Allied victory if Russia falls in WW 2

PS... one atom bomb on Ploesti. Then hit Baku. Then start with the LW airfields, no pilots, no fields, no oil, no defense at all. It may cost 100 B29s. in decoys and feints to scatter the defense and achieve the outcomes. Result? Look upthread at the cataclysmic costs and implications. Atomic bombs are an absolutely horrific political order of magnitude difference in the war-crimes calculus involved. It is also an almost impossible defense problem because even if only 25% of the missions reach objectives, the damage inflicted and the results are enough to force capitulation by any sane polity. Even Nazis, be damned as they are for prolonging a war beyond any reason after 1943; they will QUIT.
Besides the utter lunacy of nuking other/occupied countries there are several wrong points in this scenario:

1. OTL in the late 40´s or early 50´s the US estimated that it would take 400 nukes to defeat the USSR, ATL the number for Germany would be probably 300. Which was the stockpile of US nukes by 1950. By which time the war would have been over since half a decade.

2. It will be the Wallies prolonging the war beyond any reason after 1943, pretty much everyone else will see the fact that the war is over with the defeat of the USSR. Or with the defeat of Japan at the latest.

3. The US produced just 65 B-29´s capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, only 32 were operational at the start of 1948. In order to handle the weight of an atomic weapon, these aircraft had no gun turents or plating armour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

So these aircraft are flying targets, against an ATL German AA defence system much much stronger than OTL, against more developed German aircraft than OTL and there are far to few of these aircraft anyways. And then there is the fact that if the US uses the Nuke, the Germans will react with chemical and biological weapons against the UK, so the UK will be against the use of the weapon. Meanwhile the Wallies are running out of manpower, because of R4M, twin fuse ect their aircraft losses are beyond sustainable and Allied populations will demand some sort of peace or a Cold War instead of a hot one.
 
Last edited:
Besides the utter lunacy of nuking other/occupied countries there are several wrong points in this scenario:

1. OTL in the late 40´s or early 50´s the US estimated that it would take 400 nukes to defeat the USSR, ATL the number for Germany would be probably 300. Which was the stockpile of US nukes by 1950. By which time the war would have been over since half a decade.

2. It will be the Wallies prolonging the war beyond any reason after 1943, pretty much everyone else will see the fact that the war is over with the defeat of the USSR. Or with the defeat of Japan at the latest.

3. The US produced just 65 B-29´s capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, only 32 were operational at the start of 1948. In order to handle the weight of an atomic weapon, these aircraft had no gun turents or plating armour: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverplate

So these aircraft are flying targets, against an ATL German AA defence system much much stronger than OTL, against more developed German aircraft than OTL and there are far to few of these aircraft anyways. And then there is the fact that if the US uses the Nuke, the Germans will react with chemical and biological weapons against the UK, so the UK will be against the use of the weapon. Meanwhile the Wallies are running out of manpower, because of R4M, twin fuse ect their aircraft losses are beyond sustainable and Allied populations will demand some sort of peace or a Cold War instead of a hot one.

1, The USSR is a MUCH bigger, more spread out target set. Germany is only the size of California. Size and dispersion matters. Also the USAF followed a bounce the rubble targeting profile.
2. The Wallies will never trust any conceivable German regime that is not prodded into compliance by allied bayonets after 1940. The war will be fought to the knife. This is a given. If you do not understand this one, I refer you to FDR who set the conditions at Casablanca.
3. The US produced 4,000 B-29s. they only modified 65 Silverplate specials because that was the deterrent they thought they needed postwar. They COULD modify thousands. It was a rather simple bomb shackle mod to a standard B-29.
4. German FLAK has a slant range limit, can be flattened by bombing (It was on several occasions in special missions. Suppression of enemy air defense was a Wally invented tactic in WWII.) and there is the fact that the US WILL start population killing the moment the Germans try chemical warfare and attack hostage populations they control via such means as some idiotic attempt to counter nuclear strikes on military targets. All bets and brakes were off if some absolute lunatic decided that was the evil way to go The Americans were planning to deal tit for tat if the Japanese tried it as a military posture, and do not kid yourself. The Americans were in a better position technologically and geographically for such a war of absolute annihilation than the Germans. I cannot even conceive of such absolutely senseless and evil lunacy as being something even a Nazi would risk. Haven't you read how awful and lunatic I think strictly limited nuclear weapon release on 'military targets" is? What do you think happens if the Germans try to gas a British city? I'll tell you.

-anthrax (You can bet the RAF will be dropping it.)
-the Ruhr is atom bombed not just to drop bridges and blow apart dams but population centers will be deliberately centered as the zero points. And don't kid yourself about "stone and steel" German cities will shelter the population from blast and radiation. Now we are talking real mass murder, and despicable unwarranted and unnecessary and evil war crimes being executed for no sane reason at all: for I think revenge is utter nonsense, but try telling the relatives and survivors of a German gassing attack that one. They will be out for blood.
===============================================================

The reason Hiroshima and Nagaski were such small casualty events per bomb was because of the fact that the aim points were missed and those were single bomb events. What happens in the event when rubble bouncing happens? Two bombs per target?

Just to be clear... about this absolute horrific and nonsensical fantasy hypothesized. Not even the Berlin Maniac, that crazed madman and racist criminal, who believed that he was part of some master race and who should have been stopped early by any legal means necessary when he wrote his genocidal intentions in a book, was prepared to go that far in war, because he knew that Germany could not play that game at all. Her enemies would spare nothing in retaliation.
 
Hitler had nothing to lose IOTL 1945 (especially once the Red Army was turning Berlin to rubble) and still didn’t order the use of chemical weapons even after numerous cities were firebombed so I don’t know why he would order chemical attacks on the WAllies in the event of a Soviet collapse. Sending thousands of old men and children to die pointless deaths wasn’t an issue but for whatever reason the use of chemical weapons was.

I can imagine Himmler, Bormann or Goebbels ordering WMDs to be used but the historical record shows that Hitler most likely wouldn’t (which is surprising considering how bloodthirsty he was and the fact that IOTL he stated that if the German people are unable to win the war then they deserve to perish).
 
Last edited:
1, The USSR is a MUCH bigger, more spread out target set. Germany is only the size of California. Size and dispersion matters. Also the USAF followed a bounce the rubble targeting profile.
2. The Wallies will never trust any conceivable German regime that is not prodded into compliance by allied bayonets after 1940. The war will be fought to the knife. This is a given. If you do not understand this one, I refer you to FDR who set the conditions at Casablanca.
3. The US produced 4,000 B-29s. they only modified 65 Silverplate specials because that was the deterrent they thought they needed postwar. They COULD modify thousands. It was a rather simple bomb shackle mod to a standard B-29.
4. German FLAK has a slant range limit, can be flattened by bombing (It was on several occasions in special missions. Suppression of enemy air defense was a Wally invented tactic in WWII.) and there is the fact that the US WILL start population killing the moment the Germans try chemical warfare and attack hostage populations they control via such means as some idiotic attempt to counter nuclear strikes on military targets. All bets and brakes were off if some absolute lunatic decided that was the evil way to go The Americans were planning to deal tit for tat if the Japanese tried it as a military posture, and do not kid yourself. The Americans were in a better position technologically and geographically for such a war of absolute annihilation than the Germans. I cannot even conceive of such absolutely senseless and evil lunacy as being something even a Nazi would risk. Haven't you read how awful and lunatic I think strictly limited nuclear weapon release on 'military targets" is? What do you think happens if the Germans try to gas a British city? I'll tell you.

-anthrax (You can bet the RAF will be dropping it.)
-the Ruhr is atom bombed not just to drop bridges and blow apart dams but population centers will be deliberately centered as the zero points. And don't kid yourself about "stone and steel" German cities will shelter the population from blast and radiation. Now we are talking real mass murder, and despicable unwarranted and unnecessary and evil war crimes being executed for no sane reason at all: for I think revenge is utter nonsense, but try telling the relatives and survivors of a German gassing attack that one. They will be out for blood.
===============================================================

The reason Hiroshima and Nagaski were such small casualty events per bomb was because of the fact that the aim points were missed and those were single bomb events. What happens in the event when rubble bouncing happens? Two bombs per target?

Just to be clear... about this absolute horrific and nonsensical fantasy hypothesized. Not even the Berlin Maniac, that crazed madman and racist criminal, who believed that he was part of some master race and who should have been stopped early by any legal means necessary when he wrote his genocidal intentions in a book, was prepared to go that far in war, because he knew that Germany could not play that game at all. Her enemies would spare nothing in retaliation.
1. The number of cities/production centers is important, not the size of the country.
2. FDR is dead by April 45, giving Truman the opportunity to conduct realpolitics
3. So thats thousands of defensless targets which can be shot down easily then
4. Wallied wet dream fantasy

Just to be clear... about this absolute horrific and nonsensical fantasy hypothesized. Not even the Berlin Maniac, that crazed madman and racist criminal, who believed that he was part of some master race and who should have been stopped early by any legal means necessary when he wrote his genocidal intentions in a book, was prepared to go that far in war, because he knew that Germany could not play that game at all. Her enemies would spare nothing in retaliation.
So the Wallies are mentally ill psychopaths, willing to use WMD to destroy an entire continent, killing some 50 Million+ people instead of negotiating/accepting a Cold War? This would be pure evil, eclipsing even Adolf and guaranteeing them the hate of Europe/the World for generations to come. Ignoring the technical aspects, like if they even could do this against German AA, the moral aspect of this is beyond ugly.
 
Ekaterinberg, Tyumen, Chelyabinsk and Nizhny Tagil are east of the watershed.
80% of Oil, 90% of Coal, and 50% of Lend Lease aren't, however, and that means the productive capacity of the cities on that basis is non-existent. Even leaving that aside, there just isn't any manpower to staff said factories and continue to support organized armies of note. Soviet manpower reports in 1942 to Stalin directly show:

I. Available by the start of the war:
a) reservists of 1890-1921 classes (as of 1.01.41) - 20 230 800
b) officers of reserve 893 200
c) enlisted men in the peace-time army 3 679 200
d) officers of the peace-time army 554 200
e) recruits of 1922-23 classes - 2 118 600
f) -------1924-25 - 1 450 000
g) men reserved for employment in industry - 2 781 000
Total 31 500 0000 men or about 16,4% of the entire population according to Tschadenko

II. used for the armed forces by 1.09.42 - 18 069 000, including:
a) on active service in the army, navy, NKVD forces - 11 055 700
b) in hospitals - 766 000
c) discharged due to unfitness - 1 115 000
d) died of wounds in hospitals - 177 000
e) killed and missing in action - 4 920 300

III. Other usage and losses:
a) men not subject to initial mobilization and lost with the occupied territory - 5 631 000, including:
- classes of 1890-1904 - 3 628 000
- men without military training - 822 000
- men from Moldavia and Baltic republics - 668 000
- classes of 1923-24 - 513 000
b) exempt from military service due to national affiliation (Germans, Romanians etc) - 250 000
c) planned transfers to the armed forces in September and later according to the GKO decree No.2100 - 1 380 000 (of them 880 thousands newly conscripted and 500 thousands relieved from the navy and auxiliary forces)
Total used up 1 September 1942 - 24 830 000 men

IV. Remaining unused resources:
a) reserved for employment in the civil economy - 2 781 000
b) in labor columns - 1 321 000
c) recruits born in 1925 - 700 000
d) non-conscripted men fully fit for service in the Central Asian Military District - 600 000
e) non-conscripted men with limited fitness or in the age above 45 (without Far-East and Transcaucasus) - 500 000 (of them 277 000 in the Central Asia)
f) non-conscripted men in the Far East, Trasnbaikal and Transcaucasus Fronts 505 000 (including 200 000 with limited fitness and 200 000 in age above 45).

g) officers of reserve, not conscripted yet - 156 000
h) expected convalescents from hospitals in 3 nearest months - 350 000
i) in the penitentiary system - 1 156 000 men in age from 17 to 45.
 
The map actually illustrates WHY the B-29 is a Germany killer.

a. Just where do the Germans get the RAIL capacity to move those factories?
The same railways they used to move troops and equipment east in mass IOTL, such as how, as Wiking noted, the Germans were building industry in Poland.

b. With a lot of Germans doing occupation duties, where is the manpower?
The same manpower that IOTL staffed the factories anyway and ran the railways? Or, if you wish, the 1-1.5 Million demobilized troops from the Ostheer? Or the tens of millions of new slave laborers?

c. What about worker relocation?
OTL?

d. AND with this mythical factory relocation how are the now screwed up industrial resources supply lines to be handled? REMEMBER! The Germans were being bombed in the real world war and they did NOT relocate critical war factories beyond B-17 and Lancaster range when they had the opportunity, because the supply disruptions to their existent war effort was judged to be too severe.
Except they were to a certain extent and beyond that didn't have the opportunity? Again, as Wiking noted they were working on building massive industrial enterprises throughout the war in Poland but, as he likewise noted, they didn't have enough time to finish such before the Red Army overran Poland.

Also note that German Flak and German fighters which had altitude advantage on the British and American bombers of the era, did not stop those bombers at all. The allies were willing to accept 5% losses suffered in conventional bombing per city raid and 25% losses in critical special missions. Atomic bomb missions would be critical missions. Heavy losses of 50% to successfully deliver atomic weapons in the 1970s were accepted as necessary during the Cold War by the USAF with bombers flying against the Russians; bombers without fighter protection at all. WWII? Don't make me laugh.
Would come as a hell of a shock to the US 8th Air Force, given they had a six month bombing halt from late 1943 to early 1944 based on unsustainable losses taken while attacking the ball bearing industry.

Actually as General Groves points out above in his declarations, if you actually look at all of it, NIGHT ATTACKS using atomics and RAF intrusion methods as the USAAF would later use against Japan would have negated the LW defense schemes. British planes, British methods and American bombs, meaning bomber streams at night using Lancasters. If someone counters with B-29 raids in Korea versus Russian jets, that was a predictable axis of attack profile and DAYLIGHT mid-altitude band battlefield Interdiction mission profiles which was so utterly stupid on so many levels that it is still damned as a misuse lesson of that weapon and means in airpower circles.
Quite frankly, you didn't bother to read what General Groves said:

"The alternative would be to bring a large number of B-29’s over to to England and that would have been a major logistical task and the other possibility would have been to have used a British plane which would not have been a bit pleasing to General Arnold and also would have created a great many difficulties for our general operation because then it would be an Allied operation with the United States furnishing the bombs and everything connected with it but using a British plane and a British crew to actually drop the bomb and it would have raised a tremendous number of difficulties.

And difficulties like that — while you say you should be able to handle that — you can but in a project of this character there are so many little things, each one of them key, that you can’t afford to throw any more sand into the wheels that you can help."

But... that was fighters and they never achieved it. Plus, after the pilot cadres are killed, what use are all those airframes? Hmm? RTL lessons learned? Atomic bombs on LW bases. No LW. Kill the air force FIRST, the rest follows EASY.
...Except here they have the fuel to maintain training standards, given their control of the USSR. Further, as others have pointed out, atomic production is not there and would not be there until the 1950s for such tactical uses.
 
a. Just where do the Germans get the RAIL capacity to move those factories?
b. With a lot of Germans doing occupation duties, where is the manpower?
c. What about worker relocation?
d. AND with this mythical factory relocation how are the now screwed up industrial resources supply lines to be handled? REMEMBER! The Germans were being bombed in the real world war and they did NOT relocate critical war factories beyond B-17 and Lancaster range when they had the opportunity, because the supply disruptions to their existent war effort was judged to be too severe.
the logical path would be to capture Leningrad and have unimpeded use of the Baltic for transportation? know the KM at least schemed to use the shipyard(s) historically.
 
80% of Oil, 90% of Coal, and 50% of Lend Lease aren't, however, and that means the productive capacity of the cities on that basis is non-existent.
Source for the figures?
East of the Urals also includes Kemerovo which has been mining coal since 1907, and potential oil reserves. Archanglsk-Astrakhan line leaves the Soviet Union with oil facilities in production.
 
Source for the figures?
East of the Urals also includes Kemerovo which has been mining coal since 1907, and potential oil reserves. Archanglsk-Astrakhan line leaves the Soviet Union with oil facilities in production.
For Coal:


The loss of the Ukraine and other occupied areas had already engendered shortages of coal (The Donbass was home to roughly 60% of Soviet output by itself), aluminum (Main Soviet facility was along the Dnieper, about 60-80% of production), iron ore (60% of production), steel (50% of production), electric power (30% of output), manganese ore (30% of production), and nickel (30% of production). Overall output of the machinery and metal goods sector had fallen by 40%. In addition, the USSR was also unable to meet the demand for copper, tin, zinc, lead, aluminum, and nickel with remaining sources; Lend Lease was sufficient to meet all of these demands except for aluminum and nickel. Antimony, tungsten, cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, tin, and magnesium were also almost entirely lacking.

As for Oil:

"Four out of five Soviet aircraft, tanks and trucks used in World War II ran on fuel produced in Baku refineries from oil extracted in the Baku oil fields. From the start of Operation Barbarossa, when German troops invaded the USSR in June 1941, until the end of the war, Azerbaijan produced 75 million tonnes of crude oil, 80% of the union’s petrol, 90% of its naphtha and 96% of its lubricants."​
I do not have a citation handy for it, buth Maikop and Grozny together produced another 10-15% of the Soviet oil supply. Even with the Archanglsk-Astrakhan line, that's 80-95% of the USSR's oil supply.
 
the logical path would be to capture Leningrad and have unimpeded use of the Baltic for transportation? know the KM at least schemed to use the shipyard(s) historically.
Like the Italians and Rommel, not enough sea lift. Those hulls do not magically appear and neither does port capacity. Otherwise Army group north would RTL have been supplied mostly by sea instead of by rail, truck and horse, since shipping is 4x as efficient as land transport.

"Four out of five Soviet aircraft, tanks and trucks used in World War II ran on fuel produced in Baku refineries from oil extracted in the Baku oil fields. From the start of Operation Barbarossa, when German troops invaded the USSR in June 1941, until the end of the war, Azerbaijan produced 75 million tonnes of crude oil, 80% of the union’s petrol, 90% of its naphtha and 96% of its lubricants."
Try putting refined Baku diesel and av-gas oil into a SHIPS'S power plant. Light sweet crude diffracted is not heavy marine oil. Might have worked on submarines Mann diesels just fine though.' Result of wrong kind of fuel in a WWI or II type marine steam turbine plant? Ask the Japanese. They tried the stunt with Indonesian crude and burned out half the boilers in their fleet. SULFUR. Steel piping hates it.

So the Wallies are mentally ill psychopaths, willing to use WMD to destroy an entire continent, killing some 50 Million+ people instead of negotiating/accepting a Cold War? This would be pure evil, eclipsing even Adolf and guaranteeing them the hate of Europe/the World for generations to come. Ignoring the technical aspects, like if they even could do this against German AA, the moral aspect of this is beyond ugly.
The Americans USED atomic bombs. Kind of makes your argument moot. Whether Truman, who gave the order, was psychotic is a debate I leave for others, but he seems to have reasoned, that the use would be such a horror even to the Tokyo regime, that they would quit and it would save millions of lives in the long run. Turns out Operation August, having ended any chance of holding on to Manchukuo or even Korea for the Tokyo criminals in any sort of "negotiated" settlement was what actually convinced Hirohito. Whether HE was a psychotic or an ordinary war criminal for allowing the Tokyo militarist regime to do what war crimes they did I also leave for others, but I tell you personally, I would have at least jailed him awhile to let him know that we knew what he actually was (MOO). The calculus for how many Japanese would have died conventionally if no atom bombs and IN SPITE of Operation August is also a factor to be considered? We have estimates. 5-10 million is the accepted range of murders by blockade and aerial bombardment if PLAN ORANGE had been executed to the knife. About the same for DOWNFALL. Pick your war crime and live with the end result. When you as the prosecutor of a just war have ORANGE, DOWNFALL or MANHATTAN as options to finish that war, it kind of SUCKS.

Would come as a hell of a shock to the US 8th Air Force, given they had a six month bombing halt from late 1943 to early 1944 based on unsustainable losses taken while attacking the ball bearing industry.
And came right back at the LW and killed it, a point one must remember. At least the Americans thought about it and figured it out.

Actually as General Groves points out above in his declarations, if you actually look at all of it, NIGHT ATTACKS using atomics and RAF intrusion methods as the USAAF would later use against Japan would have negated the LW defense schemes. British planes, British methods and American bombs, meaning bomber streams at night using Lancasters. If someone counters with B-29 raids in Korea versus Russian jets, that was a predictable axis of attack profile and DAYLIGHT mid-altitude band battlefield Interdiction mission profiles which was so utterly stupid on so many levels that it is still damned as a misuse lesson of that weapon and means in airpower circles.
Quite frankly, you didn't bother to read what General Groves said:
Not true as I told you what you missed. He even said further HAP Arnold would politically object to the reason for allowing British bombers to conduct the strikes the British way, NOT that it was undoable technically. So I suggest one might go back and read the entire quote again and not cherry pick out a small part of it out of context.
 

Attachments

And came right back at the LW and killed it, a point one must remember. At least the Americans thought about it and figured it out.
Over the course of 1944, yes, but that wasn't your original contention; your claim was that the Luftwaffe was never able to enforce a bomber halt, which is patently untrue. Further, no is denying that the U.S. didn't eventually overpower the LW IOTL, but rather we are pointing out the literature that shows how utterly different the strategic situation is going to be here in this ATL. As Adam Tooze outlines, we're talking about a LW that is several times bigger than OTL and operating at a much better industrial footing.

Not true as I told you what you missed. He even said further HAP Arnold would politically object to the reason for allowing British bombers to conduct the strikes the British way, NOT that it was undoable technically. So I suggest one might go back and read the entire quote again and not cherry pick out a small part of it out of context.
Given I just cited the paragraph in question, with bolding no less, I think this is a case of you only wanting to see what you want to see and ignoring the overwhelming majority which emphatically does not state what you want it to. Beyond Groves outlining the political issues with Hap, in the space of one paragraph he says three times it would be difficult and forcing such a thing could cause disaster. I'm not sure how one can take that and believe it supports their position decisively. Could it be done? Yes, but Groves is very insistent on the technical, logistical, political, etc difficulties that preclude for the most part.
 
the logical path would be to capture Leningrad and have unimpeded use of the Baltic for transportation? know the KM at least schemed to use the shipyard(s) historically.
Like the Italians and Rommel, not enough sea lift. Those hulls do not magically appear and neither does port capacity. Otherwise Army group north would RTL have been supplied mostly by sea instead of by rail, truck and horse, since shipping is 4x as efficient as land transport.
AGN never captured Leningrad and moving supplies via the Baltic faced ongoing Soviet submarine operations. also my point was to the relocation of factories, by implication was suggesting any relocation would/could be clustered around the Baltic.

not judging how successful that would be or how it would ultimately affect the German war effort, just that it is the most viable option to add or relocate factories.
 
Against a foe allready defeated and just 2, killing less than 200 000. Not against a continental empire at the height of its power and 30+ killing 20+ Million
DOWNFALL would have resulted in 250,000 American dead at least. There is a good chance the Berlin regime would quit just as the Japanese did once they realized the "rain of ruin"; as Truman put, it was a certainty and their "conquests" (Russians are coming or in the Germans' case the Wallies) were no longer viable. The Germans were not THAT STUPID. Even a Himmler or a Goebbels cannot stop their underlings from killing them and suing for peace on any terms that allows for a chance of personal survival. (As Hirohito personally did through his ministers, I might sarcastically add.)
 
Given I just cited the paragraph in question, with bolding no less, I think this is a case of you only wanting to see what you want to see and ignoring the overwhelming majority which emphatically does not state what you want it to. Beyond Groves outlining the political issues with Hap, in the space of one paragraph he says three times it would be difficult and forcing such a thing could cause disaster. I'm not sure how one can take that and believe it supports their position decisively. Could it be done? Yes, but Groves is very insistent on the technical, logistical, political, etc difficulties that preclude for the most part.
Given that you omitted the RAF option Groves stated and why Groves said it was politically non-viable, I reject such cherry picking of facts in evidence as being viable at all. Not going to circle jerk this argument. Agree to disagree and let each person make up his own mind. ENDIT.
 
DOWNFALL would have resulted in 250,000 American dead at least.
Such were the projections. And?

There is a good chance the Berlin regime would quit just as the Japanese did once they realized the "rain of ruin"; as Truman put, it was a certainty and their "conquests" (Russians are coming or in the Germans' case the Wallies) were no longer viable.
There is a good chance the Wallies would quit once they realize that their losses would go into the millions and that their air campaign cannot win the war by itself. The British were not THAT STUPID. Even Churchill cannot stop his underlings from removing him from power and suing for peace.
 
Last edited:
Such were the projections. And?
Why send infantry to die when a bomb does the job you needed done? I will explain why that was a special case in 1945 in a moment.

There is a good chance the Berlin regime would quit just as the Japanese did once they realized the "rain of ruin"; as Truman put, it was a certainty and their "conquests" (Russians are coming or in the Germans' case the Wallies) were no longer viable.
There is a good chance the Wallies would quit once they realize that their losses would go into the millions and that their air campaign cannot win the war by itself. The British were not THAT STUPID. Even Churchill cannot stop his underlings from removing him from power and suing for peace.
Atomic bombs are a magnitude of order game changer since WWII. Evidence? Up until now, we have had no more world wars because such wars today would be horrific with atomic weapons and it is generally agreed among many sane people and even the insane ones (North Korea's head of state.) that atomic warfare instigated is not only a war crime, but is not even a viable military option for any reason at all, except as a means to commit suicide and mass murder to no purpose. Think about some of the other reasons why a NUCLEAR monopoly in 1945 means the Wallies win hands down.
 
Last edited:
AGN never captured Leningrad and moving supplies via the Baltic faced ongoing Soviet submarine operations. also my point was to the relocation of factories, by implication was suggesting any relocation would/could be clustered around the Baltic.

not judging how successful that would be or how it would ultimately affect the German war effort, just that it is the most viable option to add or relocate factories.
Though the Leningrad option would probably be one of the best things Germany could do to maim the USSR, there really wasn't a point to building industry around the Baltic areas, because of the lack of resources making it worthwhile. IIRC Tihkvin around Leningrad did have some bauxite, which was the precursor to aluminium, but there were much more plentiful and closer resources in France and Italy and IIRC the Balkans.
The area where it might have made sense as Ukraine, but that was also way too far to really make sense; what the Germans more needed was resource extraction and some basic refining and finishing of those materials to make it more economical to either ship via the Black Sea to the Danube and on to Germany that way or rail it back to German industries, much the same way the British realized that to rationalize their shipping to maximize useful materials per ship in the Atlantic.

Poland was far enough away to be largely safe from bombing until the Allies could get bases on the continent.
 
Given that you omitted the RAF option Groves stated and why Groves said it was politically non-viable, I reject such cherry picking of facts in evidence as being viable at all. Not going to circle jerk this argument. Agree to disagree and let each person make up his own mind. ENDIT.
I literally quoted the section, and bolded where Groves said it was a bad idea. Let's not make up accusations, shall we?
 
Top