How do you think it would be if...

[Lt.Fillipidis]

...the Axis had won the war?

Im making this thread out of boredom cause i see the same threads getting bumped and bumped again. I've read the whole BALZ series already, if someone asks. :O:

Well, i think it would be the end of communism and Germany (if not European Union as a whole) would probably be as USA is today when the reins would pass from Hitler to the next one.

*Its a giant topic this one, i know, but just xplain it in 2-3 lines. :salute:

[David I]

Bad.

DavidI

[FIREWALL]

If Roosevelt had died earlier in office and Japan hadn't attacked Pearl Harbor ?

Who knows. The world WOULD be a very different place. :o

[IanC]

Wir würden wahrscheinlich wissen, Deutsch, das ist sicher.

[Frank0001]

I think it would be the end of ALL jews and gypsies, the likes of which Hitler hated.
I'm not too sure about Hitler's plans, if he even had them, for the world if/when he won the war. I'm thinking it wouldn't be too bad a place for non-jewish people?

[Schroeder]

I'm thinking it wouldn't be too bad a place for non-jewish people?
No opposition allowed, say a wrong word to the wrong person and you end up dead. Happened to a lot of people even before the war. No news from outside, take the NS news or don't take any at all. Think their way or don't think at all and don't try to disobey order. It's bad for your health you know.

I don't know, but that doesn't sound like a place where I would like to live.:down:

[Lt.Fillipidis]

No opposition allowed, say a wrong word to the wrong person and you end up dead. Happened to a lot of people even before the war. No news from outside, take the NS news or don't take any at all. Think their way or don't think at all and don't try to disobey order. It's bad for your health you know.

I don't know, but that doesn't sound like a place where I would like to live.:down:

I agree that at the first years of his reign and during the war there was much oppression. That happens in every dictatorship. But, there werent few dictators who were loved afterwards.
Franco shared ideas with Hitler, for example but he enjoyed long live as a national leader.
Metaxas is named national hero in Greece. The day he said no to the Italians is celebrated as a national holiday. He too shared ideas with Hitler.
I have read Mein Kampf and discussed it with other reader and, man, sometimes he gives you the idea that he has a point.

[flag4]

We would have what we have now, but a european republic. i have a feeling it would be crumbling or would have crumbled by now, like communism did. it seems impossible to keep on sqeezing a population under one tyrany; they all fall in the end, only to be replaced by another one - less openly tyranical, then slowly, the knot begins to tighten.....:woot:

[Task Force]

If Germany had somehow managed to pull off a victory... things would have never been right both in the country and in command.

In the end I believe a revolution would have been its downfall sooner or later. As you see, no country is going to be around...

It would be extremely hard for Germany to invade the northern Americas. probably might stand a chance in the southern Americas.

[FIREWALL]

If Germany had somehow managed to pull off a victory... things would have never been right both in the country and in command.

In the end I believe a revolution would have been its downfall sooner or later. As you see, no country is going to be around...

It would be extremely hard for Germany to invade the northern Americas. probably might stand a chance in the southern Americas.


That might have solved the illegal immagration problem. :haha:

[Task Force]

lol, im sure it would... but in the end, I think the USA in america would have been a very hard country to tame... because im sure that alot of americans would have

A joined the military, makeing americas army largely outnumber the Germans, also the US has not got to move its stuff far/accrost a ocean to fight.

B If america was take over the populace would be VERY upset im sure. and would often rebel. and try to overthrow the German forces...

Also, You see what happens when a country trys to take over the world. It never really works.

[Hitman]

There have been already similar discussions about this in the past. And the matter does not really belong here, so I'm moving it to the proper forum. :88)

[FIREWALL]

Two words. RED DAWN. :yep:

[flag4]

a german republic would not need to invade the america's. it would have all the resources at hand on this vast continent/land mass; europe, russia, eurasia the far east etc etc...

[Raptor1]

Define 'won'.

If we're talking about Germany, it can range from anything to making separate peace and survivng as a state, to conquering Europe and Russia up to the A-A Line to complete world domination.

Similarly, while Germany could've lost, Japan might've won to some extent and vice-versa.

[mookiemookie]

Dunno, but I'm reading Fatherland (http://www.amazon.com/Fatherland-Robert-Harris/dp/0061006629) right now and it doesn't seem like it would be a fun place to be.

[Snestorm]

One should keep in mind that "The master race" was actualy slated to become the master's race. That ' makes a big difference. Not a good outcome for the german people.

[Takeda Shingen]

Also, You see what happens when a country trys to take over the world. It never really works.

Nuh uh. I take over the world all the time in the Total War series and have no problems what-so-ever. :O:

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Nuh uh. I take over the world all the time in the Total War series and have no problems what-so-ever. :O:

Yeah, especially when you press the "Enslave population" option in Rome Total War :haha:

People could only accept invasions if the invading force would bring brighter days that the current leadership. This is one of the reasons the Persians accepted Alexander as their king. Hitler could only do this on Soviet people but his plan was to annihilate them so anyway.

But judging from Mein Kamp, other books and historical facts, Hitler seemed to want to claim what was Germany's before the Treaty of Versailles and evaporate Bolshevikism from earth.

[Onkel Neal]

It would be a lot easier to complete a Silent Hunter 3 campaign. :D

[Skybird]

Philip K. Dick: The Man In The High Castle

One of his best.

[Dowly]

I dont know why, but whenever I think about this question, I always think that the Third Reich would be somewhat similar to ancient Rome. Corruption, people fighting for the Führer's seat etc etc. :hmmm:

[August]

I'd say the best definition of winning would be that the 3rd German Reich survives to the present day with most or all of it's empire still intact.

So for the sake of argument let's say that hitler dies at the peak of German WW2 expansion in late 1941. Now assuming whoever emerges from the ensuing power struggle is a fairly competent national leader who enjoys a similar level of support that hitler commanded, what does the next Führer need to do to win the war?

I mean at that point he could forget trying to make peace. It's not like the Germans could just tell the rest of the world "our bad" and march back to the Fatherland singing songs. Germany must either emerge victorious or be defeated.

Is it possible or was Germanys fate sealed while they were still winning?

[Raptor1]

Germany's biggest catastrophes in the war, mainly Stalingrad, Kursk, Overlord and Bagration, all happened or were largely decided by extreme military stupidity on Hitler's part. Assuming he was replaced by competent leadership before any of these happened, Germany might have had a chance of winning the war to some extent.

[GoldenRivet]

Given the mood im in tonight. :stare::stare::stare::stare::stare:


it would be AWESOME

[Snestorm]

Prior to declaring war on USA, Germany could have achieved a stalemate with England.
But following that declaration, it was just a matter of When, not If.

What if USA had not gotten involved?:
The same holds true for invading Russia.
Given enough time, either one could eventualy defeat Germany.

[Torplexed]

Well, if Japan had won in the Pacific somehow....no Korean or Vietnam War for the US. :D However, in a few decades or less I think Japan would eventually have been bled white in trying to maintain control of China.

[FIREWALL]

Given the mood im in tonight. :stare::stare::stare::stare::stare:


it would be AWESOME



What's Wrong ? :hmmm:

[GoldenRivet]

thanks to margarita.... the Germans dont have to go back in time and win WW2.

long difficult day, a few setbacks and disappointments at work, and an unusually long - moron filled commute. :shifty:

[FIREWALL]

@ GR It can only go up from here, Happy Holidays to you and family. :DL


Best Wishes , FIREWALL :sunny:

[Platapus]

...the Axis had won the war?



We would have all end up driving Japanese and German cars.


oh.....

German scientists would be key to building rockets to take man to the moon


oh....


The worlds electronics would be built in Japan


oh....

We did win that war right????

:D

[OneToughHerring]

Platapus,

good points. It seems that many of the nations that lost ww2 (including Finland) were able to emerge quite well after the war whereas the winners stagnated a bit. Maybe the sanctions etc. served as a thing that spurred on the economies of the vanquished nations.

And if the Axis had won? It depends what kind of victory it would have been. I think they would've faced a pretty tough insurgency of a kind. :)

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Platapus said it all! :har:
Actually, USA declared war on the Axis. Given the offensive stance that USA held towards Japan before the war, it was bound to have retaliations.
(Plus, as far as i know, Australia informed USA about a Japanesse Task Force moving in the pacific towards Hawaii, at 4th of December 1941. 3 days before Pearl Harbor. Saw these things on Zeitgeist. Conspiracy theories etc but they won me, to be honest. Seem true.)
Anyways, lets not forget that the allies declared war to Germany after the invasion of Poland and not vice versa.

And to be absolutely honest, i would give it a try living in such world.
The world today goes from bad to worse, so there mustn't be much to loose.

In my personal, copyrighted and owned by me and myself only opinion. :salute:

[August]

Platapus said it all! :har:
Actually, USA declared war on the Axis. Given the offensive stance that USA held towards Japan before the war, it was bound to have retaliations.

What offensive stance towards Japan would that be? And for the record Germany and Italy declared war on the United States on December 11th 1941.

[IanC]

What offensive stance towards Japan would that be?

I thought everybody knew about the economic squeeze the US put on Japan... here's one of many sources. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1930

edit: I just carefully read that article, I'm not sure I can fully agree with some of the authors wording or that "the leaders in Washington knew about the Pearl Harbour attack in advance"... but the general idea is there.

Maybe a better link: http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=137

[Raptor1]

Platapus said it all! :har:
Actually, USA declared war on the Axis. Given the offensive stance that USA held towards Japan before the war, it was bound to have retaliations.


You do realize that this so-called 'offensive' stance (I'm assuming you mean the oil embargo) is a direct consequence of Japan's invasion of China, right?

[Lt.Fillipidis]

@Raptor1

I do but what does USA has to do witch China anyway?
Its logical for Soviet Union to have relations with China but USA?

USA had put an economic embargo on Japan but besides that i had read somewhere that were civilian harassings and expels towards Japanesse people on American soil. I cant remember where i read that or if i remember it right so i might be wrong. (It might be Zeitgeist though cause i learned much watching that.)


Plus, reffering to just anyone, lets not raise our voices in here.
I didnt started this post to start a fight, i started it so we all can exchange opinions under the subject. :timeout:

Edit: Typo

[Torplexed]

The sanctions the US imposed on Japan initially in 1940 were minimal, involving items like scrap metal rather than essential raw materials like oil. What brought on the full embargo was when Japan decided to establish a "protectorate" over the French Indo-China, basically taking it over. This the US initially protested, then on July 25 1941 announced the limitation of oil exports to Japan and the freezing of Japanese assets in the US.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

One thing i just remembered reading the post of Torplexed.
Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.
I wont ask what the hell was France doing in indochina. Probably the same what Britain was doing in africa and India or America in the pacific.

Edit: As far as i know, Roosevelt won his last elections but guaranteeing neuterality to the war, didnt he?

[Raptor1]

@Raptor1

I do but what does USA has to do witch China anyway?
Its logical for Soviet Union to have relations with China but USA?


What do the Japanese have to do with invading China?

[Snestorm]

To shed a-little light on the subject, one should keep in mind where the Roosevelt fortune came from. The opium trade. Just a-little food for thought.

[IanC]

To shed a-little light on the subject, one should keep in mind where the Roosevelt fortune came from. The opium trade. Just a-little food for thought.

:doh: :hmmm:

[Oberon]

http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/i_like_where_thread_going3.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

My guess is Japan would have to capitulate to Germany. Perhaps cold war between the two. Both could not rule the world. Germany would take control eventually. However, groups such as the FFI would still continue to fight. I do not think the confict would every stop.

[AngusJS]

One thing i just remembered reading the post of Torplexed.
Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.What else were they supposed to do? Let Japan gobble up the rest of East Asia?

I wont ask what the hell was France doing in indochina. Probably the same what Britain was doing in africa and India or America in the pacific.That was pretty ironic, though it should be remembered that Axis control of those areas would be much worse.


http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/6109/antijapdutch1944.jpg

[Tribesman]

Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.

Provocative?
What obligation did US companies or the government have to keep selling goods to Japan?
As for provocation I would have thought the main provocation was when Japan sank a US warship which was escorting US oil tankers that were being threatened by Japan. I would of thought that was sufficient provocation for the US to block all its trade with Japan.
But no, a country later blocking some of its trade with another country that is on the rampage across a continent is the real provocative move in some peoples book:doh:

[AVGWarhawk]

Provocative?
What obligation did US companies or the government have to keep selling goods to Japan?
As for provocation I would have thought the main provocation was when Japan sank a US warship which was escorting US oil tankers that were being threatened by Japan. I would of thought that was sufficient provocation for the US to block all its trade with Japan.
But no, a country later blocking some of its trade with another country that is on the rampage across a continent is the real provocative move in some peoples book:doh:

As I understand it, the embargo was to curtail the agressive Japanese in other Asia countries. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I would suspect all trade would stop after ships are sunk. :hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

...the Axis had won the war?

Im making this thread out of boredom cause i see the same threads getting bumped and bumped again. I've read the whole BALZ series already, if someone asks. :O:

Well, i think it would be the end of communism and Germany (if not European Union as a whole) would probably be as USA is today when the reins would pass from Hitler to the next one.

*Its a giant topic this one, i know, but just xplain it in 2-3 lines. :salute:

There wouldn't be a SS here for you to create this thread...and regardles of the adverse comment/s I have read in relation to Roosevelt...it is because of him and his friendly actions in support of the UK that were one of the mainstays of our fight for survival.

IMO Roosevelt has been the best POTUS in terms of US/UK relations.

[Catfish]

Hello,

with the "Duce" Mr. Mussolini winning the war we all might have been ending up driving italian cars :rotfl2:

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torplexed]

One thing i just remembered reading the post of Torplexed.
Japan's main oil supplier was USA. About 90% of Japan's oil imports were originated from USA. The embargo could easily cripple IJN. Quite provocative move in such a little time, in my opinion.

The image of a Japan backed into a corner by American boycotts and sanctions and finally lashing out in desperation has been a staple of anti-Roosevelt politics and revisionist history for a quarter century after 1945. Did the US use a powerful economic lever on Japan by resorting to embargo? Yes, because diplomatic protests through normal channels to a country essentially being run by a military clique who no longer answered to any civilian authority wasn't working anymore.

[Tribesman]

As I understand it, the embargo was to curtail the agressive Japanese in other Asia countries. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I would suspect all trade would stop after ships are sunk.
No, there were threats from countries about stopping trade with Japan because of the attacks on those countries trade with China but little actually happened for a coupe of years until they got really pissed off with the Japanese. Generally Japan would apologise, offer compensation and everyone was happy....till next time when Japan would apologise.....

It got complicated due to the legal limbo created both by the sino-japanese treaty and the failure to declare a state of war.
Under the 19th century treaties America, Italy, Portugal, France and Britain (and later Japan) protected shipping and guaranteed safe passage all the way from shanghai to chungking(and beyond in theory). Japans attempt after siezing the lower river to restrict that shipping and stop Chinas trade was illegal as due to her own treaty obligations and as the inheritor of German trade rights she had to guarantee free passage too.

Really it can't be put any other way, Americas eventual embargo was not a provocation, it was a very mild very delayed reaction to repeated and sustained provocations by Japan.

[Méo]

Assuming he was replaced by competent leadership before any of these happened, Germany might have had a chance of winning the war to some extent.

Even then, the U.S. were ahead of the curve with the nuclear weapon, who knows how it would have been if the U.S. had the intention to use the full potential of the bomb against Germany? :hmmm:

[Raptor1]

Even then, the U.S. were ahead of the curve with the nuclear weapon, who knows how it would have been if the U.S. had the intention to use the full potential of the bomb against Germany? :hmmm:

A nuclear weapon does not win a war unless it it is either used in overwhelming quantities, which were not present until much later, or forces a surrender in a country that is already debating and on the brink of it (As Japan was).

Besides that, assuming a competent German leadership would have been able to force Russia into some kind of favourable peace (Also assuming that said leadership is competent enough to realize that conquering Russia is a lost cause), they could invade and occupy Britain and Iceland, which would make any sort of bombing attack from North America extremely dangerous if at all possible.

[Méo]

A nuclear weapon does not win a war unless it it is either used in overwhelming quantities, which were not present until much later, or forces a surrender in a country that is already debating and on the brink of it (As Japan was).

Well I don't think it's a valuable argument to compare Japan with other western societies (even Germany of that time).

Among all the Japanese military (and even the civilian) there was the Bushidō spirit (which is a hard thing to understand but it was part of their culture). Many (if not most) of their military leaders who saw their country on the way to defeat wanted to create a huge Seppuku (or harakiri) for the whole Japanese people.

Some are gonna say that Germans were as radical as the Japanese but I don't think so. The German society of that time (altough not as revolutionary as the French) were still a western society (they were not all SS). So I think that the effect of few nuclear attacks on Germany would have been greater.

Even then, I'm not sure if it's worth to speculate on which island or place they could have invaded or what U.S. would not be able to do. There are just so many imponderables.

I agree with you in some case, a competent German leadership has prove itself in defeating France. IMHO, this competent leadership could have win the war in western Europe with quick campaigns, but I don't see how they could have conquered the whole world.

[Raptor1]

Well I don't think it's a valuable argument to compare Japan with other western societies (even Germany of that time).

Among all the Japanese military (and even the civilian) there was the Bushidō spirit (which is a hard thing to understand but it was part of their culture). Many (if not most) of their military leaders who saw their country on the way to defeat wanted to create a huge Seppuku (or harakiri) for the whole Japanese people.

Some are gonna say that Germans were as radical as the Japanese but I don't think so. The German society of that time (altough not as revolutionary as the French) were still a western society (they were not all SS). So I think that the effect of few nuclear attacks on Germany would have been greater.

Even then, I'm not sure if it's worth to speculate on which island or place they could have invaded or what U.S. would not be able to do. There are just so many imponderables.

I agree with you in some case, a competent German leadership has prove itself in defeating France. IMHO, this competent leadership could have win the war in western Europe with quick campaigns, but I don't see how they could have conquered the whole world.

The Allied bombing of Germany was much more devastating than a few of the early A-Bombs could be, yet the Germans still fought on. The difference between dropping such weapons on an enemy that has been defeated militarily and is on the brink of collapse and an enemy that is victorious elsewhere (Short of dropping so many of them that it will completely destroy their ability to fight), is that a defeated enemy will be pushed over to surrender, while an undefeated one would just be galvanized to keep fighting in order to avenge their countrymen and defeat those that bombed them.

Speculating on which island could've been invaded and what the US wouldn't be able to do is perfectly worthy. The question was whether Germany could win the war, they could. Of course nothing is certain in war.

Note that I said they could win the war to some extent. Conquering the world would be highly unlikely, but gaining a final, favourable peace was IMO within their power had they been led properly.

[Méo]

The Allied bombing of Germany was much more devastating than a few of the early A-Bombs could be, yet the Germans still fought on.

Well there's a MAJOR difference between a standard bombing and an nuclear one.

If you imagine yourself in a city being bombed in the old fashioned way, you have a certain time to react, there is place for hope, for survival. This is probably why they kept fighting.

On the other hand, if you imagine yourself in a city targeted for a nuclear attack, the second you realize you're attacked, you're vaporized. no time to react, NO HOPE.

I think this is the critical difference, nuclear weapons are inescapable, this is why they are so terrifying.

This must have an indescribable effect on populations...:dead:

[Snestorm]

Well there's a MAJOR difference between a standard bombing and an nuclear one.

If you imagine yourself in a city being bombed in the old fashioned way, you have a certain time to react, there is place for hope, for survival. This is probably why they kept fighting.

On the other hand, if you imagine yourself in a city targeted for a nuclear attack, the second you realize you're attacked, you're vaporized. no time to react, NO HOPE.

I think this is the critical difference, nuclear weapons are inescapable, this is why they are so terrifying.

This must have an indescribable effect on populations...:dead:

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

[Méo]

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

[Méo]

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

Even then, this is not the same effect, you still have time to react, to defend, you could have some air tank.

[Snestorm]

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

You have a valid point.

[Méo]

Fortunately enough it did not end up to be a nuclear apocalyps.

The terrible devastation and the incommensurable lost of lives in WWII must prevent us FOREVER to use the ultimate bomb and go to war only in absolute necessity.

[Raptor1]

So they have a greater psychological effect. But if the population's morale was high after victories, it would probably not make a lot of people immediate defeatists.

It's not nessecarily true that a single bomber is easier to intercept than a large formation. Japan couldn't intercept the bombers because their fuel situation demanded that they decline to sortie against anything but large raids, while Germany would have plenty of fuel given a victory in the European land war, not to mention more planes and experienced pilots. Additionally, Germany had better radars which could detect the incoming raid. The fact that delivering a nuclear bomb to Germany would be so much more dangerous would probably have deterred the US from even sending such an attack, because it could very well be captured by the Germans.

Also, as I said, a successful invasion of Britain which would most likely have come following a victory on the mainland would mean it nearly impossible to bomb Germany with any sort of ordenance.

Eh, this is going nowhere. Suit yourself.

[Méo]

There are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no computer guided missiles.

And that did not prevent Britain from bombing Berlin from August 1940 to march 1944. (BTW, B-29 had a range of 5000 km, they could have attacked from elsewhere: Gibraltar, Cyprus, etc.)

But I agree with you again, this is going nowhere. You got your opinion and I got mine.

My opinion is that the U.S. were ahead of the curve by far with nuclear weapons and in the coming years the one with the nuclear power would prevail.

[Dowly]

My opinion is that the U.S. were ahead of the curve by far with nuclear weapons and in the coming years the one with the nuclear power would prevail.

If Germany would've won the war in Europe, where do you suggest US would have dropped the nukes? I dont think Germany would have just given up if one of it's cities was nuked, after all, it would have been controlling the whole europe. Nuking the mainland europe would have been a HUGE propaganda asset for Germany "Pick up your arms and fight the evil US before they bomb you too!". Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe. :hmmm:

[Méo]

Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe. :hmmm:

Hmm, if the Soviet Union would have invaded & controlled your country and another country would later drop some nukes on Soviet cities, would you have fought under the Soviet flag...

[Dowly]

Hmm, if the Soviet Union would have invaded & controlled your country and another country would later drop some nukes on Soviet cities, would you have fought under the Soviet flag...

No. Like I said "Nuking the mainland europe". I meant nuking of germany and the countries it controlled.

But if someone would nuke Finland, even if we'd be under soviet control, then yes, I'd join the Soviet ranks to fight against the ones using the nukes. At that point it would be obvious that the greater threat would be the nuking country, not the soviets.

[Méo]

I don't see why the U.S. would have bombed Britain, France or Poland. :hmmm:

My point is that it would have been possible for Germany to win the war in western Europe with QUICK campaigns. But once they (or he?) declared war on the Soviet Union and the United States in the same year, I really don't see how they could have won the war. (of course at that time they were not fully aware of what we know today, including the nuclear weapon).

[karamazovnew]

Norway and France were defeated almost by luck. It's hard to say if Hitler was a lucky imbecile or an unlucky military genius. But his men did come very close to winning. The war was changed on the following occasions:

- spearing Dunkirk
- not shooting that fat idiot Goering
- bombing London instead of airfields
- declaring war on Russia
- declaring war on USA
- Stalingrad
- D-Day
- the Holocaust
- too many resources lost on high tech tanks and planes, rockets and UFO's

As a tactical military move, without the Holocaust he would've had almost a million more soldiers, less resistance from conquered countries, and maybe trains would've transported supplies to troops instead of... you know. They did have amazing soldiers and honorable commanders (Doenitz being just one of those). Without the atrocities, even after loosing, our view of the Nazies might've been very very different. As it was tho, I'm glad they lost and I feel sorry for the millions of brave soldiers that now bare the Nazi taint.

Good side:
- European Union
uhmm... that's about it I guess...

Bad side:
- US of mf A has ruled the world since then (BAD)
- actually, the CIA
- Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain, the Hot Cold war (if the K19 guys and Sergej Preminin hadn't sacrificed themselves in reactor rooms, we'd be living in Fallout 3 right now)
- fuked up Middle East
- terrorism and the disproportionate anti-terrorism responsible for Iraq
- Jay-pop

That's not to say that if Germany had beaten England we wouldn't be fighting now for the Fatherworld Army in a 50 year war with USJAP Empire in the steppes of Mongolia.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

If Germany would've won the war in Europe, where do you suggest US would have dropped the nukes? I dont think Germany would have just given up if one of it's cities was nuked, after all, it would have been controlling the whole europe. Nuking the mainland europe would have been a HUGE propaganda asset for Germany "Pick up your arms and fight the evil US before they bomb you too!". Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe. :hmmm:

I agree with Dowly on this one. Most of the people who kept their mouth shut would react if USA had bombed Europe. And this could keep up even till today.
Many people on the occupied countries supported Germany so in an event that a nuke was dropped, those too would fight.
On the other hand, the Chinesse and other enemies of Japan, didnt had the chance to support Japan because many of them were slaughtered or captured.

And besides that, Hitler had nukes too, dont forget that.

Trivial: Actually the first bombing of London was an accident. The Luftwaffe pilot took it for military area thus bombed it.

[Catfish]

Hello,
regarding the atom bomb i think Heisenberg, Weizsäcker and other german scientists of the time would then probably not have indirectly hindered the development of the german nuclear bomb, had anyone used such a bomb against Germany. Remember a german kind of reactor was already running as early as in 1939, with the knowledge of creating a bomb with fissionable material. It was the "reluctance" of those scientists, who assured the military general staff that such a bomb would be impossible to build in time - against better knowledge.

Only have this in german :

" ...

Weiterhin berief das Heereswaffenamt Wissenschaftler für das Arbeitsprogramm ,"Uranverein" angeführt von Werner Heisenberg. Im Dezember ′39 proklamiert er, dass man Sprengstoff durch hochangereichertes Uran 235 herstellen kann, welches eine Explosionskraft besitzt, das die herkömmlichen Mittel um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen übersteigt. Im Juni 1940 kennzeichnet Weizäcker den im Kernreaktor aus U238 entstehenden Stoff als Element 93 oder 94. Damit besitzen die Deutschen die selben Kenntnisse wie die Amerikaner, die das Element 94 schon Plutonium genannt haben.

Werner Heisenberg
Das vorrangige Ziel beider Mächte [USA, and Germany] ist die Atombombe.
Anfang ′42 erklären [deutsche] Atomforscher Hermann Göring, dass die Atombombe in höchstens 2 Jahren entstehen könnte, da man zwar über das theoretische Wissen verfüge, aber diese technisch sehr schwierig zu bewerkstelligen sei. Man wußte, dass Kernenergie durch Uranspaltung freigesetzt wurde, wenn reiches oder angereichertes U 235 verwendet wird, und dass die Isotopentrennung theoretisch durchführbar war.
Ein zweiter Weg war, wenn U 238 Neutronen absorbiert und ein neuer Stoff (Plutonium) entsteht, der noch leichter zu spalten ist.
Aber die Großtechnische Verwirklichung stellte sich als schwierig heraus:

- Es gab kein praktisches Verfahren zur Isotopentrennung.
- Die Uranmengen in Deutschland waren beschränkt.
- Es waren keine Schwerwasseranlagen vorhanden, da sie zerbombt wurden

...."

The production plants for "heavy water" (Deuterium) were certainly attacked numerous times, and mostly destroyed (some were also used for the production of "T-Stoff" for the rocket-interceptors, and "Ingolin" for the U-boat Walter turbines).

" ...
Der inzwischen Großdeutsche Fritz Houtermans einer der Mitarbeiter beim deutschen Atomprogramm gab Reiche folgende Nachricht mit auf den Weg: Heisenberg will eine deutsche Atombombe verhindern, doch keiner weiß, wie lange er dem Druck der Regierung noch widerstehen kann. Nach dieser Aussage blieb der Ehrgeiz der amerikanischen Physiker, den Nazis beim Bau der Bombe zuvorzukommen, ungebremst.

Translated:
" ... The meanwhile german Fritz Houtermans, one of the colleagues of the german Atom program, gave Reiche a message on its way to the US: "Heisenberg wants to prevent a german atom bomb, but nobody knows how long he will be able to withstand the pressure of the government." After this statement, the ambition of the american physicists, to scoop the Nazis building of the bomb, was undamped.
... "

Also from some letter exchanges from Heisenberg, Weizsäcker and other scientists of the time it is known by now, that they internally despised the development of a fission bomb, and thus agreed to try to make it inaccessible for the Nazi command, by delaying its development. Those papers can be read in the german "ZZBW" or (Zentrum für Zeitgeschichte von Bildung und Wissenschaft), Hannover.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torplexed]

On the other hand, the Chinesse and other enemies of Japan, didnt had the chance to support Japan because many of them were slaughtered or captured.

Well, slaughter and capture usually does lose you support among the people you're slaughtering and capturing. :hmmm:

[Méo]

And besides that, Hitler had nukes too, dont forget that.

Where the hell have you seen this???

Many people on the occupied countries supported Germany.

Many people doesn't mean the Majority, if the occupied countries would have really supported Germany it would have been so easy and simple for the Germans.

Try to imagine youself in your country when it was occupied by Germans (BTW their leaders were considering you and your people as an inferior race...). Then Another country would launch an nuclear assault against your oppressor's country (I don't see why the hell would the U.S. nuke your own country???).

Would a such attack against your oppressor be enough to convince you and the majority of your people to fight beside the Germans???

I think it would have produce the opposite effet: the majority of people in occupied countries would have seen this as sign of hope that their oppressors is weakening.

[Tribesman]

Where the hell have you seen this???

Several very reliable conspiracy theory websites.
Have you seen Elvis working down the chip shop lately?

[Méo]

Have you seen Elvis working down the chip shop lately?

No, but I've already seen a lot of Nazi Zombies...:haha:

[Dowly]

I don't see why the U.S. would have bombed Britain, France or Poland. :hmmm:

Because Germany would have spread out their production facilities and armies all over the Europe. So, for the nukes to have any effect (instead of pissing people off) you'd want to hit targets that matter. It would be different from Japan, where Japan was isolated in it's island where it could've been nuked over and over again without collateral damage in terms of other nations. But if you'd want to hit germany hard with nukes, and I mean HARD, there'd be collateral damage to the countries next to it. Which would, like I already said, give a huge propaganda asset to the germans to say the americans are here to kill every one no matter if you're german or not. You cant win the war with nukes (well you can if you destroy the whole europe, but that's out of question) and it would be soon necessary to deploy troops to the ground. Would you welcome soldiers from a nation that just nuked you, with open arms? I dont think so. :03:

[karamazovnew]

Trivial: Actually the first bombing of London was an accident. The Luftwaffe pilot took it for military area thus bombed it.

Then the British bombed Berlin in retaliation and then Hitler ordered a full campaign against London.


So, for the nukes to have any effect (instead of pissing people off) you'd want to hit targets that matter.
Would you welcome soldiers from a nation that just nuked you, with open arms? I dont think so. :03:

I'd just bomb Hitler's quarters. But remember that Enola Gay had a smooth flight over the ocean to Hiroshima. A bomber flying across Europe to Berlin with a nuclear bomb on board would be a huge risk.
The Japanese did welcome the Americans but... I wouldn't. On the other hand, everybody was tired of war. And the difference between a nuclear bomb and a firestorm like the one in Dresden is that a nuclear bomb kills you quicker and leaves a smooth terrain ready for reconstruction. :yeah:
That was a joke of course, and a bad one.

[Méo]

@Dowly

I understand your point of view, but with all my respect, I still disagree with you.


I think I can make a summary of the debate here in 3 points:

1) Where the U.S. could have strike with the atomic bomb?

2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?


1) Where the U.S. could have strike with an atomic bomb?

Correct me if i'm wrong but most (if not all) of German's main production facilities (tanks, aircrafts, submarines, etc.) were located in Germany or Austria.

About the armies, in a nuclear war, armies are much less important, In WWI 90% of victims were in the military. With weapons of mass destruction, 90% of victims are civilians (of course enemy civil population).

When the Nazi party came to power, they had the support of 43.9% of the German people. So they didn't even had the support of the majority of their own people.

So if Germany would have been struck by a large scale nuclear attack without even being unable to reply or to do the same on U.S. soil, the effect on the German population would have been awful. I think that dissent would have risen to an intolerable level (otherwise it would have been a mass suicide). In a such case they (the German people) would probably seek for survival and not for nazi ideology. I guess dissent would have been extremely high among military leaders too (they did not agree all with Hitler).

So to me, it's obvious, in that case, the best target would have been Germany.


2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

Some argue that the defence of the German sky was tight, well the reason behind all this is simple: they were being continuously bombed!!!

If Germany would not have been bombed at all (or very few) there would have been no reason to put a colossal effort in defending the German sky (assuming they were not aware that U.S. had the atomic bomb). the U.S. could simply pretend to avoid provocation.

And as I said earlier, there are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no accurate computer guided missiles.

So, for these reasons, I believe it could have been possible for the U.S. to launch a large scale nuclear sneak attack on the German homeland.


3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?

The U.S. knew that populations in occupied countries had the potential of being future allies (Patton said it to his troops before they landed in North Africa). It is possible to strike a zone in a country (in which the enemy could be) without a direct hit on important urban zones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/France_population_density_40pc.png

Even though, I don't think this would have been a necessity.

In some comments it seems like occupying a country is no big deal!!

I'm gonna retake my example about Finland & Soviet Union.

Imagine (again) that if your country would have been invaded by USSR:
thousands (if not hundred thousand) of soldiers killed, executions, Finnish villages burned, Finnish women raped, etc. These things are not easily forgivable for a population.

If the U.S. would have bombed Leningrad, there would probably have some nuclear fallout in Finland, but I really don't think it would have been enough for the Finnish people to forgive everything and join the Soviets ranks.

Edit: And I can hardly imagine a population joining a former oppressor who is in the impossibility to reply with the same magnitude.

[Freiwillige]

Time for my two cents. Firstly any honest historian would tell you that the Germans having plans of world conquest is ridicules WWII propaganda and belongs with the Nazi had UFO crowds. Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain, So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

Hitlers aims were and always had been East. Lebensraum he called it. I think it was for Hitler pre WWII about gaining back territory's lost to Germany in the east after WWI and gaining whatever else he could gain from the deal. Also Communism is and was the ideological enemy of National Socialism. So anything to destroy communism in Europe I think he would have went for foaming at the mouth. In fact many men volunteered to fight with Germany from occupied nations such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ukrain etc to fight against Communism.
It was a bit more common than many would admit today.

[August]

Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain

I think that if they had achieved air supremacy over the channel and southern England they would have been able to invade.

So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

I agree that mounting an invasion force from 3000 miles away would have been most difficult.

[Raptor1]

1. Why wouldn't Germany's skies be defended by the Luftwaffe if they had won the ground war. Where else would the planes be?

2. Support for the Nazis would certainly grow if they had actually won the land war, the morale of the population would be very high in this case.

3. A single large nuclear attack, unless it could cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, would serve little purpose against a population whose morale is high from victory other than to make them angry and even more willing to fight.

Consider yourself a German, your fatherland just defeated every other nation in Europe. Now, the only enemies that resist you are on the other side of the sea, and they just brutally murdered a million of your countrymen. Are you going to immediately surrender or wish to see those that bombed you wiped from the earth?

It is only the sustained bombing, which would be nearly impossible to properly execute, that would eventually break the population's spirit.

--

Had Germany achieved air superiority over the Channel, they could very well have crossed it. What would happen once they land is another matter, but competently done an invasion of Britain could succeed. An invasion of America would be possible through a number of routes, but it would be extremely risky.

[Task Force]

If they would have invaded america... they probably would have started is smaller South america courtrys and worked up...

But even more... How would they have invaded russia? I mean look at Germany And then russia... It seems impossiable. Unless the russian high command had made a even larger screw up... they would have eventualy out did thereselfs...

[Méo]

Where else would the planes be?

If Germany had never been bombed (or on very few occasions and assuming they were unaware that the Americans had the bomb) the whole luftwaffe would probably be in the sky burning fuel...(even if everything is rationed during wartime :doh:)

The French would never have put a colossal effort in building the Maginot Line if there was no threat...

The British would never have put a colossal effort in defending their convoys if there was no threat...

The U.S. could have make them believe there was no threat. Göring was particularly good in underestimating the Americans. They ''could only build proper refrigerators.'' he already said.


OK many German Generals were extremely efficient.

OK the Wehrmacht was probably the best army ever.

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation... :nope:

[Dowly]

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation... :nope:


I dont think anyone here thinks it would be invincible. But here's a food for the though.

Germany and it's military was extremely advanced in both tactics and equipment during WWII. Now, think if they'd had taken over Europe and would have some time where their factories and facilities would not been constantly bombed. Me262 might've seen service earlier, XXI, better tanks built with better materials and in greater numbers, the StG.44 etc.

Combine all that with battlehardened troops and with the fact that war couldnt be won with nukes but with troops on the ground, it would've been a bloody battle for anyone who would have attacked the Reich.

[Méo]

Germany and it's military was extremely advanced in both tactics and equipment during WWII.

I was already aware of this and I agree with you.

it would've been a bloody battle for anyone who would have attacked the Reich.

I agree with you only if nukes had never existed.

the fact that war couldnt be won with nukes

Here I can only disagree...

The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

[Dowly]

Then we'll just have to disagree. :03:

[Raptor1]

If Germany had never been bombed (or on very few occasions and assuming they were unaware that the Americans had the bomb) the whole luftwaffe would probably be in the sky burning fuel...(even if everything is rationed during wartime :doh:)

The French would never have put a colossal effort in building the Maginot Line if there was no threat...

The British would never have put a colossal effort in defending their convoys if there was no threat...

The U.S. could have make them believe there was no threat. Göring was particularly good in underestimating the Americans. They ''could only build proper refrigerators.'' he already said.

OK many German Generals were extremely efficient.

OK the Wehrmacht was probably the best army ever.

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation... :nope:


Considering how the Germans themselves used aerial strategic bombing on several occasions as far back as 1915, and how feared such attacks were during the interwar years. The Germans would certainly been prepared for such attacks, especially after victory in the land war would mean their fighters would have little else to do elsewhere.

Many German generals were extremely efficient, the Wehrmacht was a very good military force, but probably not the best army ever, the Third Reich was far from invincible. But you imply that the A-Bomb is a magic surrender-causing weapon in WWII, which I think is incorrect.

I also think you lost track of the original assumption. The question was whether Germany could win the war had they been competently led, nothing is certain in war, and I think that in some situations they could achieve favourable peace.

If they would have invaded america... they probably would have started is smaller South america courtrys and worked up...

But even more... How would they have invaded russia? I mean look at Germany And then russia... It seems impossiable. Unless the russian high command had made a even larger screw up... they would have eventualy out did thereselfs...

Conquering all of Russia would be unlikely, but winning against them to some extent was possible. The Germans made several horrible mistakes, under the leadership of Hitler, which cost them any chance of victory in the East (Some of these include the launching of Operation Typhoon, the diversion of the Fourth Panzer Army from Stalingrad and finally, and probably most importantly, Operation Citadel). I think that only after the Battle of Kursk were Germany's hopes of resisting the Red Army were completely shattered.

EDIT:


The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

You're relying on results from 2 completely different situations.

[Dowly]

The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

That was a different thing. Japan had already been beaten and the nukes were just a kick in the head (you know, like you see in a street fight, guy goes down and he still gets kicked around).

[Méo]

That was a different thing. Japan had already been beaten and the nukes were just a kick in the head (you know, like you see in a street fight, guy goes down and he still gets kicked around).

I undertsand and I was sure you would reply to me with this. :03:

But Japan had lost several battles at sea but they were still controlling large parts of the Asian continent.

The thing is that if both U.S. & Germany had the nuclear weapon it would be a totally different debate.

At the beginning the U.S. were producing 3 bombs a month, it went on higher rates a bit later. And the atomic bomb was not absolutely vital to them, if it would have been (vital) I guess they would have put every effort in producing more.

There would have been 2 catastrophic things for the Germans:

1) Their major cities could have been struck.

2) It would have been impossible for them to reply with a such magnitude, not even close!!!

[Raptor1]

I undertsand and I was sure you would reply to me with this. :03:

But Japan had lost several battles at sea but they were still controlling large parts of the Asian continent.

Japan might have controlled large parts of Asia, but that was only because large parts of it were not worth controlling except for the vital areas, which were either undel Allied control or bypassed and helpless. Japan has also been subjected to an overwhelming Soviet invasion in Manchuria on August 9th, which was arguably almost or as important to their decision to surrender as the Atomic bombs were.

Also don't forget that Japan was utterly starved by the submarine war, constantly firebombed from the air in raids which were much more devastating than both of the A-Bombs, and raided with impunity by carrier-based aircraft. Not to mention the fact that it's fleet was utterly destroyed and it's air power was practically non-existant (And nearly useless due to lack of fuel).

[Lt.Fillipidis]

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

@Karamazovnew
There s a BBC series about WW2 events, going around these days in Greece.
A book along with a compilation of artificially colored film parts. One each week. Although i read about it in internet, its there too.
Just like you said, after the accidental bombing of London (instead of military areas), Churchill ordered a retaliation. By the next day the order was carried out and Hitler was still unaware about the bombing of London itself. So Hitler thought Churchill started it and retaliated and the story goes on.

[Raptor1]

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.


You have a source for this?

[Méo]

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?

Edit: @Raptor we almost have though the same at almost the same time...

[Dowly]

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?


I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site :woot:). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk. :haha:

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

[Méo]

I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site :woot:). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk. :haha:

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

:har:

Remember me someone at work (who is a fan of those sites...) already told me that all electronic stuff we have today (computers, cell phone, etc) was based on Alien technology :o:doh::stare:

Right the Americans have found an UFO in 1948...

He was telling me: ''How do you explain that first TV and electronic stuff had been implemented around that those years...'':nope::nope::nope:

[Méo]

@ Lt.Fillipidis

I didn't mean to insult you.

You are free to think whatever you want.

But for me all those things are... just... too... I don't know I just don't find the word to describe it. :hmmm:

[Torplexed]

I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site :woot:). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk. :haha:

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

Abovetopsecret along with godlikeproductions are famous for being sites where the fringe types go to feed off each other's conspiratorial fantasies and delusions. They're the ones preparing for the world to end in 2012, and when that date passes will probably already have another doomsday date in place to moan about.

Given Hitler's penchant for grand political gestures why would the Germans waste a nuclear weapon on an obscure Soviet infantry regiment in the field when in 1943 they could still have easily hit Moscow, Leningrad or London? Why did they never use it again?

[Catfish]

Hi,
imho building the atom bomb would have been possible, but it was not done - maybe because of the delays of the german scientists, or because of lacking infrastructure, or support due to the bombing of facilities being vital for such an effort. But they were on their way :

About the "capture" of the already surrendering U-234:

" ... The fact that she had a half ton of uranium oxide on board was covered up and remained classified for the duration of the Cold War (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Cold_War);[8] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-Wilcox-7) a classified US intelligence summary of 19 May merely listed U-234's cargo as including "a/c [aircraft], drawings, arms, medical supplies, instruments, lead, mercury, caffeine, steels, optical glass and brass."[9] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-8)

The uranium subsequently disappeared, most likely finding its way to the Manhattan Project's Oak Ridge (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory) diffusion plant;

it has been calculated that it would have yielded approximately 7.7 pounds (3.5 kg) of U-235 after processing, around 20% of what would have been required to arm a contemporary fission weapon.[10] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-9)


So it is well possible that this very uranium from Germany found it's way to the US Manhattan project, and "ironically" helped to bomb Japan - the country were this U-boat's payload including scientists were initially intended to go, for the japanese war effort.

Greetings
Catfish

[Lt.Fillipidis]

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?

Edit: @Raptor we almost have though the same at almost the same time...

150km South East of Kursk, 2 days before the Battle of Kursk.
Here are a few links. They dont mentrion the bombing of Kursk itself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm

And here's a YouTube Video that has some pictures of the epicenter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ2-hQNmeeM

The only part im sure that its missunderstood its the V2/A-something, which was infact a simple V2 with a range extention (the A-something lower part of the rocket which was similar to what Space Busses use today.)

Nazi Germany evolved as none else did back then. When they lost the war, many patterns and schematics that were captured were still advanced compared to what the allies had. A reason to seize them.
And then, there's the cold war. A reason to hide them.
In a race for power between the Soviet Union and USA, its vital to keep all you can classified. Even things that they discovered years ago.
If the base is provided and you have the knowledge to use it, you're bound to discover whatever you want.

I dont know what you think, but i dont think that the scientists all over the world have discovered so few in so many years with so much knowledge provided. I think they're just classified.

[Raptor1]

150km South East of Kursk, 2 days before the Battle of Kursk.
Here are a few links. They dont mentrion the bombing of Kursk itself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm

And here's a YouTube Video that has some pictures of the epicenter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ2-hQNmeeM

The only part im sure that its missunderstood its the V2/A-something, which was infact a simple V2 with a range extention (the A-something lower part of the rocket which was similar to what Space Busses use today.)

Nazi Germany evolved as none else did back then. When they lost the war, many patterns and schematics that were captured were still advanced compared to what the allies had. A reason to seize them.
And then, there's the cold war. A reason to hide them.
In a race for power between the Soviet Union and USA, its vital to keep all you can classified. Even things that they discovered years ago.
If the base is provided and you have the knowledge to use it, you're bound to discover whatever you want.

I dont know what you think, but i dont think that the scientists all over the world have discovered so few in so many years with so much knowledge provided. I think they're just classified.

That book supposedly implies that the bomb was tested in 1944-1945, but the Battle of Kursk was a year earlier, thus contradicting your claims.

The photo of this supposed Kursk explosion is not very convincing, it in fact looks very much like any other similar battlefield after a flash barrage. Many photos of the Western Front in World War I give a similar impression.

I'd still like to see a source for the supposed nuking at Kursk.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

http://www.greyfalcon.us/The%20Battle%20Of%20Kursk.htm

Plus, the book Reich of the Black Sun is a good book around the subject.

[Dowly]

150km South East of Kursk, 2 days before the Battle of Kursk.
Here are a few links. They dont mentrion the bombing of Kursk itself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm

And here's a YouTube Video that has some pictures of the epicenter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ2-hQNmeeM

The only part im sure that its missunderstood its the V2/A-something, which was infact a simple V2 with a range extention (the A-something lower part of the rocket which was similar to what Space Busses use today.)

Nazi Germany evolved as none else did back then. When they lost the war, many patterns and schematics that were captured were still advanced compared to what the allies had. A reason to seize them.
And then, there's the cold war. A reason to hide them.
In a race for power between the Soviet Union and USA, its vital to keep all you can classified. Even things that they discovered years ago.
If the base is provided and you have the knowledge to use it, you're bound to discover whatever you want.

I dont know what you think, but i dont think that the scientists all over the world have discovered so few in so many years with so much knowledge provided. I think they're just classified.

Right, well any of that doesnt answer my questions I made. Why didnt the soviets talk about it during and/or after the war? Surely a whole regiment burned with the enviroment with it was something to talk about. ;)

Why there have been no other eyewitnesses to the Kursk bombing? German army was nearby, as was the soviet army, nobody supposedly saw nothing? Besides, both sides were surely to know about eachother so the air activity would have been tense, someone would've had to see something. :yep:

[Task Force]

Hmm. and if the germans had a nuke. (refering to vid.) Why didnt they use it? could have really worked wounders on the eastern front, and knocked the russians around badly...

[Torplexed]

Wow. An entire infantry regiment wiped out to the last man with nukes and none of the millions of other German and Russian soldiers and airmen crowded in the Kursk salient bothers to look up and notice the resulting blinding fireball or write down an account in a unit or field dairy or take a picture of the mushroom cloud. Rather odd considering all the eyewitness accounts from miles around of the secret US "Trinity" a-bomb test in a then sparsely populated section of New Mexico. I guess the Germans were more obsessed with getting the Panther tank over it's teething problems at Kursk than with their rather successful nuclear weapon debut. :D

[Jimbuna]

Wow. An entire infantry regiment wiped out to the last man with nukes and none of the millions of other German and Russian soldiers and airmen crowded in the Kursk salient bothers to look up and notice the resulting blinding fireball or write down an account in a unit or field dairy or take a picture of the mushroom cloud. Rather odd considering all the eyewitness accounts from miles around of the secret US "Trinity" a-bomb test in a then sparsely populated section of New Mexico. I guess the Germans were more obsessed with getting the Panther tank over it's teething problems at Kursk than with their rather successful nuclear weapon debut. :D

:sunny::DL

[Oberon]

http://browsei.com/upload/Pictures/direct/ww2-at-at-star%20wars-war-weapon-vintage.jpg

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Lol! Nice one Oberon!

Well, i dunno guys. All that you say sound rational but as long as there is no solid proof if the bomb was used or not, i'd rather keep up believing that it happened.
After all many stuff that people wouldnt hoped they can happen, infact happened and some stayed classified until today.

Nice replies though! :salute:

[Torplexed]

Lol! Nice one Oberon!

Well, i dunno guys. All that you say sound rational but as long as there is no solid proof if the bomb was used or not, i'd rather keep up believing that it happened.
After all many stuff that people wouldnt hoped they can happen, infact happened and some stayed classified until today.

Nice replies though! :salute:

Why would anyone want to keep it classified? The Russians if actually nuked in 1943, would probably be screaming for millions from Germany for reparations for residual radiation damage. The Americans, having been seen in many circles for 65 years as a pariah nation for being the first and only use nukes in combat would probably jump at the chance to shift that historical mantle to Nazi Germany. ;)

[Raptor1]

Not to mention Germany would jump on the chance to feed it's population how their new wunderwaffe is going to win the war.

Also, classified or not, there should still have been about a million other witnesses, yet nobody saw anything...

[Méo]

as long as there is no solid proof if the bomb was used or not, i'd rather keep up believing that it happened.

What a strange way to argue...

If you affirm something you must prove that it really happened... we don't have to prove you that it did not happen.

Otherwise, I could say any wacky things about the war and say... Well there's no proof it did not happen, so it's true!

This bomb was not used until there are solid evidence that it really existed. :know:

Anyway, as I said earlier, you can think whatever you want.

[Torplexed]

Lol! Nice one Oberon!

Well, i dunno guys. All that you say sound rational but as long as there is no solid proof if the bomb was used or not, i'd rather keep up believing that it happened.

I remember that Carl Sagan's line on UFOs, alien visitations and other fringe science was that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. With conspiracy theorists it's come up with a version of history, science or events that you prefer to the current one and then try and find ways to bend or fabricate facts to fit it and ignore any that don't.

[August]

A couple problems I see with the nazi nuke theory is:

A. Why did they only explode one bomb?
B. If somehow it was a one shot deal why did they waste it on a soviet regiment used to much greater effect elsewhere, say on London or Moscow?

[Oberon]

I'd be more inclined to think that they may have test detonated a device underground in the Thuringia area, but it was probably a fizzle. Although there are no reports of radiation in the region, and thats taking into account the after effects of Chernobyl.
Part of the problem is the location, the hub of the Nazi mystery, in the Jonas Valley in Thuringia, the US classified their findings and its still classified, then the Soviets took it over, then classified it a restricted zone and used it as a training ground and now the German army uses it as a facility, frequently having to deal with treasure hunters and other curious folks.

There is definately a curious thing surrounding the last days of the Third Reich, I mean, I just stumbled across this little gem:

Cläre Werner, for example, a former administrator of the adjacent Veste Wachsenburg who is now deceased, assured officials that she had seen a glowing light, as bright "as hundreds of bolts of lightning," red inside and yellow on the outside, at approximately 9:30 p.m. on March 4, 1945. Werner went on to describe how a powerful squall had moved across the mountains. The next day, she said, she and others in the areas had had nosebleeds, headaches, and sensations of pressure in their ears. She also claimed that she had heard another loud noise on March 12th at 10:15 p.m.

Was it a nuke or just a powerful bomb? No-one knows, no-one knows a lot of things that don't add up about the last days of the Reich, or if they do, they're not going to tell us. In the meantime...it's makes for intriguing reading, like Area 51 and the Roswell incident, or Bentwaters, and that's likely to be what it will remain. :03:

[Lt.Fillipidis]

What a strange way to argue...

If you affirm something you must prove that it really happened... we don't have to prove you that it did not happen.

Otherwise, I could say any wacky things about the war and say... Well there's no proof it did not happen, so it's true!

This bomb was not used until there are solid evidence that it really existed. :know:

Anyway, as I said earlier, you can think whatever you want.

There are no extraordinary evidence that assure the usage of an a bomb there but there are many reports that the Nazis were able to make one. Or more. Since the overcame the "Invention" and "Building" parts, what could stop them from going to the "Usage" part.

@Oberon
Any links to that site? This seems curious.

[Raptor1]

There are no extraordinary evidence that assure the usage of an a bomb there but there are many reports that the Nazis were able to make one. Or more. Since the overcame the "Invention" and "Building" parts, what could stop them from going to the "Usage" part.

@Oberon
Any links to that site? This seems curious.

Then how would you explain the following things:

How would this bomb be delivered? Not only did the Germans lack a bomber that could deliver a nuclear bomb (With the possible exception of the He 177, but I seriously doubt it could carry it). Even if the bomber did exist, it would have to be extensively modified, why is there no evidence of anything of this sort?

Why was it used on such an insignificant target? Why weren't more dropped?

Why would the Germans not tell their population of their new wonder weapon? They did so with everything else and promised it would win the war.

Why are there no witnesses? The Kursk Salient saw some of the biggest concentration of manpower in history with millions of men on both sides of the front, the documents might have been covered up (Though I see no logical reason why they would), but you can't honestly shut up a million men who should certainly have seen the explosion.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

A modified V2 could carry such bomb. Or at least its core.

Now, the bomb was supposedly dropped 2 days before the battle so maybe the Germans were too far to notice. (just a speculation)

As far as i know the bomb was still in testing phase so the results mustnt be as big as Hirosima or Nagasaki. (Today's nuclear bombs are at least 10 times stronger. Not to mention hydrogen bombs.) There are no clear refferences about the size of the bomb.

Incineration bombs would burn down every tree in the area of effect.
In the photographs, the tree hulks are standing and the ground seems incinerated.

As for a reason to keep it secret, Germany was suffering by spies and radio transmission thefts since the beginning of the war. Popularizing such a thing would eliminate the element of surprise and given the air superiority that was established on all fronts, it could eliminate all possibilities of doing such an attack by air.

[Raptor1]

A modified V2 could carry such bomb. Or at least its core.

Now, the bomb was supposedly dropped 2 days before the battle so maybe the Germans were too far to notice. (just a speculation)

As far as i know the bomb was still in testing phase so the results mustnt be as big as Hirosima or Nagasaki. (Today's nuclear bombs are at least 10 times stronger. Not to mention hydrogen bombs.) There are no clear refferences about the size of the bomb.

Incineration bombs would burn down every tree in the area of effect.
In the photographs, the tree hulks are standing and the ground seems incinerated.

As for a reason to keep it secret, Germany was suffering by spies and radio transmission thefts since the beginning of the war. Popularizing such a thing would eliminate the element of surprise and given the air superiority that was established on all fronts, it could eliminate all possibilities of doing such an attack by air.

1. The V-2 only became operational in late 1944, and by the time of the Battle of Kursk most test launches were failures. The V-2 was also too inaccurate to hit a tactical target, it could barely hit a city.

2. Even if they were (Which I doubt), what about the hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops which should've seen it?

3. I find this hard to believe. Besides all the technical issues with creating a very low-yield nuclear bomb, your supposed bomb has annihilated an entire infantry regiment, which would mean that it would have to be big enough to kill several thousand men and thus would have to have been seen by nearby units.

4. Observe the following picture from the Battle of Passchendaele:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Chateau_Wood_Ypres_1917.jpg/300px-Chateau_Wood_Ypres_1917.jpg

Same effect. Was a nuke used here as well?

5. Wouldn't it make sense to use this bomb to some effect rather than telling your enemy of it's existence and gaining nothing by destroying an insignificant target?

[Oberon]

@Oberon
Any links to that site? This seems curious.

It's actually from one of Skybirds favourite publications:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,260784,00.html

I'd say that your timeline is a bit ahead though, and that if they did have such a device it only became operational in March '45. Now by this time the war had only one more month left to run, and Hitler had ordered, and I quote:

"all industries, military installations, machine shops, transportation facilities and communications facilities in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) be destroyed."
(wiki source)

Now, the possible explosion occured on 3rd-4th March '45, and Hitler gave out the order for self-destruct on 19th March '45. Therefore, if he was hoping to use the weapon to save Germany, he would have planned to use it before the 19th March '45.
Former-DDR archives (which were later classified under pressure by the US) have identified four-five witnesses to a winged A-4 rocket being launched on the 16th March '45.
Ohrduf concentration camp and the surrounding area were liberated by the Americans on the 4th April '45.

It's therefore possible to assume that the explosion did not achieve the results wanted by the Reich, or it did but there was simply not enough time to create a second working bomb. However, chances are it would have been delivered by that winged A4, but after the cancellation of the project, the A4 was launched, probably to destruction somewhere.

There is, of course, the mystery of the explosion in the Baltic in '44, perhaps a prototype of the bomb they tried to build in Ohrduf?

Either which way, there is simply not enough evidence to say anything firmly yes or no, however it can be acknowledged as fact that the Nazis were more advanced into their nuclear program than was up until recently thought. Whether they were advanced enough to weaponise it, one cannot say.

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/30/books.italy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohrdruf

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Well, i have a couple crazy thoughts that have a million to one chance to occur.
The Soviets had enormous losses during the Battle of Kursk and usually the soldier"s opinion was insignificant.

Another scenario could be that the Soviets misstook it for a gas attack.
I remember reading what Stalin said about the incident "If Hitler is going to use gas weapons then so are we" Its one of the sites i posted on earlier posts.

Assuming that a bomb the size of a small car can annihilate a huge city such as Nagasaki and Hirosima, a bomb of a smaller size could take a couple square kilometers without much exposure. Much more a test bomb.

Maybe they couldnt find a way in time, to mount the bomb on a bomber.
Or they didnt wanted mounting it on a bomber at all given the air gap between the closest occupied airfield and Stalingrad or Leningrad.

Risking so many lives just to test a new weapon isnt a good idea.
And the 19th regiment was the easiest solution they had.

By the way, what weapon was used in this photo?

PS: Sorry to bother you with all this but as you can see, i like to view all possible sides of a matter before abandoning it. :salute:

[Oberon]

But the Soviets did not use gas weapons, not that I recall anyway, and an explosion that takes out a couple of square KM would create a big enough fireball and smoke cloud to be visible for kilometers around.

Raptors photo is from a conventional artillery bombardment during the Battle of Passchendale in the First World War.

[Raptor1]

They would also have no need to keep a gas attack classified, using such weapons wasn't exactly anything new.

Nuclear bombs don't scale down as neatly as you make it out, there are technical limitations to the minimum yield of a nuclear bomb that would make it impossible for Germany (At the time) to make a bomb which is as small as you make out to be (Okay, AFAIK). Also the supposed results would mean that a lot of people would have to have seen it.

[Torplexed]

And the question keeps coming up that if they did somehow come up with a tactical nuclear device at Kursk, then why not use it to stem Operation Bagration or on the crowded Anzio or Normandy beachheads, or to put down the Warsaw uprising, or to close the port of Antwerp during the Battle of the Bulge, etc, etc? I would find it strange that the Germans struggled so mightily at great cost to put futuristic weapons like the Me-262 jet or the Type XXI submarine into operation which could no longer effect the war's outcome, but abstained from a game-changer like nukes after one supposed employment.

Plus, the Germans kept meticulous records. It seems like a test run like this would have left an extensive paper trail which really has no pressing need to be classified any longer.

[Task Force]

Hmm... so... could it possiably have been something similar to Napalm... that burnt a area...:hmmm: I dont know, I seriously dont think think the garmans had a nuke...

[Raptor1]

Hmm... so... could it possiably have been something similar to Napalm... that burnt a area...:hmmm: I dont know, I seriously dont think think the garmans had a nuke...

It could also not have happened, given the complete lack of evidence that it did.

[Task Force]

Yea... probably not... just some story someone came up with...

[Torplexed]

Maybe they couldnt find a way in time, to mount the bomb on a bomber.
Or they didnt wanted mounting it on a bomber at all given the air gap between the closest occupied airfield and Stalingrad or Leningrad.


I suppose one option for the Germans other mounting such a weapon on a bomber would have been to develop it as a shell which could have been easily lobbed from the German front lines into an enemy position. However when you look at this striking 1953 image of the US "Atomic Annie" artillery piece test firing a tactical nuke in Nevada, you can't take seriously the idea that only a few Japanese liaison officers at the Battle of Kursk would have bothered to take much notice of a similar event.

http://images.military.com/pics/cw-29-1236a.gif

[Lt.Fillipidis]

I see.
But i have one last question.
What"s that electrical activity near the point zero at the photograph?

[Torplexed]

I see.
But i have one last question.
What"s that electrical activity near the point zero at the photograph?

That isn't electrical activity but were an aspect particular to many of the 1950s above ground tests in Nevada. Those are smoke trails from small rockets fired in sequence in front of the explosion and are intended to give a visual indication of the passage of the shock front from a nuclear explosion.

They were launched in a row near the test device, just before detonation. When that occurs, the pressure differential between the shock front and the air in front of it creates a refraction of light, which visually distorts the smoke trails to the observer. This allows the passage of the shock front to be observed and its speed measured.

[Schroeder]

Then how would you explain the following things:

How would this bomb be delivered? Not only did the Germans lack a bomber that could deliver a nuclear bomb (With the possible exception of the He 177, but I seriously doubt it could carry it).
Towards the end of WWII a single 177 was modified to be able to carry a nuke. Unfortunately I don't have a good link for that right now.:-?
But again, that was near the end of the war.
Apart from that I share your view of the whole thing.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

If thats true, then they might had something.
I mean, its pointless to have the wrapping if you dont have the present.

[Raptor1]

Towards the end of WWII a single 177 was modified to be able to carry a nuke. Unfortunately I don't have a good link for that right now.:-?
But again, that was near the end of the war.
Apart from that I share your view of the whole thing.

Hmm, interesting. Was it specifically modified to carry a nuke or simply modified to carry very large single payloads (For whatever reason, the He 177 went through quite a few bizzare modifications)?

If such a bomber was built later in the war, it could mean that the German were working on a practical nuclear weapon, or it could simply mean that they wanted to know if it was practical to carry such a device on a bomber.

[Schroeder]

I only found some German links for this. Here is one example:
http://www.kheichhorn.de/html/body_heinkel_he_177_greif.html

"Ein modifiziertes Exemplar stand nach wie vor für den Transport der projektierten deutschen Atombombe bereit."
That translates into: A modified bomber was still ready to transport the planned German nuke."

But that also says that the nuke wasn't ready but only "Projektiert". That means it was still a project under development.

[Dowly]

The He177 was long way from being a reliable platform to carry out as important task as delivering an a-bomb. Atleast I wouldnt be comfortable of loading my new Wunderwaffe to an plane that was known to caught on fire in normal flight.

[Schroeder]

That is only true for early versions of the plane. The late ones were pretty reliable AFAIK.

[Dowly]

That is only true for early versions of the plane. The late ones were pretty reliable AFAIK.

But didnt Goering order to stop the production of the plane because of it's problems? :06:

[Schroeder]

Göring ordered a lot of things. Whether his orders were carried out is a different story.;)
The development continued with a small team.

[Dowly]

Ah, roger that. :salute: