German capture of Moscow 1941?

What if Heinz Guderian had not been redirected towards the Ukraine by Hitler
and had his forces available to attack Moscow in October ?
Personally I think an earlier attack does nothing but benefit the Germans:

• The Russians have not had time to fortify and dig in.
• The Siberian reinforcements, if I recall, have not arrived yet.

• The weather is not as bad as during the OTL Operation Typhoon.

Losing Moscow means:

• Leningrad most likely surrenders in early '42 due to lack of supplies and being cut off from Moscow as well as losing priority in a situation where the capital is gone and the front largely rupture down the center.

• The temporary (most likely case) or permanent (worst case) loss of central command and control. Under Stalin the whole state apparatus was centered on Moscow. Hundreds of bureaucrats, indispensable to the running of the war machine would be forced to relocate.

IMO opinion the situation would play out roughly like this:

Germans encircle and capture Moscow, but not after being bloodied in vicious house to house fighting, reminiscent of OTL's Stalingrad or Berlin. Before the emminent encirclement of Moscow Stalin and high ranking officials flee east towards the Urals to continue the war from there. The USSR is temporarily in disarray due to the relocation of the government. Fortunately for Stalin, German logistics are being stretched to the limits and they are forced to hold their positions for the winter. I could imagine Stalin launching a huge last-ditch winter offensive focused on Moscow that may or may not succeed....Provided it fails the USSR will be exhausted and Stalin will probably send out feelers for peace talks as a truce will allow him to re consolidate his power base and possibly attack later.

Well, if this happens, you can count on the Red Army to really lose it as their C3I breaks down--desperate diversionary attacks are likely to end in disaster, and I agree that Leningrad will get taken, as well as probably Novgorod--thus creating a shorter supply line to Moscow and relieving some of Germany's logistical stress.

The question, of course, is what happens to the Soviet Government. Stalin may attempt to brazen it out in Moscow, in which case the Soviet Union is now out their Man of Steel; it is also possible that someone shoots Stalin as he attempts to flee Moscow--perhaps the politburo decides that Stalin is not the man to lead the Party to victory?

Hitler will still probably lose the war, although it is quite possible that the Soviet Union's situation, with the loss of three of their major industrial areas and the possibility of the Wehrmacht settling the score with a 1942 drive to the Volga would leave the Soviets with almost no means to resist Germany short of Partisan activity.

While the Soviet Union has done well in terms of evacuating its industry toward the East to keep the fight alive, I'm not sure that option really exists behind Moscow--a lot of stuff had to have been lost in Moscow, and that may mean that when Gorky or Vladimir fall, there is no good way to evacuate their industry.

Thing is, Germany will probably not launch Knockout blow 1942--even though the German Armed Forces are likely to stress their case to Hitler. Hitler's going to throw away at least some of these gains--if he DIDN'T, then we'd see a Soviet Union forced back to the Urals and slowly trying to grab territory as the USA drops nuclear weapons on Germany for a Downfall-esque invasion of Europe.

Blue Max said:

Well, if this happens, you can count on the Red Army to really lose it as their C3I breaks down--desperate diversionary attacks are likely to end in disaster, and I agree that Leningrad will get taken, as well as probably Novgorod--thus creating a shorter supply line to Moscow and relieving some of Germany's logistical stress.

The question, of course, is what happens to the Soviet Government. Stalin may attempt to brazen it out in Moscow, in which case the Soviet Union is now out their Man of Steel; it is also possible that someone shoots Stalin as he attempts to flee Moscow--perhaps the politburo decides that Stalin is not the man to lead the Party to victory?

Hitler will still probably lose the war, although it is quite possible that the Soviet Union's situation, with the loss of three of their major industrial areas and the possibility of the Wehrmacht settling the score with a 1942 drive to the Volga would leave the Soviets with almost no means to resist Germany short of Partisan activity.

While the Soviet Union has done well in terms of evacuating its industry toward the East to keep the fight alive, I'm not sure that option really exists behind Moscow--a lot of stuff had to have been lost in Moscow, and that may mean that when Gorky or Vladimir fall, there is no good way to evacuate their industry.

Thing is, Germany will probably not launch Knockout blow 1942--even though the German Armed Forces are likely to stress their case to Hitler. Hitler's going to throw away at least some of these gains--if he DIDN'T, then we'd see a Soviet Union forced back to the Urals and slowly trying to grab territory as the USA drops nuclear weapons on Germany for a Downfall-esque invasion of Europe.

Click to expand...

I hadn't take into account how Leningrad eased the German logistics problem, good observation. However why would Hitler give the Soviets room to breath in '42? The only real reason I could see that is because of how depleted the Wehrmacht would be following OTL's casualties plus ATL's fighting for Moscow. But then again the Soviets are much worse off in this timeline.

As for Stalin...I doubt he'd be asassinated as he has a very tight grip on the Soviet state. Propaganda would probably emphasis the fact that the peace is temporary and that Soviets will liberate the Rodina.

And would the US necessarily stay in the fight? A truce in the East more than likely makes it much more difficult for the Allies to gain the air superiority necessary for a successful amphibious invasion or the ability to conduct a strategic, or later nuclear bombing campaign. Public opinion is probably more towards just finishing the war against Japan than going to war against another White European country. Also this is before the Casablanca Conference (which is probably butterflied away) pledging the Allies to unconditional victory.

Also remember Germany will be able to focus it's production more on aircraft, u-boots and air defense systems (flak, radar) without the strain of fighting another industrial behemoth.

Also how quick do you think it would take the USSR would be ready for round 2 ?

Thing is, Hitler's peace deal with Stalin is going to be Archangel to Astrakhan--if Stalin's willing to accept this kind of concession, there will be little hope of ever getting any of it back.

The war is not going to end in 1942. Germany will probably blow it by going after Oil in 1942 instead of trying to Knock out the Soviets once and for all--instead of this being a desperate move to win the war through resources, this becomes a massive blunder that gives the Red Army a chance.

There is no peace deals on the table, although there are couple developments:

Churchill may get removed from office in 1942 (he survived a No-Confidence Vote after Singapore and Tobruk); figure that whoever takes over after Churchill probably is as resolved to fight but less interested in micromanaging the war.

Hitler will probably not ask the other Axis members to throw more forces into Russia; OTL, he did, but with a weakening Red Army, this is not likely to happen.

Japan may strike north; Stalin may abandon the Maritime Province and Sakhalin to Japan, and he may even concede the territory after a brief war. While many threads suggest that the Japanese would quickly lose a fight with the Red Army, with the huge counterfactual of the Loss of Moscow and the disaster unfolding in the West, I think Stalin would give the order to pull just about everything out.

So, the real question is how badly does Hitler dork up Germany's 1942 position? If he doesn't at all, the Soviets are knocked behind the Volga Bend and reduced to little more than a large guerilla movement; then, perhaps in 1943, a German attack into the Middle East is workable.

The loss of the Soviet Union--or its reduction to a unindustrialized backwater with a scavenged army--will force the Allies to resort to nuclear weapons to win the war.

Japan isn't really that much stronger here, either. Given a Soviet pullout in the Maritime Province and Stalin willing to give up on the territory in exchange for peace, the Kwangtung Army may help in China or perhaps in other theaters--but Japan's fortunes are tied to its navy, not its army--and while the difference may hit Chiang hard, it will do nothing to change the score at Midway or the inexorable USN Advance...

Probably Something like V-E day in 1948...

Idk about those nukes
With Russia at a peace by say mid 1942
That means Germans can push down through the Caucasus into the Middle East and along with more support to Africa, destroy the British along with gaining a land route to Africa if America still invades. With the Middle East gone and Africa lost and India threatened, the British might want out of the game if the Germans can deal a defect to operation torch

Blue Max said:

Thing is, Hitler's peace deal with Stalin is going to be Archangel to Astrakhan--if Stalin's willing to accept this kind of concession, there will be little hope of ever getting any of it back.

The war is not going to end in 1942. Germany will probably blow it by going after Oil in 1942 instead of trying to Knock out the Soviets once and for all--instead of this being a desperate move to win the war through resources, this becomes a massive blunder that gives the Red Army a chance.

There is no peace deals on the table, although there are couple developments:

Churchill may get removed from office in 1942 (he survived a No-Confidence Vote after Singapore and Tobruk); figure that whoever takes over after Churchill probably is as resolved to fight but less interested in micromanaging the war.

Hitler will probably not ask the other Axis members to throw more forces into Russia; OTL, he did, but with a weakening Red Army, this is not likely to happen.

Japan may strike north; Stalin may abandon the Maritime Province and Sakhalin to Japan, and he may even concede the territory after a brief war. While many threads suggest that the Japanese would quickly lose a fight with the Red Army, with the huge counterfactual of the Loss of Moscow and the disaster unfolding in the West, I think Stalin would give the order to pull just about everything out.

So, the real question is how badly does Hitler dork up Germany's 1942 position? If he doesn't at all, the Soviets are knocked behind the Volga Bend and reduced to little more than a large guerilla movement; then, perhaps in 1943, a German attack into the Middle East is workable.

The loss of the Soviet Union--or its reduction to a unindustrialized backwater with a scavenged army--will force the Allies to resort to nuclear weapons to win the war.

Japan isn't really that much stronger here, either. Given a Soviet pullout in the Maritime Province and Stalin willing to give up on the territory in exchange for peace, the Kwangtung Army may help in China or perhaps in other theaters--but Japan's fortunes are tied to its navy, not its army--and while the difference may hit Chiang hard, it will do nothing to change the score at Midway or the inexorable USN Advance...

Probably Something like V-E day in 1948...

Click to expand...

But would Hitler take direct control of the Army as in OTL? If I recall correctly he only did so after the failure of Typhoon and the 41/42 Soviet Winter Counterattack. Also the Germans are in such a dominating position out east that it's almost impossible for them to fudge up lol. I think Stalin would take whatever deal offered to him if only to buy time to attack later including the A-A line peace.

As for Japan I don't think it's too likely they'll strike north...Just not enough resources to justify it as well as the fact that the IJA got their asses handed to them at Khalkin Gol earlier.

Would the US have a Europe first policy in the face of a massively scary Germany?

Also I think it's a little naive to assume that there will be a V-E day. If anything imo there's a 60-70 percent chance for some kind of negotiated peace. Either that or Europe gets completely obliterated and turned into a wasteland because for any nuclear strike on Germany I think there will be retaliation on the part of the Nazis with chemical weapons (nerve gas and all that fun stuff). Britain might even caution against using nuclear weapons. Remember this Germany is in a position to strike an Allied homeland while Japan '45 was a starving, bombed to death nation on the verge of total collapse not in any position to retaliate!

LittleSpeer said:

Idk about those nukes
With Russia at a peace by say mid 1942
That means Germans can push down through the Caucasus into the Middle East and along with more support to Africa, destroy the British along with gaining a land route to Africa if America still invades. With the Middle East gone and Africa lost and India threatened, the British might want out of the game if the Germans can deal a defect to operation torch

Click to expand...

I think the Germans will have their hands too full dealing with Russian partisans and defending the European coastline to plasuibly invade the Middle East. Plus the logistics would be a nightmare!
Maybe Rommel is given more support and it's enough for him to reach the Suez?

PLO-Style said:

But would Hitler take direct control of the Army as in OTL? If I recall correctly he only did so after the failure of Typhoon and the 41/42 Soviet Winter Counterattack.

Click to expand...

Absolutely yes. Hitler had contempt for the Army and thought himself a genius. Sooner or later, something goes wrong, and Adolph starts playing war, and screws everything up. The man can't help himself. Such are the joys of megalomania.

As for the bomb... it absolutely gets used on Germany. Yes the Germans might retaliate. In which case, German is "spoken only in hell after the war" - well, almost. Things get very nasty, with the US dropping lots and lots of chemicals and all the nukes it can make on Germany. The Morgenthau plan to emasculate Germany permanently gets implemented. Germany never recovers as a nation.

logistics, logistics, logistics. Moscow was the key rail hub. Absent Moscow getting oil from Caucasus to the Urals is complex, whatever equipment manufactured east of the Urals will have a hard time functioning. Likewise getting raw materials to those factories, probably doable over secondary lines but less & slower. Absent the Moscow rail hub, shifting forces north-south becomes more difficult, again doable but less & slower.

Lend-Lease is a big problem, getting stuff from Murmansk/Archangelsk to the forces fighting east of Moscow also very complicated. Don't forget it was US Spam that helped feed the Red Army, which also used US boots, US trucks & jeeps, transport aircraft & so forth. Lend-Lease provided items the the USSR could not produce in adequate quantities, or like trucks/jeeps, freed up limited factory usage for tanks vice other vehicles. The lend lease route thru Persia is limited, and even if the Japanese don't try and fight the Russians (and they do remember getting stomped) the only way goods from US to Vladivostok get there is on Russian ships of which there are a limited number in the Pacific, or neutrals who are willing to take the risk. Limited amount, and then has to go on trans-Siberian RR.

Even if Stalin & the planners move out of Moscow per plans, some personnel will be lost and whereever they set up they will be less efficient than in Moscow.

If the Germans link up with Finns east & north of Leningrad, the Finns may very well be amenable to providing a base of operations from the Germans to go at Murmansk via a northern route - the Finns provide perhaps some pathfinder units, but since they have recovered what they lost in the winter war its unlikely they will be interested in further offensive action.

With all that territory lost and transport system hosed, oil shortage, markedly decreased Lend-Lease, displaced factories running at decreased efficiency compared to OTL for various reasons, the Sovs are in deep deep doo-doo.

Bearcat said:

Absolutely yes. Hitler had contempt for the Army and thought himself a genius. Sooner or later, something goes wrong, and Adolph starts playing war, and screws everything up. The man can't help himself. Such are the joys of megalomania.

As for the bomb... it absolutely gets used on Germany. Yes the Germans might retaliate. In which case, German is "spoken only in hell after the war" - well, almost. Things get very nasty, with the US dropping lots and lots of chemicals and all the nukes it can make on Germany. The Morgenthau plan to emasculate Germany permanently gets implemented. Germany never recovers as a nation.

Click to expand...

Will Britain be willing to risk this MAD situation though?

I doubt the US would use nukes if Germany is in such a powerful position since if the Soviets get beaten this badly then what difference would it mater if the British are still in the war? After losing the USSR the Allies are going to be far more susceptible to peace talks after all in this scenario the Germans have beaten every army on Europe. But lets assume for the sake of curiosity that in '42 the Russians surrender. How would this effect the situation in the Middle east with such countries like Iran since I think I've heard somewhere that Iran was actually rather friendly to Germany.

Saladan said:

I doubt the US would use nukes if Germany is in such a powerful position since if the Soviets get beaten this badly then what difference would it mater if the British are still in the war? After losing the USSR the Allies are going to be far more susceptible to peace talks after all in this scenario the Germans have beaten every army on Europe. But lets assume for the sake of curiosity that in '42 the Russians surrender. How would this effect the situation in the Middle east with such countries like Iran since I think I've heard somewhere that Iran was actually rather friendly to Germany.

Click to expand...

By the time Moscow falls, Iran has already been invaded by the Brits and USSR.

Britain fought alone for a year and change without the Russians. A weakened Russia makes things more difficult, but Churchill is not going to suddenly throw his hands up. It will be more difficult with the Red Army pushed out of Moscow, but the Allies are still going to win. Churchill knows it, and FDR knows it.

Germany was screwed as soon as the USSR and US got into the war. No matter what they did. And Hitler's whole reason for living in 1942 on was simply to make the inevitable end that much uglier for Germany.

i think a peace movement could start in the brittish parliament after a fall of moscow

bear in mind churchill had a nasty no confidence vote after the fall of singapore, if that had been done after tobruk fell he would have been out on his ass

although i am writing a moscow first timeline, i dont feel pushing typhoon foward is helpful in the way most would think. the garrison of kiev was several hundred thousand strong by not elimenting them the 2nd panzer army and 4th army would be hopelessly vulnerable to attacks into their southern flank... they also utterly lacked the excess reserves (fresh infantry and heavy artillery) needed to storm a stoutley defended moscow)

not clearing the flanks was why stalingrad was such a disaster (ie bock not smoking out the voronzenth group to his north and them regrouping to cut his ass off)

So Moscow could easily become Stalingrad, after its nominal capture. In 1942 the Soviets envelop it, and Hitler loses the forces still engaged in 'mopping up'.

PLO-Style said:

But would Hitler take direct control of the Army as in OTL? If I recall correctly he only did so after the failure of Typhoon and the 41/42 Soviet Winter Counterattack. Also the Germans are in such a dominating position out east that it's almost impossible for them to fudge up lol. I think Stalin would take whatever deal offered to him if only to buy time to attack later including the A-A line peace.

As for Japan I don't think it's too likely they'll strike north...Just not enough resources to justify it as well as the fact that the IJA got their asses handed to them at Khalkin Gol earlier.

Would the US have a Europe first policy in the face of a massively scary Germany?

Also I think it's a little naive to assume that there will be a V-E day. If anything imo there's a 60-70 percent chance for some kind of negotiated peace. Either that or Europe gets completely obliterated and turned into a wasteland because for any nuclear strike on Germany I think there will be retaliation on the part of the Nazis with chemical weapons (nerve gas and all that fun stuff). Britain might even caution against using nuclear weapons. Remember this Germany is in a position to strike an Allied homeland while Japan '45 was a starving, bombed to death nation on the verge of total collapse not in any position to retaliate!

Click to expand...

And the UK has Anthrax.

The assumption that the USA is going to allow "twice in twenty years" to stand, particularly after Germany starts the holocaust and horrifying atrocities befall the Russian people--sounds like ASB.

Indeed, The USA's economic advantage is insurmountable. Japan, even with both a grab of the Soviet Pacific Coast and perhaps enough forces to take Chunking with the Kwangtung army, is going to get crushed like a bug. There is no grounds on peace with Germany--Germany has proven that it can not be reasoned with at Munich, and that co-existence with this state is also futile--at Barbarossa.

Hitler is only going to get a peace deal if the Allies are litterally unable to fight--that means Panzergruppe Amerika sitting in Denver. Anything less than that and the war continues. Note that German WMD will be met in kind...

Bearcat said:

By the time Moscow falls, Iran has already been invaded by the Brits and USSR.

Britain fought alone for a year and change without the Russians. A weakened Russia makes things more difficult, but Churchill is not going to suddenly throw his hands up. It will be more difficult with the Red Army pushed out of Moscow, but the Allies are still going to win. Churchill knows it, and FDR knows it.

Germany was screwed as soon as the USSR and US got into the war. No matter what they did. And Hitler's whole reason for living in 1942 on was simply to make the inevitable end that much uglier for Germany.

Click to expand...

The Allies might win but at a cost that might be too high to pay!

BlairWitch749 said:

i think a peace movement could start in the brittish parliament after a fall of moscow

bear in mind churchill had a nasty no confidence vote after the fall of singapore, if that had been done after tobruk fell he would have been out on his ass

Click to expand...

No confidence does not mean craven surrender to the Third Reich, which is what a peace treaty entails. It means new leadership. Maybe whoever it is will be more inclined to not piss on Indian nationalism.

Blue Max said:

And the UK has Anthrax.

The assumption that the USA is going to allow "twice in twenty years" to stand, particularly after Germany starts the holocaust and horrifying atrocities befall the Russian people--sounds like ASB.

Indeed, The USA's economic advantage is insurmountable. Japan, even with both a grab of the Soviet Pacific Coast and perhaps enough forces to take Chunking with the Kwangtung army, is going to get crushed like a bug. There is no grounds on peace with Germany--Germany has proven that it can not be reasoned with at Munich, and that co-existence with this state is also futile--at Barbarossa.

Hitler is only going to get a peace deal if the Allies are litterally unable to fight--that means Panzergruppe Amerika sitting in Denver. Anything less than that and the war continues. Note that German WMD will be met in kind...

Click to expand...

The USA might be willing to sacrifice British lives at (their) homes. The thing is, would the British be willing to make that sacrifice?

Besides, the Atomic bomb is still going to be developed by 1945, while by late 1942 the Germans are beging to retool their efforts in stopping the allied bombing. WMD won't be used until 1945. So, how would Western front develop in 1943 and '44? The Germans can't outproduce the USA, but they can garrison France with a much bigger number of troops and divert a lot of their production to fighters (if Hitler doesn't mess with that, of course). Are the allies trying D-Day under those conditions? And if they do, what about the outcome?

Where they can fight in the ground is in Persia, and logistics will prevent and inmediate German offensive south, thus giving the Allies time to prepare and, perhaps, attack first.

Blue Max said:

And the UK has Anthrax.

The assumption that the USA is going to allow "twice in twenty years" to stand, particularly after Germany starts the holocaust and horrifying atrocities befall the Russian people--sounds like ASB.

Indeed, The USA's economic advantage is insurmountable. Japan, even with both a grab of the Soviet Pacific Coast and perhaps enough forces to take Chunking with the Kwangtung army, is going to get crushed like a bug. There is no grounds on peace with Germany--Germany has proven that it can not be reasoned with at Munich, and that co-existence with this state is also futile--at Barbarossa.

Hitler is only going to get a peace deal if the Allies are litterally unable to fight--that means Panzergruppe Amerika sitting in Denver. Anything less than that and the war continues. Note that German WMD will be met in kind...

Click to expand...

Well about the first part...the Holocaust isn't anything but rumors at this point....remember the Allies haven't liberated the concentration camps. At this point Germany isn't viewed as the ultimate evil as it is now in hindsight.

The USA might have a huge economic advantage, but it means nothing without troops on the ground to manifest that advantage...and any amphibious invasion is gonna have slim chances of succeeding. Hell, I mean just look at how long it took the W. Allies to break out of Normandy in OTL against a Germany with most of its strength tied up against the Soviet behemoth of '44 and with understrength units manning the front AND with almost complete air superiority. Plus any bombing campaign is likely to suffer huge casualties with the whole Luftwaffe arrayed against it, with more muscle put into flak, radar and possibly SAM sites later ('46-'47).

And I'm going to have to disagree with you. The war becomes pointless for Britain if it gets hit with chemical weapons killing possibly hundreds of thousands...Sure America is safe at home over the Atlantic....but this is Britain's heartland we are talking about. Churchill is likely going to be toppled after that kind of disaster. The Allies are not robots that only know complete victory they too are humans with limits...Some kind of truce reminiscent of the Peace of Amiens comes about I think.

PLO-Style said:

Well about the first part...the Holocaust isn't anything but rumors at this point....remember the Allies haven't liberated the concentration camps. At this point Germany isn't viewed as the ultimate evil as it is now in hindsight.

The USA might have a huge economic advantage, but it means nothing without troops on the ground to manifest that advantage...and any amphibious invasion is gonna have slim chances of succeeding. Hell, I mean just look at how long it took the W. Allies to break out of Normandy in OTL against a Germany with most of its strength tied up against the Soviet behemoth of '44 and with understrength units manning the front AND with almost complete air superiority. Plus any bombing campaign is likely to suffer huge casualties with the whole Luftwaffe arrayed against it, with more muscle put into flak, radar and possibly SAM sites later ('46-'47).

And I'm going to have to disagree with you. The war becomes pointless for Britain if it gets hit with chemical weapons killing possibly hundreds of thousands...Sure America is safe at home over the Atlantic....but this is Britain's heartland we are talking about. Churchill is likely going to be toppled after that kind of disaster. The Allies are not robots that only know complete victory they too are humans with limits...Some kind of truce reminiscent of the Peace of Amiens comes about I think.

Click to expand...

I agree and moreover I would like to point that actually Nazi Empire has some decent chances to build a MAD deterrence with the Allies in these conditions. First, they may build a vast array of missiles with chemical and radiological "dirty" warheads and hold British cities hostages with them. It uis fully doable with German technology by 1944-45 and a Germany that controls Europe and Russia has no problem building them. Second, in these conditions, after Russia is vanquished are reduced to a big insurgency problem, the next priority of the Nazi war effort shall be to build a huge air force. By pooling the whole resources at its disposal, the Nazi Empire can generate an industrial potential that can rival if not match the Anglo-American one, so the conventional Allied bombing offensive shall radically dwindle in effectiveness, and the chances of a lone nuke-equipped bomber to penetrate the Axis defense shall be too low to be reliable. Hence America cannot hope to defeat Nazi Empire with just a nuke or two like Japan, it would need hundreds of the things, not available until 1948-49. Since the Americans most likely shall still use nukes to subdue Japan (they were terrified of projected losses of Operation Downfall), the secret is out of the bag in 1945. The Nazi shall know the danger and make the nuclear program and WMD deterrence and air defense the absolute top priority of the empire and their scientists shall know how and where they went wrong in their previous efforts. In short, it is plausible they can get nukes in 1948-49 with a crash program and with their superior missile technology hold British cities hostage even with an handful of nukes. Less sure about this, but maybe even a intercontinental missile prototype to threaten America is not ASB by the end of the 40s.

Anyway, I have serious difficulities imagining that most British have the altruistic anti-Nazi fanaticism necessary to accept WMD destruction of Britain so that America may carpet-nuke Nazi Europe from their bases and picke the pieces. This would mean that even if America would to continue the war alone, it would need the fifties to develop an intercontinental bomber, and by that point, most likely either the Nazi have developed intercontinental bombers or missiles too, or the American people has simply tired of eternal war.