Multymegaton ****storm :) Could the Germans win the war?

[Vark]

Capitalism compared to Communism is definately the lesser of two evils as far as the relative freedoms of the respective domestic populations is concerned, however it's the effects of capitalism and its adherents on other countries populations that bothers me, for example the United States is one of the most capatalist and free societies in the world, yet it has intervened in more countries than any other country in modern history, mainly in the name of protecting the US elites political and economic interests as shown in the link provided http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Given the unprecedented concentration of military, and economic power I think the US has been relatively benign, compared to other countries, who have amassed similar power. As for political nomenclature I thing not only is the prefix right/left outdated, so are the linked terms of Liberal and Conservative (neither group behave as their founders imagined). Perhaps we should look at redefining the terms of political debate, as this thread has shown, narrow categorisation leads to simplistic analysis, which if elevated into the 'higher' realms of state policy leads to problems.

I agree with the analysis of Tooze (if anyone on this thread has not read it I urge them to do so), remember Hitler was seen as a figurehead, when the puppet turned on his masters it was too late!

[Sergei]

That's a real possibility. I think his preference was to use his armed forces to intimidate rather than engage in outright warfare, but under certain circumstances—as in Poland and Finland—did not shrink from the latter.

Michael

The difference here between Stalin and Hitler was that Stalin would only start a war when the cards really seemed to be stacked in his favour, whereas Hitler seemed to believe that he could take Poland, and UK & France would ultimately let it pass. It was as if he always felt that victory was only a few months away: the stubborn Brits must agree to peace after France has capitulated, the Soviets must give up after their armies have been destroyed in the Barbarossa, etc. all the way to 1945 when he had become completely detached from the reality and still believed that some strategic masterstroke could crush the Soviet ring around Berlin.

And this was precisely what Stalin wanted to avoid: a small conflict that would escalate into an uncontrollable global war that would drag on like WW1 and then the Russian civil war. Even the clashes with the Japanese were kept strictly local, and Soviets didn't want to get deeply involved with them until 1945 when it was obvious that it had become the empire of the setting sun.

Stalin made a pact with Germany in August 1939 in the hopes that this would keep them busy elsewhere, and since Germany wouldn't help Finland and other helpers couldn't get to the Baltic Sea, Stavka believed that Finland would be a pushover. In March 1940 the Finnish resistance was already faltering, when the Soviets suddenly changed their mind and agreed to a negotiated peace. Why? Because Britain and France were planning to get involved in the war on the Finnish side, with an expeditionary force securing a passage through northern Sweden (by force). While it probably wouldn't have saved Finland, it was going to be something that Stalin didn't have in his mind when he embarked on the invasion.

Would USSR have invaded Germany ca. 1942, like has been proposed, if Germany didn't strike first? This is the kind of what-if that is impossible to answer. Maybe - if the situation seemed promising enough, overall. Germany wasn't such a global marine power as the British Commonwealth or USA were, so invading Germany might have at worst resulted in a stalemate in Poland, maybe some torpedoing of Soviet trade ships in the Atlantic but nothing serious. Meanwhile it could have led into an alliance with Britain. But most likely it would have been too risky for Stalin to get himself into. Likewise it's very unlikely that Stalin would have invaded western Europe after WW2. Soviet Union's infrastructure was heavily damaged in the war, and man losses were terrifying. Getting into a new prolonged conflict with USA would have been too risky to be worthwhile.

[Michael Emrys]

Getting into a new prolonged conflict with USA would have been too risky to be worthwhile.

Especially during the interval between the US obtaining The Bomb and the USSR doing likewise.

Michael

[noob]

Given the unprecedented concentration of military, and economic power I think the US has been relatively benign, compared to other countries, who have amassed similar power.

Which other countries do you speak of ?

This is one of a few sources that states that the US dropped twice as the tonnage of bombs on Indo China than all the Allied bombing in the whole of WW2 - http://zfacts.com/p/679.html

[Magpie_Oz]

Which other countries do you speak of ?

This is one of a few sources that states that the US dropped twice as the tonnage of bombs on Indo China than all the Allied bombing in the whole of WW2 - http://zfacts.com/p/679.html

USSR and China ?

No real surprises that the tonnage dropped on Indochina was a lot more. Longer war, harder targets, bigger aircraft with bigger bomb loads, bigger bombs, greater involvement of air power.

[noob]

USSR and China ?

No real surprises that the tonnage dropped on Indochina was a lot more. Longer war, harder targets, bigger aircraft with bigger bomb loads, bigger bombs, greater involvement of air power.

Firstly the USSR and China are not capitalist countries and my gripe was with the way capatalism has exercised it's power globally, and secondly i was talking about the amount of countries the US has intervened in militarily, so if you could supply me with a list of the countries the USSR and China have intervened in militarily i will be most interested to see it for a comparison.

[noob]

No real surprises that the tonnage dropped on Indochina was a lot more. Longer war, harder targets, bigger aircraft with bigger bomb loads, bigger bombs, greater involvement of air power.

Thats true, it's the rationale for the bombing thats more relevant, in WW2 it was to defend against a clear and direct threat to the world, in Vietnam it was to support a series of puppet regimes from being voted out by a reunified population.

I'm going to unsubscribe to this thread as i should of known better than to open this particular can of worms on a public forum, arguing my point could turn out to be more time consuming than playing CM and if anyone is really interested in the subject theres better people than me to espouse i, like Professor Noam Chomsky amongst others.

[Vark]

Noam Chomsky, are you serious?

[Sergei]

Especially during the interval between the US obtaining The Bomb and the USSR doing likewise.

Michael

That is certain, but even then, during Stalin's lifetime the Soviet nuclear arsenal was not too convincing. But I think even with the H-Bomb out of the equation the Soviets would have hesitated. On paper, such an offensive might have gotten the Red Army far - but the risks would have been huge. Stalin was prepared to take huge risks during the war, but during peace he'd rather just wait and slowly consolidate his gains, like in the Berlin blockade.

In principle Stalin was even prepared to allow a unified Germany if it pledged neutrality like Austria, but due to mistrust on both sides that unlikely to happen and a neutral Germany between two coalitions would have been in a very difficult situation, possibly even a more likely cause for WW3 than the divided Germany ever was.

[IMHO]

...a neutral Germany between two coalitions would have been in a very difficult situation, possibly even a more likely cause for WW3 than the divided Germany ever was.

Good point

[Michael Emrys]

That is certain, but even then, during Stalin's lifetime the Soviet nuclear arsenal was not too convincing.

Depends. Aside from the fact that their stockpile of warheads was never at any time the equal of the US', an even more serious problem for them for about the first decade after the war was a lack of delivery systems that could reach the US. Even after the mid-'50s, they would have had a very hard time dropping many bombs here. But on the other hand, how many presidents would have been willing to risk having even one get through to an American city? And of course, our allies would be under threat from very early on.

Certainly, prior to the 1970s there was virtually no chance that the Soviets could have delivered a first strike of such overwhelming force that they could expect to not suffer even worse in return. What they could try to do was promise enough retaliation as to make a strike against them unprofitable. And my personal opinion is that even after the '70s that still held.

Michael

[IMHO]

Depends. Aside from the fact that their stockpile of warheads was never at any time the equal of the US', an even more serious problem for them for about the first decade after the war was a lack of delivery systems that could reach the US. Even after the mid-'50s, they would have had a very hard time dropping many bombs here. But on the other hand, how many presidents would have been willing to risk having even one get through to an American city? And of course, our allies would be under threat from very early on.

Certainly, prior to the 1970s there was virtually no chance that the Soviets could have delivered a first strike of such overwhelming force that they could expect to not suffer even worse in return. What they could try to do was promise enough retaliation as to make a strike against them unprofitable. And my personal opinion is that even after the '70s that still held.

Michael

1. It's always been interesting how reliable strategic delivery capability turned out to be harder to obtain than a package itself. I mean North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India...

2. Well it does not really matter if a retaliatory strike is worse or not than the first strike. I mean if it still exceeds the level of acceptable losses who cares how strong it is.

3. I guess if George W. Bush was at the helm back in fifties then we could well be up for a last act of The Play. I mean balance of forces were undeniably in favor of the US and clearly worsening ever since. I guess from a military point of view it was so tempting to exercise the first strike. Remember unanimous JCOS recommendations to Kennedy at the time of Cuban crisis and the pressure military put on civilian leadership. And the calculus was much worse for the US then. May be there were actually fewer people in fifties who wouldn't attempt a first strike than those who would have gone for it. Bless us.

[Michael Emrys]

1. It's always been interesting how reliable strategic delivery capability turned out to be harder to obtain than a package itself.

Some years ago it occurred to me that building an A-Bomb wasn't really all that hard. If you could get your hands on enough enriched uranium, access to a good machine shop, and were reasonably clever, you could probably put one together. It would not be efficient and it would probably be dirty as hell, but it would go boom. Plutonium, however requires more skills.

3. I guess if George W. Bush was at the helm back in fifties then we could well be up for a last act of The Play. I mean balance of forces were undeniably in favor of the US and clearly worsening ever since. I guess from a military point of view it was so tempting to exercise the first strike.

Curtis LeMay thought so. From the end of WW II until the day he died he advocated bombing Russia "back to the stone age".

Michael

[IMHO]

Some years ago it occurred to me that building an A-Bomb wasn't really all that hard. If you could get your hands on enough enriched uranium, access to a good machine shop, and were reasonably clever, you could probably put one together. It would not be efficient and it would probably be dirty as hell, but it would go boom. Plutonium, however requires more skills.

Curtis LeMay thought so. From the end of WW II until the day he died he advocated bombing Russia "back to the stone age".

Michael

Yeah... Big red dog. That's why I don't like people ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives for abstract ideas.

I guess even implosion type is doable now. Interference multiplies the calculations but modeling must be within reach for those who can develop efficient EFPs and HEATs. Probably the greatest difficulty lies in obtaining source data on plutonium/uranium alloys behavior under extreme pressure.

[IMHO]

Yeah... Big red dog. That's why I don't like people ready to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives for abstract ideas.

I guess even implosion type is doable now. Interference multiplies the calculations but modeling must be within reach for those who can develop efficient EFPs and HEATs. Probably the greatest difficulty lies in obtaining source data on plutonium/uranium alloys behavior under extreme pressure.

Nah... I'm wrong. You also need data on how nuclear energy output translates into pressure wave in uranium/plutonium alloys. To avoid the fizzle. That's too hardly to be found in wikipedia

Modeling itself you can probably do even with commercial tools.

[AG Erzherzog Josef]

sorry if this has come up earlier (i didn't read all preceding 24 pages) but

my favourite 'perfect-german-hindsight-what-if' is the postwar interrogation quoted by beevor in 'berlin'

when asked what they did wrong in WW2 a german general said

'we should have waited until we had nuclear weapons'

this is so wrong on so many levels

(and you thought general buck turgidson was frightening)

[Vark]

As for feasibilty, if the US cracked it in 44-45 (although research was conducted in the 30's) using basic computers I don't think it would take too much time with a current high grade PC and some 'expert' knowledge. Of course just bung a couple of million to a dodgy Indian sub-continent connection and Bob's your radioactive uncle!

[Magpie_Oz]

As for feasibilty, if the US cracked it in 44-45 (although research was conducted in the 30's) using basic computers I don't think it would take too much time with a current high grade PC and some 'expert' knowledge. Of course just bung a couple of million to a dodgy Indian sub-continent connection and Bob's your radioactive uncle!

That's a little bit 21st century of you there.

Sure there were some pretty major theoretical physics involved but the only computers used on the project were the ones between the ears of some very clever people.

The real clever bit came from designing a conventional explosion that would hold the critical mass together long enough for the explosion to develop.

As said before, an building an atom bomb is easy getting the Uranium and the conventional explosive to set it off is the tricky bit.

[Michael Emrys]

As said before, an building an atom bomb is easy getting the Uranium and the conventional explosive to set it off is the tricky bit.

Yep. Refining weapons-grade uranium is such a huge operation that it requires the resources of a nation to do it. And so far, national governments don't seem willing to sell the stuff to terrorists or weekend hobbyists.

Michael

[Vark]

Ah Magpie, I bow to your superior intellect! The ENIAC machine was used on the Los Alamos calculations in December 1945, I know the British had Collossus in the mid 40's but guess it was used in crypto-analysis. My point still remains, if humans have cracked it, humans will do so, but as Michael has pointed out the infrastructure is the hard part. I believe the Germans had a computer but it was destroyed in a bombing raid on Berlin in 43, but doubt it would have had a major impact, if it had survived.

I remember in HoI II it took huge amounts of resources, both financial and technical, to pursue atomic weapons, so the only people who could develop it were the US, seemed pretty accurate to me. I have the David Holloway's "Stalin and the Bomb" are there any books on Nazi plans for atomic weapons? Preferably ones that do no include references to flying saucers and plasma engines!

[Michael Emrys]

...are there any books on Nazi plans for atomic weapons?

There are three I would recommend. Two by Richard Rhodes:

http://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0684813785/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312223601&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/DARK-SUN-Making-Hydrogen-Bomb/dp/0684824140/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312223639&sr=1-3

I'm not sure the second one has much information on the Nazis, but it does expand on the story of the Manhattan project as well as provide a generous amount of information on the Soviet program.

And I think this one by Thomas Powers you'll want to see for sure:

http://www.amazon.com/Heisenbergs-War-Secret-History-German/dp/0306810115/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312223770&sr=1-1

Michael

[Vark]

Heisenberg's War sounds just the ticket, Stalin and the Bomb has more than enough info on the Russian programme so will leave the other two, many thanks.

[sburke]

Interesting how appropriate the thread title is to the subject it ended up on.

[Vark]

Didn't SPI produce a game where The Nazis had nuke tipped A4 missiles and the US dropped an A bomb on Hamburg? Good old SPI, some of their what if scenarios were 'interesting'!

[Magpie_Oz]

Ah Magpie, I bow to your superior intellect! The ENIAC machine was used on the Los Alamos calculations in December 1945,

That was for an H-Bomb not a U-bomb which is a much tougher prospect as you have a fission bang setting off a fusion bang. So the allies didn't crack it in 1944-45 using computers they solved problems involved with a conventional explosive triggered implosion using experiment, brains and slide rules.

I think you might find too that the calcs run using H bomb theory was a test so that would seem to indicate that they already knew the answer?

Of course now we are talking H bombs it is getting closer to the predicted Multi Megaton **** storm