How long can Germany delay defeat without allied use of nuclear bombs still at least 1950s

[Wildlife]

How long can Germany delay dear without allied use of nuclear bombs with a POD of January 1942?
Possible POD to slow nuclear progress
POD: research into nuclear weapons and materials is slower and no nuclear bombs are built still the 1950s for allies
Or
POD: the entire research teams accidentally blow themselves or a natural disaster destroy/kills most of scientist and research

 

[Post]

It's pretty much impossible for Germany to last beyond 1945, even without allied use of atomic bombs. They were too heavily outnumbered. There are two recent threads about better performance of Germany with a POD of 1942 or 1943.

German completely adopts the defensive September 1942

This occurs on September 24th 1942 when Halder is sacked. With the failure of the last offensive in Africa, the slowdown in Russia at the grain elevator in the Caucasus, the American counteroffensive in Guadalcanal, increased Allied bombing, that the ratio of strengths has changed against them...

www.alternatehistory.com

How long could Nazi Germany delay its defeat?

Basically what it says on the tin, with a POD in the summer of 1943, how long could Nazi Germany survive?

www.alternatehistory.com

In the second one, the last post was yesterday.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Literally Germany's only hope is the WAllies tire of the war before they get nukes and agree to some kind of compromise peace. And even such a peace would be very hostile, with the Western Allies ready to pounce the moment the house of cards that are Germany's political and economic apparatuses starts to disintegrate.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

How long can Germany delay dear without allied use of nuclear bombs with a POD of January 1942?
Possible POD to slow nuclear progress
POD: research into nuclear weapons and materials is slower and no nuclear bombs are built still the 1950s for allies
Or
POD: the entire research teams accidentally blow themselves or a natural disaster destroy/kills most of scientist and research

(edited to try to clarify)
Rommel conquers the Nile delta in the early summer of 1942, due to whatever it is which Germany does differently (Rommel wins what was in original timeline first El Alamein?); British lose Malta (edit: cannot resupply or relieve it and it falls) and all credibility with the Americans; Roosevelt insists on landings directly in France (what, as far as I remember reading (maybe wrongly?), he originally wanted) and British don't have any credibility to say 'no'; Allied landings go in in France and go disastrously wrong; the UK between North Africa and France failures now have no army left for use in Europe; Allied amphibious lift capacity has been gutted (setting back all future amphibious attempts) in the failed French landings; Vichy France is still a thing and still pro-Axis; Italy is still in the war after mid-1943; all Hitler has to do is worry about the United States Air Force in the UK, bomber Harris' 'dehousing' attempts, and Russia, until American atomic bombs start to drop on Germany.
(Best I can do. Requires yet more rolling maximum on dice by Germany, and yet more idiocy by British. Possibly borderline Alien Space Bat, but the Germans - by actions such as being more careful of their SIGINT in Libya - might be able to preserve at least some of their enormous early 1942 desert war intelligence advantage over the British.)

Germany slowing atomic bomb progress by much after 1942 is it seems to me probably not plausible. Germany is on the wrong side of the Atlantic to do much about the project.

 

[Dolnikan]

Rommel conquers the Nile delta in the early summer of 1942, due to whatever it is which Germany does differently (Rommel wins what was in original timeline first El Alamein?); British lose Malta and all credibility with the Americans; Roosevelt insists on landings directly in France (what, as far as I remember reading (maybe wrongly?), he originally wanted) and British don't have any credibility to say 'no'; Allied landings go in in France and go disastrously wrong; Britain between North Africa and France now have no army left for use in Europe; Allied amphibious lift capacity has been gutted (setting back all future amphibious attempts) in the failed French landings; Vichy France is still a thing and still pro-Axis; Italy is still in the war after mid-1943; all Hitler has to do is worry about the United States Air Force in the UK, bomber Harris' 'dehousing' attempts, and Russia, until American atomic bombs start to drop on Germany.
(Best I can do. Requires yet more rolling maximum on dice by Germany, and yet more idiocy by British. Possibly borderline Alien Space Bat, but the Germans - by actions such as being more careful of their SIGINT in Libya - might be able to preserve at least some of their enormous early 1942 desert war intelligence advantage over the British.)

Germany slowing atomic bomb progress by much after 1942 is it seems to me probably not plausible. Germany is on the wrong side of the Atlantic to do much about the project.

The problem is that there still is the Soviet behemoth coming in from the east that will still do tremendous damage and will grind down Germany, no matter what they do. And even Stalin dying won't do the trick. Not against a clearly genocidal enemy.

 

[Ravinoff]

The problem is that there still is the Soviet behemoth coming in from the east that will still do tremendous damage and will grind down Germany, no matter what they do. And even Stalin dying won't do the trick. Not against a clearly genocidal enemy.

This times a thousand. By a 1942 PoD, Germany is already committed to the biggest mistake imaginable (Barbarossa), everything the Western Allies do after that is just speeding up the inevitable. The Pain Train has left the station on a nonstop route to Berlin. Hell, by 1942 they've not only committed to Barbarossa, but suffered two crushing defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad. Even with no western second front and no nukes, the Soviets are going to crush the Axis by sheer numbers.

 

[kham_coc]

Not doing barbarossa extends it for well decades (Stalin isn't the type to start something that isn't guaranteed). Winning against the Soviets probably extends it for a good while too (a victorious Germany will be very weakened and the nazis probably quite unpopular even with a victory).

Ultimately the only way to get rid of the nazis is with boots on the ground, and if the Soviets aren't supplying them, there isn't much the Allies can do - even with nukes.
Absent ground forces nukes are just terror weapons, and Hitler can always just out terror the Allies, he does after all have millions of hostages.

 

[Catspoke]

Not doing barbarossa extends it for well decades (Stalin isn't the type to start something that isn't guaranteed). Winning against the Soviets probably extends it for a good while too (a victorious Germany will be very weakened and the nazis probably quite unpopular even with a victory).

Ultimately the only way to get rid of the nazis is with boots on the ground, and if the Soviets aren't supplying them, there isn't much the Allies can do - even with nukes.
Absent ground forces nukes are just terror weapons, and Hitler can always just out terror the Allies, he does after all have millions of hostages.

Yes. Not invade the Soviet Union, instead of tanks not shot up in Russia, build trade goods of things the Soviets need to buy Russian grain and oil and cotton. Buy phosphates from Vichy Tunisia to help agricultural production. Seek trade across the trans Siberian with Japan.

A non Nazi regime could be competent enough to pull something like this off. Actual Nazis would find that hard and just want to loot stuff from the next enemy up.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

You would sure have a different Iron Curtain Speech "From Brest on the Atlantic to the Cape of Gibraltar an Iron Curtain has dissented..."

 

[Garrison]

(edited to try to clarify)
Rommel conquers the Nile delta in the early summer of 1942, due to whatever it is which Germany does differently (Rommel wins what was in original timeline first El Alamein?)

Except that isn't going to happen, the cold hard constraints of logistics are a permanent brake on Rommel. The closer he gets to Cairo the more overextended the Afrikacorps becomes.

 

[kham_coc]

Except that isn't going to happen, the cold hard constraints of logistics are a permanent brake on Rommel. The closer he gets to Cairo the more overextended the Afrikacorps becomes.

Also, even if we ignore all that, and somehow Rommel holds NA from the Atlantic to Syria or wherever - How does that save them from the Soviets?
And on the other hand, if the Axis (well Germany) ignore everything south of sicily, and beats the Soviets, Who cares about North Africa?
Everything that matters is decided on the eastern front - If the soviets are out, then Germany can't lose, they may or may not be able to secure a total victory, but any outcome (even one enforced by Nukes) is going to be some form of Victory.