AH challenge - Have Nazi Germany hold out long enough to get nuked

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Here's the challenge - With any PoD after 9 December 1941, have
Germany hold out long enough that it becomes a target of atomic
weapons.

This might be in the summer or fall of 1945. However, watch out as
any PoD which has Germany doing better enough that it is still
fighting later into 1945 could have indirect negative effects on the
resources put into the atomic weapons project.
 
Any scenario where Germany get nuked must have them strong enough to need nuking but weak enough that a) the B29s get through, b) they are unable to sarin the crap out of Britain. ______ For that I'd suggest a late POD on the Eastern Front, perhaps a deep maneuvre counterattack instead of Kursk. This would keep the Sovs well away from Germany in 1944 and slow the Allied advance after Dday. Germany would have enouh heartland territory available in August 1945 to make nuking them a possibility.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think that D-Day failing WOULD do it

not just "could" do it. The Manhattan Project is far enough along that I don't think coping with an invasion failure is going to take away resources from it.

A more efficient alternative to Kursk could also fairly plausibly butterfly into a few months delay in German defeat down the road, and in being something happening to the Russians but not the west, would be even less likely to have ripple effects on the atomic weapons program.
 
The thing is that if war is prolonged by a few months it doesn't automatically mean Germany is nuked. If Wallies are on German borders in summer of 1945 and clearly winning (as they were in OTL early 1945) I doubt they would use nuke(s).

Best way would be that when nukes become available Wallies are still stuck somewhere in France where breakthrough would be possible but costly.
 
The thing is that if war is prolonged by a few months it doesn't automatically mean Germany is nuked. If Wallies are on German borders in summer of 1945 and clearly winning (as they were in OTL early 1945) I doubt they would use nuke(s).

Why shouldn't they? You might wish to define "clearly winning". Weren't the Allies "clearly winning" against Japan in the summer of that year?
 

Rockingham

Banned
Best situation-Soviets defeated. Or at least held of in the East to extent that a clear status-quo line has developed, and the East front is beggining to wind down into a ceasefire. The Wallies launch D-Day, but Germany then begins t osucceed in driving them back in a counter attack... once they have been pushed out of France, the Wallies(or more specifically, the Americas) realise nuking is the only solution. Thus, they nuke Germany, despite British protests, and the UK immediately declares a cease fire....resulting in a German victory, despite the US possesion of nukes, as the US realise their capacty for victory is gone. The ceasefire forces Germany to accept the establishment of a US backed Italy(minus Sud-Tirol), and also accept their Western puppets loss of all the colonies(with which the Americans are free to do as they wish). They do, however, regain their pre-WW1 colonies minus those of the Pacific. In the East, Germany secures the SSR's of Ukraine, Byelarus, and the Baltic, Finland regains its lost territory, and the Soviets pay minimal compensation.

The Scandinavian, Lowland and Finnish territories are then incorporated into the Greater Germanic Empire(Sweden and Finland see no alternative, and thus accept the status, which is little more then a formality plus trade rights...at least at first).

A great Nuclear race occurs between the USSR and Germany(though neither are awarfe of it, though they suspect it... which Germany wins by little more then a month(in 1950, as the USSR is devestated, Germany lost top scientists, and the US remained neutral. Also, the USSR spy discovering the nuclear method is butterflied away). However, as they excel in missile technology(leading the world), upon the discovery Moscow is nuked(killing Stalin and the Duma, who are meeting). They thus immediately, limiting Nuclear attacks largely to those of tactical importance, and reach the Urals quickly
 
Why would the British protest the nuclear bombing of Germany and drop out of a war they had been trying to win for 6 years? They firebombed Dresden and Hamburg and were regularly sending 100's (or even over a 1000) bombers against targets in the Reich. I would think they would be happy with such a bomb - assuming there was any target left in Germany that would warrant such an attack.

As to how Germany lasts this long, several posters have mentioned no Kursk offensive, I agree and would add a much more successful defense of AG Center in 1944.
 
Why shouldn't they? You might wish to define "clearly winning". Weren't the Allies "clearly winning" against Japan in the summer of that year?

They were winning but they still had to make landings on Home Islands, something that would be very costly. Wallies were winning against germany since Normandy breakout, not counting local setbacks.
 
They were winning but they still had to make landings on Home Islands, something that would be very costly. Wallies were winning against germany since Normandy breakout, not counting local setbacks.

So if costs are an issue, why should they accept the costs of crossing the Rhine and driving into Germany? You'll remember the casualty assessments done as to a possible drive onto Berlin. Why take that price tag if they had nukes?
 
So if costs are an issue, why should they accept the costs of crossing the Rhine and driving into Germany? You'll remember the casualty assessments done as to a possible drive onto Berlin. Why take that price tag if they had nukes?

because casualties estimates might be low. If they are why expend a nuke? Except for testing it or to show Soviets what can be done (ala Dresden)
 
because casualties estimates might be low. If they are why expend a nuke? Except for testing it or to show Soviets what can be done (ala Dresden)

Define "low". "Low" as in, not high enough to be worth using a new weapon that we have, and we have expended truckloads of taxpayers money to have?
 
Define "low". "Low" as in, not high enough to be worth using a new weapon that we have, and we have expended truckloads of taxpayers money to have?

in a word, yes.

And if that happens we get interesting post-war situation. If nuked city is in future GDR then Soviets will bitch about nuking "their" city when there was no real need. If it is future FRG then you'll have FRG gov't bitching about nuking their city when there was no real need.
 
in a word, yes.

Then we'll have to agree we disagree.

And if that happens we get interesting post-war situation. If nuked city is in future GDR then Soviets will bitch about nuking "their" city when there was no real need. If it is future FRG then you'll have FRG gov't bitching about nuking their city when there was no real need.

While if you have the weapon and do not use it, you'll have a few tens of thousands of American taxpayers and _voters_ bitching about their relatives who died needlessly.
Guess what will an American politician choose to have bitching?
 
While if you have the weapon and do not use it, you'll have a few tens of thousands of American taxpayers and _voters_ bitching about their relatives who died needlessly.
Guess what will an American politician choose to have bitching?

It will still make an interesting cold war situation
 
Top