|
rlc27 -> (7/3/2002 3:45:12 AM)
|
I don't think that "getting the bomb" necessarily equates with "winning the war." Remember, even the US had a hard time finding the materials to make just two bombs. So let's say London was nuked--first of all, it depends on what kind of kiloton yield the German bomb had. Remember that large portions of the population had migrated into the Underground during the Blitz, and safe to say, without contemporary 100 megaton city-busting nukes, a large percentage of the population would have survived. And, even if London were nuked, there was still the countryside, Liverpool, Manchester, other big cities.
As for Germany developing its super long range bomber and attacking the east coast of the US--I don't have the raw statistics in front of me, but from having read many history books on the subject, it seems that one of the major things that prevented Germany from winning the war was fuel shortages, not shortages in manpower (although that came into play later) or materiel--the peak in German military industrial output was in something like December '44! The US population alone was something like triple that of Germany, and her industrial output was about FOUR times that of Germany. So unless Germany could come up with several hundred nukes, I don't think they could have won on that basis alone. World War II was primarily a war of industry and attrition, and the bomb was still largely experimental, and the materials were extremely rare. Yes, if you could totally devastate New York City you would have lessened US industrial output, however, you would have also had to have destroyed Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Newport News, Norfolk, Bath, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Seattle, etc etc. A bomb or two, maybe even five or six, would not have crippled the US war effort by any means, especially given the minimal yields (by today's standards) that these bombs put out. I think the Allies would have still had a strong industrial and manpower advantage even if New York, London, and Moscow were blown away. Check Paul Kennedy's "Rise of the Great Powers" for some nifty information on the relative industrial strength of WWII's major comabatants. (I think that's what it's called but I'm too lazy to go pick it up off the bookshelf).
The US might have still had at least part of Britain available to base itself, even if the bomb had destroyed London. Scotland, for example, with its hills & mountains, would make especially defensible terrain. Also, the ME-262 was far from invincible--the P-51 Mustang in its more advanced forms could nearly reach its speed! Not only that but once again, many of these plays hardly flew due to fuel shortages.
Finally, I agree that saying the world would be a better place had the Axis gotten the bomb first is at least a strnage sentiment, and sounds to me like simplistic, childish thinking. I think the Allies still would have won, however the war might have dragged on for another five years with millions more casualties on both sides. Eventually, my thinking is that the US and possibly Russia would have also developed the bomb, and the war might've turned into a nuke-fest. I am REALLY glad that didn't happen. As it was, Russia and the US DIDN'T end up blowing each other up, showing, at least, that MAD wasn't a terrible idea, and better than at least some alternatives--though I guess in the end, time will tell.
|
|
|
|
