AHC: Make Nazis win WW2

  1. Hitler dies in 1940
  2. Goering takes over
  3. Goering doesnt go to war with the US or USSR
  4. Tube alloys continues. The British get a nuke through gaseous diffusion.
  5. They use it. Tabun use follows.
  6. The British wont be able to make another bomb for a year minimum. It becomes apparent that tabun is the more effective WMD. Their first nuke kills in the tens of thousands. By the time their second nuke is ready. The Nazis have unloaded enogh tabun to kill millions.
  7. The British are forced to surrender.
Hirihito began contemplating surrender after the firebombing of Tokyo? The atomic bombings and USSR are not relevant. That was Hirihito. Churchill will cave a lot sooner because he is not a dictator. Millions of British dead. Not like those thsr died in the firebombing of Tokyo. The Nazis have the British dead to rights

Tabun was not being produced until 1942 - with 12,500 tons produced by wars end

Tube alloys would not produce a bomb until likely very late 40s and more likely early 50s unless it is part of the Manhattan project - so thats not going to happen

Given that Tabun was not ready till 1942 good luck deploying it in sufficient numbers to kill millions (not that there is enough Tabun) - by this time German raids into Britain apart from tip and run raids by small numbers of fighters over southern coastal targets would be suicidal

Goering might not go to war with USA but USA was effectively already at war in Oct 1941 - it was just a matter of time.

Lastly in the Chemical weapon 'arms race' in WW1 - the Germans were usually the first to deploy a given Chemical weapon - and at virtually every stage the British 'bettered the lesson' - no reason to not think that they would be nerve gassing Germany right back with their larger air force and with more of it.
 
Tabun was not being produced until 1942 - with 12,500 tons produced by wars end

Given that Tabun was not ready till 1942 good luck deploying it in sufficient numbers to kill millions (not that there is enough Tabun) - by this time German raids into Britain apart from tip and run raids by small numbers of fighters over southern coastal targets would be suicidal

Lastly in the Chemical weapon 'arms race' in WW1 - the Germans were usually the first to deploy a given Chemical weapon - and at virtually every stage the British 'bettered the lesson' - no reason to not think that they would be nerve gassing Germany right back with their larger air force and with more of it.

my question would not be whether the Brits could respond but where and for what their nerve gases could be used?

a terror campaign would produce exactly the result you have predicted (albeit they would probably use mustard gas to retaliate since the Germans would likely use that also to conceal nerve agents, at least at first)

but where would it produce any real military gains?

they might have been able to finish off poor Leningrad, and having seized the city cover up their crime?
 
That's a wishlist more than anything else, especially the convenient assumption about the production rate of British A-bombs and the effectiveness of Tabun as a terror weapon.

Well. The bit about tabun isnt so much a wishlist. It is called a WMD for a reason. Do you know how many people 4 tons of VX could kill upwards under good conditions? I think that will change your mind on this. And the Nazis also had sarin.

I dount the British could get better uranium enrichment than America

Tabun was not being produced until 1942 - with 12,500 tons produced by wars end

Tube alloys would not produce a bomb until likely very late 40s and more likely early 50s unless it is part of the Manhattan project - so thats not going to happen

Given that Tabun was not ready till 1942 good luck deploying it in sufficient numbers to kill millions (not that there is enough Tabun) - by this time German raids into Britain apart from tip and run raids by small numbers of fighters over southern coastal targets would be suicidal

Goering might not go to war with USA but USA was effectively already at war in Oct 1941 - it was just a matter of time.

Lastly in the Chemical weapon 'arms race' in WW1 - the Germans were usually the first to deploy a given Chemical weapon - and at virtually every stage the British 'bettered the lesson' - no reason to not think that they would be nerve gassing Germany right back with their larger air force and with more of it.

And even if the British captured a Nazi chemist who could walk them through tabun production. It would take at least. 2? Years to build the facilities.

That is literally the very best the British could hope for. (It took the Nazis far far longer to develop tabun and sarin) work that started in the very early 1930s.

If Japan never enters the axis and the USSR does, and no attacks on US ships from Nazi submarines, then the US cant touch the Nazis. That is a fact. The worse theu can do is give the British more air planes. But. Night bombing is still a thing. 1942? That is not suicidal to do night bombing.

And that the British wouldnt develop the bomb. That is even better for the Nazis. If they can somehow start chemical weapons being used.

All the Beitish are left with is untested anthrax. Cattle cakes. Not a serious solution to Nazi nerve gas.
 
Well. The bit about tabun isnt so much a wishlist. It is called a WMD for a reason. Do you know how many people 4 tons of VX could kill upwards under good conditions? I think that will change your mind on this. And the Nazis also had sarin.

I dount the British could get better uranium enrichment than America



And even if the British captured a Nazi chemist who could walk them through tabun production. It would take at least. 2? Years to build the facilities.

That is literally the very best the British could hope for. (It took the Nazis far far longer to develop tabun and sarin) work that started in the very early 1930s.

If Japan never enters the axis and the USSR does, and no attacks on US ships from Nazi submarines, then the US cant touch the Nazis. That is a fact. The worse theu can do is give the British more air planes. But. Night bombing is still a thing. 1942? That is not suicidal to do night bombing.

And that the British wouldnt develop the bomb. That is even better for the Nazis. If they can somehow start chemical weapons being used.

All the British are left with is untested anthrax. Cattle cakes. Not a serious solution to Nazi nerve gas.

Britain already had the facilities - Porton Down was built in 1916 and by 1938 was again 'fully' stood up and staffed to provide the UK with the ability to retaliate if Chemical weapons were used by the Germans (and in the case of an invasion 'first use') - Britain had its own highly skilled chemists and scientists.

It's almost as if Britain did not trust the Germans not to use the stuff?

Also if Nerve weapons were used then the US and other nations are going to stand up and take notice - the USA as much as the UK does not want a Europe dominated by the Nazi's (and certainly would not accept a Nazi Dominated Europe that included the UK!!!) which is why they were as much as at war with Germany as it is possible to be without actually being at war in Oct 1941.

As for night bombing the Germans abandoned it - I blame the RAF for being a bunch of spoilsports.

Lastly Tabun is a short lived Nerve Agent designed to be used as a pesticide - it does not persist in lethal quantities and it is ill suited for the role of mass murder particularly when its delivery system (the Luftwaffe) is ill suited for the role.
 
Well. The bit about tabun isnt so much a wishlist. It is called a WMD for a reason. Do you know how many people 4 tons of VX could kill upwards under good conditions? I think that will change your mind on this. And the Nazis also had sarin.

So are nukes, but you conveniently assume that the British will not be able to produce them at a rate that upsets your flimsy scenario. On the one hand you have Hitler being replaced by an allegedly more sensible regime, but Germany continues a war that's destroying their economy and actually adopt a more catastrophic plan in the hopes the British capitulate rather than retaliate, not knowing of course what weapons the British have at their disposal to retaliate with, unless you want to add an effective German intelligence gathering operation in the UK to your wishlist?
 
Btw, I also remember reading that a part of the reason for the huge early nazi successes when entire armies were caught by the Nazis, is because the armies surrendered in masse because they exécted to find WWI Germans and didn't wanted to fight for Stalin. I don't know if it is true, but assuming it is, then invading the USSR at liberators could win the Nazis the war. But they would have to not be Nazis and make extensive preparations so they don't have to loot the population and starve them.
 
I don't know how Elser succeeding would help nazis to win the war? It would create chaos in Germany and struggle for power, it should weaken, not strenghten Germans and prevent them from conquering France.
 
A number of books and websites have said Hitler could have done any number of things to win the war. He didn't need to do any of those things--he needed to do ALL of those things. In other words just about everything right the first time. Apart from Hitler being such a brilliant strategist (*cough, cough*) I don't think anyone had ever done everything right in a war. It can be argued that if you did everything right there wouldn't be a war. Both Hitler and the Allies made mistakes, but the allies had more margin for error than Hitler did.
 
Win? The easiest way is to change the win conditions.

As the percolations of the commissar order, General Plan Ost, and the Wansee conference consensus are worked through during 1942 the SS leadership come to a shockingly intelligent conclusion: the war for lebensraum is unmistakedly lost and, thus, under the constellation of racialist conceptions the German "race" is doomed for extinction. A new conception of winning the war develops: the most efficient liquidation of racial others possible in the time remaining.

Stalingrad allows the SS leadership to transmit this conception of the purpose of the war to the party leadership. The Wehrmacht, Junkers and Syndicats are dragged along for the ride. Beneath the wheels of their chariots are ground in numbers of such monstrosity Central Europeans in particular.

Feel free to add starvation, actions, camps, death marches and chemical and biological warfare against civil populations as horrifically inappropriate.

Yours,
Sam R.
 
How about shoot the entire criminal leadership who are in Berlin in January 1939 for their active subversion of the Weimar Constitution and after the army restores order and arrests everybody of that criminal conspiracy against the world peace, who needs to be jailed or shot (or both), hold free and "democratic" elections? You know before 1 September 1939 rolls around?
 

Marc

Donor
A proposal: that any thread that starts with the question/proposition of how to get Nazi's to win is de facto considered dog whistling, unless the conversation explicitly and regularly includes the notion that it about having unadulterated evil prevail
I'd throw in the additional stipulation of prefacing with an explanation as to why one really wants to explore this scenario, and the thin excuse of "war gaming" that's all, doesn't cut it.
But heck, that's me - someone who knew people that had their identification tattoos...
 
How about shoot the entire criminal leadership who are in Berlin in January 1939 for their active subversion of the Weimar Constitution and after the army restores order and arrests everybody of that criminal conspiracy against the world peace, who needs to be jailed or shot (or both), hold free and "democratic" elections? You know before 1 September 1939 rolls around?
That would require that the army wasn't an active, willing, and eager participant and ally of the Nazi regime, which it was. You can't have the army remove the Nazi government, because the army is PART of the Nazi government. The officers aren't going to order themselves shot, and the individual soldiers will not shoot themselves.
 
That would require that the army wasn't an active, willing, and eager participant and ally of the Nazi regime, which it was. You can't have the army remove the Nazi government, because the army is PART of the Nazi government. The officers aren't going to order themselves shot, and the individual soldiers will not shoot themselves.

I wondered how long it would take someone to figure that contradiction posited out. Congratulations!
 
How about shoot the entire criminal leadership who are in Berlin in January 1939 for their active subversion of the Weimar Constitution and after the army restores order and arrests everybody of that criminal conspiracy against the world peace, who needs to be jailed or shot (or both), hold free and "democratic" elections? You know before 1 September 1939 rolls around?

What if the KPD, SPD and KAPD just managed to get along and smash fascism? As unlikely as it sounds, implausible is more plausible than impossible.
 
What if the KPD, SPD and KAPD just managed to get along and smash fascism? As unlikely as it sounds, implausible is more plausible than impossible.

Seriously, I was having a funny moment, because this is an ASB kind of thread at best and the kind of thread where a posited ATL quickly breaks down into something like the unmentionable sea mammal.

I was just having fun. In any plausible ATL, the Germans need to wake up from a plethora of delusions to make any kind of German "victory" plausible and that all must happen before 1933. At least that is my opinion. Your mileage most certainly can vary.
 
I'd say Germany had no chance at lasting victory. Their best hope would have been to secure their (extremely unlikely) victories in Europe and Russia immediately before developing sufficient WMDs, but even then, the nature of the regime means it would have collapsed within a couple decades at most. And I daresay Europe would have been a wasteland.
 
A proposal: that any thread that starts with the question/proposition of how to get Nazi's to win is de facto considered dog whistling, unless the conversation explicitly and regularly includes the notion that it about having unadulterated evil prevail
I'd throw in the additional stipulation of prefacing with an explanation as to why one really wants to explore this scenario, and the thin excuse of "war gaming" that's all, doesn't cut it.
But heck, that's me - someone who knew people that had their identification tattoos...
Meh, this is guilty before proven innocent. Why do you need to mention how the Nazis are evil(which they are) when you don't need to? If you are talking about partisans you need to talk about war crimes, or if you are doing a Nazi wins timeline, you need to talk about the holocaust, that's understandable but how is not mentioning it when making a AHC a "De facto dog whistle"? And do you need a reason to want to see a Nazi Victory? Why can't curiosity be a good enough reason (There is more than genocide that would make it interesting.)? If a Nazi wanted to see a tl glorifying genocide (which is banned here) then they would go somewhere else.
 
A proposal: that any thread that starts with the question/proposition of how to get Nazi's to win is de facto considered dog whistling, unless the conversation explicitly and regularly includes the notion that it about having unadulterated evil prevail
I'd throw in the additional stipulation of prefacing with an explanation as to why one really wants to explore this scenario, and the thin excuse of "war gaming" that's all, doesn't cut it.
But heck, that's me - someone who knew people that had their identification tattoos...

We have TONS of timelines here where Team Evil does well, and it's generally just assumed that everyone recognizes they are Team Evil. As long as said timeline isn't presenting itself as a positive change, why censor things? If such topics bother you so, just don't enter them.
 
Top