Hitler visits the front and eats an artillery shell, July 1941

If the USA are not in a war with Germany, surely they are not going to bomb it. And the likelihood that either rump USSR or Britain on their own efforts can develop the Bomb before victorious Nazi Europe is abysmally low.


Britain? Ever heard of Tube Alloys? And the USA not being in a war with Hitler does not mean that Roosevelt is going to ignore German Europe. Probably the US and UK will cooperate on developing nuclear weapons, if not as fast as OTL's Manahttan Project. And the Germans have little incentive to push hard for an atom bomb of their own, having won: their project OTL was pretty crappy and on the cheap as it was.

Stalin was willing to accept Brest-Litovsk borders in Summer 1942, and since Goering basically was a neo-Wilhelmine imperialist and not a Lebenstraum fanatic, he would gladly grasp that kind of peace.


True he's not the Lebenstraum fanatic Hitler was, (although he was involved rather closely in the planning for the genocidal occupation: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goering's_Green_Folder ) but I suspect he'd much rather have a compliant puppet in power in Moscow rather than Red Dictator Stalin. (And I'm dubious that S. saw this as a long-term settlement rather than trying to get a armistice to stop further losses and build up his forces. Ceding territory that the enemy already holds is bad for morale, but doesn't reduce the actual forces you have available)

After the BL-II peace, bringing Britain Stands Woefully Alone to the negotiation table would be rather easy. Turkey would give military access to the Axis and from Anatolia, the Wehrmacht could easily sweep the Middle East, bringing down Churchill.

Not so woefully alone with Roosevelt in power until the end of 1944. Turkey is unlikely to allow the Reich onto its soil short of gunpoint, and everytime this scenario comes up, people point out the transportation links through the mountains of east Turkey were horribly bad, the conversation stalls out, and two weeks later, the argument is forgotten, and someone else says "Well, the Wehrmacht could invade through Turkey..." Anyhoo, "brought to the negociation table" does not mean "becomes a German puppet" or "gives up any notion of fighting the Germans again" or "stops atomic research").

Possibly you don't understand me: I don't mean nuke Germany in the war which stalls out in '42: I mean in the _next_ one, which breaks out in, say, '47 or '49. (What, you think Goering and co. are going to stop pushing and bullying?)

I wonder what happens in the Pacific? Hitler or no Hitler, the Japanese probably still move into SE Asia, the US probably still puts up an embargo, and the Japanese probably still "run rampant". The UK is no worse off than OTL in '42, the US is going full-bore vs the Japanese, and the Japanese are going to be far too busy afore long to try anything vs. India. One wonders if Germany's "allies" even get a mention at the German-British negociations: does anyone know what Goering thought of the Japanese?


Bruce
 
Is the intent just to have Hitler die cause this is a bizarre scenario.

He's a cowardly shit more likely to have him slip in the shower or get run over by a bicycle.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Britain? Ever heard of Tube Alloys?

Yeah, and when the British did develop their own nuke in OTL ? In 1952.

And the USA not being in a war with Hitler does not mean that Roosevelt is going to ignore German Europe. Probably the US and UK will cooperate on developing nuclear weapons, if not as fast as OTL's Manahttan Project.

Which means the British nuke gets delayed even further than 1952 ITTL. Mid-Late 50s at the earliest.

And the Germans have little incentive to push hard for an atom bomb of their own,

It depends on whether the USA still go to war with Japan and nuke it ITTL. If so, Nazi Empire shall start a crash nuclear program the day after Hiroshima, and their scientists shall know their earlier efforts went the wrong way.

but I suspect he'd much rather have a compliant puppet in power in Moscow rather than Red Dictator Stalin.

He was also a moderate imperialist that didn't want war with Britain or Barbarossa to gain a Lebenstraum playground in the first place, so I can totally see him grasping the opportunity for a Brest-Litovsk peace and a nice fascist vassal Ukraine once he is in charge and gets it.

(And I'm dubious that S. saw this as a long-term settlement rather than trying to get a armistice to stop further losses and build up his forces.

Nazi Empire shall play the rebuild card after the armistice, too. I simply can't see 1992-like Russia ever pulling a successful invasion of Nazi Empire which controls continental Europe, Baltics, Bielorussia, and Ukraine, and only has to deal with Britain for a year or so. The resource differential would be too much against Russia. The second war would simply spell a quick Nazi conterattack and the conquest of European Russia this time.

Not so woefully alone with Roosevelt in power until the end of 1944.

Land-Lease can bring Britain only so far against the pooled resources of continental Europe plus Ukraine.

Turkey is unlikely to allow the Reich onto its soil short of gunpoint,

If you were Inonu in this scenario, would you prefer outright Axis invasion to peaceful military access ? I wouldn't.

and everytime this scenario comes up, people point out the transportation links through the mountains of east Turkey were horribly bad,

Moving troops alongside the Western and southern coast of Anatolia to Syria isn't that bad.

Anyhoo, "brought to the negociation table" does not mean "becomes a German puppet"

But it easily means "we acknowledge your continental hegemony and pleadge to mind our own Imperial business".

or "gives up any notion of fighting the Germans again"

Fatherland Cold War, anyone ?

or "stops atomic research").

As said above, the other side can play that game, too.

Possibly you don't understand me: I don't mean nuke Germany in the war which stalls out in '42: I mean in the _next_ one, which breaks out in, say, '47 or '49. (What, you think Goering and co. are going to stop pushing and bullying?).

Yes, because they shall be too busy organizing Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and containing rump USSR for such an hypothetical second war to happen so soon. Seriously, what else they could want from Britain at this point ? Middle East oil ? Quite possibly, but the peace deal surely establishes equal access to that, I can easily see a Cold War between Nazi Europe and the Anglo-Saxon bloc brewing up for exclusive control of ME oil, but in the 50s and 60s, not the late 40s. Both sides would be too busy settling their houses in order. India ? Unlikely when they already have large swats of Russia and Africa, and not until Germany has the Middle East, and not for a couple decades, if ever. What else ?

I wonder what happens in the Pacific? Hitler or no Hitler, the Japanese probably still move into SE Asia, the US probably still puts up an embargo, and the Japanese probably still "run rampant".

In such a case, the US steamrolls them even more thoroughly, and goes on to build an East Asian empire, with some competition from rump Soviet Russia.

The UK is no worse off than OTL in '42, the US is going full-bore vs the Japanese, and the Japanese are going to be far too busy afore long to try anything vs. India. One wonders if Germany's "allies" even get a mention at the German-British negociations: does anyone know what Goering thought of the Japanese?

Hmm, probably he lets the Japanese go to their deserved fate, since they failed to help Germany against Russia, and he thanks Odin that dealing with Japan and China is going to keep America busy for a decade. Italy is going to get at least most of its Mediterranean claims and hoped gains in this scenario, but Japan in all likelihood simply cannot be saved by Germany, even willing.
 
Last edited:
Hitler was monsterously evil and in many ways stupid. He was not a physical coward.

Actually it would be very stupid for the head of government to put themselves in danger during a World War. I have heard claims that some efforts had to be made to ensure Churchill did not take too many risks and some similar comments relating to Hitler.

Still in a War with air power being killed in action must have been a possibility.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Still in a War with air power being killed in action must have been a possibility.

For that matter, it is rather more feasible to have a WWII leader killed by enemy aircraft gunning their own than with an artillery shell. See Yamamoto. The 1943 anti-Nazi coup plan envisaged to have Hitler's plane blown in flight during a inspection of the Eastern Front and blame the Russians, so Hitler downed by a lucky British or Russian fighter or flak gun is wholly feasible, rather more so than the lucky artillery shell.

This is actually a rather good idea to get rid of Hitler in a TL, when resort to the usual successful assassination or coup isn't feasible (ie the 1940-42 span).
 
Last edited:

Redbeard

Banned
It certainly won't be Hess, he flew to GB in May 1941 :rolleyes:

As others have mentioned Göring was officially appointed number two in September 1939, so to keep Göring from taking over, you need some special action, which IMHO is unlikely immediately after an unexpected accident.
So Göring probably takes over, and although he will come closest to Hitler’s authority, he will still be far from it, and already the problem of the officer’s corps having sworn their oath to the Führer personally will be a huge problem for any follower – the Germans took such things very serious. By early July all the Germans still were enthusiastic about Barbarossa, but by end of July some had started to realize, that they had greatly underestimated the Red Army – and they had to slow down themselves for resupply without having yet achieved significant strategic results.

It would be close to ASB to imagine Göring intervening in Wehrmacht operations like Hitler did, he simply wouldn’t have the power for that. I’m not sure however this would mean going straight for Moscow, it was a real grand operational option to go for the large concentration of Soviet forces in the south and completely in context with prevalent operational doctrines of going for the enemy’s main force rather than his capital. Who important would probably be what a hero like Guderian would say. IIRC Guderian in OTL strongly advocated for going for Moscow and if he does so too in this ATL, Göring will have to follow. If that means Moscow falling and SU falling, Göring might end up being the one associated with the Third Reich.

If not victory right away the Wehrmacht, sans Hitler’s insistence on no retreat, probably will try to withdraw in December 41. Actually I think that might easily produce an even bigger disaster for the Wehrmacht than the OTL one. One of the problems about Hitler was that he a couple of times had a lucky hand when overruling the Generals. France in 1940 was one, Moscow 41 IMHO another. He was very self-conscious about his hammer having worked here, but saw everything else as nails after that (Stalin was the other way round, his early interventions were complete failures, so he left the rest to the Generals).

If Moscow 41/42 means annihilation of Armygroup Centre I doubt if Göring will survive, and German history will be one long whining about: “If only the Führer had survived…”. If Army Group Centre survives at least as intact as in OTL, Göring probably will too, but in the coming campaigns the Wehrmacht will last much longer, and I actually doubt if the Red Army will have the strength to go any further than the 1940 borders. Certainly not, if Göring doesn’t declare war on USA in December 41.

Short of huge disasters at the front I think Göring would be quite safe in the saddle. By 41 a nazi-party without Hitler will have no real power – the Wehrmacht rules – and Göring will be smart and experienced enough to know, that he first of all needs Wehrmacht back-up, and that the Wehrmacht would never allow the SS to expand anywhere like in OTL. Himmler (and SS) probably won’t survive a different approach to this. I even doubt if Luftwaffe Divisions will be allowed in this ATL, but Wehrmacht elites like GrossDeutschland and Panzer Lehr will be unchallenged on the “Army Icon Top 10”.

I doubt if there will ever be the systematic extermination of Jews we saw in OTL after the Wannsee meeting in 42. Nazi ideology still will be visible and audible everywhere, but where military operations in OTL served to fulfill ideological goals, the ideology in this ATL rather will be instruments to support the (military) operations. That IMO pretty much makes it impossible to divert resources to transport and kill millions of people while the war is still at a climax.

Concerning Göring as a person it is customary to see him as a twit, but I actually doubt he was. You certainly can have him look that way if focusing narrowly on certain elements in his life and personality, but I don’t think you could stay so close to absolute power in Nazi-Germany for so long if you were a twit. Not being a twit is no guarantee for everything you being 100% right, but his blunders as chief of Luftwaffe: arrogance towards other services and greatly overestimating airpower does seem quite consistent with any airforce chief in the 20th century.


Finally I'll have to say once more: Nukes will NOT defeat an intact Germany! The Japan that surrendered in August 45 was starving and with no real options for continuing the war. A Germany with access to strategic resources will have no reason to surrender just because some cities were leveled. Lots of German cities were leveled in OTL WWII without that ever having the Germans consider surrender, on the contrary it brought cohesion to the German population and increased hatred to the allies. Try and imagine how a couple of nukes would work.

Next it will be late 40's before nukes in significant numbers will be available, and anyway the number of nukes needed to break the back of Nazi-Germany
might easily kill the planet too. Dropping the few you have by mid 40's would immediately start a German nuclear programme - an atomic race during wartime - ouch!

If in a Cold War like arms race I guess the allies in this ATL will be as vulnerable to someone thinking that the secret should be shared as in OTL. In an ATL where Nazi-Germany has defeated the Reds but there are no signs of an Endlösung (yet) I guess the Nazis would have sympathy in the west at least on level of what the Reds had in OTL.

In the end I guess the most effective US arms will be Hollywood, Hamburgers and Nylons - I guess they ought to do vs. Wagner, Sauerkraut and Lederhosen...but I guess we could paraphrase over an old American comment (Mark Twain?) to Wagner: "As long as the fat man sings, it ain't over yet!"

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
It certainly won't be Hess, he flew to GB in May 1941 :rolleyes:
(Snippage)


I'm generally in agreement with what I snipped - and I'd emphasize that even without a DOW, unless the Germans essentially unilaterally surrender in the Atlantic theatre the US probably comes in in 1942, giving the Germans only a narrow window to make a negociated peace with the Soviets - but as for the rest...


Finally I'll have to say once more: Nukes will NOT defeat an intact Germany! The Japan that surrendered in August 45 was starving and with no real options for continuing the war. A Germany with access to strategic resources will have no reason to surrender just because some cities were leveled. Lots of German cities were leveled in OTL WWII without that ever having the Germans consider surrender,


Not by one plane. But it won't be just two: the US OTL production of 11 nukes 1945-1946 was after all done in a context of war's end and demobilization. In a fight, there will be maximum incentive to build up the arsenal as fast as possible: OTL between 1947 and 1948, in peacetime, before the cold war really heated up, the US nuke arsenal still increased by some 70 warheads.

Of course, much depends on psychological factors: the US or UK may be so impressed by the new weapon that they do not feel that they need a lot of them. And the UK simply can't _afford_ to build a large production facility off the bat.

Next it will be late 40's before nukes in significant numbers will be available,


I'm assuming that both the UK and the US are likely to have nukes, but not before the late 40s. Upon further consideration, I've decided there's some complicated timing issues here, depending on whether the Reich starts something new, perhaps in the Middle East, before the first bombs arrive (and Euro, the logistics remain crap.), and whether the Germans put any effort into their own nuclear weapons program. So if the Germans 1.) behave themselves and 2.) come up with their own bombs before the UK (and more importantly, the US) can build up their arsenals very much, they probably can avoid disaster.

and anyway the number of nukes needed to break the back of Nazi-Germany
might easily kill the planet too.


...and here you start getting a little silly. Some 438 megatons of nuclear death were unleashed in nuclear above-ground testing, with individual tests up to over 50 megatons, roughly equivalent to one Hiroshima every 13 hours for 36 years, without doing serious damage to the planet. At an annualized rate, a year's worth of nukes would be over 670 Hiroshimas, which I doubt the Reich could tolerate.

Dropping the few you have by mid 40's would immediately start a German nuclear programme - an atomic race during wartime - ouch!


And every oppressed person in German Europe would just _love_ to tell the US and UK where the program is so they can nuke it. Large scale nuke production is a bit hard to conceal, and if your underground plants start off with making enough uranium-235 or plutonium to make 1-2 bombs a month while your enemy has meanwhile ramped up to 10-20, guess who's going to lose the war of attrition first. Of course, the UK can afford such a contest rather less than the US can, so it's _just_ possible that given, say, no more than a two-year lead on atomic research by the UK, the fight might not be one they could stomach. But if the US is involved, Germany is screwed.

If in a Cold War like arms race I guess the allies in this ATL will be as vulnerable to someone thinking that the secret should be shared as in OTL.

Because the US and UK arms programs had all these Nazi sympathizers in them? Give me some actual facts to support this remarkable assertion.

In an ATL where Nazi-Germany has defeated the Reds but there are no signs of an Endlösung (yet) I guess the Nazis would have sympathy in the west at least on level of what the Reds had in OTL.


As you said,with Goering in charge it might not happen - he didn't like Jews, but didn't have the emotional commitment to their destruction that Hitler did. But honestly, _comparable sympathy_? The great majority of the US population deeply disliked the Nazis by 1941 - there are actual, you know, _surveys_ of public opinion to this effect - and they had been fighting a war of agression and conquest against countries from which a majority of US citizens came from and (in the case of western European ones) broadly sympathized with. The USSR, OTOH, were our _ally_ vs. Germany, and lost more heavily in fighting against him than anyone else not actually conquered. "Comparable sympathy" - are you deliberately trolling?

Bruce
 

Redbeard

Banned
I'm generally in agreement with what I snipped - and I'd emphasize that even without a DOW, unless the Germans essentially unilaterally surrender in the Atlantic theatre the US probably comes in in 1942, giving the Germans only a narrow window to make a negociated peace with the Soviets - but as for the rest...





Not by one plane. But it won't be just two: the US OTL production of 11 nukes 1945-1946 was after all done in a context of war's end and demobilization. In a fight, there will be maximum incentive to build up the arsenal as fast as possible: OTL between 1947 and 1948, in peacetime, before the cold war really heated up, the US nuke arsenal still increased by some 70 warheads.

Of course, much depends on psychological factors: the US or UK may be so impressed by the new weapon that they do not feel that they need a lot of them. And the UK simply can't _afford_ to build a large production facility off the bat.




I'm assuming that both the UK and the US are likely to have nukes, but not before the late 40s. Upon further consideration, I've decided there's some complicated timing issues here, depending on whether the Reich starts something new, perhaps in the Middle East, before the first bombs arrive (and Euro, the logistics remain crap.), and whether the Germans put any effort into their own nuclear weapons program. So if the Germans 1.) behave themselves and 2.) come up with their own bombs before the UK (and more importantly, the US) can build up their arsenals very much, they probably can avoid disaster.




...and here you start getting a little silly. Some 438 megatons of nuclear death were unleashed in nuclear above-ground testing, with individual tests up to over 50 megatons, roughly equivalent to one Hiroshima every 13 hours for 36 years, without doing serious damage to the planet. At an annualized rate, a year's worth of nukes would be over 670 Hiroshimas, which I doubt the Reich could tolerate.




And every oppressed person in German Europe would just _love_ to tell the US and UK where the program is so they can nuke it. Large scale nuke production is a bit hard to conceal, and if your underground plants start off with making enough uranium-235 or plutonium to make 1-2 bombs a month while your enemy has meanwhile ramped up to 10-20, guess who's going to lose the war of attrition first. Of course, the UK can afford such a contest rather less than the US can, so it's _just_ possible that given, say, no more than a two-year lead on atomic research by the UK, the fight might not be one they could stomach. But if the US is involved, Germany is screwed.



Because the US and UK arms programs had all these Nazi sympathizers in them? Give me some actual facts to support this remarkable assertion.




As you said,with Goering in charge it might not happen - he didn't like Jews, but didn't have the emotional commitment to their destruction that Hitler did. But honestly, _comparable sympathy_? The great majority of the US population deeply disliked the Nazis by 1941 - there are actual, you know, _surveys_ of public opinion to this effect - and they had been fighting a war of agression and conquest against countries from which a majority of US citizens came from and (in the case of western European ones) broadly sympathized with. The USSR, OTOH, were our _ally_ vs. Germany, and lost more heavily in fighting against him than anyone else not actually conquered. "Comparable sympathy" - are you deliberately trolling?

Bruce


Trolling?!

Because I indicate that the attitude could be different in an ATL where Hitler is long dead, Germany has defeated Stalin and there is no Endlösung? If Americans and British in an OTL world where the SU was the Evil Empire could be enthusiastic Soviet agents - I guess the Nazis could find some supporters too. They could start looking in KKK circles and they might feel quite at home in segregated American cities!

Anyway back to the nuke-question. If USA has entered the war on British side in 41/42 we must assume that the bombing offensive has been performed at least on OTL level. This means that the German industry and infrastructure has been dispersed to a level making it even more difficult to destroy – nukes or not. On top of that the German control an area from the Bay of Biscay to at least the Urals, maybe even beyond – there are plenty of areas outside range of allied bombers and certainly outside effective fighter escort (counting in that new longer range bombers might enter service). In OTL German production rose until they were cut off from strategic resources in 1944 – here production is likely to continue rising. No reason to surrender just because the allies “free” the Nazi authorities of taking care of the women, children and elderly still located in the cities nuked. What if a bomber is shot down with an intact nuke? Not that unlikely and it would indeed hand over some important directives for the German nuclear programme – which won’t be difficult to locate dug in and/or outside allied bombing range. If thinking the war could be ended with nuking a few cities the allies probably end up out of nukes and with the Germans still in the war – just even more pissed off – ouch!

If we are in a cold war like situation, with plenty of time to produce great numbers of nukes, there is every reason for a technology intensive Nazi Germany to get their own nuclear programme at least on par with the OTL Soviets – agents or not. Anyway we will soon end up in the OTL situation where the first nuke risk triggering a whole lot of nuking – and the planet is on stake.

I understand you think logistics on the European continent would be inferior “(and Euro, the logistics remain crap.)”. Allied air force generals certainly thought they could suppress, even destroy, the German railway system, but the reality was that until very late in the war the Germans could move around military units (or goods) by rail must faster than the allies could by ship. It was also the German railway system that undetected moved 24 Divisions in place for the Bulge in late 44. The allies for certain destroyed a lot of railway track and railway heads, but the network was so dense, that a another way could usually be found until the line was repaired – which in general could be done much faster than had been anticipated.

In short the allies still need to invade the European continent and defeat the Wehrmacht. In OTL the Red Army took care of 75% of that job, and the 25% left for the western allies even were mainly after the Germans had run out of supplies. If D-Day was difficult in OTL it will be nigh-on impossible in this ATL.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Goering will take over because he is the legal heir, and in position to do so. The Nazi Party would back him in this, as would the armed forces, industry and the political classes.

What would eventually play out is the usual manoevrings amongst the top level Nazis - here it would be Goebbels (don't forget him !), Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann (Hess has already flown to Scotland), Rosenberg, Ribbentrop etc

Goering would have Wehrmacht backing to offer an ultimatum to the USSR in late 1941 once the original push peters out.

Also, Georing fronting Germany would be more acceptable to Britain in terms of peace overtures at this date

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Eurofed

Banned
What would eventually play out is the usual manoevrings amongst the top level Nazis - here it would be Goebbels (don't forget him !), Himmler, Heydrich, Bormann (Hess has already flown to Scotland), Rosenberg, Ribbentrop etc.

Himmler and Heydrich, and Goebbels to a lesser degree, yes, because they had a significant power base in the Nazi regime independent from Hitler's personal patronage. Bormann, Ribbentrop, and Rosenberg don't. Bormann especially was despised by all the other Nazi top dogs alike as a sycophant, without Adie he wouldn't last a month.
 
Himmler and Heydrich, and Goebbels to a lesser degree, yes, because they had a significant power base in the Nazi regime independent from Hitler's personal patronage. Bormann, Ribbentrop, and Rosenberg don't. Bormann especially was despised by all the other Nazi top dogs alike as a sycophant, without Adie he wouldn't last a month.

He is head of the party bureaucracy though, and how despised was he in July 1941 when only just taking over that role ? How much of their hatred was to come later from later actions ?

If peace is to be made in any way, Ribbentrop will be going up in everyone's estimation

Rosenberg is also top ideologue and with special responsibilities for the East, so again if peace is agreed there, he has a major role to play

As for others, Speer might still rise in one way or another - after all, he wasn't picked to succeed Todt in 42 for no reason

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Trolling?!

Because I indicate that the attitude could be different in an ATL where Hitler is long dead, Germany has defeated Stalin and there is no Endlösung? If Americans and British in an OTL world where the SU was the Evil Empire could be enthusiastic Soviet agents - I guess the Nazis could find some supporters too. They could start looking in KKK circles and they might feel quite at home in segregated American cities!

Ah, ok. I thought you meant the level of sympathy the USSR had 1945, not 1953. Sure, miserable far-right losers will be found as dupes. (And Germany very definitely _is_ an evil Empire. It wasn't until after WWII that the notion that Hitler was some sort of evil virus infecting Germany became commonplace - it was "Prussianism" which was the inherent problem).

(My apologies if I was rude: I've been a bit ill and grouchy this week).


Anyway back to the nuke-question. If USA has entered the war on British side in 41/42 we must assume that the bombing offensive has been performed at least on OTL level. This means that the German industry and infrastructure has been dispersed to a level making it even more difficult to destroy – nukes or not. On top of that the German control an area from the Bay of Biscay to at least the Urals, maybe even beyond – there are plenty of areas outside range of allied bombers and certainly outside effective fighter escort (counting in that new longer range bombers might enter service).

Ah. We are arguing from two different scenarios - you seem to be using a "Goering gets to the Urals" scenario, while I am going with a Eurofedesque scenario assuming no US entry into the war and a negociated peace in '42 or thereabouts, [1] with a new "Brest-Litovsk" with the USSR, with fresh fighting starting up at the end of the decade after (or rather soon before) the US and/or UK develop the bomb. Soviet territory will be availiable for launching attacks from as far west as, say, Smolensk. And as for dispersal of industry, there hasn't been a US bombing offensive, and in spite of the terror of nuclear war for decades, it never took place OTL in the US or USSR.

. What if a bomber is shot down with an intact nuke? Not that unlikely and it would indeed hand over some important directives for the German nuclear programme – which won’t be difficult to locate dug in and/or outside allied bombing range.

Ah, the old "crashed nuke" ploy, :) an old favorite of AH plots. Two things:

1. It's possible to arm the thing so it will go off in case of a crash. Makes the pilots a bit more nervous, but when has life ever been safe for bomber pilots?

2. The biggest problem with nukes is not so much figuring out how to make a bomb that will go off (although it is a lot trickier with Plutonium than enriched Uranium), but buidling the infrastructure for the radioactives production. Stalin had plenty of lovely stolen plans from the western nuclear program, but it still took some four years for the Soviets to come up to speed.

I've already addressed the bombing range.


If thinking the war could be ended with nuking a few cities the allies probably end up out of nukes and with the Germans still in the war – just even more pissed off – ouch!

Well, that's one scenario - the UK acts alone, and stupidly. Germans produces bombs of their own in time to avert being nuked - another. Germany gets into a fight with the UK and draws in the US and the Soviet Union - that's a third. There are others...

If we are in a cold war like situation, with plenty of time to produce great numbers of nukes,
there is every reason for a technology intensive Nazi Germany to get their own nuclear programme at least on par with the OTL Soviets – agents or not.

The US nuclear bomb _precedes_ the Cold War OTL. I'm assuming that the Germans don't give much priority to their bomb project until the US and/or UK develop theirs - and if they take as long after as the USSR did to get their own, they are in deep crap, especially if it is a joint US/UK program. The US can make a _lot_ of nukes given four years.

Anyway we will soon end up in the OTL situation where the first nuke risk triggering a whole lot of nuking – and the planet is on stake.

Took at least a couple decades of an arms race to get up to planet-killing numbers of bombs OT:...if this isn't resolved by the early 50's, we are getting a stalemate as OTL. I am talking about the situation in which either the Germans or the US and UK push before a balance of terror is established.

I understand you think logistics on the European continent would be inferior “(and Euro, the logistics remain crap.)”.

Er, no. I was referring to his plans for an invasion of the Middle East through Turkey.

In short the allies still need to invade the European continent and defeat the Wehrmacht. In OTL the Red Army took care of 75% of that job, and the 25% left for the western allies even were mainly after the Germans had run out of supplies. If D-Day was difficult in OTL it will be nigh-on impossible in this ATL.

You are still assuming your conclusion - that the UK/UK+US will just have a few bombs, and that the Germans will be able to develop their own - in non-insignificant numbers, since if the Germans can stand the loss of a few cities, so can the UK - before they can start producing them in numbers sufficient to, say, devastate several German cities a month.

Even disregarding this, if we get a Germany vs the US and the UK throwdown, they probably _could_ invade the continent if the first few nukes didn't do the trick, although it would be tougher than OTL. I think you seriously underestimate the industrial capacity of the US - OTL, the US never really spent till it hurt, compared to the UK or the Germans. We could have mobilized rather larger forces than we did to invade. Furthermore, in this scenario there _is_ a Soviet Union east of the Ukraine, which by '49 or whatever will have a huge and vengeful army and will be receiving lendlease through Vladivostok.

Now, if the US somehow withdraws into deep isolation after Roosevelt, there is a chance the Germans might survive a ill-conceived British attempt to liberate the continent through atom bomb. And if the Germans (1) develop a nuke of their own in the first 2-3 years of the new nuclear era and (2) have avoided attacking anyone previously, a nuclear balance of terror might establish itself as OTL. The odds of these scenarios vs the "Germans start something, unfortunately the US gets involved this time" scenario, or the "US and UK tell Germany it can't have it's own nuke, and please let in our inspectors" scenario (AKA the "Saddam of George's dreams" scenario), and others which go badly for the Reich are left for consideration.

(I somtimes wonder why people of intelligence and good will seem to be so emotionally committed to the survival of the Third Reich in AH scenarios. Some sort of strange fascination with the Abyss?)

Bruce

[1] If Goering is pushing for the Urals, Stalin will not make peace, the fight will grind on, the US will get in sometime in 1942, and Germany loses as OTL, if perhaps on a slightly different schedule.
 

Redbeard

Banned
(I somtimes wonder why people of intelligence and good will seem to be so emotionally committed to the survival of the Third Reich in AH scenarios. Some sort of strange fascination with the Abyss?)

Bruce

We can now conclude that we disagree on the ability of nukes to defeat an well-supplied and reasonably intact opponent, that is OK, but please be be more concrete about where/how I'm emotionally committed to having the Third Reich survive?

I will on the contrary claim that my point of view actually precondition me being emotionally uncommitted. Anyone with his faculties intact would of course HOPE for nazi defeat under any circumstances, but when diving into facts and analyse I can't transform that hope into intelectually excluding ATLs where the Nazis win. And I certainly can't find facts or good arguments to support that the US nuclear programme would end WWII with an allied victory - if the enemy remain largely intact, or even victorious, on the battlefield.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top