Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's safe to say there sure as hell would have been no Marshall Plan. There was a significant element of American postwar policy-makers who advocated gutting Germany's industrial infrastructure and forcing the country to become an agricultural economy so they could never wage war again. As one advocate of that strategy put it, "let the German people be fed soup three times a day from Army soup tents, so they remember that experience for the rest of their lives." Secretary of State George C. Marshall (the formed Secretary of War) fought hard for a more humane approach, and President Truman agreed. The result was the European economic miracle of the 50s and 60s.
But had the Germans chosen to drag things out at the end and flip nuclear warheads at London, Paris, and the spearhead of Patton's 3rd Army... well, I very much doubt that General Marshall would have even made the argument, much less won it. The entire political and socio-economic face of Europe in the second half of the 20th Century would have been very, very different.
Then again, in the face of the Soviet threat, drastic plans for Germany like Morganthau's were halted. Rebuilding Germany was not just humane or magnanimous, it was necessary in the face of Communist propaganda and Communist takeovers.
Albert the Crocodile"There was a significant element of American postwar policy-makers who advocated gutting Germany's industrial infrastructure and forcing the country to become an agricultural economy so they could never wage war again. As one advocate of that strategy put it, "let the German people be fed soup three times a day from Army soup tents, so they remember that experience for the rest of their lives."
I think that would have been the moral thing to do, as IMO the German people should have been required to be punished for life for enabling the monster their nation became.
And if your point of view had prevailed, America would be facing a larger and much more menacing Soviet Empire, which in some respects made the Nazis look like Boy Scouts.
Last edited by NickB1967; 03-02-2015 at 10:14 AM..
Do you see the problem? And this is a problem with most simplistic "What If?" scenarios that are proffered - they require an explained point of departure that necessarily changes history so dramatically that the alternate history makes no sense unless that point of departure is fully fleshed out.
So, please, stop with the ridiculous one-sentence alternative histories. Explain to us - plausibly - how Germany has the bomb, when they have it, why they have it, what accessories they've acquired to make the bomb useful, why the West just let them get the bomb, and so forth. Only then can we explore what happens subsequently.
This is why so many people dislike "What If?" questions.
How did Nazi Germany get The Bomb? Simple: Santa Claus left it under Hitler's tree.
. . . Because the OP did not ask us to imagine HOW the Nazis got the bomb. He asked us to imagine what would have happened if they had. Is it plausible to assume that Hitler could have gotten the bomb? Under the actually existing historical timeline, no, I don't think so. We would have to assume quite a few counter-factual scenarios, not the least of which being that Hitler would have had to have been a far better and more farsighted military leader than he turned out to be in real life. But so what? We weren't asked if it was plausible for Germany to have gotten the bomb. The question was, if they had somehow managed to get an atomic bomb, what would have happened? If you don't want to play the "What If?" game, then don't.
I would think that if Hitler would have had the bomb, he would have wanted to use it to attack his worst enemy, which was the Soviet Union. Yeah, sure, the Americans and British were against him too; but from my limited knowledge, it doesn't seen that Hitler had the visceral hatred of them that he did of the Soviets. (I'm far from an expert on this, so I would welcome correction if I'm mistaken on that point.) The question would then be, what would his target have been? Assuming that he obtained the bomb sometime late in the war, I can imagine him using it against the shattered remains of Stalingrad, just out of spite for all the trouble the siege of that city had cost him. As to how he would have delivered the bomb against that target . . . well, I'll leave that for someone else to play with.
It wouldn't have done him much good without a way to deliver it. The Nazis never developed a long range strategic bomber that could have done the job, and the nuclear bombs of the time were too big/heavy to go a missile or rocket. But if he could have done it, he would probably have nuked the Soviet Union first.
What is this supposed to mean? Anyplace they sent a bomber to they could have sent a nuke. So the Western Hemisphere wasn't in immediate danger, but a bomber could have easily obliterated London and hundreds of other major targets. One nuke on the beach at Normandy would have cancelled D-Day and destroyed a huge number of ships and troops.
Imagine Nazi Germany having the atomic bomb during WW2.
One good reason to be serious about Iran and similar outlaw countries being nuclearized. Obama should sign an unenforceable treaty just to get a photo opp with Rouhani (sp), the current flower boy of the mullahs.
Too many question - how many bombs? what kind of delivery? at what stage?
Really there is no question here. We already know the answer. A bomb is a bomb, we need not proclaim some divine nature of an atomic bomb. The answer is to simply look at his bombing strategy in WWII. It would have been the same. On the western front his bombing campaign was used to terrorize the British cities in the "Battle of Britain". Obviously that would have been much more effective with Atomic bombs...at least until Radar and Spitfires downed to many of his bombers...and later in V2 rockets. In the Eastern front bombing campaigns were used tactically to focus on Russian force concentrations...and in some cases against strongholds like Stalingrad. We could expect the same with atomic bombs.
The question on effectiveness would be - how many bombs are we talking about?
What is this supposed to mean? Anyplace they sent a bomber to they could have sent a nuke. So the Western Hemisphere wasn't in immediate danger, but a bomber could have easily obliterated London and hundreds of other major targets. One nuke on the beach at Normandy would have cancelled D-Day and destroyed a huge number of ships and troops.
They had very few 4-engined bomber types that even came close to carrying the size and weight of a nuclear bomb of the time. The FW200 Condor was probably the closest they had, and perhaps they could have used it against England early in the war before the RAF & USAAF established air superiority over the UK & English Channel. But it was a converted pre-war airliner and it's payload capacity was limited, and needed close fighter support when doing maritime patrols to keep from being shot down. Delivering an A-bomb of the time much farther than continental Europe was by aircraft would have been beyond their capability. Certainly not deep into the Soviet Union, North Africa, or the U.S.
He would not have used it, it would not have helped him conquer Europe. It would have only been useful as a deterrent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
