What If Nazi Germany Had Recognized The Potential Of Jets Early On?

[JoanDrake]

Another scenario of interest might be what would happen if von Braun had developed a few of his A-10's, a multistage rocket which he said could go to America. The thing to remember about that is that once you've gotten to suborbital speed and height it's not really that much difference between a few hundred miles and a few thousand.

Or what if he'd worked with the Horten bros. the ones who had the Flying Wing that was said to be planned to fly to America at the edge of Space. If it had a rocket assist....

 

[BAYLOR]

Another scenario of interest might be what would happen if von Braun had developed a few of his A-10's, a multistage rocket which he said could go to America. The thing to remember about that is that once you've gotten to suborbital speed and height it's not really that much difference between a few hundred miles and a few thousand.

Or what if he'd worked with the Horten bros. the ones who had the Flying Wing that was said to be planned to fly to America at the edge of Space. If it had a rocket assist....

The Horton brothers flying wing fighter crafter developed and introduces a few years earlier might have given Germany Air superiority but even with that they still would have lost the war .

Then was Eugene Sanger

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Horton brothers flying wing fighter crafter developed and introduces a few years earlier might have given Germany Air superiority but even with that they still would have lost the war .

Then was Eugene Sanger

As I mentioned earlier, what also would have been interesting if in 1944, on the brink of defeat, Germany had created an atomic bomb. Would this have won them the war? Or just a stalemate? Or would the Allies have thrown everything at them?

 

[BAYLOR]

As I mentioned earlier, what also would have been interesting if in 1944, on the brink of defeat, Germany had created an atomic bomb. Would this have won them the war? Or just a stalemate? Or would the Allies have thrown everything at them?

Germany didn't have the resources or really the means to build a bomb. The exodus of top scientists in the 1930's pretty much crippled them in that endeavor . What resources they did have were taken up by all these so called wonder weapon programs most of which could never have worked . Even if somehow germany managed to come up with the bomb, all it would had done is delay the inevitable they would have needed a reliable 4 engine heavy bomber to carry it which they didn't have . Yes they had the V2 rocket but it had some serious technical and reliability issues which they never had time to solve so using that as platform wasn't a viable option for the the Third Reich. You have to remember that the the US Manhattan program was near completion at that time.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Germany didn't have the resources or really the means to build a bomb. The exodus of top scientists in the 1930's pretty much crippled them in that endeavor . What resources they did have were taken up by all these so called wonder weapon programs most of which could never have worked . Even if somehow germany managed to come up with the bomb, all it would had done is delay the inevitable they would have needed a reliable 4 engine heavy bomber to carry it which they didn't have . Yes they had the V2 rocket but it had some serious technical and reliability issues which they never had time to solve so using that as platform wasn't a viable option for the the Third Reich. You have to remember that the the US Manhattan program was near completion at that time.

Well they might have been able to construct an atomic bomb. But it's a very iffy might.

There is evidence to suggest, I believe, that members of the big team brought together to work on Uranium were fully aware of the potential of building a fission weapon, but in 1942 their evaluation of what it would take to actually construct and test it was that it would mean that the weapon would only come on line post 1945 and therefore, by their own estimations, after the war ended. (They expected of course that Germany was going to win in a year or two at the time, but ironically they were more or less correct. They just got the result wrong...)

Thus because the project was in everyone's eyes never going to materially impact on the war, they essentially disbanded the team, sent most of it onto other projects - like the V2 - and split who was left into something like 9 much smaller projects to try and exploit uranium and radioactive materials in other ways, thus meaning that in fact progress would be little and piecemeal. For example, I believe by the end of the war they had in fact just constructed a test nuclear reactor for the German post office to generate electricity.

If the evaluation team had been a bit more gung-ho and perhaps looking at a more desperate war situation (1942 was about the Apex of Nazi power - yes they had been stopped just outside Moscow, but the summer offensive in South Russia seemed to be going well, Britain didn't look too dangerous and the US was more or less neutral for most of the year i.e. not doing so much - so wonder weapons of such power just didn't look like they were required) then perhaps they might have piled more resources into it and perhaps given the allies a nasty surprise right at the end of the war.

However I do think that it is a big perhaps and might. The allies with a few months or so head start in starting the project with a huge team and all the resources that they needed, just managed to get a couple of operational bombs up and running before the war ended. (And in fact missed the war that they had been originally been ordered to impact - versus the Nazis.)

 

[BAYLOR]

If Hitler had not invaded Russia at all, That would enabled him to concentrate all of resources against the UK

Other big mistake declaring war against the US. He did it because of his treaty obligations to Japan and because he very poorly misunderstood the US.

Hitler in his prime could craft a speech and get an audience all pumped up and in his pocket , but as a strategist , he was thankfully very shortsighted. He got away with sending troops in the Rhineland, annexing Austria and Munich, because the western countries were willing to do almost anything to avoid war. After Munich everything changed. Chamberlain and Daldier both knew deep down that giving in to Germany on the issue of the Sudetenland wasn't going to satisfy Hitler or guarantee peace, more so after Hitler took the rest of Czechoslovakia. They'd both had enough of Hitler, so all they could do was prepare for the coming war. Hitler wasn't bright enough to see the abyss opening up right in front of him.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

He invaded Russia because of three reasons, it was unavoidable.

• Obsession with more space
• Obsession with Jews
• Russia was going to attack him.

It's well documented that Stalin was annoyed that Hitler attacked before Russia attacked.

Either way Germany was going to lose to the Russians. The Russians won the war in Europe. I'm glad the USA belatedly joined in 1941 (earlier would have been better, say 1938) as otherwise France might be speaking Russian today.

 

[BAYLOR]

He invaded Russia because of three reasons, it was unavoidable.

• Obsession with more space
• Obsession with Jews
• Russia was going to attack him.

It's well documented that Stalin was annoyed that Hitler attacked before Russia attacked.

Either way Germany was going to lose to the Russians. The Russians won the war in Europe. I'm glad the USA belatedly joined in 1941 (earlier would have been better, say 1938) as otherwise France might be speaking Russian today.

But in a scenario in which he doesn't attack Russia, He would have had the men and resources and fuel which would have otherwise been lost. In a purely defensive situation , Germany would have had more then enough resources to stop the Red Army in it's tracks and given how poorly the Russians did against Finland, Germany could have held out for a long time. Long enough for them to develop some of their more advanced weapons.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Yes, then maybe defeated by about 1948 to 1950. Ultimately Germany and the conquered area could not match the resources of Russia and USA.
The V rockets killed about 2,000. Over 20,000 died building them.
Maybe if someone had assassinated Hitler there would have been no war with Russia. Or they would have ceded most of Poland to Russia or something. But with Hitler in charge Germany was bound to lose.

 

[paranoid marvin]

In my opinion , if it hadn't been for WW2 then it is quite conceivable that Europe would have been invaded and conquered by Russia; so quickly and easily that the US would never have had time to get involved. It was only the US presence in Europe that averted this. The atomic bombs used in Japan were as much a warning to Stalin as they were about ending the war in the East.

 

[BAYLOR]

In my opinion , if it hadn't been for WW2 then it is quite conceivable that Europe would have been invaded and conquered by Russia; so quickly and easily that the US would never have had time to get involved. It was only the US presence in Europe that averted this. The atomic bombs used in Japan were as much a warning to Stalin as they were about ending the war in the East.

If Stalin had chosen to , he could have taken Europe, he had men and the means. But he couldn't be sure how many atom bombs we had.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm disputing the idea that the USSR would or could have invaded Europe had WWII not happened. For a start, Stalin had purged the Red Army of most of its decent officers. The Red Army was brave but largely inept at the start of the German invasion. As someone above said, look how poorly they did against the Finns. The Russians became a great army by repelling invaders from their homeland. What overwhelmingly powerful inspiration could they have got by invading someone else's? It seems to me that Stalin had largely a defensive (not so say paranoid) mindset rather than a conquering one.

Also, had there been no WWII, isn't it likely that Europe would have allied against the USSR, and probably with American help? Bear in mind how much Communism was reviled even before the Cold War.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I have to more or less agree with you HB, with regards to WW2.

The idea that 'they would have attacked us if we hadn't attacked them, so this was all inevitable' was very probably starting to circulate as an excuse amongst most of the top brass of the German army late in the war. IMO

From Panzer Leader - the memoirs of Heinz Guderian, who eventually became chief of staff of the German Army (my bolding):

"The conclusion he (Hitler) drew from Molotov's visit and its results was a belief that war with the Soviet Union must sooner or later be inevitable...It is true that he never talked to me about this matter before 1943 (but) I have no reason to believe that what he said to me was not a repetition of his opinions at the time in questions."

A few points:

-Guderian is writing for his captors, the Americans. He knows full well that the cold war is developing and that there are hostilities developing between the US and the USSR. Thus he wants to be on their side. He does not even proffer any reason given in 1941 for the invasion of the USSR in the memoir. He discusses his shock at finding out about operation Barbarossa, at how wrong a strategic decision it is to wage war on two fronts, but then he quickly concentrates on what he did in practical terms. This is in my mind deliberate and selective remembering!

-But even so it's interesting that he states that Hitler only starts talking this 'justification' for war at a point where it really starts to look like they can't win it. It's hindsight (on a terrible decision). I don't know exactly when Guderian starting hearing this from Hitler, but it is at least after Stalingrad and the defeats in North Africa. It is seems likely to me that Guderian started to hear such talk when he was pulled from reserve in about March '43 (which he had been languishing for about a year after personal fights with higher ranking generals) to become Inspector General of Armoured Troops in order to re-arm the German army in tanks and prepare for the summer offensive. It's clear from a number of sources that Hitler had reservations about the Kursk offensive and that in many senses knew it was futile.

-When he states that war must 'sooner or later be inevitable' does he really mean that Stalin would have attacked him and then steamrollered through to the west? As I've pointed out above some of his more level-headed generals tried to imply that to get the United states on song. But Hitler has had a long standing view (decades old) that the land of the Soviet Union was destiny for the German people:

In 1922 he explained to Eduard Scharrer (an owner of a newspaper) "Germany would have to adapt herself to a purely continental policy, avoiding harm to English interest. The destruction of Russia with the help of England would have to be attempted. Russia would give Germany sufficient land for German settlers and a wide field of activity for German industry."*

He then publishes in the second volume of Mein Kampf in 1925:
"If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states...For centuries Russia drew nourishment from (the) Germanic nucleus of its upper leading strata. It has been replaced by the Jew...He himself is no element of organisation, but a ferment of decomposition. The giant empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state..." The mission of the National Socialist Movement was to prepare the German people for this task. "We have been chosen by Fate as witnesses of a catastrophe which will be the mightiest confirmation..."*

It was Hitler's stated goal to take the Soviet Union, remove the Slavs and the Bolsheviks and repopulate the land with German settlers. With views like that, then of course war was going to be inevitable.


<->

Did the Soviet Union have similar aims for Western Europe? While it is true that they aggressively invaded and occupied the Baltic states, Poland and parts of Finland amongst other sovereign states in Eastern Europe, I would argue these were opportunistic acts of a bully, who seeing that the world's eye was more or less turned on Germany and Hitler, decided to swoop in and take some of the spoils at little cost to themselves (until they messed up against the Finnish.) Possibly Stalin, knowing full well what Hitler had publicly stated in Mein Kampf wanted as much of a buffer, or a sphere of influence - territory that was not really Russian - between him and Hitler.

It should be noted that the 'natural' enemy of mother Russia/USSR at the time was in fact the British. And had been with the exception of the first world war with the exception of the first world war , more or less for at least 100 years or so up to 1940.

Publicly Britain (and France) had supported the Ottoman Empire against Russia leading to the Crimean war, as well as actually sending troops in 1919 to support the White Russians (If you were communist then this was just another western invasion). Add to this all the espionage in Afghanistan as Britain worried about protecting its Indian asset, plus the help that the British gave the Japanese (who shocked the world by defeating them in 1905)

But there was also all the secret stuff: When the Soviet declared war on Finland, Churchill came up with a plan to invade neutral Sweden and then pass on supplies and arms to help the Finnish. It was thankfully ignored as one of Winston's harebrained schemes. Also as the war came to the end, Churchill ordered a study into a surprise attack on the Soviet in Germany (Codename: Operation Unthinkable, yes that's what they called it) to 'impose the will of the Western Allies' on the Soviets. It actually involved the rearming of at least 100,000 German PoW and shows that some of the fantastical thinking of some of the German officers at the end of the war, that they should surrender to the West and then (presumably all of them) concentrate on defeating the Soviets, may have actually had a little traction amongst at least the British.

<->

I'm not trying to excuse the Soviets/Russians - many of their actions were reprehensible and wrong - but it makes more sense to view them as defensive (and as it turned out, their paranoia was in many senses fully justified.) Yes they became more aggressive in the cold war...but even then looking at the evidence it seems to me it's their fear of the US and the west and their struggle to even get close to parity in many respects that drove them, not really naked ambition for turning the world communist red.

Anyway that's another essay. And this one is long enough


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I've taken both passages from Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris by Ian Kershaw

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes, then maybe defeated by about 1948 to 1950. Ultimately Germany and the conquered area could not match the resources of Russia and USA.
The V rockets killed about 2,000. Over 20,000 died building them.
Maybe if someone had assassinated Hitler there would have been no war with Russia. Or they would have ceded most of Poland to Russia or something. But with Hitler in charge Germany was bound to lose.

In part Hitlers erratic behavior can explained by The medical treatment he was getting from his personal physician Doctor Theodor Morrell. Some the drugs and pills he was giving him to treat his flatulence contained arsenic and other unhealthy chemicals, very likely he was poisoned. In anything these made him even more mentally unstable.

 

[WaylanderToo]

Interesting thread.

IMO the single biggest issue for the Nazis had was their racial doctrine - if they had bee all encompassing we may well have seen a different outcome:

No loss of Jewish scientists and banking & support from the US
Welcomed by the oppressed of Stalin's regime (which they were until they turned out to be worse!!!) Which means more bodies for their armies and less worries about partisans


The there is the failure to develop heavy and long-range bombers....


the timidity ineptness of the KM surface ships....


The list goes on

 

[mosaix]

Interesting thread.

IMO the single biggest issue for the Nazis had was their racial doctrine - if they had bee all encompassing we may well have seen a different outcome:

No loss of Jewish scientists and banking & support from the US

But without the racial doctrine the Nazis wouldn't have come to power in the first place. They needed someone to blame, an enemy who could become the focal point for their nationalism.

 

[BAYLOR]

But without the racial doctrine the Nazis wouldn't have come to power in the first place. They needed someone to blame, an enemy who could become the focal point for their nationalism.

They created a scapegoat and used it to stoke the fires of longstanding prejudice and resentment.

If Von Papen and the Social Democrats had allied with the Communist instead of the Nazis , they could have blocked the Nazis in the Reichstag. That might have been enough to stop them. But It's possible that had that happened, Hitler, Rhoem and the Brownshirts would have likely seized power by force of arms. The German army poorly equipped and numbering 100,000 was weak and far less numerous then the Brownshirts and would not have been able to stop Hitler.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I've just finished reading Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer, and something that's not said but I've inferred is that Hitler made most of his production and strategy decisions solely on the basis of his WWI experiences.

That meant a focus on heavy tanks, rifles, and almost no interest in aeroplanes.

Even when his generals pushed on the need for air superiority, he completely disregarded them. Presumably because he'd seen little of them in action during his time in the trenches. And when he'd finally been persuaded to push on development of the Me 262, he tried to have it fitted not as a fighter but as a light bomber.

I guess we should all be thankful for Hitler's general disinterest in planes. If he'd have focused on building up the Luftwaffe properly, as everyone advised him from early on, he could have dragged out the war for a long time - not least by preventing Allied bombing raids on German industry.

Then again, Goering, who was ultimately the head of the Luftwaffe, was also claimed to be more interested instead in feeding a hedonistic lifestyle.

 

[BAYLOR]

I've just finished reading Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer, and something that's not said but I've inferred is that Hitler made most of his production and strategy decisions solely on the basis of his WWI experiences.

That meant a focus on heavy tanks, rifles, and almost no interest in aeroplanes.

Even when his generals pushed on the need for air superiority, he completely disregarded them. Presumably because he'd seen little of them in action during his time in the trenches. And when he'd finally been persuaded to push on development of the Me 262, he tried to have it fitted not as a fighter but as a light bomber.

I guess we should all be thankful for Hitler's general disinterest in planes. If he'd have focused on building up the Luftwaffe properly, as everyone advised him from early on, he could have dragged out the war for a long time - not least by preventing Allied bombing raids on German industry.

Then again, Goering, who was ultimately the head of the Luftwaffe, was also claimed to be more interested instead in feeding a hedonistic lifestyle.

Fortunately Hitlers insistence on using the ME 262 as a dive bomber did a lot harm to the Me 262 program , delaying it . Had he not interfered with the ME 262 program , they would have had an operational jet fighter interceptor that would wreaked absolute havoc on the Allied bombers and fighters. It might have been enough to stop the Bombing of German cities . But it would not have won them the war for them The engines were constantly breaking down and they guzzled alot of fuel which limited their operational range to a few hundred miles . At best it might have extended the war for maybe another year.

 

[Ajid]

I seem to recall reading that there was a vast difference in reliability between the different types of engines used on the 262 and the Meteor, the former using an axial flow compressor engine and the later a centrifugal design. If I remember correctly, and I may well be wrong here, whittle had the rough design for his centrifugal version in the mid twenties and this was past to an "expert" who ridiculed it and set brittish jet design back years.

Assuming I'm remembering correctly the axial flow design was far more fragile for the alloys available at the time allthough far supperior in many other ways. The Centrifugal design however was more reliable and therefore reusable, and made the Meteor much more economical than the 262 although inferior in the air. Of course the 2 never met in combat.

I'm sure one of you guys will know more about it than me but that is the gist of what I recall.