nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

How could Hitler have won WW2?

Samsonsmasher

There is no possible scenario where Hitler would not have gone to war against the Allies or specifically avoided war with the Soviet Union but it was not inevitable that he would have lost although Hitler's ideology could not leave any possibility of surrendering to the Allies on any terms once war began. He saw everything in absolute terms - he had either to win or he would fight on to the bitter end and suicide.

The moment after which Hitler could not win was when Churchill became PM after a meeting between himself Lord Halifax who counselled peace and the King who was sympathetic. Had Churchill deferred to Halifax having failed to win support. Churchill was quite prepared to fight on believing America would intervene in Europe as they did in 1917 and was prepared to sacrifice the empire in the process. Halifax was prepared to make peace with Hitler in return for retaining British interests just as the defeated French had whose armies continued to garrison their far flung colonies after the fall of Paris in 1940.

Hitler sought to be the master of Europe in order that he could grab living space in Soviet Russia as far as the Urals. He was under no illusions that he would be at war with the United States but gambled that the Soviet Union would collapse before the end of 1941. He had to believe this of course because Nazi Germany faced an acute fuel crisis.

Hitler had to seize the Caucasus oil fields by 1941-42 or not only future military operations would jeopardized but the Reich economy itself. Hitler had to grab Moscow and the Caucasus the first year or the Soviets would be in a position to mobilize it's full resources to stop and roll back invasion which is in fact what happened.

The major speedbump was the British resistance in the Balkans and Greece in 1941 and the Mediterranean that threatened the southern flank of Hitler's Europe. Those vital months which saw a desperate hopeless rearguard by the British actually delayed and hampered Barbarossa.

Hitler's forward reconnaissance units could actually see the spires of Moscow's St Basil's cathedral through their field glasses before they were forced to retreat.

The Japanese hit many of the American battleships at Pearl Harbour but did not hit the carriers which were at sea. In any case once America mobilized they produced thousands of ships which overwhelmed the Japanese.
Hitler knew FDR favoured a Europe First war policy so with the Soviet victory in the Battle of Moscow he knew war was coming with the United States and was prepared to go down fighting.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

beauf

Russians had spy's in the Manhattan project and the code breaking. So Stalin was well informed.

Japan was well beaten before the atomic weapons were dropped. The atomic weapons were both a show of force for Japan and Russia.

Harika

Azza wrote: »

As for being overrated. That's debatable. Nuke's would be very effective at destroying the industrial capacity of a country. Nuking one or two German cites a month for 6 months and I don't see how the German's would have the means to stay in the fight.

I think Japanese towns were in average 70% burned down, that's why the bomb didn't make the immediate response you would expect. German towns were bombed daily, barely resistance left, still no surrender in sight.

Samsonsmasher

beauf wrote: »

Open to correction on this..

As Germany and Russians captured after both in advance in retreat. They had to rebuild the train lines as they used a different gauge and neither would switch to the others. Always thought that was bizarre.

Another issue was the Germany army moved mainly by horse. Supplies, troops, ammunition even artillery. They were the biggest users of horses in WW2. Feeding and keeping horses alive in Russia was some challenge. In comparison the Russians were mostly motorised afaik.

It's curious why WWI and WW2 retain so much interest. Even after all this time.

They were massive wars that cost the lives of millions of soldiers and civilians and redrew the map of the world. If they hadn't occurred or had ended with different victors our present would be vastly different

Apiarist

Azza wrote: »

The evidence that suggests the Russian's where about to preemptively strike the Germans first in 1941 if given a little more time is extremely flimsy and considered not credible at this point. ....

Exactly. The war between the "imperialists" was forecast, and it was almost obvious to everyone in the world that a war will happen. Thus Stalin welcomed the war in the West between Germany and the French / UK alliance.

Stalin probably thought - let them fight and surely the proletariat of these countries will rise in a revolution after years of war. Then the USSR would come to the rescue. That is why the Red Army was political commissar-heavy and any independently-minded military commanders were purged. The USSR was preparing for the offensive in the West, but the Red Army would be invited by local revolutionaries to help them set up socialist governments.

Azza

beauf wrote: »

Russians had spy's in the Manhattan project and the code breaking. So Stalin was well informed.

Japan was well beaten before the atomic weapons were dropped. The atomic weapons were both a show of force for Japan and Russia.

I think Japanese towns were in average 70% burned down, that's why the bomb didn't make the immediate response you would expect. German towns were bombed daily, barely resistance left, still no surrender in sight.

I think Japan was beat the second they dropped the first bomb on Pearl Harbor, was only a question of time.

Indeed German towns and cities where hit badly by regularly bombing raids but actually hitting specific targets was with accuracy on regular bombing raids was quite difficult to do. I think the devastation of a nuclear bomb would of been more effective at reducing industrial capability, radiation would have rendered rebuilding industrial production sites more difficult and I think been consistently hit month after month with nuclear weapons would probably have been pretty devastating to the morale of the German people.

Del.Monte

Azza wrote: »

I think Japan was beat the second they dropped the first bomb on Pearl Harbor, was only a question of time.

Indeed German towns and cities where hit badly by regularly bombing raids but actually hitting specific targets was with accuracy on regular bombing raids was quite difficult to do. I think the devastation of a nuclear bomb would of been more effective at reducing industrial capability, radiation would have rendered rebuilding industrial production sites more difficult and I think been consistently hit month after month with nuclear weapons would probably have been pretty devastating to the morale of the German people.

I agree with you about Japan but the idea that it would have taken a number of nukes, month after month, on Germany to concentrate their minds on capitulation is not a runner. Hitler would have been removed and the country surrendered after one or two at the most. The Japanese population may have embraced suicidal beliefs but not Germany.

Stovepipe

Russia had millions of horses and didn't really get decent motor transport until the arrival of Lend Lease trucks, such as the Studabaker and the GMC types. Their own Gaz trucks were rubbish, by any yardstick and the best way to tow any Russian gun was to hitch it to an American made truck. The Russian rail network was in very poor condition, even in peace time and actual transit speeds were very slow.

beauf

Azza wrote: »

I think Japan was beat the second they dropped the first bomb on Pearl Harbor, was only a question of time.

Indeed German towns and cities where hit badly by regularly bombing raids but actually hitting specific targets was with accuracy on regular bombing raids was quite difficult to do. I think the devastation of a nuclear bomb would of been more effective at reducing industrial capability, radiation would have rendered rebuilding industrial production sites more difficult and I think been consistently hit month after month with nuclear weapons would probably have been pretty devastating to the morale of the German people.

Japan had no military left. Was blockaded by a ring of US submarines. Allied fighters and bombers roamed at will over the country. Didn't really the atomic bombs to defeat them. Was it needed to persuade the leadership? Maybe.

Germany proved it could constantly move production very quickly. Bombing a city into rubble makes it very hard to capture and move through it as an attacking force. It basically makes every street a bunker and barricade. Tactically is a bad move. Their society was so broken by the regime I'm not sure if was possible to break their spirit in a conventional way.

beauf

But we know all this with the benefit of hindsight and 80yrs of analysis.

Azza

beauf wrote: »

Japan had no military left. Was blockaded by a ring of US submarines. Allied fighters and bombers roamed at will over the country. Didn't really the atomic bombs to defeat them. Was it needed to persuade the leadership? Maybe.

Germany proved it could constantly move production very quickly. Bombing a city into rubble makes it very hard to capture and move through it as an attacking force. It basically makes every street a bunker and barricade. Tactically is a bad move. Their society was so broken by the regime I'm not sure if was possible to break their spirit in a conventional way.

To say the Japanese had no military left is quite wide of the mark, it numbered into the millions at the time of their surrender. As for what convinced them to surrender I believe it was combination of the atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.

I don't know for certain whether atomic bombs would of convinced the German's to quit the war for definite but with such weapons used against you is bound to have a major psychological impact. As Del.Monte said I don't believe the German's on the whole where suicidal in their convictions.

beauf

Azza wrote: »

To say the Japanese had no military left is quite wide of the mark, it numbered into the millions at the time of their surrender. As for what convinced them to surrender I believe it was combination of the atomic bombs and the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.

I don't know for certain whether atomic bombs would of convinced the German's to quit the war for definite but with such weapons used against you is bound to have a major psychological impact. As Del.Monte said I don't believe the German's on the whole where suicidal in their convictions.

I take your point about the numbers of men. But they couldn't defend themselves from the air or the sea. They could bomb them from the air or bombard from the sea with impunity. Food shortages etc. I do agree there were wider political considerations in play also.

scotchy

Interesting thread.
Something that has not really been mentioned is the Mediterranean. Hitler tried to persuade Franco to join forces and maybe retake Gibraltar.
Famously Hitler is alleged to have said that he would “rather have three or four teeth pulled” than go through another meeting with him. If Germany and Italy had managed to take Gibraltar and Malta, and perhaps secured the Med, and access to north Africa, who knows how much longer things would have went on.

.

Stovepipe

Germany was on it's knees by the turn of 1944 and by the end of January 1945, was pretty much unable to keep it's armies fuelled, armed and even fed. Only the fact that logistical lines were now very short meant that it could get what ammunition it had to the front in fairly short order. The death rate of it's soldiers and citizens meant that it was running out of replacements to the point where military formations held only a fraction of their establishment of men and machines, production was failing and bombing was reducing the infrastructure to rubble. I read that the loss rate of all Germans, mil and civil was in the order of a million in the last year of the war and soldiers were more willing to surrender than ever before. Even SS units werequitting and they were the hard core Nazis.

Azza

scotchy wrote: »

Interesting thread.
Something that has not really been mentioned is the Mediterranean. Hitler tried to persuade Franco to join forces and maybe retake Gibraltar.
Famously Hitler is alleged to have said that he would “rather have three or four teeth pulled” than go through another meeting with him. If Germany and Italy had managed to take Gibraltar and Malta, and perhaps secured the Med, and access to north Africa, who knows how much longer things would have went on.

.

There is a few different factors in why the Axis leaning Spain didn't join the Axis.

There was reluctance on the German part who didn't believe Spain offered much from a military perspective and might merely be another Italy. Spain wasn't in great shape, unstable politically, nor was it close to recovering from its civil war with its industry, infrastructure and military where all in poor shape. I believe it was estimated that Spain only had enough fuel for one and half months of war. Ribbentrop didn't get on with Franco's brother who was handling negotiations between Spain and Germany. Franco and Hitler did meet on one occasion but the source of the quote about Hitler preferring to have three or four teeth pulled is considered questionable (the source was Mussolini). In addition the German's considered Spain demands to gain control of some of Vichy France's colonies too high a price. All Hitler every really wanted from Spain was passage for his troops to attack Gibraltar.

From Spain's perspective, Franco believed his regime would not survive if he allied Spain to the Axis powers and they lost the war. In the event of war Spain was in no position to defend its colonies from Britain or America. Also Spain throughout the war traded with the USA and Britain and its weak economy was very reliant on this trade and with other countries, in the event of war this trade would be cut off from them. In fact during the war a bad harvest one year meant Spain was reliant on American aid to feed itself.

As for Germany/Italy winning in North Africa, it doesn't achieve a whole lot other than go some way towards fulfilling Mussolini's dream of re-establishing the Roman Empire. Yes the British lose a shorter rout to its colonies in India and Asia but they still can go via the horn of Africa.

beauf

Stovepipe wrote: »

Germany was on it's knees by the turn of 1944 and by the end of January 1945, was pretty much unable to keep it's armies fuelled, armed and even fed. ...

Still put up one hell of a fight....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany#:~:text=January%E2%80%93May%201945%3A&text=Recorded%20German%20Army%20casualties%20from,5%2C778%20killed%20and%2016%2C820%20wounded.&text=The%20Western%20Allied%20invasion%20of,theatre%20of%20World%20War%20II.

beauf

scotchy wrote: »

Interesting thread.
Something that has not really been mentioned is the Mediterranean. .
.

Med was a close and hard fought theater.

Peregrinus

beauf wrote: »

Still put up one hell of a fight....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Allied_invasion_of_Germany#:~:text=January%E2%80%93May%201945%3A&text=Recorded%20German%20Army%20casualties%20from,5%2C778%20killed%20and%2016%2C820%20wounded.&text=The%20Western%20Allied%20invasion%20of,theatre%20of%20World%20War%20II.

Yes. But it wasn't a fight whose outcome was ever in much doubt, even on the German side.

JJayoo

What if the Germans had developed the bomb before the allies had joined in?

beauf

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. But it wasn't a fight whose outcome was ever in much doubt, even on the German side.

For sure.

It was some of the toughest fighting of the war though.

Azza

The events that I believe where in Germany's control that if changed could more likely lead to a German victory are

1. Destroying the British Forces at Dunkirk. Destroying or capturing most of this force "may" have seen the British come to peace terms with the Germans.

This would have several knock on effects. German land forces both men and tanks would take some losses defeating the British, but this would likely be offset by other benefits.

The Battle of Britain would not have to been have fought, meaning the Luftwaffe would have had considerably greater strength for Barbarossa.
The German's would also not have to have fought the Battle of the Atlantic, freeing up more resources for the war with the Soviet Union.
Likewise the German's would not have needed to get involved in the very resource intensive campaign of North Africa, resources in terms of both men, tank and fuel that could of been used against Russia.
The Balkan interlude may not have occurred. Italy would likely still invade Greece and get its ass handed to it but the German's may not have felt the need to intervene if Britain was not providing the Greeks with assistance. I don't believe the Balkan Interlude any significant effect on the outcome of Barbarossa but in this scenario the Germans maybe get to begin Barbarossa three weeks earlier, meaning they may have been in a better position to handle the winter.
I think possibly the most significant effect is the naval blockade of Germany and occupied Europe would come to an end, this would allow Germany to resuming trading with the likes of Venezuela for oil, greatly alleviating the oil crisis Germany was suffering. When it comes to Operation Barbarossa, time and again the German's had to stop as they ran out of fuel, this prevented them advancing further and inflicting even more damage on the Red Army and might of well been able to take Moscow.
While no Lend Lease was sent to the Russians in 1941 a relatively small amount was sent to them in 1942 mostly by the British. With Britain out of the war this doesn't happen.

I don't think taking Moscow wins the war for Germany though as most historians reckon the Russia's would of kept fighting even had they lost Moscow. For the Germans to win they need Moscow and more importantly they need the Caucasus oil fields both to keep themselves supplied with oil and to deny it to the Russians. Even with Britain out of the war and Germany focused solely against Russia I do not believe Germany was capable of taking both in 1941. For geographic reasons they should of focused on Moscow first instead of trying to do both at the same time. Moscow the target in 1941, the Caucasus the target in 1942.

2. Work more closely with Japan and get them to invade the Soviet Union from the east. Its a common belief that when Stalin's spy Richard Sorge in Tokyo informed him that Japan was not intending to attack Russia, Stalin was able to transfer large numbers of troops from Siberia for the counter attack that pushed the Germans back at Moscow. However that's not entirely accurate, as only part of the troops transferred came from Siberia, the majority came from other parts of the USSR and their transfer had nothing to do with Stalin holding them back in the event of an attack by Japan. Even still an attack by Japan may have likely tied down considerably numbers of Russia troops. I'm not sure what the infrastructure and industry would of been like in Eastern Russian and if the Russians would of been willing to give ground there to concentrate on Germany, nor do I really know what Japan's capability would be when it comes to how far they could advance and what territory they could take a hold but it seems plausible enough by a large enough Japanese force along with the German invasion might have simply been too much for Russia to handle.

3. Again with a closer relationship with Japan try to get them to refrain from attacking the USA. Or at the very least if they do attack America, Germany and Italy do not declare war on the USA.

In order for Germany to win they need a way of quickly knocking out Great Britain out of the way, because of their oil situation. Invasion of Britain was beyond their capability, a larger U-Boat campaign takes too long. Winning in North Africa and the Mediterranean most likely does not knock Britain out of the war either. Destroying the British at Dunkirk might not knock the UK out of the war either but at the very least it makes it easier for the German's and Italian's in North Africa as the British would have fewer troops to send there.

Stovepipe

If they had taken Malta and Cyprus in 1940, they would have denied the Med to the British, neutralised Alexandria as an RN port and threatened Gibraltar. It might have persuaded Franco to join Spain to Germany's side and seize Gibraltar from the land side. They could have left Greece and Yugoslavia alone. I find that the most ironic thing is that both sides never knew they were driving over Libyan oil,as yet undiscovered. If they had found oil in the Desert campaign,it would have been an incredible game changer for either side.

Samsonsmasher

JJayoo wrote: »

What if the Germans had developed the bomb before the allies had joined in?

We are talking exclusively about realistic possibilities. The Germans did not have access to large quantities of uranium and the top nuclear scientists had been Jews who fled persecution for the United States.

Samsonsmasher

Stovepipe wrote: »

If they had taken Malta and Cyprus in 1940, they would have denied the Med to the British, neutralised Alexandria as an RN port and threatened Gibraltar. It might have persuaded Franco to join Spain to Germany's side and seize Gibraltar from the land side. They could have left Greece and Yugoslavia alone. I find that the most ironic thing is that both sides never knew they were driving over Libyan oil,as yet undiscovered. If they had found oil in the Desert campaign,it would have been an incredible game changer for either side.

The Germans did not have the capability to fight the Royal Navy which would have been required to seize and hold Malta and Cyprus. True the Germans had taken Crete but the losses of airborne forces and transport aircraft were never recovered so taking those other islands by air was a non starter.

To exploit Libyan oil would have required years of infrastructural development vulnerable to Allied bombardment not the mention the problem of piping it or shipping it while under attack. Another non starter.

An invasion of Gibraltar was not going to happen until Britain was out of the war. After the Spanish Civil War the country was devastated and Franco naturally was not interested in getting involved in a world conflict while his regime remained insecure. Yet another non runner.

Again if Halifax had made peace in 1940 without the need for a Battle of Britain or fighting in the Mediterranean so Hitler could get on with the invasion of Russia in 1941 without delay with luck Hitler could have captured Moscow. Even so that was a longshot.

I am trying to imagine an alternate timeline constrained by the Hitler we know and the most realistic options open to him.

Samsonsmasher

Azza wrote: »

The events that I believe where in Germany's control that if changed could more likely lead to a German victory are

1. Destroying the British Forces at Dunkirk. Destroying or capturing most of this force "may" have seen the British come to peace terms with the Germans.

This would have several knock on effects. German land forces both men and tanks would take some losses defeating the British, but this would likely be offset by other benefits.

The Battle of Britain would not have to been have fought, meaning the Luftwaffe would have had considerably greater strength for Barbarossa.
The German's would also not have to have fought the Battle of the Atlantic, freeing up more resources for the war with the Soviet Union.
Likewise the German's would not have needed to get involved in the very resource intensive campaign of North Africa, resources in terms of both men, tank and fuel that could of been used against Russia.
The Balkan interlude may not have occurred. Italy would likely still invade Greece and get its ass handed to it but the German's may not have felt the need to intervene if Britain was not providing the Greeks with assistance. I don't believe the Balkan Interlude any significant effect on the outcome of Barbarossa but in this scenario the Germans maybe get to begin Barbarossa three weeks earlier, meaning they may have been in a better position to handle the winter.
I think possibly the most significant effect is the naval blockade of Germany and occupied Europe would come to an end, this would allow Germany to resuming trading with the likes of Venezuela for oil, greatly alleviating the oil crisis Germany was suffering. When it comes to Operation Barbarossa, time and again the German's had to stop as they ran out of fuel, this prevented them advancing further and inflicting even more damage on the Red Army and might of well been able to take Moscow.
While no Lend Lease was sent to the Russians in 1941 a relatively small amount was sent to them in 1942 mostly by the British. With Britain out of the war this doesn't happen.

I don't think taking Moscow wins the war for Germany though as most historians reckon the Russia's would of kept fighting even had they lost Moscow. For the Germans to win they need Moscow and more importantly they need the Caucasus oil fields both to keep themselves supplied with oil and to deny it to the Russians. Even with Britain out of the war and Germany focused solely against Russia I do not believe Germany was capable of taking both in 1941. For geographic reasons they should of focused on Moscow first instead of trying to do both at the same time. Moscow the target in 1941, the Caucasus the target in 1942.

2. Work more closely with Japan and get them to invade the Soviet Union from the east. Its a common belief that when Stalin's spy Richard Sorge in Tokyo informed him that Japan was not intending to attack Russia, Stalin was able to transfer large numbers of troops from Siberia for the counter attack that pushed the Germans back at Moscow. However that's not entirely accurate, as only part of the troops transferred came from Siberia, the majority came from other parts of the USSR and their transfer had nothing to do with Stalin holding them back in the event of an attack by Japan. Even still an attack by Japan may have likely tied down considerably numbers of Russia troops. I'm not sure what the infrastructure and industry would of been like in Eastern Russian and if the Russians would of been willing to give ground there to concentrate on Germany, nor do I really know what Japan's capability would be when it comes to how far they could advance and what territory they could take a hold but it seems plausible enough by a large enough Japanese force along with the German invasion might have simply been too much for Russia to handle.

3. Again with a closer relationship with Japan try to get them to refrain from attacking the USA. Or at the very least if they do attack America, Germany and Italy do not declare war on the USA.

In order for Germany to win they need a way of quickly knocking out Great Britain out of the way, because of their oil situation. Invasion of Britain was beyond their capability, a larger U-Boat campaign takes too long. Winning in North Africa and the Mediterranean most likely does not knock Britain out of the war either. Destroying the British at Dunkirk might not knock the UK out of the war either but at the very least it makes it easier for the German's and Italian's in North Africa as the British would have fewer troops to send there.

The Germans could not have both captured Dunkirk and captured Paris in 1940 swiftly. For Hitler time was of the essence. The prize was Paris and a delay at Dunkirk could have allowed the French to recover and hold up the German advance for quite a long time.
His Luftwaffe adjutant said the Hitler was dismissive of the importance of the British in Dunkirk. He needed his armored units for the capture of France rather than waste them in a protratcted fight against the Dunkirk pocket. He didn't think that many British would escape anyway and Goering promised to take care of them in any case.
Instead the Germans wasted no time and advanced on the Seine and the Frence forces to the West of Paris were cut off surrounded and destroyed. The French high commanded ordered their forces in the centre and the east to pull back to the Loire Valley in good order but the Germans broke through at multiple points before they could form a line and pushed on into the French interior cutting off and surrounding more and more of the remaining French armies. Hitler gambled that with Paris fallen the war in Europe was practically won. If the British escaped it was a price worth paying. They left much of their equipment and weapons behind on the beaches and would presumably sue for peace.
Hitler reversed his decision to ignore Dunkirk when he realized so many troops were escaping by sea.
Without the bulk of the BEP escaping even Churchill would probably have thrown in the towel.

saabsaab

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

We are talking exclusively about realistic possibilities. The Germans did not have access to large quantities of uranium and the top nuclear scientists had been Jews who fled persecution for the United States.

Mainly true but not sure about the uranium. Much of it was shipped after the war to the US. I was told that some made its way in to the Hiroshima bomb!

Samsonsmasher

saabsaab wrote: »

Mainly true but not sure about the uranium. Much of it was shipped after the war to the US. I was told that some made its way in to the Hiroshima bomb!

I understand that uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb came from ore mines in Belgian Congo and it was purified in centrifuges in the United States. The Nazis didn't have access to sources of material because of the war at sea and never put the resources into a Manhattan style program

saabsaab

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

I understand that uranium used in the Hiroshima bomb came from ore mines in Belgian Congo and it was purified in centrifuges in the United States. The Nazis didn't have access to sources of material because of the war at sea and never put the resources into a Manhattan style program

From NY times article re captured Nazi Uranium

'Now, however, a former official of the Manhattan Project, John Lansdale Jr., says that the uranium went into the mix of raw materials used for making the world's first atom bombs. At the time he was an Army lieutenant colonel for intelligence and security for the atom bomb project. One of his main jobs was tracking uranium.Mr. Lansdale's assertion in an interview raises the possibility that the American weapons that leveled the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained at least some nuclear material originally destined for Japan's own atomic program and, perhaps, for attacks on the United States.' https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/05/20/the-search-for-lost-nazi-uranium/

Samsonsmasher

saabsaab wrote: »

From NY times article re captured Nazi Uranium

'Now, however, a former official of the Manhattan Project, John Lansdale Jr., says that the uranium went into the mix of raw materials used for making the world's first atom bombs. At the time he was an Army lieutenant colonel for intelligence and security for the atom bomb project. One of his main jobs was tracking uranium.Mr. Lansdale's assertion in an interview raises the possibility that the American weapons that leveled the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained at least some nuclear material originally destined for Japan's own atomic program and, perhaps, for attacks on the United States.' https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2019/05/20/the-search-for-lost-nazi-uranium/

I stand corrected. Fascinating article.

Anyways the Germans were never close to building a bomb or a bomb that could be delivered by plane or rocket.
It was purely aspirational and far too late.

Dunfyy

He could of invaded England and not gone into Russia and if japan had not attacked america as americans did not want to enter the war

Manach

An interesting book on the potential invasion of England "We March against England" by Robert Forczyk posits that the German invasion even after the Summer of 1940 would have faced formidable challenges and on balance was unlikely to have succeed.