Genuinely how did this one single poll generate a stream of controversy all across social media? I couldn't spend one session without a post somewhere making reference to the poll or the situation.
It's funny because racists were INSISTING that Africans are currently successfully invading Europe from within, and will soon turn Europe into the next Africa. At the same time, they insist Africa holds no candle to the European might and power.
Honestly, aside from the racism they're also just stupid. Most of these people are the type that A) don't know Egypt is in Africa and B) think Egypt is all pyramids and desert and are shocked when they see photos of normal ass cities.
But its not though. Europe 1939 has more planes and factories than Africa has missiles and bombs. They'd have a short term advantage, but they couldn't match Europes productivity
Factories and planes aren't the only metrics to air superiority. They just need to bomb the airways, mining sites and major factories and research centers.
Sure, because they were fighting 1939 Europe. If France, Germany, Italy, Britain and Russia united to conquer 1939 Africa then it wouldn't even be close.
You are severely underestimating the vast differences in technology and destructive capabilities. Egypt and Morocco could, by themselves, likely sink any and all ships in the Mediterranean and then interdict seaborne traffic.
Europe has more planes but only a fraction are fighters, which is what matters for air superiority. They would be destroyed on the ground and the few that make it to the air are fighting planes going 3-4x their speed with operational altitudes several thousand meters about their own.
Plus there's drones (very easy to make we're seeing), advanced radar and sonar, tanks, artillery, communication.
Africa wouldn't need to hang on for a protracted war. The Europeans would be asking for a treaty after a couple weeks.
Remember, the question isn't who conquers who, it's who wins the war.
Its just show how a lot of people completely unaware about anything related to how war logistics works.
Even if Africa have 100+ years advanced jets, they still dont have factories that capable of producing ammo, they can only destroy as much targets as they have bought ammo in their storages. I really doubt that Africa currently have enough weapons stored to destroy entire Europe.
1939 Europe also didn't have the war factories 1945 Europe did. All participating countries had their highest outputs at the end of the war. All countries experienced severe shell shortages throughout the war. Modern Africa would build more productive factories more quickly than any 1939 technology would be capable of. Italy couldn't even win a war against Ethiopia at the time. You think Europe is going to march across the largest continent in the world, one that is armed with 2026 technology and a population of 1.5 billion?
Even the most haggard modern African country would roll out tanks that would eat the most advanced 1939 tanks for breakfast.
Africa isn't going to be able to replace its chips. and after their supplies dry up its going to be really hard for Africa to maintain that extremely overwhelming tech advantage in everything but naval. Though Africa can produce much more reliable jets than Europe would be able to for a very long time even without the chips or industrial base needed to make them quasi invincible.
Soviets and Sweden are literally right there lol. Europe on its own as a ton of resources with upwards of 60% of their industries being produced with European refined made materials outside of things like rubber which can already be synthesized and recycled at this time.
Europe is honestly in a much better position in industry here than africa since 80% of Africa isn't as industrialized as Europe was at this time.
Take a look at a critical resource map of Europe and soviet union
It's youtube polls and youtube has a lot of kid viewers, so it's probably also some kids thinking 1939 Europe is better than Africa because of WW2. There is still racist people though
i don't think any country would go straight for nukes. even if they do end up using it, it'd take at least a few years of war before it got to that point.
I am of the opinion that Algeria and Egypt alone could maybe win a defensive war against a 1960 unified Europe, and if not, provide a very capable distraction.
The entire world in 1939 had roughly 2.3 billion people. Africa now has roughly 1.5 billion.
1: Population exploded exponentially over the last hundred years.
2: Africa is really, really big. Like, Africa is stupid big. China, the US, India, the EU, Türkiye, Japan and the whole Arab peninsula fit into it. It's ludicrously large.
Forget about the manpower. A lot of African countries like Egypt have relatively modern weapons that would fuck up the European alternatives of that time. Even the relatively less modernised armies of Africa still have tech decades superior than pre WWII Europe. Tf WWII planes and anti-aircraft weapons are going to do against F16s?
In 1939 you wouldn't be able to pull of a D-day style opposed landing, and once the tech gap becomes obvious, high command wouldn't risk battleships on supporting such a landing.
In 1939 a landing would only work if the enemy is largely unprepared, like in norway (which still went worse than planned, despite Norway being shit militarily). The European would not be able to execute such a suprise attack due to the difference in tech level
Even if they did take a beach head, it's not like they can move the entire army into it, they would not be able to achieve a significant numbers advantage.
Oh i thought you meant that the African forces wouldn’t have that much soldier at one place to fend off a naval landing.
Yeah i agree they won’t be able to do that. But my reason would be that every capital ship in the Mediterranean would have been sank in the first week of the war, by multirole jets dropping PGMs on them
Yeah, it's not like they can effectively defend their ships unless they move them out of the theatre. And a convoy full of tanks, ammunition and other such things would become a target well worth sacrificing a missile over
Sure, average African country does not have the same GDP per capita as modern Europe but 1938 Europe (so before WW2 casualties) had like 510 million people while modern Africa has like 1,58 bln people.
That's 3x more people to produce better equipment (even if they literally produced FALs and Patton tanks or T-72s) for 3x the size of military in that specific scenario
I've poked my head into the "discourse" on Twitter and yes, it's like 60% racism, 40% idiots who get all their knowledge of military history from Reddit, YouTube and TikTok.
Hell, on another sub, someone told me with a straight face that "a modern military has no answer to human wave tactics"... like... yeah, okay buddy.
Ironic since the racists love to brag about how their ancestors mowed down tons of "savages".... yet their heroic charging trad warriahs totally wouldn't get gibbed by artillery, machine guns, tanks, drone strikes, etc.
The vast majority of the people who claim 1939 Europe could win are Americans, their culture builds up this power fantasy of being "Built Different", so basic logic doesn't apply.
They repeat clichés they've heard ("logistics win wars!") without thinking about what it would actually entail in a real scenario.
Brother Egypt is a genuine top 20 country in the world military wise, with almost a decade of technogical advancement they alone probably stomp. The people will be telling horror stories about the fighter jets, and treating drones as the 2nd coming of the Lucifer
I was lowkey thinking the same cuz i had a coworker again from south africa who was complaining how south africa had nothing if im not wrong because of corruption
Bruh you guys have Fischer Tropsh plants and nuclear research knowledge and even steel plants! Give your country more credit bruh. You guys with Egypt would carry fr fr.
South Africa, Egypt, and Ethiopia are the only countries in Africa that produce modern armaments bigger than small arms and armored cars. There's literally one place in all of Africa that manufacturers tanks, and none that make military aircraft. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that a modern fighter jet can be taken down with rudimentary weapons. All of Africa's militaries combined have less than 2000 serviceable military aircraft today. In 1939 the RAF had over 3500 warplanes in service. In 1939 the Luftwaffe manufactured over 8000 warplanes.
Basically, the entire African continent would need to make a very fast, very lucky strike and essentially break Europe within a few weeks or they would be overrun by Europes superior manufacturing. Essentially anything other than infantry couldn't be replaced once lost for the African side, but the European side would be churning out close to 1000 planes a month. At that point, technical superiority doesn't really matter if there's only a few dozen jets. It would probably take Europe a long time to achieve any kind of meaningful victory, but after they have air superiority there wouldn't really be any way for Africa to turn it around.
The problem with your analysis (and frankly with the people who voted on the poll) is that you don't understand what a basic modern military is equipped with.
A fighter jet is not the primary counter to enemy aircraft in the modern world Surface-to-Air missiles (SAMs), Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) and modern guided SPAAGs are, alongside modern radar and detection systems. Similarly modern anti-infantry and anti-tank equipment massively outclasses what WWII Europe had.
Africa has most of this cheap equipment in abundance (even their rebels carry a lot of the cheaper stuff).
Completely uncontested strikes deep into European territory would cripple production, logistics and leadership. Modern guided munitions would make targetting highly effective even with a limited supply of munitions.
Modern electronic warfare and decryption methods would mean that European communications would be completely exploited and turned off strategically.
Modern thermal and night vision supported by fast moving armoured vehicles and close-air-support would lead to European infantry being unable to respond to night raids as they are forced to shoot blindly in the dark only to regroup in day time to counter attack an enemy that is no longer present.
Really any modern military that is equipped with stuff from 50 years ago would be able to win a war against WWII Europe in the same way that the modern USA could win almost any war against any military (bar Russia and China) if it went full out - see operations Desert Storm & Desert Shield.
Another thing to mention as well, the best tanks and aircraft Africa has are nigh invincible against the best anti-tank and anti-air weapons 1939 Europe has. But a war between them is not gonna be like a clean match in war thunder.
An F-16 flies too fast and too high for any European plane to reach, but their air strips sure don't. And those jets are gonna be outnumbered 1000 to 1. Can 300 jets feasibily intercept thousands of Lancaster & Junker bombers with thousands more fighter escorts spread throughout North Africa?
Jets are useless if their airbase is full of craters, and they better not fail at protecting even one because each one they lose would weaken their sorties more and more.
As for the tanks, no WW2 tank can penetrate an M1 Abrams or T-55, but artillery is a more reliable way to fight tanks than dueling them with another tank anyway.
Just FYI most African armor would be Soviet left overs and older NATO designs, not to mention that you can still destroy tanks with even low to medium caliber AT weapons from the period,
The standard anti-tank gun of the period is a 40mm class anti-tank gun, which cannot penetrate the Abrams or M60 at any range. The low caliber AT weapon of the time is an anti-tank rifle with less penetration than modern .50 cal rifles, which even now are useless against tanks and most IFVs. Only anti-aircraft guns put in a direct fire role might stand a chance and only from a side or rear aspect. However, this requires that they aren't spotted on the thermal imaging systems most of the African tanks have, by virtue of the majority of African tanks being the Abrams, T-90, or M60A3 TTS.
I watched a video about this is. It compares the size and capabilities of both and WWII Europe had an insane amount of aircraft, naval ships, tanks, artillery, and soldiers featured
Modern Africa isn’t even food secure, cant produce its own oil, can’t maintain their own military equipment and infrastructure, and has a much smaller military population. 1939 Europe is close to a nuclear bomb.
Absolutely ridiculous to think Africa which currently has mass starvations would win against a continent proven to be able to mobilise and maintain massive fleets and armies of tens of millions at a time.
Neither were large parts of 1939 Europe. Spain was coming out of a civil war and for a while relied on food aid, the submarine war had a genuine chance at defeating the UK because of how reliant on food imports they are, and Germany started the war specifically because the Nazis wanted to become food secure to prevent a repeat of the WWI blockade that caused massive famines.
cant produce its own oil,
This is so false it's not even funny. Read 'em and weep. Also, 1939 Europe barely has any oil within it, which is one of the other reasons why the Germans started the war. No matter how you slice it there are individual refineries in Africa that can outproduce the entirety of 1939 Europe.
can’t maintain their own military equipment and infrastructure
Again false. Your millage may vary on how effective they are and how quickly they can expand, but there is a local military industry.
and has a much smaller military population.
1939 Europe had a population of about 500 million. Africa today has a population of 1.5 billion people.
1939 Europe is close to a nuclear bomb.
Not at all. The Manhattan Project wouldn't start until 1942, it took them three years to get there, and it took a sustained level of investment that 1939 Europe could simply not afford. Also, you need uranium to build a bomb, which the Manhattan Project sourced from Congo. So yeah. No atom bomb without uranium.
mobilise and maintain massive fleets and armies of tens of millions at a time.
Modern war is not a numbers game. Before the First Gulf War the Iraqi Army was one of the largest on Earth on paper, and it got stomped into fine dust by weaponry that was only a couple decades ahead of them. The gap in military technology from 1939 to now is so massive it might as well be magic. To think of a quick example, the absolute best tanks Europe could field in 1939 could barely make it past 20mph and most of them didn't have radios. You don't even need to face them with modern tanks (which, by the way, are impervious to everything 1939 can fire at them). A squad of Toyota technicals with heavy machine guns mounted on the back could drive in circles around a whole 1939 armored division faster that they can turn their turrets, leisurely turning their armors into Swiss cheese.
Nope, Europe would collapse very quickly. Africa actually produces and refines a large amount of oil in Algeria, Egypt, Cameroon, etc. Meanwhile Europe in 1939 had very little oil. A few airstrikes on places like Ploesti and a naval blockade enforced by modern submarines and drones would leave Europe with no fuel to power factories or vehicles.
Is it racism or ignorance? Just because someone still faultily assumes Africa to be in the dark ages doesn’t mean they’re racist. Race doesn’t have to play a role in lack of knowledge.
Africa would win in a fight, but Europe would win in a war. Logistics are key, and Africa has basically no domestic production while Europe is in full war mode.
2026 Africa has a PPP adjusted GDP of $16tn and a population of 1.5 billion. 1939 Europe has $1.5tn and 0.5 billion people. Even if Europe can out-produce Africa in weapons in the short term because they're already on a war footing, they absolutely cannot in the long term, and Africa's weapons are vastly more effective. African air power is so beyond Europe's that they can defend against any invasion (Europe has to invade by sea, which is a non-starter against African jet aircraft, or across a narrow front at Suez) while their war economy ramps up.
I think I've realised why people are so polarised on this. The way I read it was the it would be just modern Africa vs 1939s europe, but you're considering modern Africa still trading with the modern world. Because otherwise they run out of missiles in a week and are back to small arms only.
The idea that the entire continent of modern Africa wouldn't be able to build anything besides small arms on short notice is insane, it's a huge continent that builds a lot of machines (including drones and aircraft already). I've met engineers from Africa and given time the engineering will quite literally blow 1930s Europe out of the water.
Current munition stockpiles in Africa could take out any invasion and huge amount of European manufacturing and Africa has four times the population and much better access to natural resources. European logistics would not be able to sustain a war against around 1.6 billion people (especially without the resources of colonial Africa), the only advantage 1939 Europe seems to have is they are already gearing up for war but the longer the conflict goes on the more Europe gets stomped. Trade doesn't factor into it, a smaller, less advanced, and worse resourced Europe gets absolutely bodied here regardless (even if you make the assymetric assumption that Europe can still trade with the 1939 world for their resources).
Edit: look at German tank production at the time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II). Germany at the time had a few thousand tanks and was making only hundreds a year. We're talking about Africa running out of munitions but Europe will also run out, their production just isn't as high as people think at this time and wouldn't handle the vastly larger scale of this war. From looking into it some, I don't think it's a safe assumption that even war ready Europe wouldn't run out of munitions before modern Africa given the clear advantages modern munitions have and the size disparity.
It doesn't contain a full supply chain for anything like that. They can't build a single drone without importing from Taiwan, the US or China. Nobody can. They lack key infrastructure.
The population is a burden, not a boon. 1.5 billion mouths to feed, not self sufficient for food or utilities. All electronics is no longer possible to repair since it relies on foreign trade. Most medicine no longer available, many pesticides gone. It's just not going to work.
There's only a handful of modern countries that could even survive alone, even fewer that could fight or win a war. Very few, if any, of those in Africa. Globalisation made countries far less independent than they were in 1939.
There's a massive difference between having modern technology and being able to sustain a wartime arms industry. You can't just cobble together factories and suddenly produce fighter jets, missiles, ammunition, and spare parts at scale. That requires reliable electricity, steel production, precision manufacturing, skilled labour, advanced supply chains, and enormous logistical capacity.
Many African countries already struggle with food security, infrastructure, and dependence on imports. If maintaining basic civilian supply chains is difficult in peacetime, imagine trying to build and sustain a continent-wide military-industrial complex during a major war.
That's not to say Africa lacks resources or industrial capability. It has plenty of both in certain regions. But resources and potential aren't the same as an established war economy. Europe in 1939 already had decades of industrial development, integrated rail networks, major steel industries, and factories capable of mass production.
Modern technology doesn't magically replace the industrial foundations needed to manufacture it, especially under wartime conditions.
Does 1939 French Algeria suddenly overlap with 2026 Algeria? Because that would just result in an absolute crushing of France as the modern Algerian Army would ally with the FLN, and the same for every other colony further draining economic resources from the European nations
Or would 1939 Africa spawn as a separate continent
What about if every country that was a colony in 1939 spawns as 1939 european territory, and only the non colonized ones spawn as their 2026 selves?
In which case... is there even any African country left to fight the Europeans? I was about to say Ethiopia, but didn't they get invaded by Italy just before that?
Assuming that no other country outside of those shown intervenes on either side of the time stream, and assuming there is some force enthralling the leaders into wanting the coalition, as otherwise each coalition would break int groups that would ally with groups of the opposite coalitions
the biggest deciding factor would still be which coalition can put aside their differences and start cooperating and organizing better unless the leaders and countries were straight up mind controlled into being perfectly cooperative (in which case I think Africa wins)
Outside of that Europe has the massive advantage of an already established military industrial infrastructure and being made if less countries so there are less points of failure, plus all of the capitalist countries were at least in cahoots and Hitler was actually pretty popular both with the capitalists as an "anti commie" guy and he still managed to secure an alliance with Russia despite that
Ok the other side, Africa has A LOT of things going for them, altho none of them are easily exploitable without proper organization. They have FAR more population, much greater technology even if in a lot of places the industry to build it is limited, a both wide and deep breadth of natural resources, a very deep and clear knowledge of the tactics and technology available to the Europeans as it's past history and an almost impossible to contest air superiority along with terrain that is both difficult to invade via land due to morphology, via sea due to the lack of natural ports and via air due to the vast stretches of length that need to be traversed making fuel a trickier matter (and also modern jets, air defense and carriers absolutely shit on those of that they have)
Overall I would put my money on Africa if they can lock in and start developing proper infrastructure from the getgo without restraint
I mean we really have to assume that each side is united, because if we assume the international politics are the same at the time, Africa wins by doing nothing because 1939 Europe was about to destroy itself in an apocalyptic war.
Mmmmh... African nations have a bunch of imported military equipment, very little domestic. The military induatrial might of 1939 and onwards europe would be hard to beat over the longer stretch.
If these countries fight in a vacuum where Africa doesn't have support from the modern world economy they collapse before the war even starts.
Those fighter jets are a clear example.
They are all imported, they rely on international support to even function.
That's software, intel, refueling, service parts, ammunition.
1939 Europe's economy is largely dependent on resources from their African colonies
No, this is just completely wrong by this point in time. Europe was never very reliant on their African colonies. In fact African colonies were some of the least productive colonies for European nations. Places like LatAm were far more productive (before they lost them.)
There’s a reason why the Spanish empire can be said to have economically declined because of losing LatAm, but no one would ever say that France economically declined because of losing Algeria (completely irrelevant for them). In a sense that is what made the Scramble for Africa so noxious, because they were really there for ego and to play politics against each other. The dense jungles, the Sahara—all of these made the colonies difficult to extract from.
Congolese rubber and Egyptian cotton were very much important, and with South Africa and Egypt hostile they can't reasonably extract from Asia, either.
It's more the various problems with maintenance in a long term war for Africa, Africa having no Navy suitable for long distance, various issues with coordination and so forth. EU had its own problems in 1939, but wouldn't be bogged down the same way in a long term war.
Claiming it's racism is just projection. If you disagree just do that, but if you try to drag race into it as your first response then you frankly do not know shit and are working under some weird race related assumptions about Africa and its current condition
Modern Africa isn’t even food secure, cant produce its own oil, can’t maintain their own military equipment and infrastructure, and smaller military population. 1939 Europe is close to a nuclear bomb.
Absolutely ridiculous to think Africa which currently has mass starvations and incredibly reliant on foreign aid would win.
Lmao, "can't produce its own oil", Angola alone produces more oil than all of 39 Europe combined, more food than half of modern europe, and has more combat vets NOW than 39 Germany.
I don't think this should count as antimeme, because it's a bizarre imaginary situation and things like: "who sells arms to who" or "this country had those colonies, should tgey count with those resources" make the estimation imposible
I just don't get how anyone thinks Satellites and Jets in the night won't immediately put a stop to the pesky gathering of invasion forces from Europe.
Yall are acting like the avg dude in the 3rd warwickshireford yeomanry whose town just got their first tractor wouldn’t immediately surrender the first time a f-16 or mig-29 comes screaming over the treetops at Mach fuck
Yeah the ability to strike and annihilate a whole regiment before the enemy can even lift off the runway is beyond an advantage. Not to mention the fact South Africa and others make missiles and have Satellite networks.
Kind of depends how it is interpreted. If all outside supply chains are cut off, I'd favor Europe. 1939 Europe has the advantage, that it is already trimmed for war and way more autonomous. The industrial output is way higher and supplies are mostly guaranteed. Africa relies very heavily (like all nations) on outside production of certain parts and imports (especially food imports). This applies to everything, like maintenance of fighter jets and ammunition. Right now they wouldn't have the capabilities to defeat Europe in a quick initial offensive and hit enough high valuable targets to cripple europe. Especially in a prolonged war I'd give Europe the edge, but it really just depends how you interpret the question. If Africa keeps a steady supply and import from outside nations, I'd give them the edge.
I've been thinking it since I heard this scenario, and I do have some conclusions.
The Mediterranean is African now. There were around 140 submarines there in 1940, mostly Italian, outnumbering northern African submarine fleet by about ten to one, and they'll be completely defenceless against their modern sonar and guided torpedoes (and they will have enough, if they don't waste them). Mediterranean European surface fleets will sortie rarely and suffer great losses. There will be a great strategic advantage in the Suez Canal.
If we assume the two continents aren't in a vacuum, commerce raiding is a problem. Modern cargo ships can't outrun a cruiser any better than one from the 30's could, and there are few ships in the Pan-African navy that can brave the Atlantic. How effective a convoy could they form? Do they even have the range for it? The conditions aren't as favourable as they are in the Med.
The European air force is great in number, but most of their aircraft will be functionally useless. Bomber escorts and interceptors can both be ignored, as it is very unlikely they'll even see the enemy, never mind get a chance to shoot them down. High-altitude bombers will be easily detected; low-altitude bombers will face ground-based defences.
However, the only way the Pan-African air force will be able to strike deeper into Europe will be to build airbases within Europe, at constant risk of ground assault.
The use of commandeered civilian airliners will be important for logistics. In fact, they'd be a safe way of importing weaponry, assuming that's possible.
How fast could African forces react to an invasion on the eastern or western ends of the continent? What would the invaders even accomplish?
Except that African nations operate American, European, Russian, and Chinese weapons.
Europe at that time had 0 ability to even detect 4th gen fighter jets. What are you on about?
Egypt for example.
Dassault Mirage 2000BM and 2000EM
Dassault Rafale
Mikoyan MiG-29M/M2
Lockheed F-16 models A, B, C, and D.
Dassault Mirage V models: 5SDD, 5E, 5SDE, and 5DDR
Algeria also has an impressive fleet
Su-30MKA
MiG-29Ms
Su-24 strike
Just two nations. Now even for this whole "Repairs and replacement parts" scenario it's absurd. Yes you are correct that flying those air crafts today requires a ton of work. But actual combat mission in 2026 require a lot of work as opposed to absolutely uncontested air space. The pilot does not even need to worry about anything. The other part is that yes. Those countries can indeed maintain their air crafts for a while. How long depends on many factors. But it's not those air crafts are a single use thing. This is not a video game.
The reason those nations are not able to go to war against each other or other powerful nations NOW is that everyone then as advanced air crafts and anti air craft system. It all cancels each other out. But drop any of those bad boys in 1939 and nobody can shoot it down.
Once you expand the scope to artillery, missiles, navy, and armor, like tanks, it becomes a joke.
Hope this was just an uninformed take rather than blatant racism
Yeah, just about any modern air force would take out the strongest 1939 air force with virtually zero losses. It'd be a slaughter and I don't think people realize just how much better modern weaponry is
Africa has no aircraft carriers while Europe had tons. Africa also only has around 1200 aircrafts if we’re assuming every single one works. Although yes Africa will have the better planes they won’t have enough to be particularly effective and they won’t have any real way to properly deploy these on a European front. War isn’t a cod lobby it doesn’t matter if Africa has better weapons when they don’t have the logistics or infrastructure to properly support and maintain a foreign war.
England had six WWI battleships that were converted into proto-carriers. Their first "modern" carrier was put down in late 1938. It held 50-some aircraft, including biplane torpedo craft.
France also had one converted proto-carrier.
Germany had zero.
Soviets also zero.
What a joke. Play more HOI4.
Egypt's submarines would wipe out the Royal Navy's capital ships without having to resupply. The English torpedoes had a range of about 1,000 meters. The missiles Egypt would launch have a range upwards of 100 miles.
Europe has aircraft carriers incapable of fielding any planes that matter, incapable of shooting down any planes, and incapable of the range that the African navy would have. It literally means nothing that they have them, and they’re actually probably better served by the battleships, which can at least be used as fortresses
You are uninformed and blatantly wrong. Africa produces zero spare parts for these planes locally. And while they can refine the jet fuel they need to import the additives and machinery parts for the refineries which will soon stop working. Africa already imports 70% of its fuel and next the refineries will also stop working. No more catalysts, no more additives, not even half a year and they won't have any usable fuel, while they starve and get ravaged by disease because there are no food and pharmacy imports. All logistics will stop anyway since there is no fuel. War will be over before it even began.
F16s, Rafales and Sukhois will stop working by themselves anyway due to their software killswitches...
As I said, if supply lines aren't cut off, Africa wins.
However this just shows how highly dependent modern society is on each other.
Next time think for yourself maybe, or at least try to think ahead a bit. Also no need to insinuate anything about me
Imagine thinking your few hundred meters effective range machine gun radarless plane can measure up to air-to-air missiles shot from beyond the horizon (this is literally how Iran beaten Iraqi airforce where elite iraqi airforce using up to date soviet machines constructed around dogfight doctrine basically started refusing to go into the air because from their perspective Iranian Tomcats performing beyond the horizon missile strikes seemed like their planes exploding for absolutely no reason).
I do t think Europe can win, it's just too hard to hold so much territory. The same way Africa can do shit in offense, they will run out of supplies and resources
Ok, honestly, I think Africa has a good chance of winning... But only if they do so in the first month or so. Africa genuinely produces next to nothing when it comes to modern military weaponry with the exception of maybe egypt. I'd also say in a realistic scenario, Europe is going to obviously get their hands on some modern weapons before the wars end.
Some things would be remarkably beyond the feasibility for Europe to reproduce such as drones, but for bombs and infantry weapons Europe would simply not be behind for long if Africa did not do an immediate victory.
Everyone seems to be commenting about how it's racist to assume Africa loses... But no. Africa from an economic standpoint is utterly doomed in quite a lot of its countries. I would genuinely argue due to a mix of greed and incompetence that someplace like south Africa would experience severe difficulty fighting even one of the prepared European powers of the age.
At the same time, I think egypt on its own if they lock in could potentially force a victory against multiple nations on its own without much difficulty if they're smart about it.
People seriously don't understand how bad the economy and corruption of many African nations are.
According to the league of nations, Europe and the USSR had a production of 40.000.000 tons of crude oil in 1940. According to the US energy information administration Algeria alone refines up to 30.000.000 million tons per year...
Man, people defending 1939 Europe are just blind to what this war would be like.
The modern Egyptian navy would likely be able to clear the Mediterranean by itself. Any European airfield in range of African fighters would be destroyed, likely before they could scramble a single aircraft. Ship and sub launched cruise missiles would obliterate political and manufacturing infrastructure.
For everyone saying "how would Africa move divisions to Europe?" bro, they wouldn't need to. The actual shock and awe of having their navies, air forces, and major institutions destroyed in a couple weeks (if not days) would bring them to the peace table. Industrial base and resource disparity don't matter here.
Like, do y'all forget about Iraq in 1990?
edit: I think a lot of people pulling for Europe forget that nations in real life don't fight to the last man. Sink a few carriers and/or battleships and most navies will bottle up. Destroy 1/4 to 1/2 a country's fighters in a week and they're probably grounding the rest. They're not gonna suicide planes until Africa runs out of missiles and cannon rounds. European leaders aren't Zap Brannigan sending wave after wave of their own men until the killbots reach their limit.
Besides Africa being bigger, more populated, having better defensive terrain, and having much better technology, you have to consider the information mismatch.
Modern Africans have records of what 1939 Europe was like, what weapons they had, and where the weak points would be. 1939 Europeans had no idea how modern Africa would turn out and could not plan accordingly.
By 1939, European countries were struggling to hold onto their existing colonies in Africa, and failed to take over Ethiopia. How in the world would they take on all of modern Africa without a pre-existing foothold, with Egypt right at the gate?
I don’t think it’s so certain. It’s a silly scenario obviously with a lot clarifications needed but if we assume like total war and total occupation of the enemy required, I don’t believe Europe is in such a bad position.
Europeans would be absolutely demolished in the beginning for sure. But if they can quickly up their game to 1944 level production and technology, while Africa expends their munition that they can’t replace it wouldn’t eventually be a much closer race I reckon. Mostly because Africa generally lacks the ability to manufacture their weapon systems independently and modern arms are usually significantly less numerous and more difficult to produce than they were in the 40s
my knee-jerk reaction is to ask whether or not we're considering the geopolitical situations of each. Because if we are, Africa wins due to modern technology. But then I realized, if we're not, and we're considering a politically unified 1939 Europe vs a unified 2026 Africa... Africa still wins due to modern technology.
That'd be fine, if Africa build any of that technology. They're sat on 10,000 or so modern munitions that they can't replace, while a united europe has 10,000 combat aircraft and builds thousands more every year
10000 combat aircraft that can't reach altitudes as high as modern ones, have radar cross sections visible to modern radar from hundreds of kilometers away, and are outranged by standard short-range air to air btw
from where would europe get its ressources though? like they are cut off from their colonies, have less population, africa is really hard to get through. like Europe is literally worse on every front not to mention the more modern battle tactics plus equipment africa has access to.
Britian and France were partially cut from their colonies in ww2 but still won. Germany and Russia never had colonies to begin with. They have all the resources for 1939 level production already. Modern African domestic production can't compete with that
Britian and France were partially cut from their colonies in ww2 but still won.
Because they had the continent-spanning untouched industry of the US underwriting a significant part of their effort, which is explicitly not part of this scenario. Also, Europe did not have all the resources, oil and rubber were mostly imported from places that are also not part of the scenario. Food and fertilizer are almost certainly going to be a problem for Europe as well without imports.
Also, Africa has their logistics adapted to use the standard shipping container and 1939 Europe has not. If you don't think that's such a big deal I invite you to read about how ships were loaded and unloaded before containerization, it was a painstaking process that could take weeks for the largest ships and required massive warehouses to sort through the unloaded materiel and load it into trucks or trains by hand, which again could take weeks. Compare and contrast with even small container ports today which can load and unload in a matter of hours larger ships than anything 1939 Europe has available, and all that materiel is on a truck headed to its final destination before the end of the day. All of this is to say that modern logistics are far smother and effective than those of 1939 Europe, which in turn means better use of resources on one side and more sources of friction and point of failure on the other side.
how was britain every really cut of of its colonies? like they controled the suez, controled the seas. sure maybe at the begining they lost connection to them but they quickly regained the control. in this scenario a majority of their colonies would be free and fighting against them plus no suze canal which is a major disadavantage. plus they cant use the african coastline to resupply their convoys. Im not sure if you realize how big the disadvantage even is for europe.
Most major African countries have been moving toward domestic arms production for a while, while they would be cooked for super complicated arms like guided missiles and such, they’d would be more than comfortable maintaining their stock pile of small arms. WW2 combat aircraft don’t really mean much against a gazillion shilkas and other simple(by our standards) AA systems
A guy sitting in the back of a Toyota Hilux with an RPG-7 is able to easily outmaneuver and destroy any armored vehicle Europe can field for the next 10 years
Real ones know it's gona be a staring contest unless magically forced to fight because they cannot reliably invade and occupy eachother.
And speaking of nukes, since 2026 has modern day intelligence can't they just block all information channels and redevelop nukes during the staring contest part then just threathen europe with it? A normal invasion is not worth it at all.
Another point, Africa conquering europe in this scenario is quite literally the plot of war of ther worlds. On the inevitable attrition world europe will reverse engineer a ton of shite
Africa doesn't have the industry or the industry or the logistical capacity. If they could get their equipment to Europe they would not be able to keep it fueled or armed. Multiple European nations had large navies designed for power projection. Every loss Africa felt could not be replaced. They would not be able to make new tanks or planes to replace the ones they lost.
Plus Africa isnt as weak as many people think it is. Africa has some pretty strong countries like Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria, Algeria etc. Combined with their modern tech and resources, they def winning this.
A) modern African countries would have access to trench warfare
B) trench warfare stops invasions, it doesn't rapidly gain you land. Its a stalemate option
Africa has doctrines based in gps warfare, aircraft munitions need gps for long range guidance, no one can read a damn paper map or do the type of navigation needed at 600-800 knots.
Africa has no natively produced satellites, thus meaning that would be external support which is the only reason europe can win.
A good answer to this, would be to ask yourself how many wars has the most advanced military in the world won so far? (USA) and considering all against military weak countries.
This poll and controversy just shows me how much people underestimate infrastructure, industrial capacity, autonomy, and the horrors of war.
Africa imports 35% of its food. Most of its wheat comes from Ukraine.
Without significant changes it cannot feed itself.
Without significant changes it cannot produce the material it needs to feed a prolonged war. Especially keeping up military vehicles
No one is arguing that the alpha strike would not be devastating. However it won’t be enough. You have 20 000 war planes against about a thousand of Africa. Now here’s the catch, they can’t refine enough of it to have a prolonged war.
Around a thousand military ships vs about a hundred on Africa. There’s such a thing as running out of bullets.
Big deal with the Nazis. They ran out of oil in the end. They couldn’t refine it quickly enough. They had horses pull their tanks to save fuel. For every sherman tank they shot, two took its place.
An all out war between both would cripple both so hard effectively both would cease to exist.
A young and Virile alpha Tiger avoids a full on conflict with an old decrepit tiger because the old decrepit tiger will die but will inevitably inflict too much damage.
Europe would win. Africas only Hope is a Stalemate because Europe doenst want that Occupation War.
Lets just take a simple Scenario. Everyone is Politicly Unified (no Infighting) and can communicate effectevly.
Also you can import everything you need (Except Military Equipment, and Europe only Stuff from their Time).
So their is enough Food and Fuel around.
We have Africa with a Military that is more advanced then Europe, but smaller.
Also, they dont have a Large Industry. So they cant really maintain their Equipment or build new one.
Also, they dont really have the Capacity to Transport their Stuff over Long Distances (is their even 1 Trainline from South Africa to Egypt?)
So they would dominate Europa at the Start, but even if they manage to invade Spain they cant really push that far Inland because of Supply Problems.
Meanwhile Europe has a Large Industrial AND Scientific Level. So they will be able to reverse Engineer everything they capture and build more of that Stuff.
Also the Military is better trained and has better Tactics and "War Knowledge). Its not Racist, its just the Reality of African Militaries.
Africa has had little to no Mechanised Wars. Most of their Wars are Guys in Transports driving somewhere and then fighting with Handguns. Maybe some Mortars or Artillery.
So give Europe 1-2 Years and they will have a Technology that is on the Same Level as Africa, but they more and a better Army.
And yes, that include Drones. It wont take long for Europe to capture some and reverse Engineer them to make more and better ones.
The People saying Africa would win are the same people that would set they're AKS to the highest number because a bigger number is better.
You're comparing modern Africa to a Europe in 1939 filled with industrial powers preparing for the largest war in human history. Germany, Britain, France, Italy, and the Soviet Union had millions of men they could mobilize, enormous arms industries, established military logistics, and fleets of warships. European powers operated aircraft carriers while Africa has none in operational service. And that's before accounting for Europe's colonial empires and access to overseas resources.
Meanwhile, you're expecting dozens of African governments, each with different interests, military capabilities, political rivalries, and varying levels of institutional stability a continent wide political structure held together with fucking duct tape to suddenly coordinate a unified war effort?
The problem isn't just weapons. Or the number of men Africa could throw at Europe. It's whether you have the institutions to organize, supply, maintain, and deploy them effectively. Corruption, political instability, weak logistics, and competing national interests can cripple a military long before it runs out of ammunition. Modern equipment means very little if the systems needed to sustain its use break down.
And imagine Europe turning the entire conflict into a competition over who could conquer the most territory, seize the most resources, and capture the most modern equipment to reverse engineer. Germany, Britain, France, Italy, and the Soviet Union wouldn't be sitting around waiting for Africa to organize itself. They'd be competing against EACH OTHER to exploit the situation.
These questions always run into the same problem. Is 2026 Africa in 1939 or is 1939 Europe in 2026, or do both sides get like, time portals to their own supply chains.
Cause Africa handedly wins if they get all their supply chains and stuff. But a lot African countries are gonna be using weapons bought from Russia or America and they aren't gonna be able to resupply those if Russia is an enemy or America is also it's 1939 self.
Also does Britan get to use the resources from it's colonies or is it fucked?
Also are we conceeding that both sides will fully cooperate within their own team for the duration of the war? Cause that's literally Europe on the cusp of WW2, they don't wanna do that.
Anyways as long as Africa can't run out of bullets and bombs yeah they win
Africa is not winning this. They have no logistics or ability to project power.
Europe would invade, and then have their armies crushed in the initial conflict by Egypt, Algeria, and Morocco's modern equipment. They would then return to defensive positions to go into full production mode (now with some direction as to where they should take their designs rather than early WW2 guesswork) while Africa has no way to project power into Europe. Fighter jets do not have the ability to just go anywhere they want, and Africa has no aircraft carriers.
While Europe turtles up for a month or two to print bombers and warships by the thousands, Africa falls apart on its own. No outside food means mass starvation, no outside weapon parts means no maintenance is done on all their modern equipment and it falls into disrepair, no outside medicine and aid workers means that diseases ravage the continent, no outside fuel means they there are rolling blackouts everywhere and they can't get what production capabilities they have up to full power.
Now Europe can park its ships outside coastal cities and start shelling the place to get smaller victories. At this point, Europe is getting its hands on African libraries and catching up technologically at a rapid pace. Also, every downed piece of machinery and unexploded missile goes straight to the combined European braintrust and gets reverse-engineered. By the end of the year, Europe will be closer to late 1950s in technology rather than 1940.
Also remember that a lot of modern equipment is designed with access to GPS in mind. Africa alone doesn't get access to this, so a lot of their technological superiority goes up in smoke instantly.
•
u/qualityvote2 🤖Suspected as Bot🤖 23h ago edited 19h ago
Good news, the community has decided that this IS an antimeme!