- 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
re: What if the Nazis developed an atomic bomb first?
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:50 am to SmelvinRat
Posted on 1/27/24 at 11:50 am to SmelvinRat
'if' is the largest word in the English language .
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:03 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Goering and others wouldn’t have been big fans of turning historical cities into dust.
quote:
Our country was less than 200 years old during WW2. Were they really considered “historical” to Europeans?
Germany itself had only became a unified country in 1871.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Even when the war ended in May 1945, Germany was nowhere near to developing a rocket with sufficient payload to deliver an atomic bomb
Cool. If we’re living in a hypothetical world where Germany developed a nuke, there’s a non-zero chance that their technology development would have altered from what we saw in this time line.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:08 pm to Emteein
quote:
No. never would have happened. Ocean is a great buffer.
He could have delivered it on a submarine.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:09 pm to Shockthamonkey
And yet, Germany is the primary country that has spread its legs for the religion of peace.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:13 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
Good. Hope it bothers the shite outta you.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:14 pm to AlwysATgr
"The B-29 Superfortress is arguably the most important and controversial aircraft in human history.
With the dubious honour of being history’s deadliest bomber and the only aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon in combat, its story is one of ground-breaking innovation, unimaginable destruction and decisions that would dictate the course of the 20th century.
The development of the new super bomber would become the most expensive project of the entire war, totalling $3 billion, equivalent to $49 billion today. The cost of design and production exceeded even the Manhattan Project by $1 billion."
Here ya go
With the dubious honour of being history’s deadliest bomber and the only aircraft to drop a nuclear weapon in combat, its story is one of ground-breaking innovation, unimaginable destruction and decisions that would dictate the course of the 20th century.
The development of the new super bomber would become the most expensive project of the entire war, totalling $3 billion, equivalent to $49 billion today. The cost of design and production exceeded even the Manhattan Project by $1 billion."
Here ya go
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:53 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
The development of the new super bomber would become the most expensive project of the entire war, totalling $3 billion, equivalent to $49 billion today. The cost of design and production exceeded even the Manhattan Project by $1 billion."
They just make the claim. I'm challenging the basis and methodology of that claim.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:18 pm to Krane
quote:
Of the 360,000 troops that made up Russia's pre-invasion ground force, including contract and conscript personnel, Russia has lost 315,000 on the battlefield, according to the assessment.
quote:
In December 2023, the Ministry updated its claim of Ukrainian military casualties to 383,000 killed and wounded, with 125,000 of these troops lost since the start of the counteroffensive.
quote:
The report reveals that no fewer than 230,224 civilians, including 30,007 children and 16,319 women (adult female), were killed at the hands of the parties to the conflict and controlling forces in Syria between March 2011 and March 2023
Yet all you hear on the news in 25,000 dead in Gaza
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:36 pm to LSU Grad Alabama Fan
quote:They didn't have any. They never built any long range four engined bombers in any quantity. Victor Davis Hanson talks about this in his book The Second World Wars. It was a strategic mistake on the Germans part as it put Russian industry out of their reach after Stalin moved everything to the east.
I'm not sure what type of bombers Germany had at the time to compare it to the B-29.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:15 pm to SmelvinRat
quote:
Hitler surely would have destroyed New York, Washington,
I’m not sure he would have done that to us. Germany didn’t have the long range bomber capability especially toward end of war. That’s why they were working on a lot of jet engine tech and anti gravity stuff.
They absolutely would have used the bomb on Moscow, London, Paris to force the West and USSR to capitulate and let Germany keep control of Eastern/Central Europe.
It likely would have led to the U.S. developing the bomb and eventually a Cold War with Germany and its satellite nations instead of what we had with the Soviet’s. Fascism instead of Communism would have been the threat that the U.S. and Western Europe would seek to contain the spread.
The terrifying thought is Germany as an advanced military world power would have been more dangerous than the communist soviets. Germans are way better at strategy and engineering than Russians are.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:21 pm to SmelvinRat
quote:
Hitler surely would have destroyed New York, Washington, and Moscow.
He would have destroyed the Soviet Union. Saved us from going to war.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:23 pm to The Torch
Also, all men would be forbidden to anything other than a micro penis.
Hitler couldn’t tolerate any man with a bigger dick than his, which would’ve been every guy in existence.
Hitler couldn’t tolerate any man with a bigger dick than his, which would’ve been every guy in existence.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:26 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
They never built any long range four engined bombers in any quantity. Victor Davis Hanson talks about this in his book The Second World Wars. It was a strategic mistake on the Germans part as it put Russian industry out of their reach after Stalin moved everything to the east.
I don’t think the Germans ever counted on fighting the U.S. and Russia. Hitlers grave errors were stabbing Stalin in the back when they had an agreement and 2nd error was declaring war on the U.S. after Japan attacked PH. He should have told Japan they’re on their own after that stupidity and tried to keep the U.S. out of Europe as long as possible.
Hitler was determined to conquer mainland Europe and never developed long range bombers or really much of a navy outside of U-boats. He couldn’t even conquer Britain due to it being an island
His power was largely limited to land forces led by his Panzer divisions and a decent short range Luftwaffe. Anytime the Axis powers ventured outside of mainlain Europe (Britain, Russia, North Aftica) they struggled due to lack of a Navy, railroad infrastructure, and long range Air capability. They couldn’t move their land forces and supplies efficiently outside of Europe. One of the smartest things Stalin did was Russia had a different gauge railroad track than Europe used. So Germany’s trains couldn’t get into the USSR without replacing the track. It slowed Hitler down giving Stalin time to move manufacturing to interior Russia
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:32 pm to SmelvinRat
We’d all be wearing Hugo Boss. IDK.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:52 pm to SmelvinRat
London & Moscow would have been nuked, US probably levels every German city they can get too, IDK if the Germans could have reached the US by the time the bomb was developed.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 3:45 pm to HeadSlash
quote:
Blue eyed whites stacked
Everyone else fricked
I'd be fine with this.

Posted on 1/27/24 at 3:50 pm to SoFla Tideroller
quote:
And yet, Germany is the primary country that has spread its legs for the religion of peace.
They're overcompensating due to their shame over Hitler and WWII.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 3:52 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
They just make the claim. I'm challenging the basis and methodology of that claim.
Maybe you should research it, in depth, and get back to us instead of expecting others to do your work in discounting numbers that have been reported in many sources for decades.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 3:57 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
They didn't have any. They never built any long range four engined bombers in any quantity. Victor Davis Hanson talks about this in his book The Second World Wars.
A four engine "Amerikabomber" was proposed in 1938 and actual plans were produced in early 1942 but they never built the long range, four engine, intercontinental bomber. Was supposed to have a range of 7200 miles.
And yes, it would have been a great asset for them against Russia as well.
Popular
Back to top
