DBWI: The Nazis didn't get the A-bomb first.

[ArKhan]

Okay, as we all know, the When the Nazis had their backs agianst the wall, they launched an Atomic Bomb on London, knocking the allies out of the war, but the USA was still fighting the Japs, and they droped a nuke on Japan, and the war ended in a stalemate. What if the Americans where the first nation with the A-bomb?

 

[carlton_bach]

In the short run, things would go better for Europe. There would be no three-way standoff with a wounded Stalin pouring resources into armaments and Germany turning into a hermit state. But in the long run this would have horrifying results. We know today that only the balance of terror has kept Germany from running wild. A world with one nuclear-armed nation can not exist in stability. America would find it impossible not to dominate the globe militarily (rather than economically as it does today) and the outcome would be a world war uniting all other powers against Washington.

 

[CalBear]

Well, from my perspective the biggest difference would be that Berlin and Frankfurt would still be habitable. I know it was an understandable over reaction by what was left of the British government, but can you imagine how different Europe would be today without the five Anthrax dead zones (including the two in France where the bombers that were shot down crashed).

I think we'd have been better off with just a nuclear arms race, at least that would have been limited to rich countries. Now, every two bit dictator on the Planet has his germ bombs waiting to go off (remember the epidemic after the Peru accident?).

 

[B_Munro]

In the short run, things would go better for Europe. There would be no three-way standoff with a wounded Stalin pouring resources into armaments and Germany turning into a hermit state. But in the long run this would have horrifying results. We know today that only the balance of terror has kept Germany from running wild. A world with one nuclear-armed nation can not exist in stability. America would find it impossible not to dominate the globe militarily (rather than economically as it does today) and the outcome would be a world war uniting all other powers against Washington.

OTOH, if the US got the bomb first, would it have chosen to prevent the USSR from developing their own? It would, after all, have required an insanely expensive military occupation to prevent it. A USSR which was part of a winning alliance rather than having an insanely genocidal enemy within 5 minutes missile-flight from their capital probably would have been a much more civilized place than the ultra-paranoid, ultra-militarized state of OTL.

We probably could see post-war a fairly peaceful coexistence: surely the Soviets would have been glad to concentrate on reforming their economy and raising their living standards rather than engaging in a pointless arms race. Sure, they probably would have required a sphere of influence of sorts in eastern Europe (judging from wartime talks before the first German nuclear strike), but this would have been better for the Romanians and the Bulgars than their role of brutally exploited German puppets, and of course, it would have been much better for the Poles.

A more open and less financially strapped USSR probably would have reformed it's economy a lot earlier than OTL, too: the near-collapse of the 90's would have been avoided, and we wouldn't be propping up the USSR economically nowadays to help contain the Germans...

Thought: in this alternate, does Stalin still grab Korea and N. China if he doesn't need "compensation" for his losses? Do we see a united Guomindang China or do the Chinese communists still manage to carve out a territory of their own without the help of the Red Army?

CalBear, I think you exaggerate the threat of biowarfare: it's not like anyone but the Big Three (and perhaps the UK) have the tech and the inclinations to do any bioengineering, or develop reliable delivery systems. Sure, lots of dictators now have their vats of Anthrax and God knows what else, but they're really more a threat to their own citizens than to anyone else. I mean, during the last Indian-Pakistani brushup, the same bioweapons release (and I say we _still_ don't know who did it) killed almost as many Pakistanis as Indians (or the other way, killed more Indians than Pakistanis) - not to mention the Afghans. And most of these threats can be handled by good public health systems (crazy thought: without the threat of biowarfare, would the US have no universal healthcare system? Naah, too crazy.)

Bruce

 

[Advernt]

Okay, as we all know, the When the Nazis had their backs agianst the wall, they launched an Atomic Bomb on London, knocking the allies out of the war, but the USA was still fighting the Japs, and they droped a nuke on Japan, and the war ended in a stalemate. What if the Americans where the first nation with the A-bomb?

We would have had a more fragmented Europe , that is certain .

As it was , when the Allies were forced out out of the war , the Soviets were already pushing the Germans out of Russia , with terrifying momentum . Had the Germans failed to obtain nukes , we might have ended up with a Red Europe at the very worst , a horrifying prospect by itself.

 

[Cherico]

Well the first big differnce is that korea probally would have been split
between the russians and the Americans. As is the Russians pretty
much let us handle Korea.
Initially we were going to give mancuria back to the chinese but then
the red revolution succedded and well we freaked out and what parts of
mancuria we were able to hold became part of the Greater korean sphear.

The chinese are still fumming about that.
A world with out a nazi nuke is a world were our best ally in the region
the republic of korea is ether smaller or none existant.
Its probally going to be a bi polar world instead of the tri polar one we
have today.

The middle east would probally ally with the comunists instead of the
facists like they did OTL. And that could have prevented Isrials policy
of deporting Arabs in conqured territorys.
It also means that the united states wouldent have backed the grab
of the Sini penisular.
The isriali birthrate would also be lower, isriali culture puts an insane
empasis on having children.
If the nazis didnt get the bomb then Isrial would have delevoped into
a peacefull country that acepted their arab brothers and the middle east
would probally be peopled with democracy after democracy instead of
being a land where tin pot dictators are everywhere.

 

[B_Munro]

Off-topic, but you know what annoys me? People who join DBWI threads and ignore what other people have already posted. Just not cricket, old boy.

Back on topic:

Advernt, it was the Nazi nukes that drove the Allies out of the war in the first place. If the Nazis hadn't developed the bomb, we probably would have met the Soviets in the middle of Germany. A Red Europe really wasn't in the cards. (Unless we have a "Soviets get the bomb first" TL).

And a Red Europe worse than what we got? Ask anybody of Polish or Jewish or Czech or Serbian ancestry. In any event, a "greater USSR" would have simply fallen apart if Stalin had been loony enough to march to the Pyrennes. It's not like the USSR doesn't have serious ethnic headaches as it is, and the only reason the Germans have been able to hold on to their rather smaller empire is that they can be well assured that they'll all get their throats cut if they ever let up, and then the Soviets will march in and abuse their corpses. (Concentrates the mind wondefully, I well imagine.)

Bruce

 

[Advernt]

I was not arguging that a Communist Europe was a worse alternative to the Nazi Europe , but rather , that it was a rather bleak prospect by itself.

Secondly , the suggestion of a Red Europe was worst case scenario , that might not have necessarily materialized . I do acknoweldge , however , that the Russians would have been hardpress to hold on to such areas , save through puppet states.