Would the atomic bomb be a magic bullet against Germany if they defeated the USSR?

[Uncle Ruckus]

So lets assume that the war goes worse for the Soviets in 1941/42 than OTL. By early 1943 there is Civil War/Rebellion mirroring the situation in 1917 and the Soviets get a Brest-Litovsk style unfavorable peace with the Volga or the Urals as the new border. In the meantime the Western Allies clear North Africa. What are the changes from mid 1943 onwards?

The Allies cant invade Italy or Europe. Even if the Germans have to keep 80 divisions in the East instead of the planned 50, the Wallies are facing an additional 80 first class divisions and would need 200+ divisions to even attempt an invasion. Of course if they draft so many soldiers this will affect production and supply of personell for the Navy/Air force. The British were scraping the barell of their manpower by late 1943 anyways.
Without an Eastern Front the Germans save a lot of fuel, tanks, guns, ammunition, supplies, personell, so their ground forces would be substantionally stronger than OTL. German production of weapons would also accelerate because conscription in the second half of 1943 and 1944 would be minimal (the existing army would be sufficient enough + a fraction of OTL losses) meaning more people for the factories. The Germans can also invest more scientists and engineers into AA weapons development (R4M, Waterfall) and the Luftwaffe has more fuel and aircraft(no air war in Russia).

It is very unlikely that the Wallies would continue the war under these circumstances, especially considered the fact that 99.99% of their population dont know about the bomb. The US has a war with Japan going on as well, so Generals and Admirals will demand more soldiers and materiel for the Pacific since Europe cant be invaded anyways. Public Opinion will slowly shift to a negotiated peace forcing Roosevelt to either accept reality or face defeat in the elections of 1944 against a Republican candidate promising the people to end the senseless war in Europe. And there is of course the fact that Roosevelt dies in April 1945 anyway and Truman will under no circumstances restart a war in Europe which has been cooling down or stalemated for the last two years.

And we havent even started to talk about the British which will be bombed much more from mid 1943 onwards than OTL and again even more from mid 1944.

 

[Bougnas]

Why do people always say "the Wallies can't invade from Europe or the ME.
It's maybe optimistic to think that the Soviets could get completely out of the war (though that's the premise of this thread).
But there's still Iran through which Wallied Forces could get to reinforce Caucasus, and of course China.
The Wallies would likely focus on the SEA/EA theater to get the Japanese out early and then get to Eastern Russia, so the Germans are gonna need those 2.5Mio men back in Russia soon.

Outside of that, this scenario looks like torture from the German POV.

 

[wcv215]

German production of weapons would also accelerate because conscription in the second half of 1943 and 1944 would be minimal (the existing army would be sufficient enough + a fraction of OTL losses) meaning more people for the factories.

This is completely untrue. A defeat for the USSR means no total war for the Germans. They would either experience a boost the same as OTL, or possibly even lower.

Public Opinion will slowly shift to a negotiated peace forcing Roosevelt to either accept reality or face defeat in the elections of 1944 against a Republican candidate promising the people to end the senseless war in Europe.

Based on?

The Allies didn’t invade France until 1944 regardless. It’s silly to think things will collapse at home without the Overlord landings happening.

And we havent even started to talk about the British which will be bombed much more from mid 1943 onwards than OTL and again even more from mid 1944.

and again, no. Germany can’t beat the Western Allies for control of British airspace.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Problem is would the US and Wallies in general fight the whole time til an atomic bomb can be dropped? You're talking about much much higher losses than iotl . Hundreds of thousands more. Plus Lw that can make good for any loses they receive from the west as the war machine isn't in over production fighting everyone

Until they fired Trinity they were not even 100% sure it would work let alone what the actual yields would be for the 1st generation weapons. They had to keep fighting as if the bomb was not going to work as stopping would just allow the Nazi's to catch their breath.

 

[thorr97]

The British would be well aware that both they and the Germans attempted what, in modern terms, would be described as a "counter value" campaigns against each other - i.e. attacking each other's cities. Germany's attacks failed not out of intent but out of inability to drop enough bombs fast enough to actually destroy Britain's cities. The British, on the other hand, were well on their way to having that capability by 1943 even with "mere" conventional weapons.

Thus the British would be well aware that, if given the chance, the Germans would apply their new found resources to building the weapons necessary to resume the Blitz but do so in an effective way this second time around. And that would, again, be with "mere" conventional weapons. There would be enough individuals among the British leadership who were aware of Tube Alloys and had a grasp of the "Uranium explosive's" potential to realize what it would mean if Germany had such weapons to pair with a new bomber fleet.

Thus there would be no way - at all - that either Britain or the US would simply idly standby in a "cold war" to give Germany the chance to make such weaponry of their own. With even just the theoretical existence of such weapons Germany would become an "existential threat" to the UK's very existence. There's no treating with that sort of threat.

Yes, the war would continue. It might even be more "efficiently" prosecuted by the Allies in the face of a stronger German presence in western Europe. Specifically, if the air defenses of the Ruhr became too intense then the Allies could easily switch to attacking the Reich's resources on its periphery.

While strongly defended, the depth of defenses around Ploesti, for instance, weren't the equal of those in the Ruhr and it would take some time to improve that. Choking off the Reich's resources could yield excellent dividends and render moot their attempts at production dispersal within the Reich. It might also drive home the lesson to Allied planners of the Reich's vulnerability when it came to oil and power distribution. Bombing Germany's powerplants, for instance, would've been catastrophic to war production as even dispersed factories still needed power to operate. And large scale generators and turbines are highly specialized items that required multi-month lead times to even begin production in peacetime. In OTL, such targeting was horribly lacking and represented a significant missed opportunity for the Allies. In this ATL, perhaps the Allies could "stumble" upon it as they're more intensely now looking for ways to hit Germany without throwing so many bodies onto French beaches just yet.

Also, the Allies would be facing the Germans on the ground at this point - but in the Caucuses. There's no way the US and UK would sit idly by while letting the Germans roll into Baku and the other oil fields. This, no matter the terms of the Soviet surrender. And this, no matter the condition that the Soviets left those oil fields in. If it appeared that the Red Army could no longer do the job prior to the Soviet surrender, I've no doubt there'd be a sudden reallocation of WAllied ground troops to that region.

So while there might not be an Overlord in '44 there'd be no cessation of fighting against the Reich. Its focus however, would be to destroy Germany's ability to sustain its war fighting ability while building up Allied strength to overwhelming proportions.

The Atom Bomb also would be viewed, at this point, as merely a more refined type of explosive. It would not, therefore, be in the same category as any gas or bio weaponry. Thus its use in 1945 would not considered the same way as nuclear weaponry would be today. Germany would therefore have no excuse to escalate the conflict by responding with its chemical or nerve agent arsenals.

 

[sloreck]

Leaving aside the issue about what poison gas was "better", the Allies had the ability to manufacture and deliver such chemical weapons as mustard and Lewisite in quantities many times that of the Germans. While the Germans had early nerve agents, they were only available in relatively small quantities. The other issue is delivery, how many bombs can the Luftwaffe deliver over the UK - their per aircraft payload is smaller, and don't forget no matter what they have devote a larger percentage of their airframe/engine production to fighter types to deal with the Allied bombers using conventional weapons before the bomb, so there are more limits on the potential for German bombing of the UK. To be particularly vicious, and neither Harris nor LeMay had any scruples, imagine what would happen if after one of the big incendiary raids if 24-48 hours later with all those folks "de-housed" you came over and dropped large quantities of mustard or Lewisite. The term apocalyptic just begins to describe it, and the Germans simply cannot even come close to matching it.

While any production facilities the Germans may have in Poland and eastward would be relatively safe from Allied bombing, in 1942/43 those facilities don't exist. Moving factories eastward will be disruptive, you need to move the workforce, and given the crap transportation net in Poland and western Russia and all the rail issues, this is going to make big hits in productivity. The vast majority of Allied production (Canada, USA) is completely out of reach, raw materials and foods purchased in the western hemisphere and oil production and refining is only capable of attack via U-boats hitting shipping that far west, which by 1943 is not doing well on the US coast or in the Caribbean. Sure the Germans can attack UL based production, but pretty much all of German production, petroleum resources, and raw materials are with range of Allied attack.

 

[goalieboy82]

The problem is that Germany can retaliate with chemical weapons in V2 rockets, so while the Allies win, London is gone.

it depends, how many V2's are left and where they are fired from (is there a D-Day in this timeline but the Western Allies bog in France/Western Germany then)

 

[marathag]

Honestly, I don’t think the allies would ever risk dropping atom bombs on Germany due to fears over German retaliation.

Except that's why the program was started, get the Bomb before the Nazis did.

Using it on them is implied once they are built

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

This is completely untrue. A defeat for the USSR means no total war for the Germans. They would either experience a boost the same as OTL, or possibly even lower.

Prove it. Your claim goes against logic. The Germans have more people they can use in the factories but for some reason they produce less than OTL? Absurd.

Based on? The Allies didn’t invade France until 1944 regardless. It’s silly to think things will collapse at home without the Overlord landings happening.

Between mid 1943 and Overlord the Germans lost 2/3 of their holdings in the East and half of Italy. People could see progress. People could see victories. People could see that their struggle and sacrifice was producing results. People could hope for an ending of the war. What can people in this scenario see? There is no progress - just bombing raids with mounting casualties. There are no victories - just perpetual war in the air and at sea with no prospect of victory. Also people do not know about the bomb. On the other side of the globe though they see progress, they see victories. The attention will shift towards the Pacific. More troops, more aircraft, more of everything. Europe will become secondary. Even if Roosevelt is reelected a third time, Trumans primary goal will be to win/end the war against Japan and not restart the war in Europe. There will be negotiations and a form of peace will be agreed upon.

and again, no. Germany can’t beat the Western Allies for control of British airspace.

They dont need control of the air space. They managed to bomb Britain in 1942/43 OTL, they will manage it ATL with much greater numbers.

 

[wcv215]

Prove it. Your claim goes against logic. The Germans have more people they can use in the factories but for some reason they produce less than OTL? Absurd.

Throughout much of WWII the Germans did not shift to a total war footing. This was why Great Britain outproduced them so badly during the early stages of the war. OTL they did not shift from this position until they began to lose. Without that shift the jump in production will not happen. German factories will be kept on a single shift, rationing won’t be heavily implemented, etc.

There won’t be a NEED to produce more war materiel. Indeed with the USSR, Germany’s great enemy in the eyes of Nazism, defeated there would likely be a shift away from war production as the primary weapons needed are planes, which the capacity to build is still limited. Given Hitler’s fondness for interesting garbage, see the Hortons, much of their limited R&D would be wasted.

What can people in this scenario see?

The destruction of the Axis position in Africa, the likely capture of Sicily Sardinia and Corsica. Possibly attacks on positions the Germans can’t defend well. Hell, even the collapse of Japanese positions since they are Axis members as well.

They dont need control of the air space.

They do if they want to accomplish something. If they lose half the sent bombers every night they can’t keep the attack up very long, and if they throw their fighters away as escorts then Germany itself is stripped of air cover against the Allied bombing raids. Germany CAN’T do both. It doesn’t have the industrial might of North America behind it to create

 

[Uncle Ruckus]

Throughout much of WWII the Germans did not shift to a total war footing. This was why Great Britain outproduced them so badly during the early stages of the war. OTL they did not shift from this position until they began to lose. Without that shift the jump in production will not happen. German factories will be kept on a single shift, rationing won’t be heavily implemented, etc.

"The shift" begun in early 1942 and was completed for the most part by the end of 1943. So your claim is utterly wrong.

There won’t be a NEED to produce more war materiel.

Sure. Germany is fighting the entire Western Hemisphere but for some ultra convenient reason decides to scale back the weapons output. Once again absurd. Also this argument goes both ways: I say that the Wallies scale back production because they know they have no prospect of defeating Germany.

The destruction of the Axis position in Africa, the likely capture of Sicily Sardinia and Corsica. Possibly attacks on positions the Germans can’t defend well. Hell, even the collapse of Japanese positions since they are Axis members as well.

Firstly I wrote mid 1943 - after victory in NA. Second even IF the WALLIES could pull this of - conquering three unimportant islands can hardly be seen as progress. As for the collapse of Japanese positions - thank you for supporting my position. Every victory in the Pacific will increase the demand to end the lost cause of Europe.

They do if they want to accomplish something. If they lose half the sent bombers every night they can’t keep the attack up very long, and if they throw their fighters away as escorts then Germany itself is stripped of air cover against the Allied bombing raids. Germany CAN’T do both. It doesn’t have the industrial might of North America behind it to create

The absolute worst casualty rate Wallied bombers experienced over Germany was 10% but for some ultra convenient reason the Germans are loosing up to 50% of their bombers in each raid....
Also from mid 1944 onwards the Germans have the V1 and V2 ready - against the latter they British have no defense.

 

[wcv215]

"The shift" begun in early 1942 and was completed for the most part by the end of 1943. So your claim is utterly wrong.

In response to the failure of the Soviet Union to collapse as well as the later shifts against them as the war slipped away. Your counter claim not only doesn’t negate mine, it is more or less in total agreement.

As for the collapse of Japanese positions - thank you for supporting my position. Every victory in the Pacific will increase the demand to end the lost cause of Europe.

Those points do not follow. Victory against Japan, far from suddenly leeching support for war against Germany will bolster it. Tangible successes as the alliance of fascism in the world collapses. When Japan is inevitably ground to dust that won’t just fade away.

The absolute worst casualty rate Wallied bombers experienced over Germany was 10% but for some ultra convenient reason the Germans are loosing up to 50% of their bombers in each raid....
Also from mid 1944 onwards the Germans have the V1 and V2 ready - against the latter they British have no defense.

The allies have better and more numerous fighters, both to provide escorts and defense, better and more numerous bombers, better radar, better research and development for the future, etc.

And the British most certainly did have a defense against the V-2. Specifically counter intelligence, which drove the V-2s off course and meant minimal damage from that particular worthless money sink.

 

[fasquardon]

Only that this isn't OTL with most of the losses at the eastern front of 1942, 1943, 1944.

Only Germany was heading for a manpower crunch even before 1942. Don't get me wrong, Germany will be strong enough to make things difficult, but there's no physical way for them to tap the resources of European Russia fast enough to get the resources (especially oil) that they need to persecute the war. Barbarossa was always going to be a failure for a Germany that has to fight the USA. The only question is what kind of failure it would be.

Sloreck really puts it better than I could:

For the Germans, they are no longer bleeding personnel, equipment, and burning petroleum on the Eastern Front to the extent they were OTL. Now they have to control this vast territory they have acquired. What they have acquired while rich in potential, is a howling wasteland. Industries have been destroyed or relocated, mines and oil fields have been sabotaged. The rail system is a disaster and has to be regauged and rebuilt to accept standard gauge rolling stock. The road system, which was pathetic before the fighting is now even worse. Most of the locals will either not care or help with the Jewish issue, however once what is in store for the bulk of the population becomes obvious, the Germans will continue to have a serious partisan problem to deal with - if you consider yourself dead already, you have little to lose in blowing a rail line of cutting the throat of a soldier. There will still be a need for troops, equipment, Luftwaffe, petroleum and so forth in fairly large numbers to deal with these issues and allow targeted reconstruction and resource extraction as well as administrators and construction supervisors to make all this work - no comment n Nazi "efficiency". The point of all this is that while there will be a movement of German resources out of the conquered USSR, it will be significantly less than one might guess, and accelerating Atlantic coastal defenses and garrisoning Italy will have a call on this.

You do know that prior to the war germany was the largest uranium producer worldwide ?
You do know that 50-60% of Stalins nuclear weapons material cam from Germany ?
Ever heard of the "Wismuth AG" ?

How do they use that uranium though? The Germans are a long, long way from a practical nuclear weapon and are starting from bad assumptions too (add to that Hitler quite correctly is dubious about the nuclear bomb being useful for Germany). The German program won't be able to get off the blocks before the war is decided one way or the other.

They have to refine their physics, design a weapon, crack the purification of U-235 (producing plutonium and going for chemical separation of plutonium from uranium will be far too slow to be useful in the time Germany has), crack the problem of machining the uranium (one of the hardest parts of making an A bomb, requiring enormous precision) and come up with a viable delivery method all while fighting the mother of all air wars, manning the walls of fortress Europe against a WAllied invasion that could strike anywhere, maintaining civilian production at adequate levels, maintaining conventional weapon production at adequate levels, keeping up with conventional weapons technology, rebuilding the mines, oil wells and railways of Russia, maintaining an army of occupation in the East against desperate partisan bands AND keeping an industrial-grade murder operation going. Oh yeah, add to that the German program, if it is continued, is going to be organized like a bunch of Nazis are in charge. And the Nazis were spectacularly bad at organizing things.

Germany just can't keep that many plates spinning to get where it needs to be fast enough!

Between mid 1943 and Overlord the Germans lost 2/3 of their holdings in the East and half of Italy. People could see progress. People could see victories. People could see that their struggle and sacrifice was producing results. People could hope for an ending of the war. What can people in this scenario see? There is no progress - just bombing raids with mounting casualties. There are no victories - just perpetual war in the air and at sea with no prospect of victory. Also people do not know about the bomb. On the other side of the globe though they see progress, they see victories. The attention will shift towards the Pacific. More troops, more aircraft, more of everything. Europe will become secondary. Even if Roosevelt is reelected a third time, Trumans primary goal will be to win/end the war against Japan and not restart the war in Europe. There will be negotiations and a form of peace will be agreed upon.

I think you massively underestimate American willingness to finish the fight Hitler started. Britain and the US expected the Soviets to collapse like the French did - that they didn't was a great surprise. So in TTL, the Soviets falling isn't some nasty surprise, it's what most people expected in the West. They fully intended to break Germany anyway.

fasquardon

 

[viperjock]

If the Germans knock the Soviets into Siberia then I doubt Italy would flip over to the Allies. Hitler would keep the Mussolini regime in power. My question is if the Fascists are still in control of the Italian mainland would the USAAF drop a atomic bomb on an Italian City?
Italy was an equal member of the Axis just like Japan. In order to end the war will nuking Italy be a “necessary evil”? How would the Italian American community feel about it?
Someone mentioned Ploesti as a potential military target. OTL no one had a problem bombing the oil refinery but what are the ethics of you dropping a nuke on Ploesti and killing Romanians? In the OTL 1943 raid on Ploesti The Ninth Air Force tried to avoid hitting the refineries and not the civilians living next door. You won’t be able to do that with an atomic bomb or bombs. ( would one 1945 atomic bomb be enough to destroy all the refineries.) Is Romania considered “Axis enough” for lack of a better term?

 

[sloreck]

Romania was allied with the Nazis, they had troops in the USSR and were quite happily doing in their own Jews although in no wise as efficiently as the Nazis. Given the power of first generation atomic weapons and the fact that the populated areas were at some distance from the oil fields/refinery areas while the fallout will be nasty it won't be like bombing a city - and the oil areas are a legitimate military target. As far as Italy goes, hitting an industrial center or a naval base might be reasonable however why waste the nukes when what matters is Germany, force Germany to its knees and what happens with Italy and Benny the Moose is irrelevant - Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia are most likely in Allied hands so...

 

[Barry Bull]

IMHO you'll see the war in the Pacific go on as OTL mostly, but Japan gets blockaded and bombed no OLYMPIC. You'll see a stepped up bombing campaign, you may see B-29s from Iran bombing the Baku oil fields if the Germans take them and seem to be getting them back in place - no matter what the Allies will clear out North Africa, and probably take Sicily and probably Corsica and Sardinia. Come 1945, maybe once 3-4 bombs are ready, mushrooms begin to spout...the B-36 may come in in early 1946. Using radar and atomic bombs, you don't really need to go in daylight, and that makes life worse for the Germans. even if the Germans put lots of money and effort in to an atomic program, it will take at least five years to do it and they have an issue with getting uranium in quantity.

And Nazi Germany would have to choose developing the Bomb or a heavy bomber as its resources was limited.

 

[Barry Bull]

Germany's air force wasn't existent because of the large number of commitments that had to be made to the Eastern front. Yes I know that most of it was destroyed in the West, but with the Soviet Union defeated German industry can shift its focus to defending itself from the bomber offensive.

USA outproduce the entire Axis alone and time is needed to reorient the Germany industry which the Allied can and would disrupt by air offensive.

 

[Barry Bull]

A USSR that's fallen means Germany can devote significantly more resources to aircraft and air defences. America might be able to do it, but it's going to be a costly victory. Germany is also also holding the rest of Europe hostage and can still make a mess of London. I think the cost is either too high or the Axis achieves parity in the air.

How can the Axis achieves parity in the air?

The USA outproduce the entire Axis alone in terms of industrial output and its Air Forces would be slaughtered if they tried to attack London. The V weapons should not be considered as the equivalent as modern missiles and their short ranges means their launch site can be bombed from air. Their production facilities can also be bombed, as in OTL.

 

[Barry Bull]

What 'british bases' after 3 years of continuing air war (only ?) against isolated british islees by a Luftwaffe much lesser ... employed in the east ?

How eliminate an AA defense of the whole european continent ?
Only that this isn't OTL with most of the losses at the eastern front

Because the Allies can outproduce Nazi Germany in terms of aircrafts and pilots which would need time to reconfigure and put into use their industrial gain (those left after Soviet sabotage before surrendering) from the defeated USSR.

 

[Pelranius]

If the Germans knock the Soviets into Siberia then I doubt Italy would flip over to the Allies. Hitler would keep the Mussolini regime in power. My question is if the Fascists are still in control of the Italian mainland would the USAAF drop a atomic bomb on an Italian City?
Italy was an equal member of the Axis just like Japan. In order to end the war will nuking Italy be a “necessary evil”? How would the Italian American community feel about it?

Tough luck.

Though I don't think that unless the US comes up with several hundred atom bombs in a short time frame, that Italy is any realistic danger of getting nuked, unless Italy somehow becomes critical to the German atomic bomb program or something like that.