What if the Germans won the war

[Sergeant Dorr]

I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here!

[tankgeezer]

I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here! history would repeat itself, As it has with all Empires. the Empire of the 3rd Reich would eventually stagnate, decline, and crumble. Entropy is the only undying Monarch.

[AllHailCesar]

Alternate histories are a facsinating, endless topic.

It's a good thing they didn't win.....I don't speak German.

[Drake]

I would possibly be a middle rank officer somewhere on a nice little post in the carribean or the pacific atolls and you would be my subordinates hrhr ;)

[Rising Sun*]

This alternate history scenario usually concentrates on what the Allies would do.

What about the Axis?

How long would the Germans tolerate the ambitious but incompentent Italians?

How long would it take for the Japanese to realise that the Germans held them in contempt as an inferior race?

What Axis powers had control of which resources? e.g. Japan had almost all the rubber and most of the tin in the world. Then we get into wolfram etc, not to mention China and its resources.

The odds are that even if Germany won the war in Europe, there was going to be another war within the Axis in time.

[Rising Sun*]

I would possibly be a middle rank officer somewhere on a nice little post in ... the pacific atolls and you would be my subordinates hrhr ;)

In your dreams, mate. :D

The Japs wouldn't let you anywhere near the Pacific in any permanent role.

They'd tolerate you as an ally, but if you want to know how they'd really like to treat you just read up on how they treated, say, the Dutch from the NEI.

[Drake]

How about we define the scenario a little more precisely and then all those interested could summ up their ideas (this time I'll even try a serious answer, hihi).
Let's say Germany somehow miraculously manages to pull of Sealion, the british sue for peace and without hope for western aid stalin signs a bitter peace (like in hoi2) later in 41. That would leave us in say october '41 with a victorious germany in europe and no US involvement. Now we could make up a timetable till today where some geeks hang out in the weltweitnetz and talk about the hypothetical "What if the allies won" scenario :mrgreen:

[overlord644]

i dont think the reich could possibly last for more than 10 years or so, first of all hitler would have a hell of a time slugging it out through areas of N. America like the Canadian wilderness or the Rocky Mountains against the guerrilla warfare which would be sure to follow a nazi invasion of america. Also if hitler could rule the world, i think constant revolutions which would arise in places like America and England combined with the fact that the german populace would eventually grow tired of thousands of dead germans every year would be enough for nazi germany to destroy itself.

[tankgeezer]

Just to put a twist on things, and considering the historic role of the Papacy and the Vatican in world events, I would expect that after awhile, the Vatican would succeed in deposing, or liquidating Hitler, in order to retain their own power, and control in the world.

[tankgeezer]

Quote: "I dont think the reich could possibly last for more than 10 years or so, first of all hitler would have a hell of a time slugging it out through areas of N. America like the Canadian wilderness or the Rocky Mountains against the guerrilla warfare which would be sure to follow a nazi invasion of america."

I do not believe that the Axis would have the power in men, and materiel to mount an effective or viable land invasion of the contiental U.S. The land mass is just too large, and the well armed,an irate citizenry would harry, and hound them to death. The Axis would need to have Nuclear capabilities in order to force a surrender. Otherwise, it would prove a futile venture.
As with Russia, our industrial power would continue to operate to supply the fighters, and that would be the U.S. military, coast guard, merchant marine, reserves, and national guardsman and about any able man and woman available. And a scorched Earth policy would also leave the attackers without anything to work with.
The Axis supply lines would be attacked constantly, and could not keep any re-supply effort going for long. The Great lakes would be of no use to them particulaily during the colder months, as the stormy conditions on the lakes are too dangerous for the ships of the time,(the lakes are far worse than the oceans in terms of severe weather.) as the St. Lawrence seaway would not be there until the 50's, and the Mississippi River is not deep enough to handle any but the most shallow draft boats.Also, The greatlakes area was, at the time the industrial center of the U.S. and would be safe from most attacks being too far inland to reach with the aircraft of the time.
The Axis would take some areas,and be able to hold them for awhile, but it would be hopeless for them in the long term without some type of operational, and deliverable super weapon. Just my thoughts..

[Drake]

Where did you get the idea of a cross ocean invasion anyway? Why on earth should Germany attack the US, I even doubt that Pearl Harbour would still be on the timetable as there is absolutely no reason for that anymore. The US would stay isolationist happily ever after, sitting on the Monroe doctrin. Possibly a cold war scenario with 3 poles instead of two would be my bet in the long run. And given the fact that there were many pro nazi people in the US prior to the war I can even imagine, that the US and a german dominated Europe would have pretty close ties pretty fast again (at least economically anyway), with the Japanese Empire considered as the real outsider and threat.

@overlord: lol, couple of thousand dead each year, yeah that would turn the tide in Nazy Germany in the long run :rolleyes:
You cannot apply todays US standards to one of the most life disdaining dictatorships in history.

[tankgeezer]

Although I dont remember the Title, but there was a book on this subject, from the viewpoint of a "modern " german official, Hitler's 75 birthday was approaching, and the world map showed most of Europe and much of the worlds smaller nations were under German control. Asia, and the Americas were not, and perhaps the U.K. as well, but it was interesting to read it. Maybe someone out there knows the title.

[Panzerknacker]

I think that movie was "fatherland".

[tankgeezer]

Thank you P.K. it was a good read, which is about all I remember about it,, some illustrations etc. So I recommend it to anyone who really wants to look into "what if".

[pdf27]

Ummm... just remember everyone that by 1947 the US would have had intercontinental nuclear-capable bombers (the B-36 - which was effectively uninterceptable until the advent of the MiG-17) and several hundred nuclear devices (assuming they kept to their original production plans rather than shutting down their plants after the surrender of Japan as they did historically to rebuild them to peacetime standards of safety).
That gives them the capability to effectively destroy Germany in a single day, sometime in summer 1947. That effectively sets a timeframe in which the Germans have to knock the UK out of the war, build a fleet capable of dominating the atlantic in the face of the USN and RCN (by 1945 the biggest and third biggest navies in the world respectively), build an amphibious fleet capable of launching an invasion several times the size of D-Day, successfully land in the US and then carry out a large enough invasion to knock the US out of the war.

Short of Lindbergh being elected president I really can't see any possible way this could happen.

[Drake]

Ummm... just remember everyone that by 1947 the US would have had intercontinental nuclear-capable bombers (the B-36 - which was effectively uninterceptable until the advent of the MiG-17) and several hundred nuclear devices (assuming they kept to their original production plans rather than shutting down their plants after the surrender of Japan as they did historically to rebuild them to peacetime standards of safety).
That gives them the capability to effectively destroy Germany in a single day, sometime in summer 1947. That effectively sets a timeframe in which the Germans have to knock the UK out of the war, build a fleet capable of dominating the atlantic in the face of the USN and RCN (by 1945 the biggest and third biggest navies in the world respectively), build an amphibious fleet capable of launching an invasion several times the size of D-Day, successfully land in the US and then carry out a large enough invasion to knock the US out of the war.

Short of Lindbergh being elected president I really can't see any possible way this could happen.

:confused:
Would you mind to describe the global situation in which your scenario takes place, cause I can't see the relevance in mine.

[pdf27]

Any scenario where the US and Germany end up at war. Frankly, I really don't think Hitler was smart enough to keep out of a war with the US in conditions of conquering Europe. The British Empire would almost certainly have fought on, and were the Germans to engage Canada anywhere west of mid-atlantic that would probably bring the US into the war.

The only hope of a Thousand-Year Reich is either not to start a war in the first place or to ensure the US remains a friendly neutral. The latter requires IMHO a far smarter leader than Hitler ever was.

[tankgeezer]

Besides,, this is an exercize in contrivance,,, you know, what if? doesnt have to make any particular sense, or adhere to any manner of reason, or basis of fact.

[Drake]

Any scenario where the US and Germany end up at war. Frankly, I really don't think Hitler was smart enough to keep out of a war with the US in conditions of conquering Europe. The British Empire would almost certainly have fought on, and were the Germans to engage Canada anywhere west of mid-atlantic that would probably bring the US into the war.

The only hope of a Thousand-Year Reich is either not to start a war in the first place or to ensure the US remains a friendly neutral. The latter requires IMHO a far smarter leader than Hitler ever was.

I'll give you that, Germany was never a thread to any country on american soil, but neither was the US to a victorious Germany in Europe. Hitler wouldn't care less, if the Empire "fought on" if he somehow managed to invade Britain and defeat Russia. There would be a state of war without any serious fight. Why would Hitler declare war on the US if he had nothing to gain. In our timeline he basically declared war, because he was hoping Japan would return the favor and he thought it would happen anyway, given the ongoing struggle. And while the US government was hostile to nazi germany I can't see the senate backing Roosevelt in an attempted declaration of war if they fight Japan.

[pdf27]

but neither was the US to a victorious Germany in Europe.
Ummm.... there was probably not a threat of conventional invasion, no. However, the US would have had the capability to utterly destroy Germany using nuclear weapons from about mid-1947 onwards. In reality of course this capability was aimed against the Soviets, but it was very much a real capability and had the US found itself in a war with Germany then it may very well have been used.

The real kicker in this is that there is no way the Germans would have any idea of this capability - the B-36 was massively more capable at high altitude than any other aircraft before the mid-1950s and effectively immune from interception until then, but until the US started to use it the Germans wouldn't have any idea it was a threat. Also, the bunch of clowns running the German nuclear programme (thankfully) caused the Nazis to think that nuclear weapons were impossible. The combination of the two means that even if the US does give Germany an ultimatum, it will be ignored as they won't believe in the threat. Furthermore, the Germans will think they are secure inside Festung Europa and not see the need to make peace with the US. That's very, very bad news for Germany.

[Nickdfresh]

I watched the wonderful PBS series, "The War," a five part series on WWII from the American point of view of course in which numerous veterans of the War and civilians who were caught up in it were interviewed..

In one of the interviews, a former sniper/medic named Leopold (I think it was him) said he had been treating German POWs and one of the men, a mid-level officer asked him where he was from - in perfect English with little accent. Leopold replied, "The United States."

The German solder came back at him, "yes I know this but what part?"

Leopold said, "The northeastern part, not far from New York City."

The German officer further asked, "Where in the northeast?"

Leopold, annoyed, finally said, "Danbury, Connecticut."

The German's face lit up and he said, "Oooohhh! Danbury, where the (such and such) rivers meet the (whatever) river?"

Leopold was stunned that anyone would be aware of such a mundane fact, and said, "Yes! How did you know that?"

The German smiled and replied, "I was in training for the 'Administrator's program."

:)

[overlord644]

i have always heard that hitler had in fact planned to invade the us. Historians have recently (within the last 5 yrs) found a sequel to "Mein Compf" outlining hitlers us invasion. THen there is also teh fact that he put a great deal of effort into the development of an "Amerika Bomber" which would fly nonstop from france to new york and then back again. So i think hitler really did despise american as much, maybe more, than the rest of the european ethnic groups

And as for hitlers manpower it is likely that his armys wouldnt have come just from germany.....


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Whywefight30vs200.png

[windrider]

sorry I was starting a new post, so that's why the title is off topic
But...
the book that depicts perfectly this scenario
is THE MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE, by Philip K Dick
Not made "à la sauce" Hollywood yet, I think?

[Drake]

Ummm.... there was probably not a threat of conventional invasion, no. However, the US would have had the capability to utterly destroy Germany using nuclear weapons from about mid-1947 onwards. In reality of course this capability was aimed against the Soviets, but it was very much a real capability and had the US found itself in a war with Germany then it may very well have been used.

The real kicker in this is that there is no way the Germans would have any idea of this capability - the B-36 was massively more capable at high altitude than any other aircraft before the mid-1950s and effectively immune from interception until then, but until the US started to use it the Germans wouldn't have any idea it was a threat. Also, the bunch of clowns running the German nuclear programme (thankfully) caused the Nazis to think that nuclear weapons were impossible. The combination of the two means that even if the US does give Germany an ultimatum, it will be ignored as they won't believe in the threat. Furthermore, the Germans will think they are secure inside Festung Europa and not see the need to make peace with the US. That's very, very bad news for Germany.

Well this pretty much ignores the fact, that Germany in this scenario also has six more or less peacetime years, in which it can spend vast ressources on R&D instead of weapons. They would've achieved nuclear capabilities sooner or later, possibly sooner than the USSR in our timeframe. If Japan still foolishly declares war on the US, then Germany will know in 1945 that the bombs are feasible and put all effort into its development & production. Then we are again in the Cold War.
The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be. Though all those technical developments are imho to fast, because many developments were fuelled by the actual situation, even the Manhatten Project. And like I said I think it is politically more likely, that the US will arrange itself with the new situation in europe once the fighting stops.

Now on Hitler dreaming of an invasion of the USA. If he really did that, he was even more stupid than I thought, though I have never actually read something which would prove that. All his "visions" as far as I know were based around livingspace in the east for some farming type guys capable of feeding themselves from the soil they live on and such nonsense, this "each guy on his own land" seems to appeal to dictators, didn't that guy in zimbabwe ruin his countries economy the same way?

[pdf27]

Maybe the Nazis would have got manpower from elsewhere, but the ones which didn't come from Germany really weren't up to scratch and tended to get slapped stupid by any competent military force they came up against. There is a great deal more to an army than just warm bodies.

As for the Amerika bomber, most of the designs were little more than dirty paper. You can't take these things seriously in terms of the effort going in until you get half a dozen prototypes flying - that's when the major work really starts going in. It's also worth noting that the US had it's own equivalent in the B-36 - which came from a specification in April 1941, long before the Germans were even thinking in such terms. It was put on the back-burner when it became apparent that the UK would survive to act as a bomber base, but even so was flying shortly postwar...

[pdf27]

They would've achieved nuclear capabilities sooner or later, possibly sooner than the USSR in our timeframe.
Thing is, we know from the Farm Hall transcripts (where the high-ranking German nuclear physicists were interrogated after WW2 - their living quarters were bugged and they didn't know it) that Heisenberg et al didn't think that nuclear weapons were theoretically possible. The transcripts show that when given news of Hiroshima, they simply didn't believe that it was caused by a nuclear device. If they were running the German nuclear programme in this alternate history as well, the chances are that they'll think the same way and the first time they'll realise that nuclear weapons are possible will be when someone drops one on them.

If Japan still foolishly declares war on the US, then Germany will know in 1945 that the bombs are feasible and put all effort into its development & production. Then we are again in the Cold War.
Point taken - assuming that Germany manages to stay at peace with the US until they have something approaching nuclear parity. That's IMHO a dodgy assumption, but an arguable one.

The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be. Though all those technical developments are imho to fast, because many developments were fuelled by the actual situation, even the Manhatten Project.
Indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.

And like I said I think it is politically more likely, that the US will arrange itself with the new situation in europe once the fighting stops.
Maybe. Personally I think it's unlikely given US participation in WW1, the amount of cash they were making out of the Allies, German hostility and interference with freedom of the seas (NOT bright - that's what brought the US in during WW1) and Roosevelt's character. Hence my original Lindbergh comment - it would take a leader like that, IMHO, to keep the US out of WW2 in Europe, as well as a far smarter Hitler.

this "each guy on his own land" seems to appeal to dictators, didn't that guy in zimbabwe ruin his countries economy the same way?
Not particularly, Zimbabwe's all about terrorising and starving to death anybody not likely to vote for Mugabe. Yet another shining example of an African country whose people would benefit massively (to the tune of not being dead) by having a NATO Airbourne Brigade drop in and remove their current leadership, but we can't do so as it would be seen as "racist" and all that cr*p. Apparently, it's just fine for Africans to starve and be massacred as long as people with the right skin colour are doing the killing.:evil:

[tankgeezer]

so serious must we be? this is s'posed to be a fun little pipe dream.

[overlord644]

well, there probably would be a couple of years between the wars in europe and america and during those times training of all of germanys troops training would become more intense

and as far as the bomber, there was in fact a prototype of the plane not to mention the fact that once there was a war, germany could probably use iceland as a bomber base

[Chevan]

I have been thinking about this for a long time. What if the germans won WWII? What would the outcome of the world be? If you have any ideas post here!
Hi Sergeant.
Hmmmn the germans won the war.... the world without jews, limited slavs and other low races ;)
Sounds great:);)
But my mind is too weak to imagine this scenario.
I don't like the pseudo-scientific fantasies:)

Cheers.

[Chevan]

The B-36 would probably be countered by radarguided AA missiles based on the A4 by 1947 and I am fairly sure they would've come up with high altitude interceptors if the need would be.

Not only the first radio controlled AA missiles but do not forget about the perfect hight altitude fighters like the piston masterpieces Ta-152H and Me-262. This was REAL uber anti-bomber wearpon that was ready for combat use in 1944.
Both of those fighters could easy teared for a pieces the B-29 formation like it did the Mig-15 in a Korean war.
(BTW the firepower of the 2x23&1x37 mm guns was much less then the firepower of 4x30 mm Me-262) ;)
And only the lack of resources and industry power of Germans ( simply coz they lost the territories on the ground ) let the allies enought possibilities for firebombing compain.
Besides if the Axis won the war ( i/e they captured the Asian colonies) the Alles would innevitable have the lack of resources - this fact simply couild not let the US to lead the so experiece ( in literal sence) the strategic air compain. Hence the Germany would not have much problems with the armades of B-17/29.
If they won the war ( i.e they captured the Kavkaz with the soviet oil field and Iran with the British oil) the losing he war in the Europe by allies would be just the matter of time.

Cheers.

[Chevan]

Indeed. The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.

My dear pdf you know i/m not a adirer of Nazy wearponry like the some of our members in here;)
But you naive believe in Super/Uber werponry is bother me :)
In spirit of Further you think that the parody for the bombers the ugly Piston/Jet B-36 could be the absolute mean that could win the war:)
You clearly know that the Germans was superior in many techoligies including the jet aviation. For the comparition the best alles fighter in 1944 the Meteor was much worst then the Me-262( and american YP-80 was still in testing) . Despite of lack of the Nickel the Germans was able to build in 1944 the jet engine that was better then the british.
So if you realy think that if they were techically able to creat the effectiive wearpon against the B-17 already in the 1944 ( and just the problems with resorces in total war did not let tem to build enought jet fighters).
they was not able to create the super jet fighter in the 1947 agains the ugly monster B-36 ?:)
If even the soviets have builded the Mig-17 int he 1950- the superior Germans engeeners had projected the simular fighter in the 1945 ( the me-183 project).
There is no any doubts thay could build the German analog of mig-17 already in the 1946-47. Accurate to meet the B-36 for dinner:)

[Chevan]

Thing is, we know from the Farm Hall transcripts (where the high-ranking German nuclear physicists were interrogated after WW2 - their living quarters were bugged and they didn't know it) that Heisenberg et al didn't think that nuclear weapons were theoretically possible. The transcripts show that when given news of Hiroshima, they simply didn't believe that it was caused by a nuclear device. If they were running the German nuclear programme in this alternate history as well, the chances are that they'll think the same way and the first time they'll realise that nuclear weapons are possible will be when someone drops one on them.
:
You will laught but even in the USSR till the 1945 the physics were not sure the nucler wearpon was ever theoretical possible. In the mid of 1943 when they have begin the soviet nuclear program - untill the 1945 their resaults were still very humble in comparition with Germans. And only after the Red Army had captured the part of Germans documentation and in the USA nucler test was clearly prowed the possibility of the nukes- the Stalin read the soviet intelligence report after the few days.
Immediatelly he order to force the soviet project and gives all matter under command of Beria. Already in the 1950 the pure soviet progect of a-boomb should be ready , but we used the american datas and build it in the 1949.
So if the SU was able to creat the own bomb for the 5 years - i have no any doubts the Germans who have the more great experience and more idustrial possibilities would buld the bomb through 2-3 years.

[Firefly]

PDF - The point I'm trying to make is that the B-36 redefined high altitude - the Featherweight III variants flew at 50,000ft over the target. "High Altitude" to the German armed forces of 1942 or so (the last time they would be at war in this scenario) is 32,000ft or so, and the few aircraft that can reach those heights are really struggling badly. Until the B-36 comes along, there is no reason to try flying that high, or developing missiles that can go that high - indeed, it's rather an "obvious" waste of resources. If the US is going for a "destroy Germany in a day" strike - which they are potentially capable of by 1947 - then any developments have perhaps 3 hours to be invented, bodged together and flown. IMHO, that isn't going to happen.

I have absolutely no doubt that this being the case Germany would have had no defence or very little defence against it. However, if the US does not enter WW2 in 1941 and the UK is not in the War from 1940 then would the US have developed both the B-36 and an Atomic Bomb. If the B-36 does not carry the Atomic Weapon then it really serves no purpose as its not going to bomb Germany with any effect from the US. If the B-36 is used to bomb Germany before any Atom Bomb is used then the Germans would probably develop a counter to it. Lastly is the US and Germany arent at War before 1947 then the development of the B-36 probably wouldnt be any secret.

There was a short story banging around a few years ago called 'The Big One', which concentrated on the very subject of a B-36 nuclear strike on a victorious Germany. If anyone can find it it is a cracking read.

Actually he expanded his short story into a Novel, on sale at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-One-Stuart-Slade/dp/1430304952/ref=sr_1_1/202-5033922-9121456?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191835651&sr=8-1

[pdf27]

Firefly:
Yeah, The Big One is one of the major sources for my attitude here - or to be precise the background discussions to it. I happened upon the book when he was halfway through writing it online, and participated in the background discussions to every chapter.

With regards to both nuclear weapons and the B-36 actually being developed, I think that's pretty much a given. Both programmes started and were given high priority prior to the US entering the war, and German espionage at least in the US was pretty inept. I doubt either could have been kept secret from the Soviets (given how much Fuchs, Greenglass and the like handed over to the KGB from the Manhattan project) - but that isn't the same as the Germans. Remember that the Germans thought nuclear weapons theoretically impossible until one went off over Hiroshima. If the US elected to hold the B-36s back for a nuclear strike on Germany (as happened in The Big One - I'm not sure how realistic this is) then the countermeasures would never be developed.

Chevan:
There is a world of difference between the MiG-17 and the MiG-15 at high altitude, let alone the MiG-15 and Ta-183. The difference is in reheated jet engines, something Whittle had thought about in the UK but as far as I can tell the Germans knew nothing about. Without them, no jet fighter has a prayer pf reaching the B-36.
The Ta-183 was actually build postwar (in Argentina as the Pulqui II) and turned out to be a complete dog. There is a superficial resemblance between the Ta-183 and the MiG-15, but no more. Aerodynamically they are very different beasties.
Oh, and German wartime jet engines were very, very bad - and it wasn't just the lack of Nickel and Tungsten. The Soviets tried to build them postwar with unlimited supplies of strategic minerals, with very little success. All their immediately postwar fighters were powered by British designed jet engines, despite their easy access to "superior" German designs.

[Panzerknacker]

The Ta-183 was actually build postwar (in Argentina as the Pulqui II) and turned out to be a complete dog.


The Ta-183 in his original form was never made. And by the way the Pulqui II was not a "dog".

[Firefly]

Soviets (given how much Fuchs, Greenglass and the like handed over to the KGB from the Manhattan project) - but that isn't the same as the Germans. Remember that the Germans thought nuclear weapons theoretically impossible until one went off over Hiroshima. If the US elected to hold the B-36s back for a nuclear strike on Germany (as happened in The Big One - I'm not sure how realistic this is) then the countermeasures would never be developed.

Again I agree with you PDF, the only thing I dont get, as is the same with all 'what if's' is the premise that something will still be made at huge expense to a country that wouldnt be at war if they hadnt gone to war, if you get my drift. And by this I mean the B-36 and perhaps, but not generally so, the A Bomb.

Hiding the giant bombers in peacetime and their cost and production just wouldnt have worked in my opinion and no matter how inept that the Germans were (and they sure were) at espionage in War Time, they surely couldnt fail to notice the development of the B-36 in what we are assuming to be peace between the two nations.

So its the delivery system I have problems with hiding rather than the object to be carried. Interesting stuff nonetheless.

[pdf27]

Firefly:
Depends I guess on when the US enters the war. Prototyping, etc. could easily be kept quiet about, but mass production probably could not (at least in peacetime). However, that isn't the critical bit. All the US needs to do to completely fox the Germans (at least in peacetime) is to keep quiet about the high altitude capability of the B-36, and pretend the range is lower than in reality. Both are relatively easy - the ceiling was kept very quiet for a long time, to the extent that even the US Navy thought it a lot lower than it was (see the Revolt of the Admirals for details), and the range could be concealed by stating the mission as being bombing a potential invasion fleet - this was the stated mission for the B-17 after all.
The funding is a whole other issue, but again I think not too difficult. The US is suddenly faced with a hostile Japan in the Pacific and a nation it fought 20 years before suddenly conquering several nations friendly to the US on the other side of the Atlantic, as well as trying to develop a major fleet (as well as probably trying to seize a large chunk of the RN). At the very least, that is IMHO going to lead the US to start a phase of rearmament. More likely is some form of Cold War kicking off across the Atlantic. The B-36 was originally designed for exactly this scenario (the US involved in a war with Germany after the fall of the UK), and the Manhattan Project was largely inspired by the fear that Germany would develop the weapons first. IMHO funding would not be that big an issue.

Panzerknacker:
At work at the moment so can't check, but from memory there were two or three flying prototypes of the Pulqui II. Of these, IIRC two crashed killing one test pilot. Given this and the fact that it had a British engine far more advanced than anything available to the Ta-183 yet had performance inferior to aircraft like the MiG-15, I stand by my opinion it was a dog. As for the comparison between the Pulqui II and the Ta-183, there is a far closer relationship than with the MiG-15 (the Pulqui II was after all designed by Kurt Tank and his team also built it, by and large). Visually, apart from the changes forced by the engine change the two are also far more similar than the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are.

[Drake]

I just checked, the TA-152-H1 would be capable to intercept the 1947 type B36, both had roughly the same service ceiling and I assume that a fully loaded wartime bomber would hardly reach its theoretical maximum (both speed and ceiling). The A4 can easily fly that high without modifications and if its the base for a SAM it will wreck havoc. Imho there is not even a real need for jet engines, but pdf is right, they lacked in certain areas, but this is imho too due to the wartime situation. Not only the material, but the time constraints. While the allies had the time to go through a proper development cycle most of the engine types germany used were rather hurried designs when Hitler wanted it again done yesterday after previously not seeing the potential.
Politically even if at war I can't see any situation that would lead to the annihilation of an entire country + collateral damage to a lot of the rest of europe by the US government short of a successfull invasion of the USA and immanent thread of defeat, in short: impossible.
Concerning that other scenario: In no circumstance would Stalin allow allied troops en masse on its territory, not even on the brink of destruction, he was way to paranoid for that. And if you remove Stalin in wartime say in 1941 with germany victorious on all fronts, you'll have a power struggle for his successor or even the complete dissolution of the USSR as a working entity.

[tankgeezer]

Hmmmm,

[pdf27]

Drake:
Check the US definition of "Service Ceiling". IIRC at the time it was the height at which the rate of climb dropped off below 500 ft/min with full warload - might be wrong on that one, but it's definitely defined by rate of climb dropping below a pretty substantial number with a lot of weight on board. Looking at some quickly googled numbers (don't have a decent set of books to hand sadly) it does appear that a Ta-152 H1 could reach the same altitude as a B-36, just about. However, as it is relying entirely on GM1 boost to reach that target (it could run on that for what, 10 minutes maximum?) then it will have a very limited intercept window. If the B-36 crew are awake, flying in good weather with good optics they can potentially run away from the fighter with no problems - leg it far enough that it can't reach them with sufficient boost remaining.

No argument that an A4 based SAM could reach the operating heights of the B-36 from me. However, unless the Germans knew that the B-36 was coming and that it had such an extraordinary high altitude performance, why would they bother building it?

[Drake]

Hmm, maybe because they could, after all they're german engineers :D
But depending on how the situation developed I would rather think, that going faster and higher is a pretty much obvious choice for aircraft developers. They would get the money if their US collegues get the money, cause if one side feels threatened it's usually a mutual feeling, meaning if the US thinks of ways to deal with germany so would germany both offensively and defensively.

p.s.
The TA was service ready in 1945, I think there was still room for improvements till 1947, but yes the opportunity window wouldn't be all to big. But then till 47 we have a pretty sophisticated radar network imho and maybe we have somethink really stylish by then, such as the Horthen IX.
Oh and I meant the max altitude, sorry for the confusion.

[pdf27]

Hmm, maybe because they could, after all they're german engineers :D
I'm a professional engineer, I know the feeling :twisted:

[Gutkowski]

In the last part of the PBS series The War an American GI was talking to a German solder and German solder asked with out a German accent where he (the US GI) lived and he said "in the Northeast" ,the German said "Where in the Northeast" ?, GI "Connecticut", German Solder "Where in Connecticut" ?,GI "Waterbury" ,German "oh where the Mad river and the Naugatuck river meet" , The US solder just froze and asked "how did you know that " The German said that he worked in the Territory board for the Germans
So Hitler did have his mind set on taking over the USA and Connecticut is not that big
4,845 square miles of Connecticut are land areas and 698 square miles of Connecticut are covered by water.
Length 110 miles
Width 70 miles

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ct_geography.htm

[alephh]

If Nazi Germany wouldn't have been crushed, I cannot help but to think that they would have been a lot like Soviet Union: closed, one-party state. Maybe being more efficient society than Soviet Union - making it pretty scary vision.

And considering Hitler's pool health, I immediately start to think who would have his successor later... A big difference between a Nazi Germany run by Göring, Himmler, Bormann or Göbbels.


_

[FW-190 Pilot]

I think if Fatherland is a pretty good movie (base on a novel) on what if Germany has won the war. check out that book if you want to.

[Firefly]

Second FW, see the Book Fatherland by Robert Harris. A decent thriller what if.

[Panzerknacker]

Panzerknacker:
At work at the moment so can't check, but from memory there were two or three flying prototypes of the Pulqui II. Of these, IIRC two crashed killing one test pilot. Given this and the fact that it had a British engine far more advanced than anything available to the Ta-183 yet had performance inferior to aircraft like the MiG-15, I stand by my opinion it was a dog. As for the comparison between the Pulqui II and the Ta-183, there is a far closer relationship than with the MiG-15 (the Pulqui II was after all designed by Kurt Tank and his team also built it, by and large). Visually, apart from the changes forced by the engine change the two are also far more similar than the Ta-183 and MiG-15 are.


I am aswering in the Argentine military Topic.

[FW-190 Pilot]

also see shattered world in the internet. Its an alternative world war 2 where the allies are fighting a much stronger germany. The Germans are now winning but the allies has created the nuclear bomb first while the first german A-bomb is still years away for Germany. A atomic bomb has dropped in North africa to attempt to kill Erwin Rommel, but all they have accomplished is to destroy a fake military base while erwin is in somewhere else, sound and safe.

[Rising Sun*]

also see shattered world in the internet. Its an alternative world war 2 where the allies are fighting a much stronger germany. The Germans are now winning but the allies has created the nuclear bomb first while the first german A-bomb is still years away. A atomic bomb has dropped in North africa to attempt to kill Erwin Rommel, but all they have accomplished is to destroy a fake military base while erwin is in somewhere else, sound and safe.

That's certainly a shattered world.

Of all the things to use a nuke on, getting rid of a minor general in a less than critical campaign has to be a long way from the top of the list

[Chevan]

There is a world of difference between the MiG-17 and the MiG-15 at high altitude, let alone the MiG-15 and Ta-183. The difference is in reheated jet engines, something Whittle had thought about in the UK but as far as I can tell the Germans knew nothing about. Without them, no jet fighter has a prayer pf reaching the B-36.

It was not so great difference between the Mig-17 and Mig-15 endeed pdf.
Both had a Klimov VK-1 turbojet with centrifug compressor.The only difference was the afterburner in Mig-17.
The service celling of Mig-17 was only 1 km more then the Mig-15 and 70km/h more maximum speed.
So there is no any principal tehnological difference between those subsonic/transonic aircrafts.



Oh, and German wartime jet engines were very, very bad - and it wasn't just the lack of Nickel and Tungsten. The Soviets tried to build them postwar with unlimited supplies of strategic minerals, with very little success. All their immediately postwar fighters were powered by British designed jet engines, despite their easy access to "superior" German designs.
Yea the germans Jumo-004 engeen was superior.At least in its design.
This was a Axial jet engen that today is the most useful in the jet aviation.
The centrifugal Vk-1 ( Nine II) had worst perspective characteristics. For instance when the first soviet Axial turbojet was ready ( Rd-9 in 1953) - all the soviet fighter from Mig-19 were developed with this type of turbine .

[Nickdfresh]

That's certainly a shattered world.

Of all the things to use a nuke on, getting rid of a minor general in a less than critical campaign has to be a long way from the top of the list

Yeah, the nuke would have been used to get rid of Hitler and his high command...

[pdf27]

It was not so great difference between the Mig-17 and Mig-15 endeed pdf.
Both had a Klimov VK-1 turbojet with centrifug compressor.The only difference was the afterburner in Mig-17.
The service celling of Mig-17 was only 1 km more then the Mig-15 and 70km/h more maximum speed.
So there is no any principal tehnological difference between those subsonic/transonic aircrafts.
Afterburner/reheat is actually a critical difference. If you look at the historical record, the MiG-15 was no danger to the B-36 while the introduction of the MiG-17 rapidly brought about it's retirement. Maximum speed can be traded for altitude in a zoom-climb, where the aircraft is flying beyond it's rated altitude (i.e. it can use momentum to reach altitudes it can't stay at, but can reach for short periods).


Yea the germans Jumo-004 engeen was superior.At least in its design.
This was a Axial jet engen that today is the most useful in the jet aviation.
The centrifugal Vk-1 ( Nine II) had worst perspective characteristics. For instance when the first soviet Axial turbojet was ready ( Rd-9 in 1953) - all the soviet fighter from Mig-19 were developed with this type of turbine .
Ummm... it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that - I spent several years at university learning all this stuff. Axial flow compressors are great when they can be made to work. The problem is that unless you get to very sophisticated designs (three shaft engines, moving inlet guide vanes, etc.) they work very poorly outside the design condition, break easily, are very heavy and suffer severely from stall & surge. Whittle was well aware of the theoretical superiority of the axial flow turbojet when he developed his engines - A.A. Griffith at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough had been banging on about how good they were for years. Whittle's genius was that he realised it was possible to build a simple, practical and reliable engine using a centrifugal compressor.
In just about everything that counts, for a primitive engine centrifugal compressors are better - better compression ratio, higher mass flows, better balance and much tougher. Axial flow engines are only better if you get them right, and particularly for transonic/supersonic aircraft. Even today, some aircraft (mainly helicopters) use centrifugal compressors, as do all car turbochargers that I'm aware of.

[Chevan]

Yeah, the nuke would have been used to get rid of Hitler and his high command...
.....together with the 500-600 000 of civils in Berlin:)
This is in spirit of the allies hight military command so.
Precision strike..;)

[Chevan]

Ummm... it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that - I spent several years at university learning all this stuff. Axial flow compressors are great when they can be made to work. The problem is that unless you get to very sophisticated designs (three shaft engines, moving inlet guide vanes, etc.) they work very poorly outside the design condition, break easily, are very heavy and suffer severely from stall & surge. Whittle was well aware of the theoretical superiority of the axial flow turbojet when he developed his engines - A.A. Griffith at the Royal Aircraft Establishment in Farnborough had been banging on about how good they were for years. Whittle's genius was that he realised it was possible to build a simple, practical and reliable engine using a centrifugal compressor.
In just about everything that counts, for a primitive engine centrifugal compressors are better - better compression ratio, higher mass flows, better balance and much tougher. Axial flow engines are only better if you get them right, and particularly for transonic/supersonic aircraft. Even today, some aircraft (mainly helicopters) use centrifugal compressors, as do all car turbochargers that I'm aware of.
I/m not deny the obvious fact of complicated developing of the axial turbojet.Historically the first effective axial jet have appeared later then the centrifugal.The technical and technological problems of the Axial was solved later with the participation of newest alloys and ets. Sure you right.
I just want to notice you that althought the Juno-004 wasn't so effective in the landing and take-off , but the maximum speed of the Me-262 was already impressive in the mid 1944 and it was OVER 150 km/h more then the Meteor F1/2.
So this is no anu doubts that the brits losed the jet competition till the beginning of the 1945 when germanse simply lost its industry potential.But we consider the situation "if germany won the war"- so there is no any doubt that the Germans were able to create the enought reliable jet engine and improved its jet fighters till the 1947.
However the british jet engines were the best among allies for the first after war time.

[pdf27]

I just want to notice you that althought the Juno-004 wasn't so effective in the landing and take-off , but the maximum speed of the Me-262 was already impressive in the mid 1944 and it was OVER 150 km/h more then the Meteor F1/2.
Thing is, the limiting speed on the Meteor wasn't down to the engines. Instead it was down to the design of the cockpit canopy and the engine cowling design. Postwar Meteor designs were substantially faster than the Me-262, with minimal extra installed power.

[Chevan]

Thing is, the limiting speed on the Meteor wasn't down to the engines. Instead it was down to the design of the cockpit canopy and the engine cowling design. Postwar Meteor designs were substantially faster than the Me-262, with minimal extra installed power.
Yes the Meteror F5 with Rols-Roys Dervent was a best... for the while;)
But i think you will not deny the fact technical progress in Germany that was stoped in the begining of 1945.
And be sure that the improved next modification of jet axial engines and new Me-262-HG2/3 with the Swept wings that Germans first in the world used in mass production of jet aviation.
So it should be at least naive IMO to think that the Germns who during all the war have the technical superiority in aviation would lost it after 1945:)

[pdf27]

So it should be at least naive IMO to think that the Germns who during all the war have the technical superiority in aviation would lost it after 1945:)
I've gone over the designs of the WW2 German jet engines (not had one to play with, but photos/plans in some depth). They're a mix of the incredibly advanced with the terminally stupid. The problem they had was that the terminally stupid stuff was integral to the engine, while the incredibly advanced stuff was both not implemented well and used as a sticking plaster fix to get it to work.

The fundamental problem at the time was that while axial turbines were well understood (steam turbines had been around for 60 years at this point), axial compressors were NOT well understood. The Germans made the mistake of assuming that they behaved a lot like axial turbines, thought about the advantages an axial jet gives an aircraft and went for it. Whittle made use of the vast experience which had been gained by the big engine companies in the design of turbochargers/superchargers and used a centrifugal compressor design.
Fundamentally, this meant that the Whittle type engines had a high frontal area but were well behaved, reliable, etc. while the German ones looked good but had cr*p performance (particularly regarding service life and off-design behaviour). As an example of the problems axial compressors give you, the engine which eventually entered service as the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire in about 1950 started off as the MetroVick F.1 in 1939. Despite always been a far better performer than the Whittle-type engines, it was 10 years before it was considered suitable to enter service simply because reliability and engine behaviour were so poor.

[Nickdfresh]

.....together with the 500-600 000 of civils in Berlin:)
This is in spirit of the allies hight military command so.
Precision strike..;)

Well, I guess the 250,000 civilians killed in the Battle of Berlin was nicer.:)

BTW, they probably would have nuked several German cities like Munich, Vienna and Hamburg...

[Chevan]

Well, I guess the 250,000 civilians killed in the Battle of Berlin was nicer.:)

Sure it is nicer Nick.
At least their kids could survived without radiation fallout.
From 3+ mln of civil population of Berlin. Plus 1 mln of higher the refugees plus 1.5 mln of army- the 250 000 victims is not really much.
Look for instance to Hiroshima where from 400 000 of civil population in the end of the 1945 were killed and died from ilness - about 140 000 i.e one third of population.
But as we peoples continie to dies after the war.
Besides - this is not a fact that the atomic bombing could destroy the Hitler deep bunker.

BTW, they probably would have nuked several German cities like Munich, Vienna and Hamburg...
The total nuclear bombing of Germany would not mean the capitulation or the surrender of German army.
While the Hitler was alive - they would fight.
Coz the firebombing compain did not forced them to the surrender ( untill the our land troops captured thier cities)- there is no any proves that the nuclear compain could do it...

[Chevan]

Fundamentally, this meant that the Whittle type engines had a high frontal area but were well behaved, reliable, etc. while the German ones looked good but had cr*p performance (particularly regarding service life and off-design behaviour). As an example of the problems axial compressors give you, the engine which eventually entered service as the Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire in about 1950 started off as the MetroVick F.1 in 1939. Despite always been a far better performer than the Whittle-type engines, it was 10 years before it was considered suitable to enter service simply because reliability and engine behaviour were so poor.
Yes i/m agree.
However you will not dany fact that the Me-262 with axial turbin already WAS suitable for the Me-262 in the 1945?
The flay and shoted down the allies afaircarfts- what else the proves do you need for it.
Besides there is no any doubt thet the Jumo004 could be much improved after the 1945.

[Nickdfresh]

Sure it is nicer Nick.
At least their kids could survived without radiation fallout.
From 3+ mln of civil population of Berlin. Plus 1 mln of higher the refugees plus 1.5 mln of army- the 250 000 victims is not really much.
Look for instance to Hiroshima where from 400 000 of civil population in the end of the 1945 were killed and died from ilness - about 140 000 i.e one third of population.
But as we peoples continie to dies after the war.
Besides - this is not a fact that the atomic bombing could destroy the Hitler deep bunker.

Well, if it was a "one-off" surprise attack, then Hitler may not even have been in his bunker. He only resorted to the infamous bunker as things began to look bleak.

And are you seriously arguing with me over the niceties of who killed more how? :D And I think it has been established here that radioactive fallout was only a short term problem since the bombs were detonated above ground, and it was quickly dissipated. And claiming that everybody who has died since 1945 is the result of the bomb does not make it any truer...

The total nuclear bombing of Germany would not mean the capitulation or the surrender of German army.
While the Hitler was alive - they would fight.
Coz the firebombing compain did not forced them to the surrender ( untill the our land troops captured thier cities)- there is no any proves that the nuclear compain could do it...


It would have meant a massive decapitation strike, and that the US had a weapon far more fearsome than anything the Third Reich could hope to have - indeed, whatever was left may have wanted to sue for peace. Not to mention that the resulting anarchy would naturally result in uprisings in various occupied countries...

[Drake]

Now how did we get here, thought we were talking about a WINNING germany and what would follow :rolleyes:

[Rising Sun*]

Now how did we get here, thought we were talking about a WINNING germany and what would follow :rolleyes:

And just to pursue that line, what would have happened to the Triple Alliance if Germany, that is Germany, won in Europe and North Africa?

Italy would have become irrelevant.

Japan's control of resources would have been significant to Germany, as would Germany's technological skills been siginificant to Japan.

Do Germany and Japan co-operate in taking Iran etc and then India, or do they fall out?

There is still the question of what "Germany wins" means.

There's a world of difference between peace terms with Britain and Britain's surrender. The former was possible, the latter most unlikely.

[pdf27]

Yes i/m agree.
However you will not dany fact that the Me-262 with axial turbin already WAS suitable for the Me-262 in the 1945?
The flay and shoted down the allies afaircarfts- what else the proves do you need for it.
There's a major difference between working (sort of) and being a useful weapon. Germany was desperate by the time the Me-262 was into service as anything other than a prototype. Problems which would otherwise have been considered unacceptable were simply ignored. A good example of this is engine life. The average life of a Jumo 004 before it needed a major overhaul/scrapping was 10 hours by 1945. This was however not considered a problem simply because the life expectancy of the average pilot was less than this.

Besides there is no any doubt thet the Jumo004 could be much improved after the 1945.
Ummm... the Soviets tried postwar and got nowhere. There is no Jumo 004 heritage in any Soviet engine flying nowadays - it's all based on the imported British engines and on prewar indigenous Soviet designs. All the evidence suggests that there was something fundamentally wrong with the German wartime engines - they appear to have been technological dead ends, with no descendents anywhere on earth. The way engineering works, that's only going to happen if there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.

[tankgeezer]

It would have been the same for Hitler,, scene from movie "Little Nicky"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YssMT0qXYOw

[Chevan]

Well, if it was a "one-off" surprise attack, then Hitler may not even have been in his bunker. He only resorted to the infamous bunker as things began to look bleak.

The "one-off" surprise attack?
Are you kidding Nick? May be for Germans civils in Berlin it could be surprise but not for Hitler.He practically lived last two month od the war in Bunker. And sure the GErmans although the GErman AA defence were weaker in this period but they still was able to recognize when the Strategic bombers fly up to the Brtin;)

And are you seriously arguing with me over the niceties of who killed more how? :D And I think it has been established here that radioactive fallout was only a short term problem since the bombs were detonated above ground, and it was quickly dissipated. And claiming that everybody who has died since 1945 is the result of the bomb does not make it any truer...

Oh come on Nick the Neitron radiation during the reaction that charged the Ground around and the 600 gramm of extremally radioadtive products of Division of Uran - is not matter that could be "quickly dissapaited".
In fact near the zone of epicenter the radiation fon was so great that even peoples who arrived in Hirosima after the bombing has been charged and died.

It would have meant a massive decapitation strike, and that the US had a weapon far more fearsome than anything the Third Reich could hope to have - indeed, whatever was left may have wanted to sue for peace. Not to mention that the resulting anarchy would naturally result in uprisings in various occupied countries...
Oh really the nuclear strike in Japane were more massiev thet previouse firebombing compain that killed MUCh more civils that the a-bombing for the first time?The initial damage effect of Nuclear bombing was ever less than the Firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945- when were burned the whole civils areas with population.
I think you rather overestimate the first a-bombs effect. Sure the most danger was the radioactive consequences- but in that time peoples knew a too small about it and this could not impress the Hitler for suiting of peace.
Besides do not forget about censorship and propoganda in Nazi media- Nobody out of capital could learn about the real scale of victims of possible a-bombing in Berlin.

[Chevan]

There's a major difference between working (sort of) and being a useful weapon. Germany was desperate by the time the Me-262 was into service as anything other than a prototype. Problems which would otherwise have been considered unacceptable were simply ignored. A good example of this is engine life. The average life of a Jumo 004 before it needed a major overhaul/scrapping was 10 hours by 1945. This was however not considered a problem simply because the life expectancy of the average pilot was less than this.

The Me-262 was a damn useful wearpon, pdf.
Especially with the rockets R4M - this was REAL death for the Strategic bombers.
Plus 4X30 mm gun was deadly effective agains the bombers and the speed 800+ was FAR over the service combat speed any of ALLIES escort fighter in the 1944-45.
And not 10 but i/ve read 25 hours.
BTW when after the war the Jumo004 and BMW-003 were copied for the soviet production ( As the RD-10 and RD-20 accordingly). For the 1946-1947 this was a basic jet engine of the first Soviet aviation ( Mig-9,Su-9, Yak-15)
And one intersesting moment - in the conditions of the unlimited Nickel supplies in USSR the AVERAGE life of RD-10 immediatelly increased untill 100 hours!!!.
Simply coz there were enought alloy steel;)

Ummm... the Soviets tried postwar and got nowhere. There is no Jumo 004 heritage in any Soviet engine flying nowadays - it's all based on the imported British engines and on prewar indigenous Soviet designs. All the evidence suggests that there was something fundamentally wrong with the German wartime engines - they appear to have been technological dead ends, with no descendents anywhere on earth. The way engineering works, that's only going to happen if there is something fundamentally wrong with the design.
You dear pdf complitelly unaware of the history of the soviet jet aviation.
What about Su
Meanwhile the Mi-15 and Mig-17 used the temporary succesful VK-1 ( based on the British Nine2).
The OTHER soviets jet aircrafts used the axial RD-9 ( Little modernized copy of Jumo-004/RD-10)
Whan in the 1953 were ready the first RD-9 that was MORE effective that centrifuge compressor VK-1- the all soviet aviation has got this type of engine-
So this is quite right to say that althought the Firsts 2 Migs used the British engeens- the ALL OTHER untill the nowadays USE the German axial compressor engeens.
Coz the Axial engeens proved to be much more effective and perspective - whatever today tells the some british comrides who try ignore the germans jet achievenments.;)
And histroy of modern jet engeniring obviously proves the facts that the Germans Jumo/BMW were the superior in technological sense.
Perhaps you right- in the Britain the Germans jet engeens were tested and recognized to be very uneffective, but the history of Soviet jet aviation that widly used the GErmans Axial compressor documents and end even serial Jumo engeens - this was a basis for the all succesfull soviet axial compressor from RD-9.

Cheers.

[pdf27]

Coz the Axial engeens proved to be much more effective and perspective - whatever today tells the some british comrides who try ignore the germans jet achievenments.;)
And histroy of modern jet engeniring obviously proves the facts that the Germans Jumo/BMW were the superior in technological sense.
Perhaps you right- in the Britain the Germans jet engeens were tested and recognized to be very uneffective, but the history of Soviet jet aviation that widly used the GErmans Axial compressor documents and end even serial Jumo engeens - this was a basis for the all succesfull soviet axial compressor from RD-9.
Um, Chevan, you're falling into the classic Ironman trap of assuming that because two things look the same they must be related to each other. The use of axial compressors in gas turbines way, way predates the Jumo-004. For example, A.A. Griffith was writing and publishing papers on the subject in the 1920s, while Arkhip Mikhailovich Lyulka (a name you may recognise) proposed a turbofan design (almost certainly using an axial compressor, although I can't find an english language reference to confirm) in about 1940.

The British were well aware when they started down the centrifugal compressor route - indeed, the MetroVick Beryl predated knowledge of German jet engine designs. Likewise, I think you're doing a disservice to Soviet engineers if you think that they relied on the Jumo 004 to come up with a jet engine. At most, it will have given them a good lesson in "things not to do because they're a really bad idea".

[Chevan]

Um, Chevan, you're falling into the classic Ironman trap of assuming that because two things look the same they must be related to each other.

Sure it related to each other...coz it uses the simular tehnical principles.
And even the first Lyulka's engeen TR-1 ( 1947, the power 1300 kgs) was very simular like the Jumo-004 ( 800kgs) but was a litlle modified with the new construction of burning camera and turbine.
But this engine was not

Likewise, I think you're doing a disservice to Soviet engineers if you think that they relied on the Jumo 004 to come up with a jet engine. At most, it will have given them a good lesson in "things not to do because they're a really bad idea".
Do i disservice somebody pdf, If i tell about historical fact?!!
The first soviet jet engin was RD-10/20 the copy of the BMW/Jumo.
Does it mean that i decreace the role of Soviet engeneers? Sure no. But they widelly used the German experience after the war - this is historical fact.
And not only the soviets;)
However you partly right, the first SUCCESFUL and useful soviet axial turbojet was the TR-3 that was installed in Su-11 in 1953.Later the Tumanovsky has developed the excellent RD-9 ( Mig-19).

[pieandmash]

Apologie if its been mentioned earlier in the thread, but have to mention 'It Happened Here', a low budget anmd relatively little known, but frankly utterly fantastic 60s film about life in a post German victory Britain, one of the best films on the reality war as a civilian in an occupied country and the choices faced. very effective partly because it is complete fantasy

Recently reissued on DVD in the UK

[Nickdfresh]

The "one-off" surprise attack?
Are you kidding Nick?

When do I kid you, Chevan. Yes, if the US had deliberately not launched air raids using the B-36, the a first raid using atomic weapons would in fact be a surprise attack, would it not?

May be for Germans civils in Berlin it could be surprise but not for Hitler.He practically lived last two month od the war in Bunker. And sure the GErmans although the GErman AA defence were weaker in this period but they still was able to recognize when the Strategic bombers fly up to the Brtin;)

I think I mentioned that Hitler was only in the bunker because his armies were caught in a vice and he was losing. He wouldn't have been in Europe was under his control, unopposed...

And there are many hypotheticals, but Luftwaffe interception of B-36s flying special missions, perhaps at night, may have been quite different and the air defense of the Reich would have been far different if the threat of bombing attack had been greatly reduced or was nonexistent...

Oh come on Nick the Neitron radiation during the reaction that charged the Ground around and the 600 gramm of extremally radioadtive products of Division of Uran - is not matter that could be "quickly dissapaited".
In fact near the zone of epicenter the radiation fon was so great that even peoples who arrived in Hirosima after the bombing has been charged and died.

But only for a relatively short time. The radiation levels on the two Japanese cities are little higher than any others today. And what levels there were would have been psychologically devastating...

Oh really the nuclear strike in Japane were more massiev thet previouse firebombing compain that killed MUCh more civils that the a-bombing for the first time?

Well, they surrendered not long after, right? In fact the A-bomb was quit shocking to the Japanese consciousness...

The initial damage effect of Nuclear bombing was ever less than the Firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945- when were burned the whole civils areas with population.
I think you rather overestimate the first a-bombs effect. Sure the most danger was the radioactive consequences- but in that time peoples knew a too small about it and this could not impress the Hitler for suiting of peace.
Besides do not forget about censorship and propoganda in Nazi media- Nobody out of capital could learn about the real scale of victims of possible a-bombing in Berlin.

But the German and Japanese peoples had been conditioned for aerial bombardment over a long period of time. And the Tokyo bombardment was very damaging to morale and helped lead to the defeat of Japan along with many other factors. Even the Emperor could no longer ignore what was happening to his nation. The attacks were gradual, so the those being bombed had grown somewhat used to it as much as a population could. The Tokyo "firestorm" bombing was in itself a horrific, but a rare act as the atmospheric conditions, and the flimsy construction of Japanese housing, combined to permit a phenomena that was rare, and rather horrifying, to take place. This was something the the AAF and RAF were unable to carry out for the most part in German cities.

As too your other point regarding the media, what happens when there is no more radio or TV emanating from Berlin? When there are no more orders going out to Wehrmacht and SS garrisons, internal security commands, etc.? Who really knows? You may have even had several German commands vying for control. There is no way that the bombings, and the disappearance of several German cities could have been kept secret for long. And hopefully, Hitler would have died or have been severally incapacitated...

[Chevan]

. Yes, if the US had deliberately not launched air raids using the B-36, the a first raid using atomic weapons would in fact be a surprise attack, would it not?

No it would not Nick.
COz even Americans hid the B-36 till the 1948 - they still used the B-29.
And Gernay would have the excellent training to improve its AA-defence system ( both fighters and Radio controlled AA-rocketry).
And i think you are forgetting - we cinsider the situation the Germany win the war in Europe- i.e they would had not lack of the resourses,oil and manpower ( as it was in 1944-45 in reality).
So there is no any doubts that the Geramny would had the DEADLY effective means of against Strategic bombers . Besides they could seriously improved its jet aviation and create the new transobic aircrafts ( using the modernized Me-262HGIII or probably Ta-183).
Even if the single B-36 was able to reach the Berlin drop the a-bomb. There is no any guaranties that Hitler would be killed.And do not forget about political consequences of the sudden A-bombing of winner Germany.
Hitler will use it in its anti-american propoganda and could order to treat the American POWs ( pilots and soldiers ) as with the Military crimes.
They would execute them all in case of a-bombing.And the Nazy propogandy would portray the USA ans the World evil ;)
Besides do not forget about V-2 project. In fact in the end of the war Germans had reached the effectiveness over 70%( i.e the 70% reached the Britain). So there is no any doubts that possibly till the beinning of 1950 they would ready the transcontinentall V-9/10.
Shortly speaking Nick - there is no any chances for the America if the USSR and Britain would defeat;)

I think I mentioned that Hitler was only in the bunker because his armies were caught in a vice and he was losing. He wouldn't have been in Europe was under his control, unopposed...

Not just.
He lived in bunker coz of continious Strategic bombers dropped the bomb over the Germany since 1944.
And he clearly understand that the Berlin could be the target in any time.SO he live in bunker.

But only for a relatively short time. The radiation levels on the two Japanese cities are little higher than any others today. And what levels there were would have been psychologically devastating...

Today Nick have passed over 60 years.
But in the 1945 the radiation background was still great con the fissionof Uran-235 prodused a great flux of neitrons that charged the land around for the different times ( from few minutes until the 20++years).
Besides the the products of the fission: Ku-92 , Ba-141 ans T-139 are very HEavy and deadly radioactive elements. Do not believe me - ask the pdf

Well, they surrendered not long after, right? In fact the A-bomb was quit shocking to the Japanese consciousness...

Unfortinatelly Nick we have NO any proves that confirms that Japanes were quite shocking by a-bomb. The death rate for the first time was ever less then in previous firebombing compain. They officially refused Wishington vertion that bomb "helped to finish the war".
Indeed the part of historians even doubt the fact that Japan imperor even conside the a-bomb as a factor for surrender .

As too your other point regarding the media, what happens when there is no more radio or TV emanating from Berlin? When there are no more orders going out to Wehrmacht and SS garrisons, internal security commands, etc.? Who really knows? You may have even had several German commands vying for control. There is no way that the bombings, and the disappearance of several German cities could have been kept secret for long. And hopefully, Hitler would have died or have been severally incapacitated...

What disappearance of GErman cities Nick you talk about?
The firebombing compain nothing destroyed- it only killed the number of peoples and temporary damaged the military production. But soon Germans restored it untill the Germany will captured by land troops.
Did the allies "destroyed " any city via firebombing or somehow decrease the ability GErmany to resist?
True, they created more problems for the Germans - but at that same time thay had a great loses of the superexpensive Strategic bombers till the end of war.
And Only total material and manpower superiority of allies let them to use such a Super uneffective way to fight using the B-17/29.
Cheers.

[Firefly]

Apologie if its been mentioned earlier in the thread, but have to mention 'It Happened Here', a low budget anmd relatively little known, but frankly utterly fantastic 60s film about life in a post German victory Britain, one of the best films on the reality war as a civilian in an occupied country and the choices faced. very effective partly because it is complete fantasy

Recently reissued on DVD in the UK

Thanks for that info matey, I shall keep an eye out for it.

[Digger]

A cheaper alternative to firing thousands of A-9/10 rockets with their one tonne payload at America targets, the Luftwaffe would have been better served by the Amerika Bomber(no matter what version) if this project was completed by 1948.

A missile bombardment programme capable of bringing America to it's knees would have sent Germany broke before acheiving any military goal.

Digger

[Firefly]

Of course, Hitller may have been dead anyway by 1948. He was on a rapidly downhill slope way before 1945.

[Chevan]

Well i've heared the Hitler was ill by a cancer in the 1945.
Is it true?

[Drake]

Well i've heared the Hitler was ill by a cancer in the 1945.
Is it true?

Hard to tell without remains (body and files), but I thought I once heard the reason for his condition was a mix of a degenerative brain disease (Alsheimer) and substance abuse. He would've probably lived on for quite some time if that was true but would've turned into a veggie sooner or later.

[Nickdfresh]

Hard to tell without remains (body and files), but I thought I once heard the reason for his condition was a mix of a degenerative brain disease (Alsheimer) and substance abuse. He would've probably lived on for quite some time if that was true but would've turned into a veggie sooner or later.

The hypothical stuff is giving me a headache...So I'll just stick to this.

But I have heard Hitler had Parkinson's Disease, and was essentially on a "cocktail" of drugs such as speed and painkillers to combat his shakes...

He didn't have long after 1945...

It would be interesting to speculate what would have happened when Hitler kicked. Who would ascend to be the Third Reich's new leader?

Was any form of liberalization or moderation possible?

[Rising Sun*]

Hitler's health status and medical treatment have been closely researched and debated for years by historians and medicos.

There is a strong chance that his problems were as much created as relieved by his favoured physician Dr Theodor Morell, who wasn't held in high regard by some other members of the Nazi elite.

This is a superficial summary, but it's what Google threw up so it'll do as an introduction as I threw out the books I had on this a while back.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-151964700.html

[Digger]

Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.

While Morrell's competence has been heavily questioned over the last sixty plus years, much of it was derived from a degree of professional jealousy. Remember there was no body for autopsy and therefore some accusations are largely unfounded.

digger.

[Rising Sun*]

Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.

While Morrell's competence has been heavily questioned over the last sixty plus years, much of it was derived from a degree of professional jealousy. Remember there was no body for autopsy and therefore some accusations are largely unfounded.

digger.

Re the professional jealousy, I assume you're talking about Dr Brandt, who got sidelined by Morell.

I'm wary of a lot of the stuff put out about Hitler's health.

Can't think of the book (went into a Brotherhood bin about six months ago) but I remember florid accounts of Hitler's alleged coprophagia (eating shit) and lying under a glass table while some sheila ?Eva Braun? shat on it.

If he was a genuine coprophagic, you'd think he'd dispense with the glass table. :D

Wouldn't argue it didn't happen, quite possibly did. Might explain why he had digestive problems. :D

The problem is, most of these things are speculation or claims built on slim facts.

[Rising Sun*]

Interesting article, but no mention of Morrell's successful treatment for Hitler's impotence.


As long as Hitler stayed sterile, I don't care what Morell did in that area. :D

[Digger]

Most of the claims about Hitler's sexuality are pure fabrications and in some way designed to explain away his madness based on some form of sexual deviency.

This is why the recent claims of Hitler's homosexuality are laughable. Hitler was a middle aged man, a product of conservative late 19th century Austria, with all the inherent fears of sexual promiscuity. Add the fact by the late 30's he was already dispaying signs of impotency and some form of mental disorder.

I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger

[Rising Sun*]

I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger

Puts him ahead of Himmler, who couldn't watch SS executions.

[Digger]

What would you expect of Himmler, he was a failed chicken farmer because he was incapable of lopping the head off a chook!

digger

[Rising Sun*]

What would you expect of Himmler, he was a failed chicken farmer because he was incapable of lopping the head off a chook!

digger

He wasn't any more of a paradox or hypocrite than many Nazis, such as the SA head Ernst Roehm , a mate of Hitler, who IIRC correctly was found on the Night of the Long Knives in bed with another man, despite Nazi hostility to homosexuals and despite Hitler and the rest his crew knowing for years that Roehm was a shirt lifter.

[Nickdfresh]

Most of the claims about Hitler's sexuality are pure fabrications and in some way designed to explain away his madness based on some form of sexual deviency.

This is why the recent claims of Hitler's homosexuality are laughable. Hitler was a middle aged man, a product of conservative late 19th century Austria, with all the inherent fears of sexual promiscuity. Add the fact by the late 30's he was already dispaying signs of impotency and some form of mental disorder.

I believe the only sexual 'condition' which may explain some of Hitler's acts was he may well have been a voyeuristic sadist.

digger


..And that he had a sexual relationship with his cousin who later committed suicide...:D

[Drake]

Thought that was his niece

[Nickdfresh]

Thought that was his niece

I'm not sure. I also thought it was his niece at one point but thought I had heard it was his cousin. I'll check...

[RifleMan20]

hey, just for your information, i made a similar thread, look at this if you would like to know more http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312 (http://http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312)

if that does not work just try this one

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4312&highlight=turnout

[aly j]

history would repeat itself, As it has with all Empires. the Empire of the 3rd Reich would eventually stagnate, decline, and crumble. Entropy is the only undying Monarch.

be4 they crumble......every one would be speakin german
right now

[pdf27]

Why? We don't all speak Latin, or English, or French nowadays do we, so why should the Germans be any different?

[aly j]

Why? We don't all speak Latin, or English, or French nowadays do we, so why should the Germans be any different?
if they did win they would of made everyone speak
there language...................
england took half of the world now english is the main language
i think thats what the germans were aiming 4
i wouldet mind if some germans took over my world hehehe

[SS Ouche-Vittes]

lawl!!!:D

[aly j]

Where did you get the idea of a cross ocean invasion anyway? Why on earth should Germany attack the US, I even doubt that Pearl Harbour would still be on the timetable as there is absolutely no reason for that anymore. The US would stay isolationist happily ever after, sitting on the Monroe doctrin. Possibly a cold war scenario with 3 poles instead of two would be my bet in the long run. And given the fact that there were many pro nazi people in the US prior to the war I can even imagine, that the US and a german dominated Europe would have pretty close ties pretty fast again (at least economically anyway), with the Japanese Empire considered as the real outsider and threat.

@overlord: lol, couple of thousand dead each year, yeah that would turn the tide in Nazy Germany in the long run :rolleyes:
You cannot apply todays US standards to one of the most life disdaining dictatorships in history.
germany only declare war on usa only after
when japan attacked peal hubour