I need your help!!! Germany wins WW 1.

Germany could easily have nuclear weapons by 1956.



Cost is not that bad. The USA spent 1 billion or 2 billion USD, but did it 2.5 years. We built entire industrial towns that were then torn down. We did not have the theory worked out while doing the engineering. The Manhattan project has all the elements of a max cost project going grossly overbudget. Do this over time, you cut the cost at least by 75% IMO. Probably do plutonium bomb. So we are looking at about 250 million to 500 million USD spread over a decade or two. Compared to a pre-WW1 budget of about 600 million per year. It would be say a 25 million USD budget per year. Very doable. Less than the V-2 cost for example. Basic TL.

1) 1938 Fission discovered. Could easily be sooner, but we don't have TL details.

2) 1939-1943. Light funding, both medical military. Theory worked out.

3) 1944-1951. Seven year project. 25 million USD, under 10K workers. Test in 1951. Since we did slower rampup, we have nicely size reactors facilities to produce fuel for bombs. Making say 6 per year. By 1956 we have a nice size arsenal. Note: This is fairly low funding. It could be done a lot faster.

Germans aren't stupid, I'm pretty sure they'll understand the implications of creating and testing such a weapon, the same way that Leo Szilard and many scientists in OTL did. It is literally opening Pandora's Box, poorer, less stable nations will never undertake this project themselves unless they know it can be done. All the Germans will have achieved here is announcing to the world that it is possible to weaponise the nuclear chain reaction.
 
The problem with becoming a hegemon is that you have a World to sort out, a world that not necessary want to be sorted out.


Not a world really, just a continent. Germany can be a world power, but not the world power.

Even a Continent could be messy, but if they can keep Russia divided while limiting French armaments, it is probably doable. Germany's peacetime establishment (abt 600,000 iirc) is probably enough for any occupation forces, and using them in that way would probably cost no more than maintaining them at home.
 
I think the "easiest" time for a win (and commies in charge in Russia) is after the Brest-Litovsk-treaty (this solves the Commie part)

After that A GErman (Spring) offensive in 1918 ( before the US has its troops ready) that is sucessful might lead to a status quo ante peace in the West. How to achieve that is a though question ;)...

For changes we can also transfer the additional troop to the Italian/Balkans fronts and make it clear there (knocking out Greece and Italy)
 
Germans aren't stupid, I'm pretty sure they'll understand the implications of creating and testing such a weapon, the same way that Leo Szilard and many scientists in OTL did. It is literally opening Pandora's Box, poorer, less stable nations will never undertake this project themselves unless they know it can be done. All the Germans will have achieved here is announcing to the world that it is possible to weaponise the nuclear chain reaction.


They may not be stupid (though some of them certainly were) but they are apt to be a touch on the paranoid side. Won't they just assume that if they don't build it, a rival will?

Incidentally, if they have acquired the Belgian Congo at the peace, they have a prime source of Uranium, which might both tempt them and make it more feasible for them..
 
They may not be stupid (though some of them certainly were) but they are apt to be a touch on the paranoid side. Won't they just assume that if they don't build it, a rival will?

Incidentally, if they have acquired the Belgian Congo at the peace, they have a prime source of Uranium, which might both tempt them and make it more feasible for them..

What rivals? If we presume that France and Britain have largely bankrupted themselves, and the Soviet Union is weaker than OTL and likely economically dependent on Germany there is no one else that could consider it. America certainly won't be interested, there is no nation that could possibly threaten them enough to warrant such weapons and prior to WW2 military production was generally viewed as a deeply unprofitable business compared to civilian industry.

I would imagine, if the Germans knew it was feasible, they would prefer to prevent others from acquiring it. After all, certainly on the continent there is likely to be no one that can match their conventional military, so if diplomatic or economic sanctions fail they can always intervene directly.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Germans aren't stupid, I'm pretty sure they'll understand the implications of creating and testing such a weapon, the same way that Leo Szilard and many scientists in OTL did. It is literally opening Pandora's Box, poorer, less stable nations will never undertake this project themselves unless they know it can be done. All the Germans will have achieved here is announcing to the world that it is possible to weaponise the nuclear chain reaction.

They will fear the other side getting it first, just like FDR did. Scientist may dream about not developing the weapon. The military men will fund it. What German achieves is being able to reduce the army and achieve a permanent counter to the Russian/Soviet hordes they feared. And if they get a jump on it, the may also consider a preemptive war. Or just use it for leverage in diplomacy. Imagine how the scramble for Africa in 1880 goes if Germany can wipe out 50 English cities at will. I bet they get some nice colonies. Or the Morocco crisis. I bet not only does France have to leave Morocco, but Germany gets compensation greater than OTL. Now we don't know what exactly is planned for 1956, but using them for leverage to gain priority access to middle east oil is a good guess. Or perhaps some buffer states between Germany and Russia. Or if colonies are still a big deal, they may use them as leverage on the UK to allow Portugal and/or Belgium to be forced to sell colonies. All depends on what Germany wants. Then after this transition period, multiple countries get them, and the map of the world is largely locked.

And don't forget the key reason you can't stop it. The underlying physics will be largely worked out before the implications are understood. Looking for medical isotopes will fund the basic engineering of a reactor (plutonium pile). After this point, it will be public knowledge, so we get a race to build the bomb.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Not a world really, just a continent. Germany can be a world power, but not the world power.

Even a Continent could be messy, but if they can keep Russia divided while limiting French armaments, it is probably doable. Germany's peacetime establishment (abt 600,000 iirc) is probably enough for any occupation forces, and using them in that way would probably cost no more than maintaining them at home.

Agreed. Germany will not be a Superpower (clearly dominant power in a two alliance world system), it will merely have a chance to be the most powerful Great Power who dominates the Berlin to Baghdad axis and possibly some colonies. USA dominates the Americas. British Empire will exist in some form even if it loses some colonies. Fear of the Germans combined with no Anglo-American alliance means the White Settler colonies will need a strong RN and probably a bigger British Army.

I think the "easiest" time for a win (and commies in charge in Russia) is after the Brest-Litovsk-treaty (this solves the Commie part)

After that A GErman (Spring) offensive in 1918 ( before the US has its troops ready) that is sucessful might lead to a status quo ante peace in the West. How to achieve that is a though question ;)...

For changes we can also transfer the additional troop to the Italian/Balkans fronts and make it clear there (knocking out Greece and Italy)

You need deep into 1918 for the communist to win. His problem is he wants the UK, Italy, and USA to remain neutral. The war does not last that long. No blockade alone does that. It is probably over by 1916 or late 1915. Germany will gain more land against France, but probably not be able to take Paris before it has to turn east in May 1915. With all OTL forces plus the A-H forces in Italy, the offensive in the east will just keep going until winter. Easy 200 miles east of OTL. Good chance of peace in winter of 1915/16. Otherwise, Falkenhayn can take out either France or Russia in 1916. Probably France who will be short on supplies and have a longer front. The only real question is where the Germans decide to stop in the east. Somewhere near OTL lines or somewhere east.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
They may not be stupid (though some of them certainly were) but they are apt to be a touch on the paranoid side. Won't they just assume that if they don't build it, a rival will?

Incidentally, if they have acquired the Belgian Congo at the peace, they have a prime source of Uranium, which might both tempt them and make it more feasible for them..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_uranium_mines

They probably go with the ones in Czech, Germany or Poland (OTL after WW2 borders)
 
You need deep into 1918 for the communist to win. His problem is he wants the UK, Italy, and USA to remain neutral. The war does not last that long. No blockade alone does that. It is probably over by 1916 or late 1915. Germany will gain more land against France, but probably not be able to take Paris before it has to turn east in May 1915. With all OTL forces plus the A-H forces in Italy, the offensive in the east will just keep going until winter. Easy 200 miles east of OTL. Good chance of peace in winter of 1915/16. Otherwise, Falkenhayn can take out either France or Russia in 1916. Probably France who will be short on supplies and have a longer front. The only real question is where the Germans decide to stop in the east. Somewhere near OTL lines or somewhere east.

Maybe the solution is Italy neutral but not favorable to the CP. Basically the war is an affair between Germany/ A-H and France/Russia with Serbia, OTtoman and some minor tossed for expanding the war. Italy want some compensation to remain neutral but without GB in the fray (Belgium not invaded? Some local political sheninga?) the negotation go sour, still Rome feel that the conflict is not going too good for the Entente and don't feel ready so stay neutral (but favorable to the entente...so no commerce with the CP and troops stay at the A-H border, plus there is no opposition to a Otranto barrage), so the situation in general for the CP is better but there are still some great problem who slow considerly their victory.
 
a kind of winning by default because the US keeps a strictly neutral profile?
So by early 1917 UK credit in the us is running out due to lack of collateral.
lack of funds grinds war to halt for them.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Not a world really, just a continent. Germany can be a world power, but not the world power.

Even a Continent could be messy, but if they can keep Russia divided while limiting French armaments, it is probably doable. Germany's peacetime establishment (abt 600,000 iirc) is probably enough for any occupation forces, and using them in that way would probably cost no more than maintaining them at home.
Even Europe would be messy (and Germany would definitely annex Belgian Congo and some French Colonies in Africa, but colonies are easier to sort out at this point in time)
a) Austria- Hungary, would probably be left to the Habsburgs to sort outthe best way they can, but Germany would keep a close eye on what happens.

b) Poland, can't be annexed, no one want more Poles inside the German borders, can't be allowed to become an own nation, since a Polish nation is an automatic security threat. Status of Galizia.

c) Baltics, a German minority ruled state, or Latvian and Estonian national states?

d) Lithuania, sure, a Lithuanian state would fit the Germans well, but what would the borders be. Would a small or a big Lithuania create more stability.

e) the Ukraine, who would they trust to rule the Ukraine, what would the borders of the Ukrainian state be? Would the Ukrainian government have any legitimacy from the Ukrainian people? Status of Galizia.

f) Belarus, worth the effort? Sure, Germany would love the chance to build a nation from scratch, but is it really worth the cost? Is it beneficial in the long run. Do they even need a Belarussian ally?

g) Austria's territorial expansion: Germany would probably want to ensure the Austrians don't overextend, and will thus be involved in the new border negotiations. I can see Austria wanting at least Montenegro and Novi Pazar.

h) Balkans, what will the Serbian, Romanian and Greek post war borders be? Here Germany would work with Austria- Hungary and Bulgaria (and the Bulgarians have a lot of territorial ambitions).

i) Status of Belgium, what to do with the Belgians? Just annex Congo and some minor territories on the border or try to dominate all of Belgium through puppet regimes. One of Germany's aims was to split Belgium into Flandern and Wallonia, but is it really a good idea? Will it weaken France or strengthen France in the long run?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Maybe the solution is Italy neutral but not favorable to the CP. Basically the war is an affair between Germany/ A-H and France/Russia with Serbia, OTtoman and some minor tossed for expanding the war. Italy want some compensation to remain neutral but without GB in the fray (Belgium not invaded? Some local political sheninga?) the negotation go sour, still Rome feel that the conflict is not going too good for the Entente and don't feel ready so stay neutral (but favorable to the entente...so no commerce with the CP and troops stay at the A-H border, plus there is no opposition to a Otranto barrage), so the situation in general for the CP is better but there are still some great problem who slow considerly their victory.

Agreed that might work. Have Germany run War Plan Russia which it would have to write. Probably 4 or 5 armies in west, France bloodies itself on attacking. France keeps industrial areas, so it is stronger. With 3 or Germany armies (not 1) in the east, Russia will abandoned Poland and fight on its defensive lines. Russia avoids Polish refugees which helps a little on food and avoids many of our logistic issues. And they don't attack into Hungarian mountains. And with A-H holding Galicia (never attacked), Italy will not enter the war. You can get Russia collapsing faster this way, but Lenin is such a long shot, it is hard to get him, much less Stalin. So many other ways it could have gone. Not to mention if Germany is winning from day 1, Lenin will not be allowed to leave Switzerland. And if Italy stays out, you might also have to look at if Ottomans join.
 
Kaiser Wilhelm II son died I belive in 1956. Louis Frederick would be the next Kaiser as his older brother gave up his rights to the throne to marry a commoner.
 
Agreed that might work. Have Germany run War Plan Russia which it would have to write. Probably 4 or 5 armies in west, France bloodies itself on attacking. France keeps industrial areas, so it is stronger. With 3 or Germany armies (not 1) in the east, Russia will abandoned Poland and fight on its defensive lines. Russia avoids Polish refugees which helps a little on food and avoids many of our logistic issues. And they don't attack into Hungarian mountains. And with A-H holding Galicia (never attacked), Italy will not enter the war. You can get Russia collapsing faster this way, but Lenin is such a long shot, it is hard to get him, much less Stalin. So many other ways it could have gone. Not to mention if Germany is winning from day 1, Lenin will not be allowed to leave Switzerland. And if Italy stays out, you might also have to look at if Ottomans join.

Maybe the revolution is a little later? There is a B-L like treaty but for now no communist revolution/takeover, Lenin leave Switzerland sometime later (not that much) and with the CP ( aka Germany) having her hand full on keep things quiet on the new Mittel-Europa and prop up the A-H she really don't have time/resources to divert in suppress/block/interfere with the internal affair of Russia...ok very long shot but is the only thing who come in mind.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Maybe the revolution is a little later? There is a B-L like treaty but for now no communist revolution/takeover, Lenin leave Switzerland sometime later (not that much) and with the CP ( aka Germany) having her hand full on keep things quiet on the new Mittel-Europa and prop up the A-H she really don't have time/resources to divert in suppress/block/interfere with the internal affair of Russia...ok very long shot but is the only thing who come in mind.

It would make a good TL. Peace in winter of 1915/16 with harsh treaty. Instability follows in Russia, and the Whites/Tsar make very aggressive statements about regaining Poland. German sends over Lenin, who eventually wins. A bit too much RR mentality for TL, but would be fun read.
 
It would make a good TL. Peace in winter of 1915/16 with harsh treaty. Instability follows in Russia, and the Whites/Tsar make very aggressive statements about regaining Poland. German sends over Lenin, who eventually wins. A bit too much RR mentality for TL, but would be fun read.

Can be done, even if i suggest a winter of 1916 for any treaty (expecially if the Ottomans are not involved...but they can be neutral leaning towards the CP)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Can be done, even if i suggest a winter of 1916 for any treaty (expecially if the Ottomans are not involved...but they can be neutral leaning towards the CP)

Yes, the later you can drag it on, the easier to get reds in power. Another choice is to try to balance out the UK staying out, but still pro-France. Italy joins at some point due to British support and land greed by Italians. Or maybe Italy just keeps a large mobilized army near the A-H border holding down A-H units, but never quite joins the war. Combined with some obvious amphibious exercises. Ottomans staying out helps have the UK feed weapons(railroad cars) into Russia, but with the traditional tight fistedness of the Treasury, it is too little to save Entente.
 
Yes, the later you can drag it on, the easier to get reds in power. Another choice is to try to balance out the UK staying out, but still pro-France. Italy joins at some point due to British support and land greed by Italians. Or maybe Italy just keeps a large mobilized army near the A-H border holding down A-H units, but never quite joins the war. Combined with some obvious amphibious exercises. Ottomans staying out helps have the UK feed weapons(railroad cars) into Russia, but with the traditional tight fistedness of the Treasury, it is too little to save Entente.

I was thinking of the second option for Italy (so to get the italian neutrality of the OP but still having the CP 'spend' resource to cover the front and not getting an easy way out of the blockade) with the UK still neutral but supporting materially the France/Russian alliance.
 
At first, thanks for that many replies! You really helped me. I try to answer some of your questions, and have still some questions.

Your questions: How and when does Germany win?

This is for myself a problem, I´d say Germany won in the spring-offensive 1918, but I don´t know what to change that they win. Do you have any suggestions how Germany could´ve won? Maybe with a new technology or a country that changes the sides? Maybe the USA stayed neutral and Germany never had a total u-boat-war?
I don´t think it wins earlier, because I want Russia to become communistic.
Is there any chance, that Russia can become communistic without Lenin?

After the war, Germany will make a Versailles-similar (but not as hard as in OTL for Germany) treaty and I want that in France an antigerman fascist or socialist government rises, do you know who could be the leader of them? And who could reign 1956?

A Brest-Litowsk like treaty will be, Ukraine, Poland, the baltic states, Belarus and so on will become german puppet states, but the people there will be treated well. Also they fear the communistic neighbour more than the german advanced monarchy.

There will be a short war against France, the fascist government falls and a new german-loyal french king will come. Who could it be? I think the house of Orleans is a good choice? In another timeline I read about a king Karl (charles) in France at that time, which house was he from?

If Stalin does not rise, who else could rise in Russia? And who could reign in 1956?

Still I need an answer, which Kaiser/ Tenno would rule Japan?

Cany anyone suggest me a good site about military technology that would be possible at that time? Like the german Nurflügler Horten, just what is possible at that time, if Germany is more developed than in OTL.

And I still need the information, is a german moon-landing, a german internet (Weltnetz) and mobile phones possible in 1956?

Which german general would become a hero, when the war in the west in ww 1. was successful? In the east, Hindenburg became famous, who would it be in the west?

I thank you so much for your great help!!!

lg

Stahladler
 
Top