，但发动第三次世界大战不符合任何一方的利益。
Of course, it would be entirely dependent on if the EU remains a cohesive whole or if it fractures that determines who holds what cards. If Great Britain sides with the EU or remains neutral, the United States would need to cross an ocean and make a hostile landing. If Britain sides with the US, then the EU would want to invade Britain and secure it before the US can mobilize forces to secure the island.
当然，战争结果完全取决于欧盟能否保持团结，还是会发生分裂。如果英国站在欧盟一边或保持中立，美国就需要跨越大西洋发起登陆作战；如果英国站在美国一边，欧盟就会试图在美国调动兵力保卫英国之前，先入侵并占领英国。
Honestly, it’s probably a moot point given NATO’s organization, though Europe has recently been criticized for not putting up more money to aid the US presence there. If the United States pulls out, the EU would need to reorganize in a hurry, because their biggest threat is not the United States, but the Great Bear of the East, held at bay knowing the US would intervene. Without the US, Russia might take another look at Europe and decide it’s hungry once more.
说实话，考虑到北约的存在，这个问题其实没什么实际意义。不过欧洲最近确实因为没有投入更多资金支持美国在欧洲的驻军而受到批评。如果美国从欧洲撤军，欧盟就必须紧急进行军事重组，因为他们面临的最大威胁并非美国，而是东部的“北极熊”俄罗斯——俄罗斯之所以不敢轻举妄动，正是因为知道美国会出手干预。一旦失去美国的保护，俄罗斯可能会重新审视欧洲，再次露出贪婪的獠牙。
Steven Brownfield
Teacher- English IV, Classical Literature at Norman North High School
史蒂文·布朗菲尔德
诺曼北高中英语IV及古典文学教师
What would've happened had America stayed out of WWII?
Ah, let the Yank bashing begin. Seriously, is there an actual Quora desk somewhere in the Kremlin basement solely dedicated to trolling Britons and Americans on to each other's throats?
如果美国没有参加二战，会发生什么？
呵，又要开始抨击美国人了。说真的，难道克里姆林宫地下室里真的有个专门的Quora工作台，唯一的任务就是挑拨英美两国互相攻击吗？
Let's get this as crystal clear as possible: if any ONE of the Allied forces of WWII had either sat out the war or (worse still) actively supported the Axis, the result would have been what it nearly was: triumph of the dictators. Germany fought the entire world alone in the two greatest and most terrible conflicts in human history and, but for the bungling of the high command, they would have won them both.
让我们把话说得再明白不过：如果二战中的任何一个同盟国选择袖手旁观，或者（更糟糕的是）转而支持轴心国，那么结果就会像历史险些发生的那样——独裁者们将取得胜利。德国在人类历史上两场最宏大、最惨烈的战争中，几乎是以一己之力对抗全世界。如果不是德军最高统帅部的一系列失误，他们本可以赢得这两场战争。
No USSR? Germany wins.
No Britain? Germany wins.
No US? Germany wins.
没有苏联？德国赢。
没有英国？德国赢。
没有美国？德国赢。
In each case, the other axis dictators tag along for scraps like the jackals they were.
无论哪种情况，其他轴心国的独裁者都会像豺狼一样，跟在德国后面分一杯羹。
Without the Soviet eastern front, Western Europe would have been what but for the grace of God it nearly was: fortress Europa, bristling with crack SS units and battle hardened Wehrmacht. All of the soldaten lost to the Reich in Stalingrad would have greeted the Anglo Americans with death. The specter of Paulus, Manstein, and Heitz waiting for D-Day with an intact Army Group B and Army Group Don? With 600,000 more troops? The most terrifying alternate history imaginable, utter annihilation for GI Joseph and Tommy Atkins. Period.
如果没有苏联的东线战场，西欧就会像差一点发生的那样，变成一座遍布党卫军精锐和身经百战的国防军的“欧洲堡垒”。所有在斯大林格勒为第三帝国战死的德军士兵，都会转而用死亡迎接英美盟军的到来。试想一下，如果保卢斯、曼施坦因和海茨率领着完整的B集团军群和顿河集团军群，带着多出的60万兵力，在诺曼底登陆日严阵以待，那会是怎样的场景？这简直是最恐怖的历史假设，美国大兵和英国士兵将遭遇全军覆没的结局，没有任何余地。
Without an unsinkable and unbowed Britain, American troops, planes, and material would have been forced to run a gauntlet of Kriegsmarine on the Atlantic before ever setting foot in North Africa, Italy, or France. The notion that an undefeated Britain at Herr Hitler's back would have made no difference to Operation Barbarossa is ludicrous on the face of it. Yes, our Fraternal Socialist allies stopped Hitler at Stalingrad. Literally at the last square foot at which they could have stopped him. If not for Stalingrad, Moscow would have fallen. There simply was no other place on which to take a stand. Just a handful more of German units would have turned the tide Red and Black instead of Red and Gold. A crooked cross rather than the hammer and sickle. Period.
如果没有英国这个坚不可摧、永不屈服的“不沉航母”，美国的军队、飞机和物资在踏上北非、意大利或法国的土地之前，就必须先突破德国海军在大西洋的层层封锁。认为一个未被征服的英国在希特勒背后不会对巴巴罗萨行动产生任何影响，这种观点本身就是荒谬的。没错，我们的社会主义盟友在斯大林格勒挡住了希特勒，但那几乎是他们能够守住的最后一寸土地。如果没有斯大林格勒战役的胜利，莫斯科就会沦陷，因为苏联已经没有其他可以坚守的战略要地了。只要再多几个德国师投入战斗，历史的天平就会偏向纳粹德国，苏联的旗帜将变成纳粹的卐字旗，而不是如今的镰刀锤子旗，这是无可争辩的事实。
Without an aroused and vengeful United States, both Stalin and Churchill would have been brought to terms, their forces dwindled by starvation and lack, their fuel bunkers empty, the ammo dumps desolate. North Africa would have not been kept by Monty without GI boots on the ground, Italy would have remained in Mussolini's fist without Americans, German factories and troop movements, free from the terror of the USAAF's b-25s, p-47s, and p-51s, would have crushed allied resistance. Period.
如果没有被激怒、决心复仇的美国参战，斯大林和丘吉尔最终都会被迫求和。他们的军队会因为饥饿和物资匮乏而不断减员，燃料库将空空如也，弹药库也会彻底枯竭。没有美国士兵的支援，蒙哥马利根本无法守住北非；没有美国的参与，意大利将永远掌握在墨索里尼手中；而摆脱了美国陆军航空队B-25轰炸机、P-47战斗机和P-51战斗机威胁的德国工厂和运输线，将彻底碾碎同盟国的抵抗，这是毋庸置疑的结局。
I don't know how many an alternate history would have taken to beat Hitler, but I know how many real history DID take: ALL OF US.
So spare us your disingenuous pot-stirring, you trolls.
我不知道在多少种历史假设中能击败希特勒，但我知道真实的历史告诉我们：击败希特勒，需要我们所有人的共同努力。
所以，别再用这种虚伪的挑拨离间来烦我们了，你们这些网络喷子。
Cem Arslan
Amateur military historian and fiction writer
阿姆·阿尔斯兰
业余军事历史学家、小说作家
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
Depending on how you qualify a victory, the answer is either 'nobody' or 'Germany'.
衡量胜利的标准不同，答案要么是“两败俱伤”，要么是“德国获胜”。
An 'one to one battle' between the US and Germany starting, say, 1941 with no country on either side involving itself openly, is not going to be much of a war and I can assure you won't be particularly exciting. Without the Soviets to do the bulk of the bleeding on land and Britain to be a massive unsinkable aircraft carrier and supply base fifty kilometers off Europe, the US plain and simply lacks the ability to present the kind of force across the Atlantic required to face the Wehrmacht on its home ground and have a snowball's chance in Hell at victory, and Germany doesn't even have the ability to present any force larger than a sabotage team across the Atlantic.
假设美德一对一战争始于1941年，且双方均无其他国家公开介入，那么这场战争大概率不会有太大规模，也绝不会像人们想象中那样惊心动魄。要知道，若没有苏联在陆地战场承担主要伤亡，也没有英国这个距离欧洲仅50公里、庞大且不沉的航空母舰与补给基地，美国根本没有能力跨大西洋投送足够兵力，在德国本土与国防军抗衡，更别提获胜的可能；而德国甚至连派遣破坏小组以上规模的部队跨大西洋作战都做不到。
This means, quite simply, that this war is going to be nothing more than a long naval skirmish the results of which are utterly irrelevant to the final settlement… which is going to be status quo ante bellum as far as the two countries are concerned. So, it's a victory of nobody.
很简单，这意味着这场战争充其量只是一场漫长的海军小规模冲突，其结果对最终的和解毫无影响——两国最终只会恢复战前状态。从这个角度来说，这场战争没有胜利者。
That being said… Germany had no designs over the continental US, and the only reason she ever declared war on the US to begin with was to actually permit the Kriegsmarine to fire back after the USN hunted Kriegsmarine vessels across the Atlantic under the umbrella of Roosevelt's so-called Pan-American Security Zone and in violation of some half a dozen international laws with the precise intent to make Germany do that. So, going into this war, the US' aim is, and it would always be in any war with Germany, would be to get over all the way into Berlin, kick out the German government, dismantle the German state, and if Roosevelt and Morgenthau have their way send the country to the Early Modern Era. Germany's aim is basically getting the US to bugger off from the European affairs.
尽管如此……德国从未觊觎过美国本土，当初对美宣战的唯一原因，是为了让德国海军能够合法反击——此前美国海军在罗斯福所谓的“泛美安全区”旗号下，跨越大西洋追击德国舰艇，违反了近六项国际法，其目的就是逼迫德国宣战。因此，美国发动这场战争的目标（以及任何对德战争的目标）始终是：进军柏林，推翻德国政府，瓦解德国政权；如果按照罗斯福和摩根索的计划，甚至要将德国打回近代早期的状态。而德国的目标其实很简单：让美国别插手欧洲事务。
So, the status quo ante bellum peace actually fulfills Germany's war obxtives, but not the US', so depending on your definition of victory you could say Germany would win.
由此可见，恢复战前状态的和平实际上达成了德国的战争目标，却未实现美国的目标。因此，根据对胜利的不同定义，也可以说德国会赢得这场战争。
OSKY3033
Originally Answered: Who would win if the usa and europe had a war?
Although I hate this answer no one would win but here's why.
最初回答：如果美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
虽然我不想这么说，但答案是“没有赢家”，原因如下。
Before I say why I'm gonna say 3 things. I'm not gonna count nukes since everyone loses and it's just boring. I'm also not counting other countries or allies outside Europe. So no USA can't invade from Africa or asia and no Europe can't invade through Canada. Also I'm not countering Russia since I'll be talking about the EU.
在阐述原因之前，我先声明三点：第一，我不会考虑核武器，因为核战争没有赢家，而且讨论这个话题毫无意义；第二，我不考虑欧洲以外的其他国家或盟友，也就是说美国不能从非洲或亚洲发起进攻，欧洲也不能借道加拿大进攻美国；第三，我不将俄罗斯纳入讨论范围，这里的“欧洲”仅指欧盟。
the USA has the strongest army, navy and Air Force. Their air carriers alone are a force to be reckon and with the upcoming addiction to the new super carriers the USA is so strong on the sea and air were ALL the battles will be fought.
美国拥有全球最强大的陆军、海军和空军。单是其航空母舰就足以构成一支不容小觑的力量，随着新型超级航母即将服役，美国在海空领域的优势将更加明显——而未来所有的战场都将集中在海空领域。
just taking into consideration D-Day which took months to carry through now imagine if you had to cross a whole ocean not just a small strait.
想想诺曼底登陆吧，那场战役筹备了数月之久。而现在我们要设想的是跨越整个大洋，而不是仅仅渡过一条狭窄的海峡。
The Usa would honestly destroy most of the EU navy and air forces with constant fighting. They should worry about UK, France and Germany the most. Specially with Germany budget in the army increased after the Ukrainian conflict. This makes it harder for the USA but they are so far up ahead they won't be able to catch up if theoretically the war just starts today.
说实话，通过持续作战，美国能够摧毁欧盟的大部分海军和空军力量。不过美国需要重点提防英国、法国和德国，尤其是乌克兰冲突后德国增加了军费预算，这会给美国带来更大挑战。但即便如此，美国的领先优势依然巨大，如果战争理论上今天就爆发，欧盟短期内根本无法追赶。
now most countries in NATO are just for show and most countries in the organization don't even accomplish what they said they would. Europe has a really old military since they don't have a reason to make it better (Although Russia is making them change their mind). But like I said if the war starts now they won't compare.
如今北约的大多数成员国只是装装样子，很多国家甚至连承诺的防务投入都无法兑现。欧洲的军事装备普遍陈旧，因为长期以来他们没有更新装备的动力（不过现在俄罗斯正迫使他们改变想法）。但正如我所说，如果战争现在爆发，欧洲的军力根本无法与美国抗衡。
If we take into consideration the IBMs the USA could destroy a lot of the key cities of the EU but they are also capable of doing the same. I'm not going to undermine EU. The force they have is enough to push back the USA and cripple them if they make even 1 small error. Most key cities in near the ocean would be attacked by EU boats and planes also including missiles and now the new drones.
如果考虑到洲际弹道导弹，美国可以摧毁欧盟的许多重要城市，但欧盟同样具备这种能力。我并不是在贬低欧盟，他们的军事实力足以在美国犯下哪怕一个小错误时，发起反击并使其遭受重创。欧盟的舰艇、飞机、导弹以及新型无人机，能够袭击美国大多数沿海重要城市。
All of this in mind it would just be a battle of attrition until one side capitulates. Not taking into consideration the economy nor civil uprisings. Neither side would be able to invade from land. Either side would completely destroy anyone trying to try it. So it would just be stalemate. If the USA tries to invade by land they would have to fought hundred of thousands of soldiers just to reach Paris or London. And the same goes to the EU. So it's honestly impossible.
综合来看，这场战争只会是一场消耗战，直到一方屈服为止——这里我们暂且不考虑经济因素和国内民众起义。双方都无法从陆地入侵对方，任何一方试图这么做，都会被彻底击溃，因此战争大概率会陷入僵局。如果美国尝试陆地入侵欧洲，他们需要击败数十万敌军才能抵达巴黎或伦敦；欧盟入侵美国也是同样的道理，这在现实中根本不可能实现。
Just as a fast if. If we include nukes the USA wins (if we don't include Russia). And if Russia joins without nukes now that opens another possibility since they could now attack from the east and west. Also taking into consideration Alaska.
最后补充一点假设：如果考虑核武器（不包括俄罗斯），美国会获胜；如果俄罗斯不使用核武器加入欧盟阵营，那就另当别论了，因为届时俄罗斯可以从东西两线夹击美国，阿拉斯加也会面临威胁。
But it's impossible that it will happen. USA has a strong bond with the EU and It will never happen. Also English is not my first language and I do not live in any EU country not in America's so I believe it's a kinda biased point.
不过，美欧开战的可能性微乎其微。美国和欧盟有着深厚的同盟关系，这种情况永远不会发生。另外，英语不是我的母语，我既不住在欧盟国家，也不在美国，所以我的观点可能带有一定的偏见。
Marcus Brook
Student of people and history.
马库斯·布鲁克
人类与历史专业学生
Originally Answered: Who would win if the usa and europe had a war?
最初回答：如果美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
Europe hands down; USA got its collective ass kicked out of Afghanistan, Somalia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc…. where the only opposition was small-arms weilding farmers. They'd stand no chance at all against anything like a peer adversary, and Europe has several of those.
欧洲会轻而易举地获胜。美国在阿富汗、索马里、越南、古巴等地都遭遇了惨败，而这些地方的对手不过是些手持轻武器的平民百姓。面对势均力敌的对手，美国毫无胜算，而欧洲恰恰拥有多个这样的强国。
America believes numbers and hardware are the only things that matter, despite several painful lessons proving the contrary which it refuses to learn from, and the WW2-era comment of “All the gear, but no idea” still holds true.
美国始终认为兵力规模和武器装备是决定胜负的唯一关键，尽管历史上多次惨痛的教训早已证明事实并非如此，但他们却拒绝吸取教训。二战时期那句评价——“装备精良，却毫无战术”，放在今天的美国身上依然适用。
Tim Doherty
蒂姆·多尔蒂
Originally Answered: Who would win a war between USA and European unx?
最初回答：美国和欧盟开战，谁会获胜？
The US. Europe has a clear strategy of letting NATO handle the security. And NATO is the US Military in a multinational format. The US played along, ad they were allowed to intervene and protect their interests pretty much anywhere. And they’ve had to have a strong Army anyway, so two birds, one stone.
美国会赢。欧洲的战略很明确，就是让北约负责安全防务，而北约本质上就是美国军队的多国化形式。美国顺水推舟，借此得以在全球几乎任何地方进行干预，保护自身利益。同时，美国本身就需要维持一支强大的军队，这样做可谓一举两得。
The problem is that while the US Economy was booming, there was no need for affordable healthcare, Social protection, infrastructure heavy spending, etc. (all things that the Europeans were very keen on investing into). Now the US is stuck with a pricey Military that does not create wealth and welfare, while the European population is enjoying what you can call Socialist treatment and is appaled at how bad the Anericans have it.
问题在于，在美国经济蓬勃发展时期，他们认为没有必要投入资金用于平价医疗、社会保障、大规模基础设施建设等领域——而这些都是欧洲一直热衷投资的方向。如今，美国被一支耗资巨大却无法创造财富和福利的军队所拖累，而欧洲民众却享受着堪称“社会主义式”的福利待遇，他们对美国民众的糟糕处境感到震惊。
In my opinion this will change soon, and it is one of the things Trump had clearly outlined (I hate to say that Trump is right about anything, but he’s got this one right): You want security, you have to pay for it.
在我看来，这种情况很快就会改变，特朗普曾明确指出过这一点（虽然我不想承认特朗普在任何事情上是对的，但这件事他确实说对了）：想要获得安全保障，就必须为此付出代价。
John Cate
Freelance Public Relations Specialist, Bethel, NC
约翰·凯特
北卡罗来纳州贝塞尔市自由公关专员
Originally Answered: Could the EU win a war against the US?
最初回答：欧盟能打赢美国吗？
No. They’d be lucky if they could sustain a war effort against the United States for a month, let alone win such a war.
不能。欧盟要是能撑住一个月对美作战就已经算幸运了，更别说打赢这场战争。
The countries of the EU have neglected their military establishments for so long and depended on the United States for decades (most of them are NATO members anyway) that they have very little military capability that could pose a threat to any first-rate world power. The British had a time beating Argentina in the Falklands War 34 years ago—and their military is even weaker now than it was then. The French needed our help with transport to help Mali fight Islamic radicals a few years back. About the only military in Europe that’s worth a hoot anymore belongs to Poland, and something tells me that if the EU were to do something as stupid as collectively declare war on the United States, there would be a quick “Polskidaddle” from the EU.
欧盟各国长期忽视军事建设，数十年来一直依赖美国的保护（毕竟大多数国家都是北约成员国），以至于他们的军事实力根本不足以对任何世界一流强国构成威胁。想想34年前，英国打赢阿根廷的马岛战争都费了不少劲，而如今英国的军事实力比当年还要弱。
几年前，法国甚至需要美国帮忙提供运输支持，才能协助马里打击伊斯兰激进分子。如今欧洲大概只有波兰的军队还算有点战斗力，但我有种预感，如果欧盟真傻到要集体对美宣战，波兰肯定会第一时间“溜之大吉”。
If the EU were ever to get serious about collective defense and built up their militaries, they could probably challenge any country in the world on even terms in less than 10 years, assuming they could talk the UK (and its navy) out of Brexit. But there’s no way that’s ever going to happen, because that would mean giving up a lot of the socialist bread and circuses that keep the masses content. Half of them won’t even live up to their NATO commitments.
如果欧盟真的认真对待集体防御，大力发展军事力量，并且能说服英国（及其海军）放弃脱欧，那么不出10年，他们或许能与世界上任何一个国家势均力敌地抗衡。但这种情况根本不可能发生，因为这意味着他们要放弃那些让民众安于现状的社会主义福利政策。毕竟现在欧盟里有一半的国家连北约规定的防务投入承诺都做不到。
Harsha Vardhan
Former Research student at Max planck Society
哈沙·瓦尔丹
马克斯·普朗克学会前研究员
Originally Answered: Who would win in a war between US and Europe?
最初回答：美国和欧洲开战，谁会赢？
This is one of the least possible situations, considering the fact that USA stationed around 130 nuclear warheads on European soils, as a part of nuclear sharing policy. This means that there are most important type of Investments USA have in Europe.
Anyway, if a war breaks out, let’s assume it shan’t be a nuclear one as, Europe that includes Russia, has world’s second largest nuclear arsenal. A war with a nuclear Armageddon results in a stalemate with mutual destruction.
考虑到美国依据核共享政策，在欧洲部署了约130枚核弹头，美欧开战是可能性最低的情况之一。这意味着美国在欧洲有着至关重要的战略投入。
不过，假设真的爆发战争，我们可以认定这不会是核战争。因为包含俄罗斯在内的欧洲，拥有全球第二大核武库，核战争只会导致双方同归于尽，最终陷入僵局。
Also the Russian federation, in it’s USSR day, posed a formidable side. In the present day fact that entire Europe is in the Russian bloc must give a shiver to not just USA but for the entire world about the the most destructive war.
要知道，俄罗斯联邦在苏联时期就已是令人敬畏的军事强国。而如今如果整个欧洲都加入俄罗斯阵营，这种局面不仅会让美国感到胆寒，更会让全世界都为这场极具毁灭性的战争而战栗。
So the war machines of the two sides go head to head in various aspects as below
GDP (nominal)
Europe ~ 20 trillion USD in 2010
USA ~ is yet to reach 19 trillion USD by 2017
Although GDP may not be decisive in a war…..it sure shows their strength of economies.
接下来我们从以下几个方面，对比双方的战争机器实力：
名义国内生产总值
欧洲2010年约为20万亿美元
美国到2017年才接近19万亿美元
虽然GDP不能决定战争胜负，但它无疑能体现双方的经济实力。
Military Expenditure (2015)
USA ~600 billion USD
Europe ~ 420 billion USD
军费开支（2015年）
美国约6000亿美元
欧洲约4200亿美元
Military Strength
European unx,if it commands a single unified army of it’s own, is estimated to be the second most powerful army in the world after the USA. Russia is, arguably, the second most powerful military if separate nations are concerned. Thus there is a good chance that two number seconds can prove to be an equal match if not more.
May be this war is too hard to be guessed for an outcome.
军事实力
如果欧盟能够组建一支统一的军队，其战力预计将位居全球第二，仅次于美国。而如果以单个国家计算，俄罗斯则堪称全球第二军事强国。因此，这两个“世界第二”的军事力量联手，即便不能占据上风，也很有可能与美国势均力敌。
或许这场战争的结果实在难以预料。
But hey! As Mustafa Kemel Pasha has once quoted to the defeated Greek generals “War is game, where even the best are sometimes worsted.” So even if we could have concluded the best of the two sides…..outcome continues to be elusive.
不过，正如穆斯塔法·凯末尔·帕夏曾对战败的希腊将军们说过的那样：“战争就像一场游戏，即使是最强者也可能偶尔失手。” 因此，即便我们能判断出双方的优劣，战争的最终结果依然充满变数。
Roger Shepard
Former Lt. Col at U.S. Army (1975–2005)
罗杰·谢泼德
美国陆军前中校（1975-2005年服役）
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
The American Army Chief of Staff, General of the Army George C. Marshall would have said if they were evenly matched with materials and manpower, the Germans would have won.
美国陆军参谋长、陆军五星上将乔治·C·马歇尔曾说过，如果双方在物资和人力上势均力敌，德国将会获胜。
But luckily for us it wasn’t a ”fair fight”. We buried them literally with more targets than they had the ammunition for. It was too much for Japan too. For Japan, as I’ve pointed out in this forum elsewhere, the US launched more tonnage of combatant ships in 1943 - 1944 than that which comprised the entire US Navy in 1940 - 1941
但幸运的是，那场战争并非一场“公平的较量”。我们的物资投入多到让德军应接不暇，他们的弹药根本不够用来对付这么多目标。日本也同样承受不住这样的压力。正如我在论坛其他地方提到的，美国在1943至1944年间下水的作战舰艇总吨位，超过了1940至1941年整个美国海军的舰艇总吨位。
Dominic Roy Accampo
Material Handler, Offload Operations (2001–present)
多米尼克·罗伊·阿坎波
卸货作业物料管理员（2001年至今任职）
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
I would say Germany but…
Which one to one?
我倾向于德国会赢，但这取决于具体的“一对一”是指什么。
是哪种形式的一对一？
During the Battle of the Bulge one entire German division was using bicycles in order to try and keep up, as much or more due to limitations on fuel reserves as in lack of motorized vehicles.
Most of the German tanks used in France during World War Two were renovated French vehicles, many of which were obsolete at the beginning of the war and even more so when the allies returned to France.
突出部战役期间，德军有整整一个师靠骑自行车来机动，这在很大程度上是因为燃料储备不足，而非缺乏机动车辆。
二战期间，德军在法国战场使用的坦克大多是翻新的法国装备，其中许多在战争初期就已过时，等到盟军反攻法国时，这些坦克就更是老旧不堪了。
On the ground the best equipped and trained German troops would have probably defeated the best equipped and trained American troops on a one to one basis fairly easily, but with heavy casualties. But in real life, most average American units had more firepower than most German units, with every American having a semiautomatic rifle and most Germans having a bolt action rifle. So on the ground I believe there would have been as many American as German victories.
在地面战场上，装备最精良、训练最有素的德军部队，在一对一的较量中或许能轻松击败同等条件的美军部队，但自身也会付出惨重伤亡。不过在现实中，大多数普通美军单位的火力都超过德军单位——每个美军士兵都配备半自动步枪，而大多数德军士兵使用的还是栓动步枪。因此，在地面战场上，我认为美军和德军的胜场次数可能不相上下。
In the air, the best Germany had could not have overwhelmed our P-51s, with the air battle being, perhaps, a draw, if it was one to one.
在空中战场，德军最先进的战机也无法压制我们的P-51战斗机，如果是一对一空战，双方很可能打成平手。
I think America could have won, one to one, with our troops already in Europe. But the fighting would have been a lot longer with a lot more American casualties if you nullified out advantages in numbers.
我认为，如果美军已经部署在欧洲大陆，那么一对一较量中美国有可能获胜。但如果我们失去了兵力优势，战争将会持续更长时间，美军的伤亡也会大幅增加。
Steven Pace
Lives in Australia (1999–present)
史蒂文·佩斯
现居澳大利亚（1999年至今）
Originally Answered: Who would win if 1940s America fought Nazi Germany 1 versus 1?
最初回答：如果二战时期的美国与纳粹德国一对一开战，谁会赢？
If the US and germany were neighbors, then Germany would win. Otherwise, the US would have the time to build a Gigantic army. And the germans would never make any dent in the US naval advantage. And navy means free use of the seas worldwide. It would be a long war, and it his hard to imagine every other country would be completely uninvolved. Would the US blockade germany and threaten neutral shipping?
如果美国和德国是邻国，那么德国会赢。但现实是两国远隔大洋，美国有足够时间组建一支庞大的军队，而德国永远无法撼动美国的海军优势。海军优势意味着可以自由掌控全球海域，这会是一场漫长的战争，而且很难想象其他国家会完全置身事外。届时美国是否会对德国实施封锁，并威胁中立国的航运呢？
Daniel Lee
Long term interest.
丹尼尔·李 长期关注军事历史
All of Europe and Japan vs the USA in 1939, who would win?
1939年，整个欧洲和日本联手对抗美国，谁会赢？
If in 1939, European and Japanese leaders all met at some secret conference, and all agreed to attack the USA instead of each other, then the USA would lose. In this counterfactual history, we must assume that a) there needs to be an agreement in place between these countries before they can all coordinate a joint war, b) this would be kept secret from the USA, c) no country would attack another without preparing for it in some way i.e. they would not invade the day after the agreement.
如果1939年欧洲和日本的领导人召开秘密会议，达成一致协议，决定互不攻击，转而联手进攻美国，那么美国将会战败。在这个反事实的历史假设中，我们必须设定三个前提：第一，这些国家必须先达成协议，才能协调发动联合战争；第二，该协议必须对美国严格保密；第三，各国不会毫无准备就发动进攻，也就是说不会在达成协议的第二天就入侵美国。
In 1939 the USA had an army of 180,000 men, a small air force and a navy that was not the equal of the Royal Navy, let alone the RN combined with the Imperial Japanese Navy, the French Navy and the German Navy. To give you an idea of the numbers, the French army alone numbered 900,000 and 5,000,000 reservists. Belgium could contribute another 550,000 including reservists. Germany in 1939 fielded 3,700,000 men. Combined, Europe had thousands of tanks, admittedly not all of them particularly good, but then the US Army had little armour, of its own, and a small air force.
1939年，美国陆军仅有18万人，空军规模较小，海军实力甚至不及英国皇家海军，更不用说与英国、日本、法国和德国的联合海军相抗衡了。我们不妨看看具体数字：仅法国陆军就有90万现役军人和500万预备役人员，比利时可动员的兵力（包括预备役）达55万，1939年德国的作战兵力为370万。欧洲各国拥有数千辆坦克，诚然这些坦克并非都性能优良，但当时美国陆军自身的装甲力量也极为薄弱，空军规模同样有限。
The USSR, Japanese, British Indian Army and the ANZACs could conceivably invade through Alaska, and we’re talking about the British Empire here, so the British, French, Germans, Polish, Italians et al could all invade through Canada. Allied tanks sweep down the eastern seaboard, swiftly capturing all major cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, while a Royal Navy operation quickly establishes a beachhead in New Orleans and fans out from there.
苏联、日本、英属印度军队和澳新军团可以从阿拉斯加发动进攻，而大英帝国麾下的英国、法国、德国、波兰、意大利等国军队则可借道加拿大入侵。盟军坦克将横扫美国东海岸，迅速占领纽约、波士顿、费城、华盛顿等主要城市，同时英国皇家海军会在新奥尔良迅速建立滩头阵地，并向周边扩张。
In the West, Alaska, cut off from the rest of the USA, falls quickly, troops quickly overrun the western seaboard. The USA simply did not have the troop numbers, planes or tanks to prevent this happening. Throw into the mix such talented commanders as Rommel, Manstein, and Guderian then it looks like it could be over pretty quickly. The US population at first refuses to submit, however, their weapons are confiscated, those that resist are treated harshly and, in the face of the overwhelming strength of the occupiers, are cowed into submission.
在西海岸，与美国本土隔绝的阿拉斯加会迅速沦陷，敌军将很快席卷整个西海岸。当时的美国根本没有足够的兵力、飞机和坦克来阻止这一切发生。再加上隆美尔、曼施坦因、古德里安等杰出将领的指挥，这场战争可能很快就会结束。美国民众起初会拒绝投降，但他们的武器会被没收，抵抗者会遭到残酷镇压，在占领军的绝对优势面前，最终只能被迫屈服。
Lucas J Hofler
Grandfather in WWII (2. SS-Panzer-Division, Pz.Gren.Regt.4)
卢卡斯·J·霍夫勒
祖父曾服役于二战时期党卫军第2装甲师第4装甲掷弹兵团
Originally Answered: In WW2, if America was faced one to one battle with Germany, who would have won the war?
最初回答：二战时期，如果美国与德国一对一开战，谁会赢得这场战争？
Neither of the 2 would have had any chance to invade the other.
Even in real life it would’ve been impossible to invade mainland Europe without using the UK as a base. How do you achieve air superiority? Crossing the Atlantic??!
Also in 1944 the Allies had to face only about 1/3 of the Wehrmacht, being the best units deployed east to fight the Soviets.
So a war between Germany and the US would have been inconclusive and it would’ve only consisted in a few naval battles (mostly German U-Boats vs US’ surface).
两国都没有任何机会入侵对方本土。
即便是在真实历史中，如果没有英国作为基地，盟军也根本无法入侵欧洲大陆。试想一下，跨越大西洋去争夺制空权，这怎么可能实现？
而且1944年盟军在西线面对的德军仅为其总兵力的三分之一，德军最精锐的部队都被部署在东线与苏军作战。
因此，美德之间的战争很可能会陷入僵局，双方只会爆发几场海战，而且大多是德国U型潜艇与美国水面舰艇之间的对抗。
Lance Bird
Lived in The United States of America
兰斯·伯德 曾居住于美国
If it was only Germany and the United States in combat during WW2 with no other interfering countries, who would have won?
如果二战中只有德国和美国交战，没有其他国家干涉，谁会获胜？
The US would win.
First, the US was much further along in the development of atomic weapons. Which is the most logical way that war would have ended. But beyond that…
美国会赢。
首先，美国的原子弹研发进度远远领先于德国，这很可能是战争最合理的终结方式。但除此之外，美国还有其他优势。
Germany’s only chance at winning would be an early invasion while the US army was still small and poorly equipped. That would have been very difficult to pull off, as even the part of the US navy in the Atlantic was significantly stronger than what Germany had. Add in the Pacific fleet and Germany’s chances go from very, very slim to virtually no chance at all. On top of that Germany simply didn’t have the transport capacity to do it.
德国获胜的唯一机会，是在美国陆军规模尚小、装备还未完善时发动早期入侵。但这几乎不可能实现，因为即便是美国部署在大西洋的海军力量，也远胜于德国海军；再加上太平洋舰队的支援，德国的胜算会从微乎其微变为完全没有可能。更重要的是，德国根本没有足够的运输能力来实施这种跨海入侵。
After that it basically becomes a competition of industrial might. Germany simply couldn’t have won that. Even with all of its conquests during WW2 Germany was outproduced by the US at a rate of 3 or 4 to 1. Without those conquests and support from its allies German production is going to be much smaller and will be missing important things like Romanian oil or Swedish steel.
一旦错过这个时机，战争就会演变为工业实力的较量，而德国在这方面毫无胜算。即便是在二战期间占领大片领土后，德国的工业产能也仅为美国的三分之一到四分之一。如果没有那些被占领土和盟友的支持，德国的产能会大幅下降，还会缺少罗马尼亚石油、瑞典钢铁等重要战略物资。
Germany would never been in a position where it could launch a naval invasion of the US, while the US would ultimately build up such a large material advantage that it could invade.
德国永远没有能力对美国发动跨海入侵，而美国最终会积累起压倒性的物资优势，具备入侵德国的能力。
Pat Payne
Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, University of Oregon (Graduated 2003)
帕特·佩恩
俄勒冈大学新闻学学士（2003年毕业）
Who would win, The United States (1939) or Nazi Germany (1939)?
1939年的美国与纳粹德国开战，谁会赢？
Neither. If it was a war between the two with no other combatants, there would likely be a negotiated peace after a naval war. There was no way for Germany to invade and conquer the United States, even with the extremely limited armed forces we had in 1939.
双方都不会赢。如果两国单独开战，没有其他参战国，那么这场战争很可能会在一系列海战后以和谈告终。即便1939年美国的军事力量还极为有限，德国也根本没有能力入侵并征服美国。
Germany had shown that just a year later, with command of the French coast of the English Channel, that they could not mount a credible amphibious invasion of England. Even before they had commenced war with the Soviet unx, Germany never attempted landings in England. They didn’t have the technical capacity or the command of the air to pull it off. They didn’t have the Higgins Landing Craft that the Allies used at D-Day (and remember that D-Day itself was a very close-run thing, considered so iffy and such a “Hail Mary” pass that Eisenhower kept on his person a Communique that essentially took responsibility for it failing anticipating the landings being repulsed), and Germany had little to none of the transatlantic logistics infrastructure that would be necessary to initiate and sustain a full-on invasion of the United States.
一年后，德国虽然控制了英吉利海峡的法国海岸，却连对英国发动一次像样的两栖登陆都做不到。甚至在对苏开战之前，德国从未尝试过登陆英国本土——他们既没有足够的技术能力，也没有掌握制空权。德国没有盟军在诺曼底登陆时使用的希金斯登陆艇（要知道，诺曼底登陆本身就是一场险象环生的豪赌，艾森豪威尔甚至随身携带了一份准备在登陆失败时发布的声明，主动承担全部责任），更没有任何能够发起并维持对美国全面入侵的跨大西洋后勤保障体系。
Not to mention the logistics for a protracted war over a continent-spanning nation like the United States. We only have to look as far as Germany’s ultimately ruinous decision to invade the USSR in 1941, which saw the Germans almost immediately wrong-footed after the initial surprise, largely due to the Wehrmacht not realizing the enormity of the challenge set before them and not planning logistically for winter warfare (Hitler’s boast that “we kick in the door and the whole rotten edifice collapses” was far, far from the truth).
更不用说在像美国这样幅员辽阔的国家打一场持久战，需要多么庞大的后勤支持。我们只需看看1941年德国入侵苏联的灾难性决策就明白了：德军在初期突袭得手后，很快就陷入了困境，这在很大程度上是因为德军根本没有意识到他们面临的挑战有多艰巨，也没有为冬季作战做好后勤准备（希特勒吹嘘的“我们一脚踹开门，整个腐朽的大厦就会倒塌”，与现实相差甚远）。
Even if Germany were somehow able to land an invasion force, they would have had to have fought through the formidable US Navy, and even though the US Army was relatively puny in 1939 and outnumbered in men and equipment by Germany, the Germans would have to face armed civilians, the “rifle behind every blade of grass” Yamamoto warned of. It would have been “open season” on the Germans, and while a German invasion would likely have taken obxtives on the coast, they would be hard pressed to hold onto territory further inland.
就算德国奇迹般地将入侵部队送上美国海岸，他们首先要突破强大的美国海军防线。而且尽管1939年美国陆军规模相对较小，在兵力和装备上都不及德国，但德军还要面对武装起来的美国民众——正如山本五十六警告的那样，“美国的每一片草丛后面都有一支步枪”。届时德军将陷入全民皆兵的汪洋大海，即便他们能占领沿海目标，也很难守住深入内陆的领土。
America’s side would be just as hard. Torch in 1942 was the first ever transatlantic contested invasion, and the early days of the operation almost ended in disaster. And that was after the crash rearmament that we undertook late in 1939. A United States Army of under 200,000 successfully taking on a Wehrmacht of nearly 5 million was an impossibility. Not to mention that the US had a lot of the same logistical issues that Germany would have, including fighting through the Kriegsmarine.
On top of that, there is only a small parcel of coastland to invade in Germany on the North Sea and Baltic coasts, so there is less territory for Germany to directly defend as opposed to the entire Eastern Seaboard on our side of the Atlantic.
美国这边的处境同样艰难。1942年的“火炬行动”是历史上首次跨大西洋两栖登陆作战，行动初期几乎以灾难告终，而这还是美国在1939年底开始紧急重整军备之后的结果。让一支不到20万人的美国陆军去对抗近500万人的德国国防军，这根本不可能。更不用说美国也会面临和德国类似的后勤问题，还要突破德国海军的封锁。此外，德国只有北海和波罗的海沿岸的一小片区域适合登陆，相比美国大西洋沿岸的整个东海岸，德国需要直接防御的领土要少得多。
And the US would have to transit warships and troop transports, belligerent craft, through British, French, or Norwegian/Danish/Swedish waters to get to the only amphibious landing spots in Germany, and if any of those nations decided to be strict about neutrality, they could forcibly impound the invasion force as soon as they entered territorial waters (Germany would have the same problem as well), meaning that the US Navy would be suddenly facing the Kriegsmarine and the Royal Navy/French Navy/Norwegian Navy etc.
而且美国的军舰和运兵船等作战舰艇，必须经过英国、法国、挪威、丹麦或瑞典的海域，才能抵达德国仅有的几个两栖登陆点。如果这些国家严格执行中立政策，一旦美国舰队进入其领海，就可能被强行扣押（德国也会面临同样的问题），这意味着美国海军可能会突然同时面对德国海军、英国皇家海军、法国海军、挪威海军等多国舰队的夹击。
The only way a war between the US and Germany would have been fought with them as the only two combatants would be at sea. It would potentially involve a few naval skirmishes, possibly a grand clash of fleets in the Atlantic, but would not touch either nation’s homeland, because neither nation would be practically capable of bringing the war to the other nation.
如果美德两国单独开战，唯一的作战方式就是海战。双方可能会爆发几场小规模海战，甚至在大西洋上发生大规模舰队决战，但战争绝不会波及任何一方的本土，因为两国实际上都没有能力将战火引向对方的领土。
Scottie Odom
American Citizen interested in history and politics
斯科蒂·奥多姆
美国公民，对历史和政治感兴趣
If a war between the European unx and the United States somehow occurred, who would win and why?
This is a bit of a loaded question given that right now, we don’t know what Europe could achieve.
如果欧盟和美国之间爆发战争，谁会赢？为什么？
这是个有点复杂的问题，因为目前我们很难判断欧洲究竟能发挥出多大的实力。
Right now, the European unx is made up of small nations who have joined together economically to prosper, but they are not a federal unx similar to the United States. Most nations are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but those are holdovers from when the WARSAW pack in Eastern Europe was a major threat. They still are, but not near to the same degree as when the Soviets had tanks parked on the border on a regular basis.
如今的欧盟是由多个小国为了经济繁荣而组成的联盟，并非像美国那样的联邦制国家。大多数欧盟国家都是北约成员国，但这是东欧华约组织曾构成重大威胁时期的遗留产物。虽然俄罗斯现在仍是一个威胁，但远不及当年苏联坦克常年驻扎在边境时的程度。
Also, at the moment the majority of NATO spending is done by the United States, who maintains bases across Europe at the behest of their host nations. Germany is one such nation, and they are considered the most prosperous at the moment. Germany is also a bit hesitant to rearm themselves, still feeling rather penitent after World War II. They would need the consensus of their neighbors to avoid appearing like they’re warmongering again.
此外，目前北约的军费开支大部分由美国承担，美国应各东道国的要求在欧洲各地维持着军事基地。德国就是其中之一，它被认为是目前欧盟中最富裕的国家。但德国在重整军备方面仍有些犹豫，二战后的负罪感依然存在，他们需要获得邻国的共识，以避免再次被视为好战分子。
And really, that’s all well and good except that the EU is mainly defensive in its posture. The United States at present maintains 10 aircraft carriers in operation, while the combined navies of Europe maintain 5, and they are not the full size carriers. In addition, most do not maintain large fleets like the United States, and the key to getting troops anywhere would be via the oceans.
不过，欧盟的军事姿态主要是防御性的，这一点很关键。美国目前拥有10艘现役航空母舰，而欧洲各国海军加起来只有5艘，而且都不是全尺寸的大型航母。此外，大多数欧洲国家都没有像美国那样庞大的舰队，而向任何地方投送兵力的关键都在于控制海洋。
That doesn’t mean that the EU would be easy to just topple. The United Kingdom and France both maintain nuclear arsenals, both strategic and tactical. While the US certainly has a much larger arsenal, kicking off WWIII isn’t in anyone’s best interest.
但这并不意味着欧盟可以轻易被击败。英国和法国都拥有战略和战术核武库，虽然美国的核武库规模要大得多，但发动第三次世界大战不符合任何一方的利益。
Of course, it would be entirely dependent on if the EU remains a cohesive whole or if it fractures that determines who holds what cards. If Great Britain sides with the EU or remains neutral, the United States would need to cross an ocean and make a hostile landing. If Britain sides with the US, then the EU would want to invade Britain and secure it before the US can mobilize forces to secure the island.
当然，战争结果完全取决于欧盟能否保持团结，还是会发生分裂。如果英国站在欧盟一边或保持中立，美国就需要跨越大西洋发起登陆作战；如果英国站在美国一边，欧盟就会试图在美国调动兵力保卫英国之前，先入侵并占领英国。
Honestly, it’s probably a moot point given NATO’s organization, though Europe has recently been criticized for not putting up more money to aid the US presence there. If the United States pulls out, the EU would need to reorganize in a hurry, because their biggest threat is not the United States, but the Great Bear of the East, held at bay knowing the US would intervene. Without the US, Russia might take another look at Europe and decide it’s hungry once more.
说实话，考虑到北约的存在，这个问题其实没什么实际意义。不过欧洲最近确实因为没有投入更多资金支持美国在欧洲的驻军而受到批评。如果美国从欧洲撤军，欧盟就必须紧急进行军事重组，因为他们面临的最大威胁并非美国，而是东部的“北极熊”俄罗斯——俄罗斯之所以不敢轻举妄动，正是因为知道美国会出手干预。一旦失去美国的保护，俄罗斯可能会重新审视欧洲，再次露出贪婪的獠牙。
Steven Brownfield
Teacher- English IV, Classical Literature at Norman North High School
史蒂文·布朗菲尔德
诺曼北高中英语IV及古典文学教师
What would've happened had America stayed out of WWII?
Ah, let the Yank bashing begin. Seriously, is there an actual Quora desk somewhere in the Kremlin basement solely dedicated to trolling Britons and Americans on to each other's throats?
如果美国没有参加二战，会发生什么？
呵，又要开始抨击美国人了。说真的，难道克里姆林宫地下室里真的有个专门的Quora工作台，唯一的任务就是挑拨英美两国互相攻击吗？
Let's get this as crystal clear as possible: if any ONE of the Allied forces of WWII had either sat out the war or (worse still) actively supported the Axis, the result would have been what it nearly was: triumph of the dictators. Germany fought the entire world alone in the two greatest and most terrible conflicts in human history and, but for the bungling of the high command, they would have won them both.
让我们把话说得再明白不过：如果二战中的任何一个同盟国选择袖手旁观，或者（更糟糕的是）转而支持轴心国，那么结果就会像历史险些发生的那样——独裁者们将取得胜利。德国在人类历史上两场最宏大、最惨烈的战争中，几乎是以一己之力对抗全世界。如果不是德军最高统帅部的一系列失误，他们本可以赢得这两场战争。
No USSR? Germany wins.
No Britain? Germany wins.
No US? Germany wins.
没有苏联？德国赢。
没有英国？德国赢。
没有美国？德国赢。
In each case, the other axis dictators tag along for scraps like the jackals they were.
无论哪种情况，其他轴心国的独裁者都会像豺狼一样，跟在德国后面分一杯羹。
Without the Soviet eastern front, Western Europe would have been what but for the grace of God it nearly was: fortress Europa, bristling with crack SS units and battle hardened Wehrmacht. All of the soldaten lost to the Reich in Stalingrad would have greeted the Anglo Americans with death. The specter of Paulus, Manstein, and Heitz waiting for D-Day with an intact Army Group B and Army Group Don? With 600,000 more troops? The most terrifying alternate history imaginable, utter annihilation for GI Joseph and Tommy Atkins. Period.
如果没有苏联的东线战场，西欧就会像差一点发生的那样，变成一座遍布党卫军精锐和身经百战的国防军的“欧洲堡垒”。所有在斯大林格勒为第三帝国战死的德军士兵，都会转而用死亡迎接英美盟军的到来。试想一下，如果保卢斯、曼施坦因和海茨率领着完整的B集团军群和顿河集团军群，带着多出的60万兵力，在诺曼底登陆日严阵以待，那会是怎样的场景？这简直是最恐怖的历史假设，美国大兵和英国士兵将遭遇全军覆没的结局，没有任何余地。
Without an unsinkable and unbowed Britain, American troops, planes, and material would have been forced to run a gauntlet of Kriegsmarine on the Atlantic before ever setting foot in North Africa, Italy, or France. The notion that an undefeated Britain at Herr Hitler's back would have made no difference to Operation Barbarossa is ludicrous on the face of it. Yes, our Fraternal Socialist allies stopped Hitler at Stalingrad. Literally at the last square foot at which they could have stopped him. If not for Stalingrad, Moscow would have fallen. There simply was no other place on which to take a stand. Just a handful more of German units would have turned the tide Red and Black instead of Red and Gold. A crooked cross rather than the hammer and sickle. Period.
如果没有英国这个坚不可摧、永不屈服的“不沉航母”，美国的军队、飞机和物资在踏上北非、意大利或法国的土地之前，就必须先突破德国海军在大西洋的层层封锁。认为一个未被征服的英国在希特勒背后不会对巴巴罗萨行动产生任何影响，这种观点本身就是荒谬的。没错，我们的社会主义盟友在斯大林格勒挡住了希特勒，但那几乎是他们能够守住的最后一寸土地。如果没有斯大林格勒战役的胜利，莫斯科就会沦陷，因为苏联已经没有其他可以坚守的战略要地了。只要再多几个德国师投入战斗，历史的天平就会偏向纳粹德国，苏联的旗帜将变成纳粹的卐字旗，而不是如今的镰刀锤子旗，这是无可争辩的事实。
Without an aroused and vengeful United States, both Stalin and Churchill would have been brought to terms, their forces dwindled by starvation and lack, their fuel bunkers empty, the ammo dumps desolate. North Africa would have not been kept by Monty without GI boots on the ground, Italy would have remained in Mussolini's fist without Americans, German factories and troop movements, free from the terror of the USAAF's b-25s, p-47s, and p-51s, would have crushed allied resistance. Period.
如果没有被激怒、决心复仇的美国参战，斯大林和丘吉尔最终都会被迫求和。他们的军队会因为饥饿和物资匮乏而不断减员，燃料库将空空如也，弹药库也会彻底枯竭。没有美国士兵的支援，蒙哥马利根本无法守住北非；没有美国的参与，意大利将永远掌握在墨索里尼手中；而摆脱了美国陆军航空队B-25轰炸机、P-47战斗机和P-51战斗机威胁的德国工厂和运输线，将彻底碾碎同盟国的抵抗，这是毋庸置疑的结局。
I don't know how many an alternate history would have taken to beat Hitler, but I know how many real history DID take: ALL OF US.
So spare us your disingenuous pot-stirring, you trolls.
我不知道在多少种历史假设中能击败希特勒，但我知道真实的历史告诉我们：击败希特勒，需要我们所有人的共同努力。
所以，别再用这种虚伪的挑拨离间来烦我们了，你们这些网络喷子。
