What would be the aftermath of a 1961 Axis Victory Nuclear War?

Inspired by Cuban Missile Crisis escalates and Fatherland/Thousand Week Reich type Axis Victory TLs.

So supposed that Germany gets incredibly lucky and pushes the Soviet Union passed the Urals by 1943, soon after somehow establishing a ceasefire with the Western Allies by 1944. The Allies have still forced the Axis out of Africa. Meanwhile Japan holds out for a few more months then OTL, but still ultimately comes to the table after getting nuked a couple more times.

A Cold War then sets in, with Germany successfully tied most of mainland Europe to its orbit and developing its own nuclear weapons by 1953. Meanwhile Alt-NATO has successfully kept German influence out of the rest of the world.

By 1961 a dying Hitler (who has by some miracle survived into the 60s) has decided to go on one last conquest spree and decided to finally finish off the rump Soviet Union in Siberia and together with Italy invade in divide up Switzerland.

The situation escalates into a Nuclear War...

So under these circumstances how devastating is World War 3 going to be and what is it's aftermath likely going to look like?
 

Riain

Banned
I'd think a victorious Nazi Germany would be ahead of OTL Soviet Union in terms of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Once the US showed nukes were practical I'd think the Germans would get them in like 1947, not 49 like the OTL Soviets or 53 like suggested in the OP, after all they already had the germs of a programme IOTL.

IIRC in OTL CMC the Soviets could put at most 250-300 nukes on CONUS mostly with bombers, but with US defences and offensive strikes 25-30 would be more realistic. My guess is that with their own V2s and jet aircraft as far back as 1944 the Nazis could put hundreds of nukes onto CONUS in 1961 even in the face of heavy US defences and offensive strikes. Basically the result would be Armageddon like that which was possible by OTL 1970 or so.
 
It’s also questionable how much power surviving Hitler would have. He had clear retirement plans for post war. He’d also be suffering from Alzheimer’s and would at most be a popular figurehead, victor of war etc to be wheeled out and wave at masses without any actual impact on governance.

The Nazis never won so it’s hard to argue on what they’d be like culture wise 20 years later. 1940’s America and Britain were racist states where people were lynched. In 60’s interracial love became somewhat normalized trough free love movement. We could see something similar in Nazi case with Slavs or non Germanics. Or we could see the opposite. And there’s always a chance to have it turn into a stale old guard beaurocracy akin to Soviets post Stalin.
 
Inspired by Cuban Missile Crisis escalates and Fatherland/Thousand Week Reich type Axis Victory TLs.

So supposed that Germany gets incredibly lucky and pushes the Soviet Union passed the Urals by 1943, soon after somehow establishing a ceasefire with the Western Allies by 1944. The Allies have still forced the Axis out of Africa. Meanwhile Japan holds out for a few more months then OTL, but still ultimately comes to the table after getting nuked a couple more times.

A Cold War then sets in, with Germany successfully tied most of mainland Europe to its orbit and developing its own nuclear weapons by 1953. Meanwhile Alt-NATO has successfully kept German influence out of the rest of the world.

By 1961 a dying Hitler (who has by some miracle survived into the 60s) has decided to go on one last conquest spree and decided to finally finish off the rump Soviet Union in Siberia and together with Italy invade in divide up Switzerland.

The situation escalates into a Nuclear War...

So under these circumstances how devastating is World War 3 going to be and what is it's aftermath likely going to look like?

My suspicion the Western approach to a "Cold War" with a Nazi Regime that managed to at least sort of win or at least avoid loosing WW2 would make the historical Cold War seem like a mild warm up event vs the main event.

I suspect a 1960's "hot" war in that context would be immensely destructive. Perhaps if the U.S. / West more or less had a monopoly on deliverable thermonuclear weapons they might be able to sort of "win" but in my view that would by no means be a certainty. I have a sneaking suspicion the U.S. / western approach might have involved having the ability to credibly designate overlapping designated ground zero's for multi megaton weapons over much of (if not the entire) Inner German Reich (or what ever Germany was called at the time) and lots of other designated ground zero's over other parts of their conquests. They might or might not have actually launched such an attack but I suspect they would want that ability.

Even if the West wins I doubt the results will be pleasant for the winners.
 
Last edited:
There is some possibility that progress in the German nuclear weapons program is relatively slow so they don't yet have a deliverable thermonuclear weapons but they make good progress in rocket technology. They therefore end up with a sizable arsenal of early gen liquid fueled ICBMs but they only have 80-100 KT warheads with a CEP of 1.5-2 km. Conversely the US had thermonuclear bombs but they are lagging in rocket tech and so they are a year away from putting an ICBM into operation, They are relying on a modest number of IRBMs (presumably based in UK) and a large bomber force. A bit fascinating in its asymmetry
 
So under these circumstances how devastating is World War 3 going to be and what is it's aftermath likely going to look like?
By 1961 ITTL Nazi Germany would likely have at least as many nuclear weapons as the USSR did IOTL (almost 2,000) if not several times more. Here is a detailed breakdown of the US/Soviet nuclear arsenals at the time of OTLs Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR had between 300-320 strategic nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US (42 ICBMs) and over 550 nuclear missiles for use against Europe and the Pacific so the Reich should have at least that many given they would have more resources than the USSR and be far less damaged after the war is over.

Without Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, Germany and Turkey to deploy nuclear weapons in like OTL the US’ capability of hitting the Reich would be somewhat hindered and the same applies for the Reich since there wouldn’t be German nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba. In the event of nuclear war in the early 1960s I believe the UK would be hit with at least several hundred nuclear weapons, the US would be hit with at least 100 and Nazi Europe would be hit with at least a thousand. Tens of millions of people would die and none of the countries involved would come out anything close to unscathed.
 
Last edited:
By 1961 ITTL Nazi Germany would likely have at least as many nuclear weapons as the USSR did IOTL (almost 2,000) if not several times more. Here is a detailed breakdown of the US/Soviet nuclear arsenals at the time of OTLs Cuban Missile Crisis. The USSR had between 300-320 strategic nuclear weapons capable of reaching the US and over 550 nuclear missiles for use against Europe and the Pacific so the Reich should have at least that many given they would have more resources than the USSR and be far less damaged after the war is over. Without Italy, the Netherlands, Greece, Germany and Turkey to deploy nuclear weapons in like OTL the US’ capability of hitting the Reich would be somewhat hindered and the same applies for the Reich since there wouldn’t be German nuclear missiles stationed in Cuba.
On the other hand, the US will be deploying a lot of nukes in Britain (and possibly some sort of Free French-run Algeria), so there's that.
 
There is some possibility that progress in the German nuclear weapons program is relatively slow so they don't yet have a deliverable thermonuclear weapons but they make good progress in rocket technology. They therefore end up with a sizable arsenal of early gen liquid fueled ICBMs but they only have 80-100 KT warheads with a CEP of 1.5-2 km. Conversely the US had thermonuclear bombs but they are lagging in rocket tech and so they are a year away from putting an ICBM into operation, They are relying on a modest number of IRBMs (presumably based in UK) and a large bomber force. A bit fascinating in its asymmetry
Yeah that seems like a somewhat plausible outcome. The first side that gets credible long range missiles that can't really be intercepted and can equip them with thermonuclear warheads will have a massive advantage. The development of ABM systems may also enter into this but I also suspect many similar issues will be at play vis a vis the technology needed to make advanced nuclear warheads for early ABM's.

Maybe the US and the UK also pursue early standoff weapons for their bombers.
 
News to me. I always assumed Hitler was a "I'll sleep when I'm dead" kind of guy. Mind showing me sources of his Cincinnatus ideas?
Fuhrer city Linz. Planed to retire there and rebuild the city as German Budapest. You can google that or hitler retirement plan. It’ll show up a bunch of things.
 
News to me. I always assumed Hitler was a "I'll sleep when I'm dead" kind of guy. Mind showing me sources of his Cincinnatus ideas?
Here is the Wikipedia page. You can find details on it in Hitler: 1936-1945 by Ian Kershaw and Hitler’s Table Talk. One of the things Hitler did in the final months of the war was obsess over architecture models like what he wanted Linz to look like after the war was over.
 
The Americas would have already united under the banner of hemisphere defense so I could see the period between the 1940s-60s where the U.S. and its allies in Latin America invest in ASW and air defense assets.

The U.S. would also have ICBMs pointed towards Germany. Berlin would go in smoke the moment Hitler decides to launch nukes at North America.
 
The problem is that once the US has demonstrated Nuclear weapons it knows that sooner or later the Reich will get them even if it takes them longer to produce them. So the US knows that the best time to take out the Reich if it comes to that, is before that happens.

So the US's choice is functionally:

1). hold the ceasefire but risk the Reich building a nuclear arsenal (and leverage it's missile advances) to the point it is a direct existential threat to the US, (something no axis power was in WW2 and the prevention of which was a key part of long-term US foreign policy)

or

2). Attack first when it's the only side with nuclear weapons

Remember also that you are dealing with Hitler and the Nazis who you are already at war with and have been at war with for a couple of years by that point including strategic bombing campaigns against cities, i.e. blood has already been spilt. It's unlikely that anyone will believe that the Reich will not at some point reinitiate hostilities which will effect that choice above.

On top of that a victorious Reich west of the Urals will mean General Plan Ost, and that will come out and be known about. Not to mention the culmination of the final solution. So given that and the German actions pre-ceasefire, I doubt anyone is going to castigate the US for restarting the war if it means a destroyed Germany vs. a German Reich with Hitler and Co in charge and nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
So, how much do you see India and the Republic of China (the lack of a Soviet backer means the KMT is likely to win the civil war) getting hit in said nuclear war?
 

DougM

Donor
First off Germany wont be ahead of the USSR, they (germany) had not penetrated Manhattan with spys like the USSR had. so will have yo do all the work, not just some. Thus they will take longer to get the first bomb.
2) A US with Nukes is not going to be leaving the Germans in power. They will Nuke Germany back to the stonecage, so this whole concept should be ASB

So in conclusion i think the ASB will use their star ships weapons to prevent a nuclear war…,
 
Here is the Wikipedia page. You can find details on it in Hitler: 1936-1945 by Ian Kershaw and Hitler’s Table Talk. One of the things Hitler did in the final months of the war was obsess over architecture models like what he wanted Linz to look like after the war was over.
Given how erratic he became in his final months*, hard to use what he said he'd do in that context to inform what he'd actaully do in a victory scenario

In a victory scenario his "great leadership of the master race" will have been 100% vindicated he'll keep on, even if it's just to protect his victorious legacy.

Hitler was as much about what would come after a military victory as the military victory itself.




*and frankly a long time before that as well. Hitler's table talks were long rants that went on into the small hours of teh morning in front of polite but captive audiences, they were often not consistent long term.
 
Last edited:
Top