Lets talk about alternative WW2 scenarios...

[TheStinger]

because the manhattan project is something that would have been way beyond the industrial capacity of germany especially if the US/UK were levelling cities form teh air with conventional forces.

There would have been some freeing up of resources if the SU collapses but the number they would have needed to keep the population in check would have been a significant drain.

Also you say that D-day would have failed, well it wouldn't have been tried in the same way, they still could have gone through Italy, which would take a long time but the US can out produce germany massively under any circs

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by TheStinger
because the manhattan project is something that would have been way beyond the industrial capacity of germany especially if the US/UK were levelling cities form teh air with conventional forces.

There would have been some freeing up of resources if the SU collapses but the number they would have needed to keep the population in check would have been a significant drain.

Also you say that D-day would have failed, well it wouldn't have been tried in the same way, they still could have gone through Italy, which would take a long time but the US can out produce germany massively under any circs

Again you are assuming the US enters the war. Japan has in this scenario not attacked Pearl Harbour, they focused on the Soviet Union and China instead. So the US is late in its military build up.


And the victory if it came would cost millions of British and American lives.

[David Floyd]

Heraclitus,

I hate to break this to you all, but the Sovier Union basically won WW2, even without any US support it would have still won.

Incorrect. Without Lend Lease, the Soviet Union could easily have lost. Also, remember how many German resources were tied up in other theaters. It was a "damned close run thing" as it was - if you introduce over a million additional German soldiers, thousands of tanks and guns, and the ability to fight on one front instead of 3, Germany probably wins the war against the Soviets.

If Hitler could beat the Soviet Union, he would have won WW2. Sure Britain might not get invaded. But a crazy British-American D-day would be a complete failure if there was just one front.

Who says anything about invading France? The US and Britain would clean up the periphery- North Africa, Scandanavia, the Mediterranean - using their superior sea power and air power. Then, starting in August of 1945, the US starts raining atomic bombs on Germany. Bye-bye, Thousand Year Reich.

In such a raddically different time line, how can you be sure? The whole "Jewish science" bias in Nazi Germany was passe by then.

All the "Jewish scientists" were already in the US, working on the Manhatten Project. If we are postulating a German victory over the Soviet Union, remember that Operation Barbarossa did not kick off until June 23, 1941. Let's say that Operation Typhoon succeeds in November, and Army Group Center captures Moscow, and that this is enough to end the war, we are still into early 1942 before the Germans are truly extricated from the Soviet Union, and they still have to expend massive resources garrisoning it.

But the relative strength they use holding down the Soviet Union isn't the point. The point is that by 1942, the Manhatten Project is going full steam ahead.

Again you are assuming the US enters the war. Japan has in this scenario not attacked Pearl Harbour, they focused on the Soviet Union and China instead. So the US is late in its military build up.

We are postulating a Japanese strategy that ignores the Dutch East Indies and United States? OK, but for the record, that makes no sense. They can't get the oil, rubber, etc., that they need by going after the Soviets, and the Japanese Army couldn't have concentrated much more on China than it actually did - IIRC, there were only around 11 Army divisions available to support the navy on December 7 1941 historically. But for the sake of argument, let's say that you are right, and the Japanese don't attack Pearl Harbor.

The fact remains that the US military buildup WAS heavily underway. Conscription started in 1940, with a target army of over 1.5 million men, and a massive naval buildup began that same year - a buildup which, by the way, provided the initial carriers and battleships and hundreds of supporting ships that entered service in 1943-1944. The Princeton Class CVL and Essex Class CV were not produced as a response to Pearl Harbor, they were conceived, designed, and put into production prior to that date.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Who says anything about invading France? The US and Britain would clean up the periphery- North Africa, Scandanavia, the Mediterranean - using their superior sea power and air power. Then, starting in August of 1945, the US starts raining atomic bombs on Germany. Bye-bye, Thousand Year Reich.

This is interesting, but to be completly honest, I can't see you retaking Norway or the Mediteranean with a German victory in the Soviet Union.

All the Germans need do is take the Suez canal and Gibraltar and keep them. That way they instantly have a victory in the mediteranen. And knowing Hilter he may disreagard Swedens neutrality take it by force and in so doing make any invasion of Norway impractical.

That is the 1945 you are facing. Not only that German cooperation with Japan would for the entirety of this time been undisturbed. This inculeds sharing Uranium with the Japanese nuclear program.


Lastly yes the American program stays on track, but Hitler is not the most rational person and even a ration person would retaliate upon Britain if threathened by nuclear weapons.

German scientists also did research on other chemical weapons during the war, including human experimentation with mustard gas. The first nerve gas, tabun, was invented by the German researcher Gerhard Schrader in 1937. During the war, Germany stockpiled tabun, sarin, and soman but refrained from their use on the battlefield.

Chemical warfare, V2 or perhaps even V10 filled with nerve gas falling on London and other major cities. Not a pretty sight, furthermore the Japanese where developing biological weapons at this point.


You are also assuming the American and British public would be willling to support gernocidal policy, beacuse Hitler wouldn't surrender untill at least 10 or so German cities layed wasted by nuclear detonations.

After the war this would also cause problems, the good vs. bad view on WW2 would be impossible the western allies reputation would be tarnished beyond repair. The best that could be acheived in that case would be a pyrrhic victory.

The US would be even more supreme than it is currenty, Britain and all of Europe would be trashed far more than now, the Soviet Union if it was reinstated would be a very weak nation and a precedense for large scale nuclear warfare would be established.

[David Floyd]

This is interesting, but to be completly honest, I can't see you retaking Norway or the Mediteranean with a German victory in the Soviet Union.

All the Germans need do is take the Suez canal and Gibraltar and keep them. That way they instantly have a victory in the mediteranen. And knowing Hilter he may disreagard Swedens neutrality take it by force and in so doing make any invasion of Norway impractical.

How does Hitler take Gibraltor? He'd have to convince Franco to join the war, but Franco knows that Spain is in no shape for a war. MAYBE he could be convinced following a German victory in the Soviet Union, but even still, taking Gibraltor wouldn't exactly be easy. As for the Suez Canal, how does Germany get sufficient forces to the theater? They can't use the Med if the British and Americans shove enough naval power in there. As for coming overland through the Caucusus, that would require an invasion of Turkey. Slogging through the mountains of Eastern Turkey, then going through Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc., would be a tall order indeed, and an operation conducted at the end of a supply line thousands of miles long against an enemy that would likely have air superiority. As for Norway, the same problem applies - the Germans would find it very difficult to get sufficient forces to the theater, from a logistic standpoint.

However, the fact remains that neither of these theaters are critical. All that has to happen is for the US and Britain to survive until atomic bombs are ready to go. And actually, the BARE MINIMUM necessary to win the war doesn't even include Britain. The US can simply sit back, wait until the B-36 is ready to go, and hit Germany with atomic bombs dropped from bombers above the operational flight ceiling of any German fighter, flying from bases in the continental United States.

That is the 1945 you are facing. Not only that German cooperation with Japan would for the entirety of this time been undisturbed. This inculeds sharing Uranium with the Japanese nuclear program.

German and Japanese atomic programs were basically a joke with no realistic chance of success.

Lastly yes the American program stays on track, but Hitler is not the most rational person and even a ration person would retaliate upon Britain if threathened by nuclear weapons.

With chemical weapons? Perhaps. Then again, Hitler had an extreme aversion to chemical warfare, as did all Great War veterans. Remember, as a front line soldier in WW1, Hitler was wounded in 1918 by mustard gas. If Germany didn't use chemical weapons when the Allies and Soviets were closing in on Berlin, why would he use them in this scenario? Makes no sense.

[David Floyd]

You are also assuming the American and British public would be willling to support gernocidal policy, beacuse Hitler wouldn't surrender untill at least 10 or so German cities layed wasted by nuclear detonations.

Well, the US public was fine with firebombing Japanese paper cities and starving Japanese civilians to death. The US public was fine with carpet bombing German cities. Remember, at the time, most people simply saw atomic weapons as really big bombs. No, I don't think that the public would do anything other than cheer every time a German or Japanese city went up in atomic fire.

After the war this would also cause problems, the good vs. bad view on WW2 would be impossible the western allies reputation would be tarnished beyond repair.

Not after we released evidence of Nazi atrocities.

The US would be even more supreme than it is currenty, Britain and all of Europe would be trashed far more than now, the Soviet Union if it was reinstated would be a very weak nation and a precedense for large scale nuclear warfare would be established.

How is that a Phyrric victory, especially keeping in mind that the US is the world's only atomic power with a demonstrated interest in keeping it that way?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not after we released evidence of Nazi atrocities.

Please, 12 million people vs. 5 or so million people would not look as good as you think. Plus with Germany nuked how will you prove it?

Originally posted by David Floyd

How is that a Phyrric victory, especially keeping in mind that the US is the world's only atomic power with a demonstrated interest in keeping it that way?

That is funny, you honestly think the US would remain the only nuclear power? People would see it as the weapon that won the war. I mean the Soviet Union got nukes in the real world without any problems in 1947, since they basically stole it, they could have nukes in like 1948, Britain traumatised by the death of hundreds of thousands because of nerve gass would want it. De Gaulle would want it. Mao would want it.

Also a united Germany would sure as hell want it (rember the Soviet Union didn't get eastern Europe in this scenario).


You basically have a template for a nuclear world war 3 in the 1970's. No balance of power just US supremacy would piss a lot of people off. A coalition would build up against you in not time, since the Nazis failed perhaps the next time the Reichstag would burn Germany would end up communist. The French resistance had a strong Communist component. Stalin wouldn't have a chance to opress eastern Europe. Communism would be seen as a much more atractive possilbity. Europe may actually end up communist especialy if Franco joined the war on the Nazi side in early 1945 (when it would seem like the Axis are winning, before the nukes started falling).

And before you say the US could stop any nation from getting nukes, think again the US was caught by suprise by the Soviet Union. If you aren't a third world country like North Korea or Iran concealing a nuclear program is trivial especailly in the 1950's.

I must say one consequence I find most amusing. France becomes the premier power in Europe matching the much weaker Soviet Union (Germany has been nuked, Britain bombed to the stone age).

[David Floyd]

Please, 12 million people vs. 5 or so million people would not look as good as you think. Plus with Germany nuked how will you prove it?

As you said, though, the world is in ashes, except for the US, Britain and our allies. Who exactly do we have to justify ourselves to, in any event?

That is funny, you honestly think the US would remain the only nuclear power? People would see it as the weapon that won the war. I mean the Soviet Union got nukes in the real world without any problems in 1947, since they basically stole it, they could have nukes in like 1948, Britain traumatised by the death of hundreds of thousands because of nerve gass would want it. De Gaulle would want it. Mao would want it.

Also a united Germany would sure as hell want it (rember the Soviet Union didn't get eastern Europe in this scenario).

Couple problems here. First of all, who's to say the US will allow anyone to have it. What if the US uses it's position as post-war hegemon to force a treaty stipulating that the US remains the world's only atomic power? What if the US forms a UN-like institution, with one of the founding premises being no NEW atomic development? What if the US used it's military might to prevent anyone else from getting The Bomb?

Also, Germany and the Soviet Union, and probably France, will basically be destroyed. Britain will be even more bankrupt than they were historically. Mao might want the bomb, but Mao wouldn't be in power yet more than likely, and regardless, it took China until 1963 (IIRC) anyway, and there was very serious talk of joint US-Soviet cooperation to prevent China from becoming a nuclear power.

You basically have a template for a nuclear world war 3 in the 1970's. No balance of power just US supremacy would piss a lot of people off. A coalition would build up against you in not time, since the Nazis failed perhaps the next time the Eeichstag would burn Germany would end up communist. The French resistance had a strong Communist component. Stalin wouldn't have a chance to opress eastern Europe. Communism would be seen as a much more atractive possilbity. Europe may actually end up communist especialy if Franco joined the war on the Nazi side in early 1945 (when it would seem like the Axis are winning, before the nukes started falling).

Maybe, but who is going to support these Communist movements? Not the Soviet Union, which did historically. Not China, which is in the middle of a civil war.The Socialists in Spain were already soundly defeated. So, if French Communists try to take over, what's to stop the US from committing troops to stop them? It's just hard to see a more powerful communist bloc arising out of this scenario, than did historically, and historically, the US did just fine against the Communist threat.

And before you say the US could stop any nation from getting nukes, think again the US was caught by suprise by the Soviet Union. If you aren't a third world country like North Korea or Iran concealing a nuclear program is trivial especailly in the 1950's.

True, but what nation on Earth would really be able to afford an atomic program? As you say, MAYBE France, and that's really about it. However, France would have no military power to speak of - remember who organized and armed the French forces that actually existed immediately following WW2. Seems to me that rebuilding it's conventional military (not to mention their currency/economy) would be France's first priority, which would take years and would probably be reliant upon a type of Marshall Plan, with the US pumping in billions.

[David Floyd]

Also, talking about the post-war situation is fun, but it's moving away from the OP. Does this mean you agree that the US would have taken Germany regardless of whether or not the Soviets were still in the war?

[McLaine]

I think attacking the USSR is what may have cost Germany the war. That and perhaps the distrust Hitler had in his generals...

If he had kept peace with the USSR - at least for some time - and had concentrated everything on the UK, that country would have fallen. Don't forget the USA was in a state of neutrality at that time (the cash and carry principle).
Once the UK gone, there would not have been a European bridgehead to preparean invasion from.
Rommel would have received the troops he so desparetly needed and probably conquered a part of Africa (with the UK gone, resistance would have been feeble).
Then after this, Germany could concentrate on the USSR.

OK, so the USA had the Manhattan project, but what bomber would have been able to deliver the nuke to Germany? Don't forget it is Germany who started with the rockets...

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Also, talking about the post-war situation is fun, but it's moving away from the OP. Does this mean you agree that the US would have taken Germany regardless of whether or not the Soviets were still in the war?

If America got nukes and was the only one to have nukes for a period longer than 4 months. Then yes.


But if Britain enters a white peace with Germany in 1944 or early 1945, there is no war to speak off. Britain may very well have surrenderd despite Churchills stance.


I rember there is a ciritcal period when Britain is alone, all Hilter would need to do is start gassing with V2 or jet aircraft-delivered chemical weapons the britons or even pull off a Sealion. You cited Japan, but Japan could very well get the oil from Germany or Syberia or perhaps a ME colony it gained from the defeated Brits.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by McLaine

OK, so the USA had the Manhattan project, but what bomber would have been able to deliver the nuke to Germany? Don't forget it is Germany who started with the rockets...

This reminds me if the Germans by some fluke got the nuke first then even with the US they loose. A German missle with a nuclear tip launched from a sub means bye bye New York or Washington. Or even a German supplied nuke delivered by the Japanese on San Francisco.


Yes Manhattan was well on its way, but rember the German project was underfunded and understaffed, with no Soviet Union Hitler may very well have chosen to properly fund it.

[David Floyd]

McClaine,

If he had kept peace with the USSR - at least for some time - and had concentrated everything on the UK, that country would have fallen. Don't forget the USA was in a state of neutrality at that time (the cash and carry principle).
Once the UK gone, there would not have been a European bridgehead to preparean invasion from.
Rommel would have received the troops he so desparetly needed and probably conquered a part of Africa (with the UK gone, resistance would have been feeble).
Then after this, Germany could concentrate on the USSR.

Well, it's basically an article of faith amongst serious military historians that Germany could not have won the Battle of Britain in 1940. That being the case, how does Germany win an air war over Britain in, say, 1943, when the Royal Metropolitan Air Force is deploying over 3000 front line fighters in the UK and Britain is outproducing Germany in both aircraft and trained pilots?

OK, so the USA had the Manhattan project, but what bomber would have been able to deliver the nuke to Germany? Don't forget it is Germany who started with the rockets...

The B-36 could have delivered atomic bombs to any target in Germany, flying from CONUS above the operational ceiling of any German fighter starting in 1947.

Heraclitus,

Yes Manhattan was well on its way, but rember the German project was underfunded and understaffed, with no Soviet Union Hitler may very well have chosen to properly fund it.

It was underfunded and understaffed because the Germans did not believe it could be done. Their initial research yielded poor results, and they basically gave up by 1942, a decision made independent of any military outcomes.

[McLaine]

Well, it's basically an article of faith amongst serious military historians that Germany could not have won the Battle of Britain in 1940.

I'd like to challenge that... If Germany had pushed on immediately after Dunkirk, it would have been very very difficult for the English. A matter of leaving no time for the English to get reorganized.

Of course, waiting is a disaster, so the attack would have had to be a blitz.

[David Floyd]

The Germans hadn't assembled any shipping to cross the Channel, and the RAF and RN were both undefeated. It's tough to blitz across water with tanks Also, after Dunkirk the Germans still had to finish the conquest of France.