You only need overwhelming advantage if you want to enforce the other's surrender. If your goal is to fight the invading power to a standstill, enforce a bloody stalemate and then negotiate, such advantage is not really needed. After all USA had an overwhelming advantage over North Korea and China in Korea war, over Vietnam in 1970s etc...
Quite true. Especially against a non-genocidal Axis, to assume an infinite Anglo-American will to fight is Alliedwank.
In many cases they would have access but didn't know that they had. The uranium ore in Saxonia for example, or the second largest tungsten deposit in Austria, were only found after the war.
Hmm, if the Germans and Italians start a major atomic project, wouldn't they also get more determined with seeking out uranium in Europe ? Or alternatively, with former CP Italy in the Axis from the start, we have to assume a different rearmament pattern (e.g. they would have to go for innovative naval tactics, and build an AC-focused and amphibious-focused KM and RM), and an earlier Anschluss. This may butterfly an earlier discovery of such resources.
An A-bomb is (with our OTL knowledge) is very useful as a blackmail weapon. Besides, building A-bombs has been CHEAPER than building up conventional army strength (or was at least since 1950s)
Yep.
Suppose A-bombs are used against the landing troops on Normandy beaches. The landing forces are not destroyed completely but are severely damaged. Normandy turns out to be another, larger Dieppe. Do you think the Allies would be ready for round three right away, especially against a non-genocidal axis (which would also necessarily have completely different war goals)? Or would American forces partly retire across Atlantic, partly fortify UK and swear revenge "some time in the future"? Because in the latter case, if the Axis leadership is sane enough to consolidate their gains and not try to bite off more than they can chew, the "revenge promise" will be kept up for a generation until it simply loses it's meaning for the allies' population.
We would then probably still see some kind of rematch a generation later but it will be a completely different war.
Quite true as well. OTOH, a Hot War rematch against a victorious Axis in the 1960s is deep-end ASB. The Germans and Italians would have plenty of ICBMs, intercontinental bombers, and thousands of thermonuclear warheads by then. A Cold War is the only rational strategy.
Of course, an Axis that is not wasting its resources in the Mother of All Genocides in Russia (in all likelihood, they would still strive to Germanize/Italianize Czechia, western Poland, Albania, Slovenia, Dalmatia, and North Africa, but that's small potatoes as resources go in comparison) and is not crapping its education system with racist theories might face a Cold War challenge rather more balanced than it was for the Soviet bloc. Although as the example of Spain and Portugal shows, fascist regimes are still quite exposed to collapse in the long term.