WW2: What If The Germans Captured Moscow

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,905
SoCal
Why would the Americans destroy Germany? A nuclear-devastated Europe does not benefit them in any way. If the Germans beat Russia, terms would be agreed with the US.
A nuclear-devastated Europe can be rebuilt, though. Indeed, I suspect that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons to finish off the Nazi German regime in such a scenario due to its desire to immediately eliminate this regime while it still can instead of waiting for this regime to build its own nukes and to begin challenging the U.S. for hegemony worldwide. After all, the U.S. doesn't appear to have been very friendly to powerful totalitarian regimes during this time.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,905
SoCal
It might make a difference.

All major roads go to Moscow. This could allow the Germans to conduct offensives into central Russia.
Yes; correct! :



Indeed, the Fall of Moscow would significantly hurt both Soviet logistics and Soviet morale.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
Germany declared war on the US on December 11th, 1941. That's why America would have destroyed Germany, and also Italy and Japan
If Moscow is captured, the war with Russia is probably won, and resources can be sent to bolster Western defence. In my opinion with a much stronger defended Western Europe, a peace is made with the US long before 1945 and the introduction of the atomic bomb.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
A nuclear-devastated Europe can be rebuilt, though. Indeed, I suspect that the U.S. will use nuclear weapons to finish off the Nazi German regime in such a scenario due to its desire to immediately eliminate this regime while it still can instead of waiting for this regime to build its own nukes and to begin challenging the U.S. for hegemony worldwide. After all, the U.S. doesn't appear to have been very friendly to powerful totalitarian regimes during this time.
A nuclear devastated Europe kills the people that the US are fighting to free. Dropping an atomic weapon on a town or city in Japan is one thing; killing thousands - if not millions - of innocent French, Dutch , British and Belgian (to name but a few) citizens is quite another.

In my opinion, one of the reasons why the bombs were used in the first place was to see (in real action) what damage they were capable of causing. Another reason was revenge for Pearl Harbour. Once the Americans had seen just how much devastation was caused, I do not think that they would visit such scenes on European cities, and I do not think the same retribution that was meted out to the Japanese was warranted on Germany.
 

Space Shark

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
3,474
Redneck Country, AKA Texas
If Moscow is captured, the war with Russia is probably won, and resources can be sent to bolster Western defence. In my opinion with a much stronger defended Western Europe, a peace is made with the US long before 1945 and the introduction of the atomic bomb.
Keep in mind that the Soviets moved a good chunk of their industrial capacity beyond the Urals. Even if Moscow falls, the Germans will have nightmares dealing with all the partisan movements, along with the surviving Soviet state in Siberia. It would have taken millions of men, perhaps the same amount that they used on the Eastern Front in OTL.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,905
SoCal
If Moscow is captured, the war with Russia is probably won, and resources can be sent to bolster Western defence. In my opinion with a much stronger defended Western Europe, a peace is made with the US long before 1945 and the introduction of the atomic bomb.
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. After all, a Nazi Germany which pushes the Soviet Union back beyond the Urals might be tempted to expand into the oil-rich Middle East as well. Indeed, considering how invincible Nazi Germany would be in this scenario, it might be perceived as being utterly idiotic for Nazi Germany not to try expanding into the oil-rich Middle East. Obviously Britain and the U.S. are not going to tolerate that (and Axis expansion in North Africa, for that matter), which in turn might very well mean that Britain and the U.S. would try their utmost hardest to push the Axis Powers out of both the oil-rich Middle East and North Africa before deciding what exactly they should do next. With the Nazi victory over the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany would be able to devote more resources to the Middle East and to North Africa in comparison to real life (though logistics would obviously still be a problem for the Nazis). Thus, I don't expect Britain and the U.S. to kick Nazi Germany out of the Middle East and North Africa until 1944-1945, shortly after which point the U.S. will already have nuclear weapons at its disposal. :)
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,905
SoCal
A nuclear devastated Europe kills the people that the US are fighting to free. Dropping an atomic weapon on a town or city in Japan is one thing; killing thousands - if not millions - of innocent French, Dutch , British and Belgian (to name but a few) citizens is quite another.
I was talking about nuking Germany rather than nuking other European countries, though. Plus, the U.S. might very well perceive it as being better to nuke the living daylights out of Nazi Germany right now than to risk having a worldwide Nazi-U.S. nuclear war later on.

In my opinion, one of the reasons why the bombs were used in the first place was to see (in real action) what damage they were capable of causing. Another reason was revenge for Pearl Harbour. Once the Americans had seen just how much devastation was caused, I do not think that they would visit such scenes on European cities, and I do not think the same retribution that was meted out to the Japanese was warranted on Germany.
The thing is, though, that in real life, the Allies successfully managed to defeat and destroy Nazi Germany without the use of nuclear weapons. However, in this scenario, this certainly wouldn't be the case and thus the U.S. might very well decide to "bite the bullet" in regards to this and to nuke the living daylights out of Nazi Germany in order to destroy the Nazi German regime and in order to eliminate the possibility of a German-U.S. global nuclear war later on.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
Keep in mind that the Soviets moved a good chunk of their industrial capacity beyond the Urals. Even if Moscow falls, the Germans will have nightmares dealing with all the partisan movements, along with the surviving Soviet state in Siberia. It would have taken millions of men, perhaps the same amount that they used on the Eastern Front in OTL.
The fall of Moscow wouldn't mean the end of Russian resistance , but I do think it would make the chances of a co-ordinated, effective, Russian counter-attack significant enough to worry the Germans highly unlikely.

As far as I can see, the main reasons for attacking the Soviets in the first place was to negate the chances of Russia attacking Germany, and to secure their oil fields.
 
Last edited:

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
Actually, I'm not so sure about that. After all, a Nazi Germany which pushes the Soviet Union back beyond the Urals might be tempted to expand into the oil-rich Middle East as well. Indeed, considering how invincible Nazi Germany would be in this scenario, it might be perceived as being utterly idiotic for Nazi Germany not to try expanding into the oil-rich Middle East. Obviously Britain and the U.S. are not going to tolerate that (and Axis expansion in North Africa, for that matter), which in turn might very well mean that Britain and the U.S. would try their utmost hardest to push the Axis Powers out of both the oil-rich Middle East and North Africa before deciding what exactly they should do next. With the Nazi victory over the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany would be able to devote more resources to the Middle East and to North Africa in comparison to real life (though logistics would obviously still be a problem for the Nazis). Thus, I don't expect Britain and the U.S. to kick Nazi Germany out of the Middle East and North Africa until 1944-1945, shortly after which point the U.S. will already have nuclear weapons at its disposal. :)
I agree that securing the Middle East would be next on the agenda, and I would fully expect that any conflict with the US and British would be from this direction rather than on the Western border of mainland Europe. Under such circumstances, and with virtually unlimited resources I would fully expect Germany to either defeat any allied attack or agree a ceasefire.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
I was talking about nuking Germany rather than nuking other European countries, though. Plus, the U.S. might very well perceive it as being better to nuke the living daylights out of Nazi Germany right now than to risk having a worldwide Nazi-U.S. nuclear war later on.



The thing is, though, that in real life, the Allies successfully managed to defeat and destroy Nazi Germany without the use of nuclear weapons. However, in this scenario, this certainly wouldn't be the case and thus the U.S. might very well decide to "bite the bullet" in regards to this and to nuke the living daylights out of Nazi Germany in order to destroy the Nazi German regime and in order to eliminate the possibility of a German-U.S. global nuclear war later on.
Nuking Germany would still kill millions around Europe, and you can bet that the Nazis would take several actions; grab huge numbers of Europeans and use them as shields in German towns and cities, station the majority of their forces in European cities and also execute thousands of prisoners and innocent civillians in retribution.

The threat of nuclear bombs may bring Hitler to the negotiating table, but they certainly wouldn't make him surrender.