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.