What if the Germans won the war

World War II General WWII Discussion
#121

We were dealing with a hypothesis in which the timeline is altered significantly, and which posits an either neutralised or defeated Britain.

As such, the assassination raid that killed Heydrich doesn’t take place, because that was launched from Britain.

That being the case, it is a given that (absent evidence to the contrary) Heydrich would have lived.

By the time of his death (in our actual timeline) he was already the Fuhrer-designate, and had been so confirmed by about three days. The signs leading to it were apparent within about three month’s of Rudolf Hess’s flight to Britain.

As such, I chose to hypothesise that Heydrich would have lived.

As a personal view on Heydrich, I think him to have been a genuine human monster. However, Adolf Hitler openly admired him, Heinrich Himmler feared him, Canaris was very very wary of him. All of that comes from various accounts I have read over the last 25 years or so.

Granted, this thread is dealing in hypotheses, however, Heydrich surviving into the 1950’s at least is certainly valid within the nature of this thread.
As such, he is very likely to have become Fuhrer, once Hitler dies from whatever cause, though the Parkinson’s Disease is the likeliest.

Regards, Uyraell.

#122

Which was precisely why I posited Heydrich as Fuhrer.
Hitler had, according to Toland and various other authors, including IIRC Wilmott; already passed the mantle of successorship to Heydrich before Heydrich’s death.

I can make sense for Heydrich running the Reich where the personalities you cite each have serious drawbacks in comparison to Heydrich, which is precisely why he was chosen as successor.

Regards, Uyraell.

#123

Didn’t Josef Goebbels actually “succeed” as the Fuhrer for a glorious reign of a few days before Dönitz formed the gov’t that actually surrendered?

#124

Was Goebbels in a power as a fuhrer even a single day?
I heard the Herman Hoering has succeed against Hitler’s will.And Himler as well.

#125

There was also the Manhattan project being given an ultra-high priority, and until the Battle of Britain conclusively proved that the Germans could not defeat the UK the US was also working very hard on the bomber that would later become the B-36. Which as you have no doubt noticed me banging on about before was both capable of launching bombing raids on Germany from bases in the Continental United States and virtually uninterceptable until the 1950s.

#126

Would the Me262 hypothetically have been able to intercept that bomber?

#127

Ah, mr pdf again start that “Wunderwaffen” old plate:)
Indeed even if B-36 were ready to operate in say 1948( but it was in ONLY in 1949), the GErmans should already have an entire arsenal to destroy/intercept the stragetic bombers.
From radio-controlled “Wasserfall” to the Me-262/ 163 , that must be essentialy modified to 1949, and would to do the strategic bombings very problematic.
Even if couple of B-36 dropped few bombs at Western Europe , controlled by Germany , this should lead to nothin neither in military nor in political sense , even if 20 000- 40 000 of civils would be killed by bombs
But then Hitler just would get an excellent pretext to execute , say, all the POW american pilots as a “war criminals”( just in case if Nacis has exterminated all the jews in continent , whom they associated with American Ruling elite:))

#128

Right. I was talking ground war stuff. The fact is that there were several war plans and contingencies being drawn up by the Pentagon simply glowing over the first peacetime US conscription ever in 1940-1941. One of them was to deploy US divisions directly to the Soviet Union. This was of course the last option at they wanted a theatre of their own, namely in France (aka Operation Sledgehammer). It was the British high command that reasoned (correctly) that this was implausible and the best course was to kick the Axis out of North Africa…

#129

Largely because the project’s priority had declined after the defeat of Germany and Japan and the B-29 was thought to be enough as an atomic bomber…

the GErmans should already have an entire arsenal to destroy/intercept the stragetic bombers.
From radio-controlled “Wasserfall” to the Me-262/ 163 , that must be essentialy modified to 1949, and would to do the strategic bombings very problematic.

Only a couple of nukes need get through. And 1949 is key here, since the Germans had a demonstrated complacency once a sort of victory was achieved…

They didn’t even have a real four engine bomber by 1942 and most research was castrated after the fall of France. So what makes you think they’d have an arsenal of super-weapons that only received priority too late, AFTER their defeat was almost inevitable?

Even if couple of B-36 dropped few bombs at Western Europe , controlled by Germany , this should lead to nothin neither in military nor in political sense , even if 20 000- 40 000 of civils would be killed by bombs

Um, an enemy that can destroy your cities at will whilst you cannot retaliate is a pretty big military and political “sense.”

But then Hitler just would get an excellent pretext to execute , say, all the POW american pilots as a “war criminals”( just in case if Nacis has exterminated all the jews in continent , whom they associated with American Ruling elite:))

Or maybe he would have died, with most of his henchmen and high command, in Berlin?

And I forgot that Hitler was really, really nice to Jews before he claimed War on the US…I guess it the US’s “ruling elites” fault now. :rolleyes:

#130

It is a favourite hobby-horse of mine, isn’t it :smiley:
Wasserfall and the Me-163/263 could (just about) intercept it, but only for a radius of about 5 miles around their launch sites for the Me-263 and less for the others. The B-36 has got the fuel to simply go around them.

A couple of hundred Atom bombs would destroy Germany as a functioning nation for all time to come, killing ~90% of the population and destroying all the industry. That’s a cataclysm, not just a few civilians.

So what? If the US is dropping nuclear weapons on Germany, that probably means they have a couple of Army Groups fighting in Russia. The fate of a few thousand PoWs (most of whom will probably die in the nuclear bombings anyway) is a minor concern. The US of the time was NOT the casualty-averse nation of today.

Structurally the B-29 is significantly more advanced (it’s a later and more modern design). Because the B-36 was so much bigger (dictated by it’s range) it actually had a higher ceiling which made it harder to intercept, but that was just serendipity.

Depends what you’re trying to achieve. A handful are probably enough to force a surrender. 200 would utterly destroy Germany as a nation.

#131

True.
But don’t forget all the GErmans project have been stopped in aprill 1945 at all.
If they migh to so much great things ( Jet fighters, missles and est) in 1945- i/m scary to think what they might to do in 1949.

Only a couple of nukes need get through. And 1949 is key here, since the Germans had a demonstrated complacency once a sort of victory was achieved…

They didn’t even have a real four engine bomber by 1942 and most research was castrated after the fall of France. So what makes you think they’d have an arsenal of super-weapons that only received priority too late, AFTER their defeat was almost inevitable?

The priority to bomb the Enlgland was never denied, and even their V-1/2 project got the priority since 1939 or early.
And they had their 4-engine bomber ( FW-200) that might to be used , in future, for military missions.
But why they need it?
The GErmans did have an excellent project of Sub-continental V-9/10, that might to reach the USA.
Or even i heard the first project of Missles Submarine.

Um, an enemy that can destroy your cities at will whilst you cannot retaliate is a pretty big military and political “sense.”

Really?
GErmans bombed and destroyed the British cities WHOLE a years in 1940-41.
Destroyed the London , Koventry and ets.
And till the most 1944 the Britis can’t retaliate.
Did it helped them to reach the any political “sense”- except to irritate the Brits and turned them to strong determination to resist?

Or maybe he would have died, with most of his henchmen and high command, in Berlin?

Maybe…
Maybe the AA-posts shall sleep all the night to pass the Mega-loud B-36 righ to BErline , or the American inlettigent service know how to bribe the Luftwaffe officer corp not to notice the American armade in a way to BErline:)Not to notify Adolf Hitler and all the GErmans govenment to go at bunker during the Bombings raids.
Everything is possible
They migh too killthe Hitler , say in 1 case form 10 000.
Would you bet on his death with such a probability Nick?
I wouldn’t.

And I forgot that Hitler was really, really nice to Jews before he claimed War on the US…I guess it the US’s “ruling elites” fault now. :rolleyes:

Sure it was “US’s fault”- did you hear Hitler’s/Goebbels speeches Nick?:smiley:
He diluted thier giult with “primary Jodo-Bolshevics’ gult on definition” in various proportion, but in general - “Poor GErmany fough alone against the Jewish world” - it seems it was the general line:)

#132

Yes this is the best your hobby -horce:)
5 miles?
Well probably Wasserfall was about 5 miles of radius( more then enough for missle) ,but was the me-262/263/163?

A couple of hundred Atom bombs would destroy Germany as a functioning nation for all time to come, killing ~90% of the population and destroying all the industry. That’s a cataclysm, not just a few civilians.

Oh really could destroy?
And how about tonns of chemical/biological wearpon ,that Germany/Japane shall ready to use for sure in this way?
And who said that GErman didn’t own their niclerar wearpon in 1949?
Groundless optimism again?

So what? If the US is dropping nuclear weapons on Germany, that probably means they have a couple of Army Groups fighting in Russia. The fate of a few thousand PoWs (most of whom will probably die in the nuclear bombings anyway) is a minor concern. The US of the time was NOT the casualty-averse nation of today.

Of by other words , if the USA would have NO the any troops in Russia- they NEVER dropped the single bomb?
Well , if we consider the “What if scenario” , when USSR would have been defeated in 1941, i.e. the GErman troops were displaced up to Syberia, i doubt that couple of American Armies group migh to do something( if even Red Army couldn,t)
If , say the GErmany didn’t attacked USSR at all- there wouldn’t any american troops at all.
Thus even if as i said the few nuclear charged has been droped on germany , it shouldn’t help to reach the decisive victory , but just would make the war more BLOODEST.

Structurally the B-29 is significantly more advanced (it’s a later and more modern design). Because the B-36 was so much bigger (dictated by it’s range) it actually had a higher ceiling which made it harder to intercept, but that was just serendipity.

Yes.
The monstrous B-36 should be the perfect target for Wasserfall, that in fact migh easy to reach such altitude.

#133

People have suggested that the B-36 bomber was uninterceptible until the 1950s but I am highly dubious of this. The performance specifications of B-36 models that I have seen do not indicate that the aircraft had a higher ceiling than fighters of the 1940s. Additionally, it appears that the early models of the B-36 were underpowered and inferior in performance to the later models which were not available until well into the 1950s.

#134

I don’t get this thread at all! The Germans did win WWII and it’s their fiendish propaganda that has convinced us that ‘we won’ in order to pre-emptively discourage all forms of insurgency.

Geez…I thought you people knew history.

But the cracks started showing through in the 1970’s when a Thomas Sutherland, a retired British Major visited a major German festival, saw all kinds of drinking, beer swilling, cleavage and singing of patriotic songs. He was heard saying, “Well, we certainly taught them a lesson they’d never remember.”