Would Hitler Prosper In An Atomic World?

Suppose the first atomic weapons were developed and tested in the inter-war period, and most of the developed nations had acquired a few by 1939. Would that completely buttefly away any WWII? Or would a leader like Hitler plough forward into battle anyways. Would even the most extreme Germans allow him to?
 
at the begeining of the warit's a toss up on who's got enough guts, (or in one case, crazy enough) and who has the most bombs.
I expect Hitler would still use them to start WWII....
and get rid of a couple hundred Jews in the test........
whoever fires first, most likely would expect retaliation from the victim's allies.
Hitler.....with nukes is a scary though. I can see him bombing the Kremlin and London without a secound thought, and threatening the US with Atomic V-3s......
But that's assuming Stalin or Churchill don't get him first.
 

Germaniac

Donor
The question is does Hitler understand the true capacity of the weapon, the more powerful the more likely he would use it. I could see him using then not only as military weapons, but like massive bulldozers for his new german cities. He intedend to destroy cities like warsaw and leningrad and build new german capitals, im sure he would have used them in that capacity.

Now out of his misplaced respect for Britain, he would not use it against them until they used it on him. he would nuke the boshlevicks to hell first.
 
On the other hand, the same compact centrality that aids in Germany's strategic ability to wage a land war probably makes it more vulnerable to nuclear attack than countries on the periphery.
 
Tough call. On the one hand, I swear I read somewhere (reputable) that Hitler began Germany's expansion by riding into various towns with an army that was unarmed and on bicycles, just to see if anyone would stop him...and for various reasons, nobody did. Of course, now I can't find where I read that, so maybe it's not true. Either way, Hitler got a way with a LOT of shit before the various countries stood up to him...Hitler with nukes would get a lot more "respect".

But on the other hand...would he really USE them? I don't mean this from a "oh the humanity" angle, since that obviously wasn't his concern, but I also don't mean it from a self-defense angle, since he killed himself...the ultimate act of non-self-defense.

What I mean is: Hitler obviously had his eyes on a Nazi empire that at least consisted of all of Europe, if not more...why would he nuke land that he believed he would eventually control?
 
In the 1930s, didn't most of the European nations pretty much believe that conventional bombers could and would lay waste to cities relatively easily? Weren't the British (for example) convinced the Germans would begin any war with a knockout-air-blow to London? Weren't bombers supposed to be unstoppable? Always able to get through?

Yet, both sides went to war anyway... and of course conventional bombers weren't quite as effective as believed.

I could see both sides behaving in the same way with atomic bombs... but then finding out, to their cost, that a-bombs are actually as effective as prophesized.
 
Fission was discovered in 1938 it would have to be pushed back about 20 given the technology at the time. We would need an earlier less devastation WW1 for starters

I didn't suggest a POD, but I was thinking of a somewhat more advanced "Long-19th Century". (1789-1914) With the real butterfly effects really only starting to show up with the outbreak of WWI. That's a 125 years to work with. 125 years of OTL tech progress, which means you'd only need about a 16% increase in 'average' technological rate of progression spread out over that time, to arrive at a 1914 with OTL 1934 level technology, or there-abouts.

(Which could be huge or not, depending on how you think about it. If it was smooth tech-rate increase, it would mean the American Civil War of 1860 would be fought with 1878 level technology, the Franco-Prussian of 1870 with 1889 level tech ect. ect.)

Update: So that would mean the tech-level when WWII was scheduled to break out broke out in this scenario ('39)would be around 1955-58 OTL, if we went with the universal but constant tech 'boost'
 
Last edited:
What I mean is: Hitler obviously had his eyes on a Nazi empire that at least consisted of all of Europe, if not more...why would he nuke land that he believed he would eventually control?
Think about the way nukes were seen by most military commanders when they were first developed and used. Essentially as equal to a thousand-bomber raid, right? The radiation effects were not really considered, or widely known about. Why should the ATL be different?
 
My Opinion--If Hitler has nukes, he uses them against the Poles. If Poland has nukes of its own, it throws everything it has against Germany but probably doesn't achieve much. Germany has lost a couple of cities; Poland is in bad shape.

Now will Hitler go for Denmark--probably; that's not likely to result in a nuclear war. However, attacking westward against France means that you are going to have a massive nuclear exchange--and people like ITTL Manstein would know this and prevail upon Hitler to maintain the phony war--France doesn't nuke Germany, Germany doesn't nuke back.

Instead, with these tensions in mind, Germany launches an all-out attack against the Soviet Union, wiping out much of its nuclear arsenal and killing many of their largest cities. The Resultant war kills most of the inhabitants of Ukraine, Belorussia, Muscovy and the Baltic States--and the Wehrmacht bogs down only because the Soviets use nukes of their own to stall the other side.

By 1960, the war is mostly over as Germany is no longer able to fight. But 70% of the German People have died as a result of repeated nuclear bombardment. The Soviets have a lower figure, but up to the Volga they have suffered at least 40% losses. One Hundred Million People have died and far from the living space Hitler had meant to achieve there are now dead zones throughout Eastern Europe.

The War ends as Hitler is removed by the Wehrmacht, while Stalin and his politburo have been killed in the surprise attack on Moscow--the provisional leadership, led by Andrei Zhadnov calls for a cease fire with the German Military Junta in charge of Germany. Germany gets a chunk of territory from the Soviets, but its useless land poisoned by radiation for 150 years. Indeed, effect of this war creates a dead zone that is essentially impassable to humanity--for all intents a protective moat that prohibits a repeat war between the Soviets and Germany.

This world is going to suck..
 
I remember reading a long time ago that towards the end of WWII Hitler ordered gas to be used against the advancing Red Army. [Unfortunately it didn't give any references to sources and was about 20 years ago]. The relevant German commanders, thinking how little effect gas would have on the advancing forces and the resultant response from the western allies and 'forgot' the orders.

The big question, once the destructiveness of nuclear weapons are realised, is how willing people will be to start a nuclear exchange. This is not just the political leaders who make the decision but also the people at lower levels who actually implement it. For a mid-level functionary in a ruthless dictatorship even questioning let alone opposing a decision of the central leadership is very risky. Your likely to achieve nothing but your own death and probably that of many of your family. However, if the alternative is to see much of your country and family destroyed by a nuclear counter-strike, that could concentrate minds greatly. You might still get such a state launching a nuclear war, against an opponent who can and will counter-attack. However its a lot less likely than if the proposed victim can't reply in kind.

Steve
 
Top