OK, lets see.
As for the nukes. I dont think Hitler would have surrendered even if the US had taken out 2 cities in Germany. Au contraire, I think this would have provoked germany into using their poison gas in some dreadful way.
What would have happened if V-2:s would have started landing in London with nerve gas warheads instead of conventional warheads.
Second.
Public opinion. Let me first say that I think germany would have surrendered sooner or later. It was just a question of time. And Hitler would have died sooner or later. probably another attempt on his life by some German sick of the war. There would not have been an unconditional surrender though.
If V-2:s were blasting London, and V-4:s were starting to drop down over US soil I think the public would have demanded peace in some way. And since this peace cound not be forced by invasion for at least another year, the demands of separate peace would have been high.
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
What would happened if the D-Day had finished in a fiasco?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
There were, besides tungsten and chromium, other more mundane strategic minerals the Reich would have run out of were the war to run into extra innings.
Nickle, for instance. The last mission of the German forces in Finland was making off with the stocks of that metal; which Speer estimated to be a 6-9 months supply. Since Germany would have been in no position to keep the Red Army from Finland, we can more or less assume this would have happened even absent the Americans and Brits. So by late 45, possibly earlier, German steel production takes a serious hit.
Aluminum. Bauxite could be acquired (barely); but where was the electricity going to come from? Once the Americans and Brits realized that Germany didn't have the TVA in reserve, they started targetting power plants and distribution points. Yes, there were a lot of them; but as they got flattened they really couldn't be replaced (turbine production isn't cheap or fast, and those facilities are otherwise occupied). As the total power supply went down, what do you shut down first; industrial machinery, electrified transport, or aluminum smelters?
The same applied to most minerals; tin, copper, zinc, graphite, etc. Production of these materials couldn't begin to meet demand, and in many cases would plummet as the Red Army moved up and the mines got bombed. Speer's memoirs are full of this kind of problem; he lists a material the Reich would be completely out of in a year or less, explains how he got what stocks they had, and observes that it's a good thing the war ended anyway...so taking his word for it, it seems that the Reich industrial sector would have collapsed by 1946 due to simple lack of inputs.
[This message has been edited by Igor (edited December 16, 2000).]
Nickle, for instance. The last mission of the German forces in Finland was making off with the stocks of that metal; which Speer estimated to be a 6-9 months supply. Since Germany would have been in no position to keep the Red Army from Finland, we can more or less assume this would have happened even absent the Americans and Brits. So by late 45, possibly earlier, German steel production takes a serious hit.
Aluminum. Bauxite could be acquired (barely); but where was the electricity going to come from? Once the Americans and Brits realized that Germany didn't have the TVA in reserve, they started targetting power plants and distribution points. Yes, there were a lot of them; but as they got flattened they really couldn't be replaced (turbine production isn't cheap or fast, and those facilities are otherwise occupied). As the total power supply went down, what do you shut down first; industrial machinery, electrified transport, or aluminum smelters?
The same applied to most minerals; tin, copper, zinc, graphite, etc. Production of these materials couldn't begin to meet demand, and in many cases would plummet as the Red Army moved up and the mines got bombed. Speer's memoirs are full of this kind of problem; he lists a material the Reich would be completely out of in a year or less, explains how he got what stocks they had, and observes that it's a good thing the war ended anyway...so taking his word for it, it seems that the Reich industrial sector would have collapsed by 1946 due to simple lack of inputs.
[This message has been edited by Igor (edited December 16, 2000).]
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Speer states pretty convincingly that when the Soviets cut Germany's rail link with Turkey in August 1944, the lack of chromium reserves was going to shut down the German war industry in a matter of months no matter what else happened.
Only one nation has ever been attacked by nuclear weapons. It has been claimed that the Japanese militarists were still willing to fight even after Nagasaki, but that the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets made it possible for them to "bear the unbearable" and surrender. I personally believe that being nuked would be politically unbearable for any nation, no matter what people who don't have to live through the experience might say to the contrary. It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second.
No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945).
Nobody knew that the USA only had a few A-bombs in the late summer of 1945. And once production picked up, the USA did have a fair number (the number 22 seems to ring a bell) by the end of 1945. And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all.
The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons). And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter). No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk.
I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.) The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did.
We in this country are fortunate in many ways. One of our good fortunes is that we get to celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas within several weeks of each other. This serves to reinforce our thoughts and reflections regarding peace and what the spirit of goodwill towards others really means. I really enjoy playing SPWaW (whether playing "historically" or "hypothetically"). It's given me hundreds of hours of enjoyment. And the best part about it is that it's a GAME.
Happy Gaming,
Victor
Only one nation has ever been attacked by nuclear weapons. It has been claimed that the Japanese militarists were still willing to fight even after Nagasaki, but that the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviets made it possible for them to "bear the unbearable" and surrender. I personally believe that being nuked would be politically unbearable for any nation, no matter what people who don't have to live through the experience might say to the contrary. It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second.
No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945).
Nobody knew that the USA only had a few A-bombs in the late summer of 1945. And once production picked up, the USA did have a fair number (the number 22 seems to ring a bell) by the end of 1945. And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all.
The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons). And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter). No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk.
I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.) The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did.
We in this country are fortunate in many ways. One of our good fortunes is that we get to celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas within several weeks of each other. This serves to reinforce our thoughts and reflections regarding peace and what the spirit of goodwill towards others really means. I really enjoy playing SPWaW (whether playing "historically" or "hypothetically"). It's given me hundreds of hours of enjoyment. And the best part about it is that it's a GAME.
Happy Gaming,
Victor
VAH
Originally posted by victorhauser:
Speer states pretty convincingly that when the Soviets cut Germany's rail link with Turkey in August 1944, the lack of chromium reserves was going to shut down the German war industry in a matter of months no matter what else happened.
The starting point of this argument was that the Allies were thrown back from Normandy. This would let the Germans reinforce the eastern front with 11 Pz Divisions, and say 20 Infantry divisions ( this would still leave something like 40 divisions to garrison France). I think these reinforcemnets would have been alble to slow down or stop the soviet summer offensive of 1944 along some natural defence line. The Vistula river in Poland nad the Carpathian mountains in the Balkans perhaps. My point being, the rail road from Turkey would probably have been safe.
It's easy to sit cozy and warm by our fireplaces with full holiday bellies (and the distance of 55 years) and say that "Being nuked isn't so bad, we are (or they were) tough enough to take it". But I don't believe it, not even for a second.
When Hitler realized Germany was loosing the war, he wanted to destroy the entire German infrastructure. He wanted to turn Germany into some barren wasteland. When someone pointed out that this would put the surviving German population in severe hardships and practically put the country back to the level of civilisation of the 15th century, he simply replied "So what, the good are already dead". Do you *really* think he would have surrendered if 2 A-bombs were dropped on German cities?
No nation on earth besides the USA had the economic and industrial resources to build an A-bomb during WW2, even if they had the scientific and technical data to do so. And the Germans, Soviets, and Japanese didn't have the scientific and technical data (and weren't really close to having it in 1945).
I agree. There would have been no German A-bomb no matter how long the war progressed. She had other weapons of mass destruction though. The largest supply of Sarin Nerve Gas. And the means to carry that weapon to any place in Europe, with the V2 rockets.
I dont think it would be too far fetched to see Germany reply to the A-Bombs with V2's armed with chemical warheads against London.
The allies knew this, and I think that would perhaps have made them think twice about nuking Germany.
And even if a nation (and its government) could withstand a few A-bombs without collapsing, I don't think ANY nation (especially one like late-war Germany, which is smaller than the state of Texas) could've absorbed several dozen A-bombs within the span of a few months and still existed as a viable, or even recognizable, nation at all.
But a failed Normandy would not give a Texas sized Germany. She would still have France, half of Italy, the Benelux, Norway, most of the Balkans, and (probably) most of Poland and eastern Europe.
The "skies darkened by Me 262s" is also a myth. The Germans actually built over 1200 Me 262s (most people don't know that). But they could never keep more than a handful operational at any given time due to a variety of reasons (unreliable engines and a lack of qualified pilots being the two biggest reasons).
But these were not built all in one month. The Germans did not have 30 flying Me 262's and 1170 just standing around waiting for spare parts or pilots.
And even if they had more of them, the chances of them being able to successfully intercept a night A-bombing raid by B-29s were remote (the Me 262 was not a successful night fighter).
Perhaps correct, but Germany had other night fighters. And those B-29's would have to fly all the way across occupied France to reach Germany.
No, by the summer of 1944 the Me 262 was not going to win Germany the war any more than Tigers and Panthers and Elefants were able win the battle of Kursk.
Not win. But perhaps achieve a conditional surrender.
I've never heard a convincing argument to make me believe that the Germans would not have surrendered before the end of 1945 whether the Normandy invasion had succeeded or not. (Also remember that most Germans thought that Normandy was merely a diversion, and so great masses of German troops would not necessarily have been sent to face the Soviets.)
Problem is when we are speaking hypotheticals it is very hard to convince anyone, since people tend to have their minds set from the beginning. I think there are some interesting points that speaks clearly for a Germany being able to hold some defensive lines in the east if the allies failed. And albeit German intelligence were not as good as the allied one. The surely would have realised that Normandy was the big one after the allies had lost 5-7 divisons. And the allies themselves believed that Normandy was the only chance to win an unconditional surrender.
I agree completely.
The good news is that the invasion succeeded, thereby saving the lives of millions of more people who would've died (not even counting those in concentration camps) had the war dragged on 6 months longer than it actually did.
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
The stated policy of the allies was the unconditional surender of Germany . The original purpose and intent of the A-bomb was to bomb Germany. Had Overlord failed and had germany still been in the war come Aug45 the A-bomb would have been used. All data available for the Mk 3 warhead (the production weapon following the Fatman and Little Boy demostration devices indicates that with 20 or so available by the end of 1945 would have been used in direct support of assulting troops ( consider the weapons tests with early nukes in nevada). As to presumed target restrictions on targets in France and the low countries one only needs to consider the Nato Policy of using tactical nukes ( some , most actually, significantly larger that the nominal 10-20 kt available with the Mk 3 ) Nato given the ranges of Honest John, 8" even Corporal obviously intended to target Soviet Forces on Nato Territory . I do not think any of the mental rservations expressed in this thread as to special weapons ( nuclear) usage were a factor in the decision processes on national command authority in 1945 or for that matter 1955 1965 1975 or even 1985. True the use of the prototype weapons Fatman a pultoium impolsion test/demostration vechicle and Tall Boy a urainium gun assembly test /demostration device were tests to basically gather data for damage capabilites and used on virgin targets .. but do not misunderstand this.. Trinity was a impolsion device to prove the principles involved TallBoy was a totally untried concept that had a high level of theoritical confidence due to math and physics . All testing options of the prototypes that did not involve casulities were discarded.
As to possible German Strategic capablilites ..any hint of such a possibility would have moved any identified assets to an imediate primary Target category ..ie Subs.. Sub pens/ports.
I would emphasie that at no time is there any evidence to suggest that civilian targets either Axis or Occupied Allied in any operational way restricted the use of carpet bombing and colateral damage was a regretable but unaviodable conssquence. One only has to study the Combat philosophies of Bomber Harris or Curtis Lemay and post war proliferation, targeting, and production philosiphies concerning Nuclear weapons to understand that anything resembeling humanity or compasion is not a consideration in the use of Nuclear weapons . Only a conmensurate retalitory capablity has constrained their use . Likewise any first use of Chemical or Biological weapons by Germany would have resulted in massive retaliation . Please bear in mind all wartime production was rapidly stopped after Aug 17th 45 and we still managed a @20 weapon stockpile by December . Imagine if we had a percieved imediate need .
Had Overlord intially failed Germany i think would have been reluctant to reduce much less bare the atlantic coast to the obviously much larger than antcipated Allied Naval and Assult capablity envinced on June 6th. U S production of aircraft was just hitting stride in 1944. US and British Jet fighters were also entering service, admitedly not on par with ME 262..But as Churchill was fond of saying quanity has it's own quality . Also upgraded and up gunned tanks and upgraded amphibious capablites ( see late 44 and 1945 amphibious capablities pacific ) would be in play.
In short June 44 was the earliest possible invasion date with what was available ( see allied weapons available in july august 44 ) the allies were engaged on many fronts with no intention of quiting if defeated on any one front . Look at how long Allies continued given early defeats . Mother Russia was well and truely pissed at Germany in 1944 and beginning to taste revenge. The British were beginnning to see Victory as possible and the Americans were just beginning to feel equiped to enter a war American style with plenty of everything . I think any assesment of alternative outcomes needs to focus more on National Will at the time and less on the Important Nature of Victory at Normandy as it was spun given the outcome. Had it not been a Victory it would not have been seen as decisive . Hitlers evoultionary Wonderweapons would have evolved while Allied revoutionary Wonderweapons would have been empolyed with utter ruthlessness.
As to possible German Strategic capablilites ..any hint of such a possibility would have moved any identified assets to an imediate primary Target category ..ie Subs.. Sub pens/ports.
I would emphasie that at no time is there any evidence to suggest that civilian targets either Axis or Occupied Allied in any operational way restricted the use of carpet bombing and colateral damage was a regretable but unaviodable conssquence. One only has to study the Combat philosophies of Bomber Harris or Curtis Lemay and post war proliferation, targeting, and production philosiphies concerning Nuclear weapons to understand that anything resembeling humanity or compasion is not a consideration in the use of Nuclear weapons . Only a conmensurate retalitory capablity has constrained their use . Likewise any first use of Chemical or Biological weapons by Germany would have resulted in massive retaliation . Please bear in mind all wartime production was rapidly stopped after Aug 17th 45 and we still managed a @20 weapon stockpile by December . Imagine if we had a percieved imediate need .
Had Overlord intially failed Germany i think would have been reluctant to reduce much less bare the atlantic coast to the obviously much larger than antcipated Allied Naval and Assult capablity envinced on June 6th. U S production of aircraft was just hitting stride in 1944. US and British Jet fighters were also entering service, admitedly not on par with ME 262..But as Churchill was fond of saying quanity has it's own quality . Also upgraded and up gunned tanks and upgraded amphibious capablites ( see late 44 and 1945 amphibious capablities pacific ) would be in play.
In short June 44 was the earliest possible invasion date with what was available ( see allied weapons available in july august 44 ) the allies were engaged on many fronts with no intention of quiting if defeated on any one front . Look at how long Allies continued given early defeats . Mother Russia was well and truely pissed at Germany in 1944 and beginning to taste revenge. The British were beginnning to see Victory as possible and the Americans were just beginning to feel equiped to enter a war American style with plenty of everything . I think any assesment of alternative outcomes needs to focus more on National Will at the time and less on the Important Nature of Victory at Normandy as it was spun given the outcome. Had it not been a Victory it would not have been seen as decisive . Hitlers evoultionary Wonderweapons would have evolved while Allied revoutionary Wonderweapons would have been empolyed with utter ruthlessness.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
This may have been the response of the people, but the US didn´t have any more bombs!
BTW Germany developed guided bombs, stealthfighters (Go 229: 3 prototypes in1945, made of wood), planes flying with carbon dust, an SAM with radar guidance (Wasserfall).
German industry was deep in mines with power plants deep in mines and on the way to construct nuclear powerplants.
Germany had the manpower to work on the nuklearbomb, where do you think the "US" scientists came from?
I think we all can be glad that D-Day was no fault and Allied Forces landed in Europe to destroy the Nazis. But (and I think this should not be forgotten) therefore they committed a lot of crimes German generals where executed or put in jail for after the war ended.
[This message has been edited by Frank (edited December 18, 2000).]
BTW Germany developed guided bombs, stealthfighters (Go 229: 3 prototypes in1945, made of wood), planes flying with carbon dust, an SAM with radar guidance (Wasserfall).
German industry was deep in mines with power plants deep in mines and on the way to construct nuclear powerplants.
Germany had the manpower to work on the nuklearbomb, where do you think the "US" scientists came from?
I think we all can be glad that D-Day was no fault and Allied Forces landed in Europe to destroy the Nazis. But (and I think this should not be forgotten) therefore they committed a lot of crimes German generals where executed or put in jail for after the war ended.
[This message has been edited by Frank (edited December 18, 2000).]
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
-
Recon_slith
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Adelaide, Australia
If D Day ended in a disaster one thing that could be absolutely counted on was that Gen. Macarthur would have said he would have done it better if he were in charge.
------------------
Wait for Death. There's a choice?
Recon
------------------
Wait for Death. There's a choice?
Recon
Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes its laws or its songs either.
-- Mark Twain
-- Mark Twain
victorhauser: I would like to remind you of what you must already know, and that is, that the main hypothetical behind the Me262s saving Germany, or at least delaying a probable Soviet conquering, was based on the premise of earlier introduction, which as we're told was delayed largely by Hitler's desire for it to be used as a fighter-bomber instead of an interceptor.
The argument basically goes that if the 262s were built early enough, in enough numbers, the bombing could've been stopped. Given what I know of US reluctance to take 'too many losses' and Japan's operating from that viewpoint towards the US, and many of the US antagonists, since, doing the same, if the 262s did inflict quite heavy casualties, the US bombing would have stopped, or at least switched to the night as the Brits had done.
As well, though this isn't usually part of the 262 argument, there was a jet fighter produced by Heinkel I believe which was available before the 262, but was turned down.
If the bomb had become available before Germany surrendered, I don't think you would've seen us use it on Germany, but if you put an early successful 262 scenario in there, that might've given us more reason to then actually use the bomb, that is if we could be assured that the 262s wouldn't shoot it down. Though America wanted to route the Nazis, I don't think there was quite the motivation to nuke Germany as there was Japan, and given that there was a limited supply, should Germany have held out long enough, they probably would've saved them for Japan. If you can believe what we were told, the bomb was used specifically because of the huge civilian resistance we could've expected from the Japanese, and that's something which certainly noone expected much of from the Germans, though the German civilians doubtlessly gave the Russians a lot more hell than in the West (though still not comparable to expected Japanese resistance).
The argument basically goes that if the 262s were built early enough, in enough numbers, the bombing could've been stopped. Given what I know of US reluctance to take 'too many losses' and Japan's operating from that viewpoint towards the US, and many of the US antagonists, since, doing the same, if the 262s did inflict quite heavy casualties, the US bombing would have stopped, or at least switched to the night as the Brits had done.
As well, though this isn't usually part of the 262 argument, there was a jet fighter produced by Heinkel I believe which was available before the 262, but was turned down.
If the bomb had become available before Germany surrendered, I don't think you would've seen us use it on Germany, but if you put an early successful 262 scenario in there, that might've given us more reason to then actually use the bomb, that is if we could be assured that the 262s wouldn't shoot it down. Though America wanted to route the Nazis, I don't think there was quite the motivation to nuke Germany as there was Japan, and given that there was a limited supply, should Germany have held out long enough, they probably would've saved them for Japan. If you can believe what we were told, the bomb was used specifically because of the huge civilian resistance we could've expected from the Japanese, and that's something which certainly noone expected much of from the Germans, though the German civilians doubtlessly gave the Russians a lot more hell than in the West (though still not comparable to expected Japanese resistance).
Warhead yeah i agree it sure does sound like Stalin ....but....if ya check out www.chesco.com/~artman/main you willl find a giant collection of quotes and they got it listed as a Churchill .. i think Churchill was talkin about lend lease ..again the link don't work just type in the URL i know the web site is there i don't know why the link thingy don't work
[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited December 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited December 18, 2000).]
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which