- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Couple of WWII hypotheticals for the history buffs
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:14 pm
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:14 pm
1. It's late 1944, and the Nazis have developed one, and only one, atomic weapon. What does Hitler do with it? Assume for the sake of the hypothetical that with one of the prototype long range aircraft in development, he can deliver it anywhere in the Eurasian Theatre. What is his target?
London. Destroy the London dockyards, and with luck decapitate most or all of the British political leadership, along with most of SHAEF. Eisenhower, already on the Continent, will be unscathed. Supply slows to a crawl, and weeks or months of power vacuum as the Allies try to sort things out.
Moscow. Kill Stalin. Doesn't change the operational situation on the Eastern Front, but the Soviet chain of command ceases to exist. Nobody knows who's giving the orders any more. Perhaps Zhukov and/or other generals head back east with part of their commands to assert their interests in the matter.
Destroy the port of Antwerp, in conjunction with the Ardennes Offensive. The logistical situation on the Western Front becomes intractable.
Some other tactical use, although that's probably a bit much to expect with one bomb on dispersed formations.
2. 1942, Japan manages to knock the Panama Canal out of commission for a year or more. A tall order, since it's one of the most heavily defended spots in the world, but let's say they get lucky and destroy the dams that supply fresh water to the locks. The US Navy can't shift back and forth between theatres, which it did quite a bit of, and logistics in the US become a lot more problematic as we have to rely on the road and rail net exclusively. How does this change the strategic situation?
London. Destroy the London dockyards, and with luck decapitate most or all of the British political leadership, along with most of SHAEF. Eisenhower, already on the Continent, will be unscathed. Supply slows to a crawl, and weeks or months of power vacuum as the Allies try to sort things out.
Moscow. Kill Stalin. Doesn't change the operational situation on the Eastern Front, but the Soviet chain of command ceases to exist. Nobody knows who's giving the orders any more. Perhaps Zhukov and/or other generals head back east with part of their commands to assert their interests in the matter.
Destroy the port of Antwerp, in conjunction with the Ardennes Offensive. The logistical situation on the Western Front becomes intractable.
Some other tactical use, although that's probably a bit much to expect with one bomb on dispersed formations.
2. 1942, Japan manages to knock the Panama Canal out of commission for a year or more. A tall order, since it's one of the most heavily defended spots in the world, but let's say they get lucky and destroy the dams that supply fresh water to the locks. The US Navy can't shift back and forth between theatres, which it did quite a bit of, and logistics in the US become a lot more problematic as we have to rely on the road and rail net exclusively. How does this change the strategic situation?
11
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:17 pm to Jim Rockford
1. The war was lost for Germany in late 1944. Nukes or no nukes
2. We would've just built more ships on the west coast and not bothered shifting forces through the Canal
2. We would've just built more ships on the west coast and not bothered shifting forces through the Canal
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:18 pm to Jim Rockford
1. Russia
2. Don't think the Panama Canal was that strategic overall. Still could go around South America if you had to.
2. Don't think the Panama Canal was that strategic overall. Still could go around South America if you had to.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:19 pm to Jim Rockford
1. Moscow. The Germans bribe or use whatever means at their disposal to replace the Soviet leadership with someone who will sue for peace or convince the rabble that they are better off not under Communist rule.
2. It slows down the U.S. in getting to the point that it can really project force in the region. Having to rely solely on shipyards in the west coast to rebuild its Pacific Fleet would be a tall order. However, there simply was no way the U.S. would have been willing to sue for peace after Pearl Harbor. It would have taken longer, but the end result would have been the same.
2. It slows down the U.S. in getting to the point that it can really project force in the region. Having to rely solely on shipyards in the west coast to rebuild its Pacific Fleet would be a tall order. However, there simply was no way the U.S. would have been willing to sue for peace after Pearl Harbor. It would have taken longer, but the end result would have been the same.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:29 pm to Jim Rockford
1. Their only option for survival is to use it as a bargaining chip. Threaten to use it and sue for peace. Failing that, bomb Russia.
2. Slows the inevitable. An Axis General (I forget if he was German or Japanese) remarked that the best American General was General Motors. With the natural resources and unhindered manufacturing the United States had in WW2, there's just no way Japan could produce the actual materials of war to fight them off.
2. Slows the inevitable. An Axis General (I forget if he was German or Japanese) remarked that the best American General was General Motors. With the natural resources and unhindered manufacturing the United States had in WW2, there's just no way Japan could produce the actual materials of war to fight them off.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:35 pm to Jim Rockford
Having one can possibly buy you enough time to prepare a second if you have the supplies.. You use it on the Russians because the mere sight of the weapon will halt the Allied advance in the west and cause for a pause and pivoting of strategy.. Given the right circumstances, one bomb by the Germans could've changed the outcome significantly especially if Hitler would've sued for peace.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:38 pm to kingbob
The one thing the 1942 Panama Canal scenario that might have (an extremely small "might") affected the path of the Pacific War was if Japan's Port Moresby operations succeeded due to the US's impaired supply situation. If Japan knocks Australia out of the war (or at the very least prevents Australia's use as an advance staging/supply base), then who knows? Would America settle with Japan on less than unconditional terms in order to concentrate on the perceived bigger threat, Germany?
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:44 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 7/9/16 at 6:54 pm to Jim Rockford
For your first question, although Hitler's pathological hatred of communism would seem to make the USSR the most likely target, I think he would ultimately have used it on Antwerp or London. By late 1944 Hitler had come to believe that if he could inflict a serious defeat on the western Allies, he could negotiate a separate peace with them, and then they would unite their armies with his and drive back the Soviet juggernaut to save Western Europe. That was the intended outcome of the Ardennes offensive. I think the bomb would have been used in support of that effort.
For the second question, as others have said, it would only have delayed the inevitable. Japan lost the moment they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor and royally pissed off the average American. If they had not done that, they could have employed the "drag out the war until the American public gets tired of it" strategy with a decent likelihood of coming out of the war having achieved at least some of their aims.
For the second question, as others have said, it would only have delayed the inevitable. Japan lost the moment they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor and royally pissed off the average American. If they had not done that, they could have employed the "drag out the war until the American public gets tired of it" strategy with a decent likelihood of coming out of the war having achieved at least some of their aims.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 7:00 pm to Jim Rockford
1. No chance they could hit Moscow or London. Maybe Brussels, if they got lucky. And then they'd have to bluff the allies that they have many more for dropping on the troops. Seems unlikely.
2. Wouldn't make that much difference. Ships could just go the long way. Once they are there anything urgent could ship from the West Coast. Trains would be a mild annoyance, but nothing that would change the war.
2. Wouldn't make that much difference. Ships could just go the long way. Once they are there anything urgent could ship from the West Coast. Trains would be a mild annoyance, but nothing that would change the war.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 7:01 pm to Jim Rockford
Check out the author Harry Turtledove. Pretty decent alternate history novels that deal with ww2
Posted on 7/9/16 at 7:02 pm to Jim Rockford
In 1944, Hitler would've used the atomic bomb on soviet troops on the front. With that bomb, he'd knocked out a huge chunk of their artillery, tanks and troops which would've left a straight line to Moscow. This would've forced Stalin to pull all his troops back to defend Moscow and stay on the defensive. That would've freed up a huge number of troops to go to the Western front to stall the Allied invasion.
His next plan would be to build another ASAP and that would be his bargaining chip. He'd had no choice than to use it because time, troops, machinery and supplies were running low. They'd needed that game changer to force the allies and the Soviet Union to rethink things and assess whether or not total surrender was worth the price that this new weapon was surely going to cost.
His next plan would be to build another ASAP and that would be his bargaining chip. He'd had no choice than to use it because time, troops, machinery and supplies were running low. They'd needed that game changer to force the allies and the Soviet Union to rethink things and assess whether or not total surrender was worth the price that this new weapon was surely going to cost.
Posted on 7/9/16 at 7:26 pm to Jim Rockford
You can make any hypothesis you want, but more realistically the Nazi atomic bomb would have been so big that it could only have been delivered by ship or overland. Heisenberg determined that the only way to effect a nuclear explosion was through an atomic pile running wild. If Heisenberg had given Hitler such a weapon, it is most likely he would have attempted to send a disguised ship across the Atlantic to destroy New York City. That would not have affected the outcome of the war.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News