What would Germany's Victory have meant for the rest of the world?

>Japan to help fight the Soviets
Japan couldn't beat the USSR when the Soviets were on their lowest in 1940
>D-Day landing failed
As others have already pointed out, The Soviets would've continued to push from the east. Don't forget that the allies also occupied over 1/2 of Italy by the time D-Day happened.
>after England agreed to sign an armistice or something
This makes no sense. Why would they sign a treaty when the Germans were clearly losing the war?

You do realize that
A) Britain and the Soviets had already overrun Iran in July of 1941, and if the Soviets crumple. the British would have taken over all of it, meaning that you get to have a very long, hard slog through hundreds of miles of mountains before you get to the railroad gap that is modern Pakistan which is itself well before anything vital in India?

B) The Middle-East is not a major producer of oil at the time, and Romania is producing more oil than any single ME country, and Venezuela is producing more than the entire ME put together?

C) None of it stops America from nuking Germany into the stone age, even if you get the ahistorical quick and easy win over the USSR and you can go from there into further extension across central asia

right?

Nazis would have genocided Finns for sure

The alliance was obviously intended to be a temporary thing

How would the Germans even fucking hold all that territory even if they did beat the Russians? Partisan activity would ramp up even more.

>Exterminate all Russians
>No new partisans

>Exterminate russkies
>America nukes you in return

People should realize that the big game changer was the nuclear bomb, so every "what if" scenario should make clear if nuclear bombs got or are going to be invented, and if yes by whom.

Nazis wouldn't have invented nukes first because they had contempt for non-classical physicists

Japanese on the other hand wouldn't have had autistic fits about Jewish physics but on the other hand were still a bit behind Europeans and Americans in science and technology

It would always be US in every realistic scenario

>they had contempt for non-classical physicists
Not to mention they never had the industrial capabilities of the USA to get all the heavy water and uranium, plus the sabotage of heavy water in Norway.

Or that they never got to the point the Americans were at by the end of 1942. There's a LONG way from
>self sustaining reaction
To
>atomic bomb.

This is not entirely correct. They had their brightest minds on developing the nuclear bomb (Heisenberg, von Weizsäcker, Hahn, see "Uranprojekt") and they also knew that developing it was extremely costly, but possible. It is difficult to say why exactly Germany didn't try to build it but the main reason is that Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker miscalculated the cost of developing it. They told the Nazis developing the bomb would cost several trillions (in todays dollars) when in reality it "only" cost several hundred billions (which was possible to finance). So these scientists, knowingly or unknowingly, saved the world from Nazis obtaining the nuclear bomb first.

Even if they did try their damn best to build it, they don't have the resources of the U.S. to throw at the problem, nor the easy access of Uranium to experiment with. They never even got a self-sustaining reaction going, and it took the Americans about 3 years to go from that to a bomb. Even if the Germans went full force into trying to create a Manhattan project, you don't have Heisenberg meeting with Speer to discuss funding until June of 1942. That's already put them about a year and a half behind the Americans, and there's no reason to suppose they'll even progress as quickly, let alone faster enough to catch up when they already have a pretty massive lead to overcome.

Ironically, the more I research the Second World War, the more I realize there was just no way Nazi-Germany could've won the war at all.

No their calculations would be fucked because relativity was rejected as Judenphysiks. The heavy water approaches the Nazis were working towards would have resulted in a dirty bomb fizzle.

We need an /althis/

there was no possibility of Germany winning after Stalingrad
their back was broken and the tide of war has shifted favorably to the allied
winning Kursk would only mean that the soviets would have setback on their summer offensive, pinching off a relatively inconsequential salient is nothing

Global tyranny.

You really think that one of the main inventors of quantum physic werner heisenberg thought it is jewish nonsense?

Financing a project in the range of several hundred billion without having to significantly cut war expenditures is definetely something the Nazis were capable of. "Proof" for that is the Holocaust, which cost about the same as the Manhatten Project did. So if Heisenberg would have estimated the cost correctly the Nazis definetely would have approached it. Now if they had finished it earlier than the Americans is obviously hard to tell.

That "relatively inconsequential salient" had close to 2 million men in it. That's almost a quarter of the Red Army strength.

Granted, the odds of pinching it off and then annihilating it once pocketed are slim to none, but if they had pulled it off, even the Soviets would have had trouble recovering.

It doesn't matter what Werner thinks, policy at universities was to be autistic as fuck about "German physics", Himmler personally had to make it clear to not shitpost about Werner in the SS magazine

>"Proof" for that is the Holocaust, which cost about the same as the Manhatten Project did.
[citation seriously needed]

>So if Heisenberg would have estimated the cost correctly the Nazis definetely would have approached it.
Again, citation seriously needed.Remember, it's not just money, it's time. Heisenberg claimed that even with maximum funding, it would be impossible to deliver a bomb before 1945, and even that's pretty optimistic. They very well could have decided they want something which promised more immediate results.

>Now if they had finished it earlier than the Americans is obviously hard to tell.
No, it is not hard to tell at all. Every single point of comparison is in the American's favor. They started earlier. They have more resources to pour into the project because they have an economy about 4 times as large. They have fewer immediately pressing war needs. They have a larger roster of theoretical physicists. They have greater access to uranium. They have more cyclotrons. They have more industrial expertise when it comes to manufacturing large bombs.

The Americans would have gotten there first in any reality that doesn't require a literal miracle for the Germans.

Heisenberg wouldn't dismiss it, but projects the scale of the Manhattan project are much more about politics than they are about the scientists and engineers.

Heisenberg would have to convince his political masters that critical to the correct calculations would be the theory and calculations of a publically denounced Jew who fled to the United States.

When you politicize science you get shitty science.

you're correct in there's 2 million ivans in the salient, and also like manstein you forgot about the rest of 2 fronts outside it waiting to bail zhukov out in any case
there was never any question of the germans succeeding in kursk, except manstein who thought the only significant force was in the pincer itself
no amount of tigers,elefants or panthers or shortening of the lines would do reverse the situation germans were facing in 1943,it will only change the tempo that the soviets gonna advance for

Germany gets glassed in a pre-emptive strike by the United States by the end of the 50s because they chased all their Jewish physicists away and they built us the bomb.

My question is how long would Germany last? The economy was on a crash course before the war and Hitler had to annex as much territory as he could to keep the German economy from failing. If he did take over the whole of Europe, how much longer could they have lasted before needing to go to war again to stave off the inevitable collapse?

I just can't see this ever ending well for Germany

By 1943 or so, economics as we usually think of the term had ceased to exist in Nazi Germany. Pricing mechanisms existed, but since everything was rationed to hell and back, money didn't really mean anything. You essentially had an economy driven by labor, and a good chunk of that forced labor. As long as

A) Germany can keep the core German population pacified through the same means that were working during the war

B) Germany can keep the various subjugated peoples from revolting successfully

It can be stable more or less indefinitely. It wouldn't be pretty, and standards of living would be low, but it could last as long as it's accepted by the dominant German minority.

>Again, citation seriously needed.Remember, it's not just money, it's time. Heisenberg claimed that even with maximum funding, it would be impossible to deliver a bomb before 1945

1945 is also the year America's first tested the first Atom bomb. If in the extremely unlikely scenario the Germans reach it during the same year, the Americans would definitely sign an armistice, and a cold war would follow.

This is the plot of the Fatherland book btw.

>If in the extremely unlikely scenario the Germans reach it during the same year, the Americans would definitely sign an armistice, and a cold war would follow.
Why? Germany by 1945 is more or less on its last legs, and has 0 ability to actually project a bomb to anywhere really. Even then, first generation nuclear weapons weren't really any more deadly than those massive, 800+ strat bomb devastation raids. It's like saying that if Germany had been able to pull off a Hamburg or a Dresden somewhere in Britain, America definitely would have signed an armistice.

>This is the plot of the Fatherland book btw.
So, you're basing your historical analysis a work of fiction?

The OP made the the assumption that Germany had by this time largely won the eastern front, so by 1945 it would be able to stop an American advance from France into Belgium and Germany by threatening them with the atom bomb.

So as long as Hitler kept the German people fat and happy, the Reich would've gone on huh? Even then it just doesn't seem sustainable in the long run but I have a feeling the Germans could've pulled it off. They're pretty autistic as a people, once they get an idea in their heads they rally behind it until they get soundly and undeniably BTFO'd

>once they get an idea in their heads they rally behind it
>This statement alone caused a breakthrough in German thought.

Two problems with that.

Firstly, if the Soviet union crumples, however you manage it, you free up enough German manpower that D-Day and similar operations on the northern European plain are probably no longer feasible.

Secondly, these are strategic, not tactical weapons. An airbursted bomb the size of Fat Man has a 20 psi radius of less than a kilometer. You'd be lucky to wipe out a division with it, military forces tend to be dispersed if you're not in urban combat. Put simply, relying on production of nuclear weapons to actually stop an army in 1945 is nonsense; even the Americans were unable to produce more than 3 a month, and Germany would have nowhere close to that capacity.

Honestly, the Eastern Front closing is a way more important ahistorical event than a ahistorical development of the atom bomb.

Not fat and happy so much as in a constant state of fear and propaganda and the notion that external threats were closing in from every direction, so sacrifices in the home front were needed to keep the army together.

Plus, civilian dissatisfaction over standard of living is usually assessed on terms of relative wealth, not absolute wealth. Sure, they were living pitifully compared to even wartime Brits, let alone people like the Americans, but Germans weren't seeing British standard of living, they were seeing and remembering other German standards of living. As long as things were comparable to the worst days of Weimar Germany's standards of living (which were shit), you weren't likely to see home front insurrection over it.

>As long as things were comparable to the worst days of Weimar Germany's standards of living (which were shit), you weren't likely to see home front insurrection over it.

Jesus, and this is supposed to be the epitome of humanity according to Hitler? A bunch of paranoid people living in ignorant bliss? What the hell is going to happen when one of them finds out how life in the US is like compared to Germany?

That's what more or less total state control over travel, radio, and the newspapers are for.

Hitler would have have to had air superiority, strategic bombers worth a damn, and working atomic bomb program to win the war.

If D-Day failed and then the Soviets did a white peace, the Allies would dropped an abomb on Germany every-time they made one.

Eventually Germany would be a radioactive wasteland so either Hitler would have had to had air superiority to keep the bombers out and or needed his own to drop on London to get them to white peace.

The Soviet Union would not crumble like a house of cards even if Moscow was taken by 1944. The thing with the atom bomb is , not who would annihilate who first, but demonstrating to the other side that you have that destructive capability. Germany could mount a nuke in a V2, hit some backwater english city, and it would be enough to terrorise the Americans, even more so, if they had produced more long range bombers.

Also Germany winning the eastern front is not as science fiction as you think, had certain strategic decisions be made, German could have won there by 1945, at least in the western portion of Russia behind the Urals.

>had certain strategic decisions be made, German could have won there by 1945
>had certain strategic decisions be made
For example?

I'm pretty sure being able to exploit 300 million slavs as cheap labour/slaves and exploiting all the ressources of the Soviet Union would have meant quite the living standard for Germans.

>he Soviet Union would not crumble like a house of cards even if Moscow was taken by 1944.
Well, yes, hence "ahistorical event".

>The thing with the atom bomb is , not who would annihilate who first, but demonstrating to the other side that you have that destructive capability.
Beg pardon, but what the hell are you talking about? The "Destructive capability" is not what we think of today with the hydrogen bomb. The atomic bombings couldn't keep railroads in Hiroshima or Nagasaki out for even a week. They are not existentially devastating weapons, and especially if your opponent lacks ability to project it, they are not existentially terrifying. You ever read the Farm Hall transcripts? Heisenberg and his companions are all pretty convinced that the reaction to Germany actually succeeding in their nuclear project would be for the Americans and Soviets to wipe out Germany entirely.

>Germany could mount a nuke in a V2,
Not unless they can shrink it down to the V2's rather anemic 1 metric ton payload.

>hit some backwater english city, and it would be enough to terrorise the Americans, even more so, if they had produced more long range bombers.
Seriously, where are you getting this idea from, even if it worked? Strategic bombing and cities going up in flames was a thing in WW2. Check out Operation Gomorrah, where Hamburg went up in flames. Nobody was calling for peace over it.

>Also Germany winning the eastern front is not as science fiction as you think, had certain strategic decisions be made, German could have won there by 1945, at least in the western portion of Russia behind the Urals.
Please, regale me with your nonsense. Be warned, I'm going to actually start using scholarly citations if you want to talk about Eastern Front operations.

There are too many to list, and have been cited by historians over and over again.

1. Germans not engaging in Stalingrad (instead just reducing it to rubble like in TIL) during operation Blau but going to Astrakhan in 1942, they close they Volga from there instead of Stalingrad.

2. Taking the Luftflotte 2 from the north to south and bombing into oblivion Baku and any Soviet oil fields which make up 80% of Soviet oil production.

3. The Japanese sink all American aircraft carriers in Midway, giving them 6 months of leeway to declare war on Soviet Union, they attack and occupy Primorky Krey, N.Sakhalin and Khabarovsk Krai with the 1 million number Kwantung army. A blockade envelops in east Russia blocking the pacific lend lease shipments which are 50% overall.

5.Germany has already developed a reliable long range strategic bomber 1941 and has mass produced it, allowing to bomb Siberian manufacturing targets and urban centers like Moscow, Kazan, and Perm.

6. The Germans instead of engaging at Kursk in 1943, do a classic envelopment and destroy all troops engaged in operation Uranus with the 11th and 6th armies. They also win like in TIL in the Kharkov battles.

Had these been done, and several other stuff to keep up the African front going, so Italy doesn not fall to allies, Germany would have very good chances for a separate armistice with America, much more had they also had nukes by 45.

.t retard

>1. Germans not engaging in Stalingrad (instead just reducing it to rubble like in TIL) during operation Blau but going to Astrakhan in 1942, they close they Volga from there instead of Stalingrad.
How are you going to GET to Astrakhan? Have you ever looked at a map of the USSR? Here's a 1941 railway map. users.tpg.com.au/adslbam9//Railways1941.png Notice how Astrakhan only directly connects to either Stalingrad or to down in the Caucasus? Ignoring the former means your shortest route is no longer available and you have to go the long way through the mountains, all the while avoiding a Soviet counterattack from the north. Astrakhan also does not connect to the Volga, so I have no idea how you're going to "close" it.

Also, how are you going to "reduce it to rubble"? With your 1:1 air parity and a Luftwaffe that is focused on CAS and not strategic bombing?

>2. Taking the Luftflotte 2 from the north to south and bombing into oblivion Baku and any Soviet oil fields which make up 80% of Soviet oil production.
German positions never got within 200 km of Baku. While your bombers can make it, your fighters can't. Do you know what happened when the Luftwaffe sent unescorted bombers ahead in the Battle of Britain? Why do you think they'll do any better against the Soviets? Why isn't this just going to be a repeat of the Operation Tidal Wave disaster?

>3. The Japanese sink all American aircraft carriers in Midway, giving them 6 months of leeway to declare war on Soviet Union, they attack and occupy Primorky Krey, N.Sakhalin and Khabarovsk Krai with the 1 million number Kwantung army. A blockade envelops in east Russia blocking the pacific lend lease shipments which are 50% overall.
This doesn't even make sense. First off, the resources being used to fight hte naval war in the central Pacific and a theoretical thrust into Siberia aren't fungible. Aircraft carriers are not going to help you seize Vladivostok, and a Japanese victory is going to enhance the reputation of the Southern Strategy figures, not the people who want to strike north.

Secondly, Soviet troop strength in the Far East in 1942 stood at 1,446,800 (Sickle and Hammer Against Samurai Sword by К.E. Cherevko), so enjoy attacking at 2:3 inferiority while having less equipment. Secondly, even if this scheme does work and you block off Vladivostok, what stops the Allies from sending supplies up through the Persian corridor?

>5.Germany has already developed a reliable long range strategic bomber 1941 and has mass produced it, allowing to bomb Siberian manufacturing targets and urban centers like Moscow, Kazan, and Perm.
Aircraft ain't cheap. And air doctrine doesn't spring out of nowhere. What are you giving up to get this strategic air arm? By the way, what happened to #4?

>6. The Germans instead of engaging at Kursk in 1943, do a classic envelopment and destroy all troops engaged in operation Uranus with the 11th and 6th armies. They also win like in TIL in the Kharkov battles.
Uranus finished on November 23rd, 1942. You're about 8 months too late. And Kursk WAS an attempt to do a classic envelopment and "pinch off the salient". It didn't work.

> and several other stuff to keep up the African front going,
What other stuff? Magically build a railroad from Tripoli to Tobruk? Turn Rommel's men into supermen who don't need to fire ammo?

The two atom bombs were enough for Japan to sign a peace deal.

For the time period the skip from firebombing to Atom bombs that can kill with radiation and eradicate poele at a subatomic level is huge. You think the americans were going to risk New York or Washington getting bombed if they knew the Germans had a long range bomber plus nukes they would risk it?

>The two atom bombs were enough for Japan to sign a peace deal.
No, being cut off from oil, having your navy completely destroyed, the cream of your army obliterated or in the process of being obliterated, your transportation network being bombed to hell, all of your allies/co-belligerants being occupied, AND two atom bombs was enough for Japan to sign a peace deal.

Japan in August of 1945 was totally beaten in any conventional sense, and the nukes were the final blow that made them crumple. A Germany trying to do a tactical nuclear strike on armies, or a vengeance option on Britain in 1945 is on the weaker end of the conventional balance, and one that is tipping further against it every day, even in a situation where the Soviets are ahistorically out of the running for whatever reason. Ignoring that is stupid.

>For the time period the skip from firebombing to Atom bombs that can kill with radiation and eradicate poele at a subatomic level is huge.
It was also pretty much unknown. Check out this nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf

They think that the radiation would subside and be safe to move friendly troops through in 1-3 days. Cancer realities from atomic weapons wouldn't start coming up until decades later.

>You think the americans were going to risk New York or Washington getting bombed if they knew the Germans had a long range bomber plus nukes they would risk it?
Fuck yes, especially since they have an air umbrella that is enormously thick, Germany does not have the industrial or uranium capacity to build many bombs, or to build them quickly, and apparently is rushing through all the technical details of actually getting the bomb together for this scenario. (it would be embarassing if they did have a nuke and it didn't go off) the odds of such a bomber actually getting through with its payload are absurdly low, even if the Germans try to target New York and not somewhere in Europe itself.

1.Like you say the most sensible route is the southern , which isn't that much of a long way from elitsa. It has been cited over and over again by historians that one of the great mistakes of Blau was the adding of the third objective in Stalingrad, which made the Wehrmacht lose the momentum, instead Stalingrad would have been bombed like in TIL and then not engaged, but to keep the 6th army marching to Astrakhan while the other armies form a defensive perimeter around it. Also Astrakhan does connect to the Volga but the river is far wider there, a trade off, but it would not be the disastrous decision Stalingrad was.

2. See joelhayward.org/luftwaffevssovietoil.htm , The germans could have moved the planes from the northern front to the caucasus two weaks before blau begun. Rostov and Grozny were huge losses for the Soviets accounting for 20% of local oil production. Baku would have been a disaster of unimaginable proportions for the Soviets, that would now depend only on the Persian corridor.

2. The Japanese don't have to do much, they can lose terribly at the end, but they would still be engaging the SU in a 3 front war now. A blockade would be the least of SU worries, the biggest loss for pacific lend-lease (which as I said was 50%) would come from Japanese subs.

5. Its a hypothetical scenario, let's just say they cut funds from somewhere else, like the V rocket project.

6.Uranus would have failed because it would be 6th army+Italian,Hungarian, and Italian armies+11th army kicking the Soviets asses like they had done a dozen times before AROUND Stalingrad and not inside like in TIL.

7. Like Capturing Malta for one 1942 would have helped immensely, El Alamein would not have happened with the urgency it did like in TIL and Rommel would have more time to get supplies and reorganize around Tobruk and Haifa.

Do you really think it is science fiction to develop a long range bomber reaching New York, when Germany already had one developed 1942 with barely any funds put into it?

What you don't seem to get, is that war is not just how many people you are going to kill, it is also a matter of morale and impressions. Had just one nuke fallen in NY, how would the Americans know there aren't more that would follow? In fact the narrative for Cold-War Nazi-America to happen isn't even that Germany bombs the US, but that it shows them they have nukes.

So far in the history of mankind, 72 years after the first atom bomb was developed , there hasn't been a nuclear exchange between countries possessing even low nuclear arsenals (i.e. Pakistan/India), and there is good reason why that hasn't happened.

>Like you say the most sensible route is the southern
No, it is NOT a sensible route, given that it's hundreds of kilometers longer and half of it is through the mountains, and it leaves this huge hanging left flank which the Soviets can attack any time they want.

> It has been cited over and over again by historians that one of the great mistakes of Blau was the adding of the third objective in Stalingrad, which made the Wehrmacht lose the momentum, instead Stalingrad would have been bombed like in TIL and then not engaged, but to keep the 6th army marching to Astrakhan while the other armies form a defensive perimeter around it. Also Astrakhan does connect to the Volga but the river is far wider there, a trade off, but it would not be the disastrous decision Stalingrad was.
Literally what are you talking about? Which historians? What third objective? The two objectives were Stalingrad and Baku. How do you stop the Soviet counteroffensives? How is bombing Stalingrad going to do jack shit?

>joelhayward.org/luftwaffevssovietoil.htm
It makes no sense. Historically, the Germans never captured Grozny. Grozny is 546 kilometers from Baku. Any attempt to get to Baku would have to do so without fighter cover. It also completely ignores the logistical impossibility of transferring the Luftflotte down from up north and keeping it fuelled on the same roads and railroads that are doing everything else in the Caucasus, and leaves silent what happens in an opertaion like Mars if suddenly the entire air forces up north are down in the Caucasus. He also seems to think that the Soviets do not have strategic agency, and will respond to an increased German unsupported bombing attack in the Caucasus by sticking their thumbs up their asses and not going after the easy targets. Add in the fact that Mr Hayward apparently wants to do this while the Germans are still on the far side of the Don, and it approaches fantasy. This is just Tidal Wave all over again.

>2. The Japanese don't have to do much, they can lose terribly at the end, but they would still be engaging the SU in a 3 front war now. A blockade would be the least of SU worries, the biggest loss for pacific lend-lease (which as I said was 50%) would come from Japanese subs.
Why do you assume that the Allies are retards? If the Japanese blockade or seize Vladivostok (which is easy enough to do regardless of the outcome of Midway due to a thing called "Land based aircraft", the Allies will not idiotically send their convoys to the central pacific to get slaughtered. They will instead go on OTHER routes, such as through the Persian Corridor, which the Japanese cannot reach.

>5. Its a hypothetical scenario, let's just say they cut funds from somewhere else, like the V rocket project.
Hypothetically, they still have to develop an air doctrine contemporaneously with their CAS, build eup enough strat bombers to matter, and keep them safe from enemy air defenses. Since the Allies dropped over a million tons of explosives on Germany alone in 1944 and failed to stop an increase of military production, I'm deeply pessimistic of this being possible.

>Uranus would have failed because it would be 6th army+Italian,Hungarian, and Italian armies+11th army kicking the Soviets asses like they had done a dozen times before AROUND Stalingrad and not inside like in TIL.
What the fuck does this have to do with Kursk? I can't even tell what you're planning on doing differently? You'll still be stretched out over a hundreds of kilometers wide front and then essentially stopping while waiting to take the Soviet punch. Do you really think the infantry losses sustained in the city fighting in Stalingrad (let's not forget the heavy losses the Germans took crossing the Don) are going to make or break things?

Elaborate?

>Like Capturing Malta for one 1942 would have helped immensely,
No it wouldn't have. dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a348413.pdf Rommel's logistical problems are caused by distance and lack of infrastructure, Malta was a pinprick.

>El Alamein would not have happened with the urgency it did like in TIL and Rommel would have more time to get supplies and reorganize around Tobruk and Haifa.
And the Allies also have more time, and more resources, and can strike out of bases in Alexandria, have blown up the harbors in Tobruk, and oh yeah, they have the Torch landings opening a second sub-front from the other side. Waiting is a losing move.

No, I think it's science fiction to

1) Develop a bomber that can cross the ENTIRE FUCKING ATLANTIC, carrying both enough fuel to do so and a payload of about 4.5 metric tons.
2) Develop an atomic bomb
3) Get it through all air defenses that exist
4) Develop an air doctrine that calculates how to perform strategic bombing
5) Without the resources being taken from other fields to achieve all of the above 4 putting them in a position where they can't use said strategic bomber

Because you quite literally need ALL of those to make this nuclear strike on New York work.

>What you don't seem to get, is that war is not just how many people you are going to kill, it is also a matter of morale and impressions.
No, I get that. I've just actually looked at the strategic bombing campaigns historically, and you know what? They've never once shocked an enemy into surrendering after one dramatic strike.

>had just one nuke fallen in NY, how would the Americans know there aren't more that would follow?
Had just one city been firestormed off the map, like Hamburg in 1943, how would the Germans know there aren't more that would follow? Oh wait, there were more that followed. That's why the Germans overthrew the Nazi party in the October '43 coup and the war ended. Oh wait, no that's not what happened.

> In fact the narrative for Cold-War Nazi-America to happen isn't even that Germany bombs the US, but that it shows them they have nukes.
And a nuke that
A) Isn't a hydrogen bomb and thus enormously less powerful
B) Can't be delivered
C) When the regime is tottering already
D) In an ongoing war.
is enormously less of a threat and therefore deterrent

>So far in the history of mankind, 72 years after the first atom bomb was developed , there hasn't been a nuclear exchange between countries possessing even low nuclear arsenals (i.e. Pakistan/India), and there is good reason why that hasn't happened.
There also hasn't been a major power bi-lateral total war since 1945 either. Nuclear weapons are also literally thousands of times more powerful than they were in 1945. They've been attached to missiles like ICBMs, which cannot feasibly be stopped, unlike say trying to get a heavy bomber through the air cover of an enemy who has more and better planes than you do. But clearly, we should just ignore these rather salient facts.

I'd like to add to your Hamburg statement that the Japs didn't surrender even after the hellfire that was the firebombing of Tokyo. I'd say it's also a good example that a state won't surrender to a dramatic strike

You're basically describing the North Korean economy. While Germany has a slight advantage over the Norks because of a more diverse economic base, you're basically going to see the German Economy outpaced and outcompeted by literally anyone else.

Not really. First of all, there's not 300 million Slavs. Second of all, that doesn't really add up to much, because that kind of forced labor is terribly inefficient, and you're not going to get much other than the most basic, easily produced goods.

1. It is the sensible route, because it does have railway line connecting to it like in the map you posted which can resupply the Germans. secondly the Germans don't have to march from S.Caucasus to North, they can go diagonally from Elitsa already captured by August, he road to Astrakhan is just one huge open steppe, it doesn't have mountains, but just some swamps. The Germans could have have attacked with even half-their tank force as it was barely guarded at the time.

The Germans also were not in danger of getting attacked when blau was starting as Stalin was expecting a Moscow push, the Germans have the element of surprise with the SU in full retreat. The Soviets will start couter attacking like in OTL, during Uranus, but by this time the 11th, Auxiliary, and 6th army will be free to slaughter them. If they are not Manstein can save the day with just the 11th Auxiliary, and 4th armies around the Volgograd region, while the 6th army is in Astrakhan.

2. The original objectives were Kharkov, Voronezh and then move to the Don and hit/capture Maykop, Grozny and Baku, after that Army group south was split in to A and B. Army group B had an ADDED objective by Hitler to get Stalingrad.

3.>Actually, had the Luftwaffe attacked Grozny and especially Baku during August, it would have faced little opposition from the Voyenno-vozdushnyye sily (VVS--the Red Air Force). The VVS had few aircraft in the Caucasus, and most were obsolete models. On 29 July, Luftflotte 4 reported to the OKW that "the Russian air force facing Army Group South's right flank demonstrates its weakness. Stukas even carry out their attacks without fighter escorts, and don't get attacked by Russian fighters."[42] This situation remained constant throughout most of August, as Richthofen's diary and the official OKW war diary both reveal.

It could have been done had the Germans prepared for it two weeks before Blau begun. The Germans need just a few days like in Grozny.

part1

>You're basically describing the North Korean economy. While Germany has a slight advantage over the Norks because of a more diverse economic base, you're basically going to see the German Economy outpaced and outcompeted by literally anyone else.
Pretty much. But internal stability of a regime isn't really directly tied to economic competition with other political units, unless of course those outsiders invade and dismantle your country.

Assuming those trends continued (and to be fair, a lot of them were driven by not only the pressures of a total war economy, but one that's hampered by needing to incessantly fend off attacks on its production infrastructure), you would have a North Korea writ large empire, and it would probably be a colossal clusterfuck, but unless someone gives it a good push, it can stumble along for a long, long while.

part 2

4. The point is that the Japanese would have hurt the Soviets in a two fold manner. It would have opened a third front for them forcing them to use, tanks, planes and ships in back water Siberia. Secondly the distance from Alaska to Pacific Russia is extremely close, Jap subs would have greatly disrupted the lend lease shipments. True they would still have the Persian corridor, but that would be their last leg to stand on, they would not get more lend-lease at a higher rate like you suggest.

5. The Soviets had jack shit for air defences in Siberia. It was just plain stupid for Germany not to develop them by 1941 when prototypes existed already by 1935.

6. Stalingrad was a huge time waster for Germany, as well as a manpower sink. The point is that Germany would be more mobile without Stalingrad capable of defending the Caucasus front in the open steppe. The Soviets would have fared much worse against the Germans in an open salient when Uranus kicks in and more German armies would be involved, by doing this a central punch to Soviet lines a la Kursk is avoided. The Germans only have to counter attack the Soviets in between the Volga and the Don.

>It is the sensible route, because it does have railway line connecting to it like in the map you posted which can resupply the Germans
Which doesn't have the capacity to supply the entirety of Heersgruppe Sud before you split it up, nevermind a bunch of extra luftwaffe commitments on top of it as the Soviets do their usual scorched earth tactics as they retreat. And you're still leaving that wide open stretch on the Don Basin just waiting for a Soviet counterattack, assuming they don't decide to strike south and roll up the flanks of your force mucking around in the Caucasus or diving for Astrakhan.

>secondly the Germans don't have to march from S.Caucasus to North, they can go diagonally from Elitsa already captured by August,

Leaving the rail-line to do so.....

> The Germans could have have attacked with even half-their tank force as it was barely guarded at the time.
It was barely guarded because the Germans had no real demonstrated intent to move over it. If the Germans were aiming their attack there, the Soviets move their forces to block it.

>Actually, had the Luftwaffe attacked Grozny and especially Baku during August, it would have faced little opposition from the Voyenno-vozdushnyye sily (VVS--the Red Air Force). The VVS had few aircraft in the Caucasus, and most were obsolete models. On 29 July, Luftflotte 4 reported to the OKW that "the Russian air force facing Army Group South's right flank demonstrates its weakness. Stukas even carry out their attacks without fighter escorts, and don't get attacked by Russian fighters."[42] This situation remained constant throughout most of August, as Richthofen's diary and the official OKW war diary both reveal.
And if the Germans make that their Schwerupunkt, the Soviets MOVE in new air forces. Which they did historically over September and could have done earlier if there was a need. Why do you assume they wouldn't?

>It could have been done had the Germans prepared for it two weeks before Blau begun. The Germans need just a few days like in Grozny.
Yeah, like the Allies only needed a few days to destroy Bochum! Don't be naive. Strat bombing anything, destroying it and keeping it out of action, required multiple raids, often with far heavier bombers than Germany had on the front in 1942. You don't knock things out in a few days.

>The point is that the Japanese would have hurt the Soviets in a two fold manner.It would have opened a third front for them forcing them to use, tanks, planes and ships in back water Siberia.
As opposed to the troops and material they already had in Manchuria? Why would the forces already available to the Far East Command be insufficient?

>Secondly the distance from Alaska to Pacific Russia is extremely close, Jap subs would have greatly disrupted the lend lease shipments.
They almost certainly wouldn't have sent it at all.

>True they would still have the Persian corridor, but that would be their last leg to stand on, they would not get more lend-lease at a higher rate like you suggest.
Well, you're completely ignoring the arctic route, or the possibility of moving stuff through the Med completely, the fact that the overwhelming majority of Lend-Lease was sent in the second half of 1943 onwards, and the fact that you've given no indication why more of that stuff can't be sent through Persia.

>The Soviets had jack shit for air defences in Siberia. It was just plain stupid for Germany not to develop them by 1941 when prototypes existed already by 1935.
Other than, you know, fighters, which they had a lot of.

>The point is that Germany would be more mobile without Stalingrad capable of defending the Caucasus front in the open steppe.
But it wouldn't have been. Now, instead of clustering around a river, you have a huge open trailing left flank that the Soviets can attack anywhere they want.

>The Soviets would have fared much worse against the Germans in an open salient when Uranus kicks in
In all likelihood, they would do much better, given that your "plan" involves leaving hundreds of kilometers of road travel to supply an entire Heersgruppe plus extra Luftflotte forces, and give the Soviets both the options of attacking them on the flank directly, or diving for Rostov and cutting the entire force off.

> The Germans only have to counter attack the Soviets in between the Volga and the Don.
While they're advancing towards Astrakhan.

Seriously, literally EVERY SINGLE POINT you're trying to make relies on the Allies being blithering idiots who will retardedly do the exact same thing they did historically even when you've gone ahead and changed the strategic setting.

>Japanese capture or block off Vladivostok!
>I'm sure the Allies won't try to redirect, they'll just send convoys there anyway to die

>The Germans will attack Siberia or Baku from the air, they have weak VVS defenses
>Becasue the VVS just went places at random, not to support or defend against German attacks

>Let's attack Astrakhan, the road from Elitsa was barely defended
>The Soviets will just sit there with their thumbs up their asses while you advance.

The other side wants to win too. What you're effectively saying is that if the entirety of STAVKA, the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, an wahtever the British high command called itself all had strokes keeping them from leading effectively but still keeping them in their jobs, the Germans could have won. While I suppose it's technically true, it's kind of a stupid point.

Oh yeah, just look at how stable the Nork econom/political system is.

The one thing that might make it unstable is that when we talk about how people's economic discontent is relative based on what they have to compare to, they do have to compare within their country.

And managing the economic apportionment for 88 million Germans over an empire of hundreds of millions is a lot harder than 20 million north koreans. And the Nazi Party does not have the organizational talent of the Korean Worker's Party.

Mein Kampf called the United States the next enemy after Europe has been conquered.

We'd probably exploring the hollow Earth and flying UFOs.

Real question here: What would had happened to the fascist states of Italy and Romania if Germany had won the war?

Not that I don't believe you but do you have any sources about the state of the German economy before and during the war? I keep hearing that the German economy was going to fall apart eventually, and it shows in the state of their logisitics during the war, but I'd like to see some sources on that before I start repeating it

Wages of destruction by Adam tooze

He didn't plan on it but by destroying Russia, UK, France and the US the Nazis would have virtually achieved world domination.

Italy would probably have their own small empireia. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and so on would become vassals of the Reich, not unlike what happened to them in our timeline with the Soviet Union.

>Let's say for whatever reason Hitler wasn't a terrible military leader, he asked Japan to help fight the Soviets, the D-Day landing failed

None of those things would make Germany win the war.

>How would Germany's victory have affected politics, society and culture outside of Europe?

Nazi Europe wouldn't have lasted very long, Hitler deliberately encouraged infighting among his own officials and he himself was dying a slow death from a variety of illnesses.

>Would there be only 1 super power in the world?

Yes, the United States.

You're wasting your time arguing with Wehraboos. At the end of the day they just desperately want the Germans to have won, and no amount of logic, historical evidence, or simple numbers will stop them from doing the necessary mental gymnastics to make it happen.

Yeah, but wehraboos are like punching bags. It's never going to effect them, but it's good for keeping your skills sharp. Especially since a lot of them come up with 'novel' ideas.

>Probably the US
>Not the country whose economy was under constant threat of imploding before they started WW2