How do the US and UK respond?

Deleted member 1487

One never stops learning news things in these discussions.:) For the purpose of this ATL, OK they only had 7 bombs all the way to 1947, given that the war is still going into 1945 and 1946, could they have made more in that timeframe, or that's really all they would manage up to 1947 even with all their resources?

If all they have is 3 bombs to drop on Germany in 1945, not only there is a good risk not all would make it in the face of german defences (if any!), but also all that would do is really piss off the germans.

Any comments on the scenario I laid out? Also if they try and use all the nukes and B-29s on Germany what happens with Japan???
How is Britain coping with the V1 and V2 offensive in 1944-45, including the new longer range ones?
 
Oh i did saw your scenario, very interesting synposis as ever. Yes Japan again. Well i would assume that peace of any sort between Germany and USSR could possibly mean restarting of the ground communication line with Japan? So they could get some actual tech in 1943-1944, rather than being sunk in subs, maybe even actual hardware like some hundreds of tanks, aeroplanes and so on, not to mention whatever resources the germans could spare. Also the good old question of oil again. I wonder how feasible is for the germans to give Japan at least some oil from the Caucasus, through the rump USSR state of course (and for a "small" fee). On the same theme, also wonder if those Caucasus oilfields can be bombed from ME, and if the US and UK could try a ground offensive against them. UK and France had in plan operation Pike in 1940, that may well be revived in 1943. So you could have the campaign against the Caucasus oil instead of Ploiesti, this will force the germans to have a sizeable troop presence in that region especially if the US and UK try something on land.

One other aspect is that the germans would still need some troops to guard the "Lebensraum" borders in the east and control the territory, the smaller allies could provide a good portion of the troops, but still the germans need to divert some for that as well. But even given all this, the germans could still have about 2/3rd of the OTL forces engaged in USSR to be available for other fronts, namely Italy, possibly North Africa and ME and in France.

Back to Japan, even with the kind of help they could get from the germans i'm speculating they are still in a very serious war situation, so i still expect the US to gradually push them back, if maybe slower compared to OTL. It might be possible that they might use the atomic bombs to try and finish Japan asap (being seen as "weaker" of the two) and concentrate on Germany afterwards. On the other hand, another possible scenario is for the UK to PULL BACK some more troops from Asia to protect the homeland if the USSR is out of the war, and both the UK and US to concentrate on Germany with all they have, only maintaining a kind of stalemate in the Pacific.

This could go in so many directions.
 
Any comments on the scenario I laid out? Also if they try and use all the nukes and B-29s on Germany what happens with Japan???
How is Britain coping with the V1 and V2 offensive in 1944-45, including the new longer range ones?
Japan is easy - blockade and starvation. That was always the Plan B in the event that Olympic/Coronet weren't possible, and if Germany is still fighting then it's a certainty that they won't believe that the troops for it are available. That's really catastrophic for the Japanese - mining coastal waters and bombing a small number of bridges is enough to paralyse the transport of rice within Japan. Even after the war with the seas open and US help there were major food shortages - if they take the blockade/bombardment route then you're looking at potentially millions of dead in the famine that will follow.
As for the US supply of bombs, it needs to be remembered that immediately after the Japanese surrender they shut down all the bomb production lines to re-engineer them to peacetime safety standards. In the event of a continuing war this wouldn't happen, giving them rather more weapons at the cost of a probable major accident somewhere.
 
I think the disaster would have to happen well before 1943. A much weaker USSR in 1941 would be the best place to start, whether from an even more brutal purge, less effective rearmament or whatever. Alternatively, maybe Stalin is shot in July 1941, as he expected to be (and not without reason). From there, it's quite possible to re-run 1917 and have Russia collapse from within.

I think the problem with an rerun of 1917 is that Germany is actively looking to destroy the USSR, rather than break parts off it as the Germans wanted to do to Russia in 1917. And the Nazis will get more demanding the better they do. I think the most likely outcome is a situation similar to China where the Red Army still remains in the fight but is incapable of offering protracted resistance, allowing the German Army to move considerable forces west to confront the Anglo-Americans when they land in 1944. I doubt it will change much; the Allies, assume they are willing to negotiate, won't settle for less than German withdrawal from western Europe and Hitler isn't going to be any more reasonable after conquering the USSR. The war continues but long enough for the Allies to drop a few nuclear bombs on German cities in the summer of 1945.

teg
 

Deleted member 1487

I think the problem with an rerun of 1917 is that Germany is actively looking to destroy the USSR, rather than break parts off it as the Germans wanted to do to Russia in 1917. And the Nazis will get more demanding the better they do. I think the most likely outcome is a situation similar to China where the Red Army still remains in the fight but is incapable of offering protracted resistance, allowing the German Army to move considerable forces west to confront the Anglo-Americans when they land in 1944. I doubt it will change much; the Allies, assume they are willing to negotiate, won't settle for less than German withdrawal from western Europe and Hitler isn't going to be any more reasonable after conquering the USSR. The war continues but long enough for the Allies to drop a few nuclear bombs on German cities in the summer of 1945.

teg
There is a big difference between China and the USSR though: China had a central authority and external supply, the USSR could be in a civil war due to the death of Stalin and resulting power struggle, while the important economic areas are overrun and the rump left cannot agriculturally sustain the population left unoccupied and would have serious problems sustaining production.
 
I understand the need to put Germany out of the war as soon as possible. I don't know how close Germany was to getting the A-bomb, but I am sure they were bound to get it quicker in this scenario with the absence of D-day.

However, with Japan out of the war, that's more men and equipment that can be used. Such as Dutch troops in the far east, to British and American warships and men and resources.

It'd be too bad they cannot rely on even a defeated USSR to come back anytime soon, as I am sure a defeat would create a power struggle.
 
One of the dirty little serets of the early Cold War period is that the United States had NO operational nuclear weapons in the immediate aftermath of the war. What they may have had were components for possibly two or three more bombs, but not functional weapons that could be loaded onto a Silverplated B-29 at short notice. As late as the spring of 1947, the US had in inventory seven nuclear cores that could be mated with other components to from a Mk-1 nuclear weapon, and the dissembled non-nuclear portions of six other bombs, but no actual fissile material to insert into them. Mass production of new models did not begin until 1948.

That may have been the case in OTL when there was no need to produce more bombs, but there is a declassified memo from Lesley Groves (head of Manhattan) to the Chief of Staff projecting production of bombs which would rise to seven per month by December 1945:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/45.pdf
 
If the Germans are able to bring the USSR to surrender, would they even want to keep fighting the WAllies?

I'd expect Hitler, having achieved his aims of Lebensraum in the east, would conclude his occupation of France and restore full Vichy control to it. Similarly he'd conclude treaties with Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. With the defeat of the USSR, he can finally start implementing his re-ordering of Europe.

Occupation troops would remain for the time being in case the WAllies decide to simply treat the new Fascist countries as belligerents by default anyway, but the Reich would probably then want to start talking to the UK and US about ending the war.

In Hitler's eyes hasn't he already won by securing Lebensraum?
 

Deleted member 1487

If the Germans are able to bring the USSR to surrender, would they even want to keep fighting the WAllies?

I'd expect Hitler, having achieved his aims of Lebensraum in the east, would conclude his occupation of France and restore full Vichy control to it. Similarly he'd conclude treaties with Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. With the defeat of the USSR, he can finally start implementing his re-ordering of Europe.

Occupation troops would remain for the time being in case the WAllies decide to simply treat the new Fascist countries as belligerents by default anyway, but the Reich would probably then want to start talking to the UK and US about ending the war.

In Hitler's eyes hasn't he already won by securing Lebensraum?

It takes two to tango, so the Wallies might want to fight the Germans to the bitter end.
 
If the Germans are able to bring the USSR to surrender, would they even want to keep fighting the WAllies?

I'd expect Hitler, having achieved his aims of Lebensraum in the east, would conclude his occupation of France and restore full Vichy control to it. Similarly he'd conclude treaties with Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. With the defeat of the USSR, he can finally start implementing his re-ordering of Europe.

Occupation troops would remain for the time being in case the WAllies decide to simply treat the new Fascist countries as belligerents by default anyway, but the Reich would probably then want to start talking to the UK and US about ending the war.

In Hitler's eyes hasn't he already won by securing Lebensraum?

If Hitler started acting reasonable with his demands for the west after the fall of the USSR I would be interested to see what the US/UK response would be. If he put out the argument that Stalin was the real menace to the world and Germany could never be safe with the Bolsheviks next door and the USSR was always the real enemy and he never wanted war with the west in the first place would FDR and Churchill accept that?

Personally FDR and Churchill would probably want to insist of taking Hitler out, however what would the public opinion in the US/UK be if Germany went on a PR campaign to say "hey, we don't want to fight you, we're safe from communism now let's be friends". On the other hand if people are able to smuggle out pictures and news from the concentration camps that would counter any Nazi overtures of goodwill.
 

Deleted member 1487

If Hitler started acting reasonable with his demands for the west after the fall of the USSR I would be interested to see what the US/UK response would be. If he put out the argument that Stalin was the real menace to the world and Germany could never be safe with the Bolsheviks next door and the USSR was always the real enemy and he never wanted war with the west in the first place would FDR and Churchill accept that?

Personally FDR and Churchill would probably want to insist of taking Hitler out, however what would the public opinion in the US/UK be if Germany went on a PR campaign to say "hey, we don't want to fight you, we're safe from communism now let's be friends". On the other hand if people are able to smuggle out pictures and news from the concentration camps that would counter any Nazi overtures of goodwill.

We like to pretend that in the West we are free from propaganda and management by the government/authorities, but especially in the 1930s-80s we certainly were subjected to it. Britain doesn't even have freedom of the press and there was even censorship during WW2 in the US, so anything Hitler tries to PR is not going to get play in the US or be mocked for what it is: a ham-handed attempt by the Nazis to secure their empire by playing nice when it suits them. By the time France is invaded no one trusts Hitler or anything he says. Also in terms of the Holocaust they did get those out, but at least in the US didn't really talk about what was going on because of how anti-semitic the population in general was.
 
Any comments on the scenario I laid out? Also if they try and use all the nukes and B-29s on Germany what happens with Japan???
How is Britain coping with the V1 and V2 offensive in 1944-45, including the new longer range ones?

If the US needed more nuclear weapons they could have built them, after Japan surrendered there wasn't an immediate need for more bombs and the Manhattan project was thrown together with the goal to build a bomb as fast as possible without regard for safety, cost and efficiency. After World War II the Atomic Energy Commission was created and spent a few years before ramping up nuclear weapons production.

What I've read has the US able to produce around 3 per month starting in late 1945. If the war is still going on and safety and price isn't a concern the production would likely then increase as they became more familiar with the process and more facilities could be built.

In the meantime if the Nazis were not busy trying to keep the Soviets out of eastern Germany they would be able to put more effort into aircraft design and production as well as projects like the V-2.

If the US decided it was time to nuke Germany they wouldn't have air supremacy so it would make more sense to wait until there was a good arsenal of bombs and then carry out a large raid headed to different targets with lots of other conventional bombers along so even if some bombers are shot down most of the nukes would still make it to their targets.

Not sure what happens from there, if Hitler doesn't get blown up he probably launches every weapon possible at the UK including chemical weapons. The US/UK would then respond with more nukes and chemical weapons, maybe anthrax. Whenever this war eventually does end the result is going to be a very decimated and depopulated Europe.
 
Top