Let say for the sake of argument that Germany managed to develop a working nuke in early 1945 with the capability to make more of them within a reasonable time. Was there any chance of this turning the war? Were there any resources left to make a succesful bombing/V2 strike with a nuke? If not, what would have been the latest possible time for the germans to turn the tide of the war with a nuke?
No, it would just give the Britbongs a reason to Mustard-gas every bigger German City how they planned in the early phase of the war.
Unless the germens intend to bomb everything, you better bet your ass the allies are going to pull out all the fucking stops as retaliation. I might be wrong but werent the germens not in great shape going into '45?
The V2 could not have carried a realistic (and im being generous here) atom bomb. The best they could do is use it as a land mine which will never deliver a crushing blow to enemy advances.
Even still, the loss of London, Paris or even Moscow would not stop the allies. It is still just an Atom bomb, the cities mentioned will survive.
The war was more or less over when America declared and the probability of nazi germany surviving is at 0 after Kursk.
Unless Germany had 50 atom bombs which would never happen, it wont be a factor because WUNDERWAFFEN could never turn the war.
The resources spend on rockets would have been better spent on more mundane armament or better relations with countries they conquered or annexed.
>>28343568
Pretty sure they wouldn't have had a delivery device for one. The B-29 was the only bomber in the world that could carry early nukes and the Russians had to copy it to have that same capability.
>Aryan physics
>Hitler vaporises a chunk of London
>this kills many civilians but does little to the actual British military
>Bomber Command proceeds to drop every bomb ever made on every single habitable inch of Germany
>>28343568
>they had chemical weapons and fire bombs back then that were pretty bad as nukes
>germany did not have anything that could get near usa
>hitler did not want to hurt uk cos it was seen as a waste of Aryan blood
>>28345274
Once we started strategic bombing Hitler vowed to level our cities.
We were just a lot better at it.
>>28343568
They would have needed one in 43 or earlier, to drop on Moscow and force a Soviet surrender
At that point the Nazis would have needed to force a peace treaty with the other Allies, to allow themselves time to integrate conquered territory into the Reich, and develop Eastern Europe and figure out how to deal with Japan
Youre a nazi Harry!
'45 is far too late, drop it on the ruskies and nothing changes, drop it on bongland and now the brits will be in russian style RAPEKILLPILLAGEEVERYTHING mode as well. And that of course assumes alongside this successful nuke project was one for a heavy bomber that could lug the thing to either target 100% reliably.
I'll go with
>>28345311
if they can force peace with Russia before the redrapetrain really gets rolling they would have the resources left to fortify the Atlantic much more heavily to deter any prospects of an invasion, as well as sending more resources to North Africa. They still need to make peace with Britain at some stage, but assuming they can roll out more nukes that should be possible, after nuking a minor British city or two. Even though with the remains of empire and US help Britain had much more durability than Japan did, faced with losing essentially entire cities at a stroke they would face the same choice, surrender or be obliterated.
>>28345403
Don't you think the Allies would be a bit hesitant in case of more bombs being on their way?
>>28343568
There would probably be a stop to fighting for a couple days as the allies figure out what happened on the western front. Would need to have a wall of nukes to stop the Russians though
>>28345403
The difference between Japan and Britain in the face of nuclear bombardment is retaliation.
Japan had zero capacity to retaliate against America, whereas the Allied air forces had at least been pretending not to attack civilian targets. An Allied bomber stream could very easily remove a German city and then ruthlessly return to murder the now shelterless occupants.
>>28345478
This so hard. We would have turned every city in Germany into another Dresden, or another Hamburg, and to hell with civilian casualties. We would have fucked Germany in the arse without lube, and then beaten them till they bled. Continuous bombing, day and night.
>>28345478
I agree with that, but unless the Allies go full FUCK YOU right after the ruskies get nuked, and can transform this alt-history into one closer to reality where German industry is badly fucked by bombing, and do so before more nukes can be readied, then it wouldn't matter. As soon as they have more than a couple of nukes it puts Britain into a hellish position.
>British city gets nuked
>oh we mad now, start planning massive raid to fuck over German city in revenge
>next night another city is nuked
>bloody hell chaps they're really going for it
At that point unless there is some 100% perfect intel that says they don't have more nukes Britain is faced with the prospect of losing at least a city a night if not more, based entirely on the whims of Germany. After 2 or 3 nights of that, and with no idea how long it can be kept up for it's a hell of a tough ask to refuse peace talks.
>>28345526
>Continuous bombing, day and night.
That's what they were already doing. I don't believe bombing civilians even more would have stopped germans from dropping more nukes at that point.
>>28345403
The americans were also working on bombs so they would know that Germany could only have had a couple. The allies would keep bombing and there would probably be a good deal more war crimes becasue of the anger.
