What if Hitler had taken over Stalingrad?

Originally posted by redled

No link, seen lots of stuff. But it's not exactly today's news.

Not different material, rather different blends of material.

Not blends of stuff they are plutonium & uranium
Source

Little Boy and Fat Man
In essence, the Little Boy design consisted of a gun that fired one mass of uranium 235 at another mass of uranium 235, thus creating a supercritical mass. A crucial requirement was that the pieces be brought together in a time shorter than the time between spontaneous fissions. Once the two pieces of uranium are brought together, the initiator introduces a burst of neutrons and the chain reaction begins, continuing until the energy released becomes so great that the bomb simply blows itself apart.

The initial design for the plutonium bomb was also based on using a simple gun design (known as the "Thin Man") like the uranium bomb. As the plutonium was produced in the nuclear reactors at Hanford, Washington, it was discovered that the plutonium was not as pure as the initial samples from Lawrence's Radiation Laboratory. The plutonium contained amounts of plutonium 240, an isotope with a rapid spontaneous fission rate. This necessitated that a different type of bomb be designed. A gun-type bomb would not be fast enough to work. Before the bomb could be assembled, a few stray neutrons would have been emitted from the spontaneous fissions, and these would start a premature chain reaction, leading to a great reduction in the energy released.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Look it's pretty obvious in physics that if you bring critical masses of either uranium or plutonium, they will blow up. You can have bombs with both like. Once the hammer of radiation is thrust into the bed of radiation it is all tits up. You can't worry about if it's one type or the other, both are very dangerous.

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk


It's a good question which i have pondered myself. The Germans could have easily taken Stalingrad if Hitler hadn't been hellbent on capturing the Malikop oil fields AND Taking Stalingrad. He divided his already weakend forces and allowed, because of the delay in decision, the Soviet leadership just enough time to get just enough forces in to hold the city, whilst the forces for Zhukov's counteroffensives were organized.

Hinde sight being what is I think the best thing Germany or Hitler rather should of done was go for the oil and left the city, it was just too much to handle both Hitler needed fuel above all else.


[edit on 27-12-2008 by SLAYER69]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Try he was a nutter; He needed the caucuses, and put many troops on one city. Stalin later on offfered peace, but Hitler 'felt it in his blood that he had to destry Slavs.' If he had used his Blitzreigh without prejudice, I would not have been born.

reply to post by redled


Here a great little video that talks about nothing more than the lend lease and the battle of Stalingrad the sound is a little off but very informative

American propoganda. We sold our empire to you for this, and we were on the right side of the moral divide. Post Pearl Harbour, you screwed us as the #1 empire less, but you are an ambitious lot. Don't trust holywood.

Originally posted by redled
American propoganda. We sold our empire to you for this, and we were on the right side of the moral divide. Post Pearl Harbour, you screwed us as the #1 empire less, but you are an ambitious lot. Don't trust holywood.

Well I'd rather listen to a Russian General who spoke in the documentry who actually lived through the situation and saw it first hand than get information from some unknown johnny come lately who was born decades after the fact and has no personal experience in the real history of events and who has some consiperacy theory dreamt up to satify their own twisted need to try and alter real history.

Good day sir.

Good day.

Britain was the only country against it all of the way and if your national ego cannot allow for that, I can see why you lost Nam.

[EDIT] Also came lately but I try to listen to all sides of the divide, not just your musically enhanced sludgy 'documentaries.' It's all a bit harder than some young 'Johnny Come Lately' how old are you? Did you know that Russians in the 40s feared this weird dude, you may not have heard of him, but 'Stalin?'

[edit on 27/12/2008 by redled]

Originally posted by redled
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Look it's pretty obvious in physics that if you bring critical masses of either uranium or plutonium, they will blow up. You can have bombs with both like. Once the hammer of radiation is thrust into the bed of radiation it is all tits up. You can't worry about if it's one type or the other, both are very dangerous.

But fissionable materials for the bombs did not come from Germany, as you stated earlier. Hanford made the Plutonium and Oak Ridge separated the Uranium isotopes. The first nuclear explosion, Trinity, was a Plutonium bomb.

Originally posted by pteridine


But fissionable materials for the bombs did not come from Germany, as you stated earlier. Hanford made the Plutonium and Oak Ridge separated the Uranium isotopes. The first nuclear explosion, Trinity, was a Plutonium bomb.

It’s good to know people live in the real world of facts.
This nonsense has ruined this great what if thread



[edit on 27-12-2008 by SLAYER69]

Originally posted by SLAYER69
This nonsense has ruined this great what if thread

It can still be a good thread.

Back on topic.

Nothing would come of it....Napoleon reached Moscow and it didn't win him anything, the Russians moved beyond the Urals.

Why ask if.If my grand mother had a penis she would be my grandpa.
Ignor the ifs and buts stick to the facts.

Originally posted by TheMythLives

if Hitler had taken Stalingrad?

Today we'd be speaking and writing German The battle of Stalingrad was the turning point for the worst for German Army. Once again Russian soil became the grave for another dictator.

reply to post by Telos


not nesseceraly .

yes - the battle of stalingrad was seen as the turninng point - but if the germans had taken stalingrad - it would not ave meant they would have prevailed

ok - lets asume stalingrad falls - and the nazis now control both banks of the volga - and key bidges etc

so what next - the oil feilds ?? just getting to them extends the germans alteady over extended supply lines still further - and do you really think they can exploit them in the face of russian partisans ?

taking the caucus oil feilds is another big leap - that would be contested bitterly - the USSR was in no danger of running out of men or equipment

winning at stalingrad will just extend the pit into which germsny is pouring itself

it will not free up troops - as stalingrad - and every inch of occupied terretory will now need garrisoning

and the new extended front line will still be fought over

Originally posted by TheMythLives
So basically I guess the real question is would the war have ended differently if Hitler had taken Stalingrad?

In a word - no.

The Russians had built industrial cities in the east, most of which were unknown to the Germans as information about Russia was so poor and out of range of most of the German bombers of the day (one of Germany's downfalls was the lack of a seriously heavy four engined strategic bomber in the same mode as the Lancaster/B-17) and also had sufficient natural resources to be able to out-produce Germany in terms of tanks, aircraft and guns.

They also had something in the region of a 15 million man strategic reserve to call on, whereas the Germans were pushing the 2 million mark.

With the British, Commonwealth, American and Free French, Free Poles etc attacking from the West, Italy surrendering and the Russians pushing from the East there was no way the Reich was going to survive, with or without Stalingrad.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk

What you point out here is something that I feel would have been the case had Hitler won at either Moscow and/or Stalingrad. Hitler would have transferred the bulk of his forces West to France while leaving enough in the occupied parts of the USSR on occupation duty to force the Soviet Union to keep up its part of any peace treaty that would have been signed. So thanks for having pointed this out.

I do not think that Germany would have won the war in the way the allies did, but the takeover of Stalingard would have changed one of the tipping points of the war.

Once Stalingard was secure, Hilter would have been in a better position to secure the oil fields in the region. I question have many troops Hilter would have been able to release for other campaigns, as there was a strong resistance in Russia and with the lose of the city named after the leader, you can imagine the order that would have come from Stalin. "Get my city back"

Germnay would have had to keep lost numbers of troops in country, and then as has been posted, what about the rest of Russia. By this time, factories were beeing shipped to the other side of the Urals, and away from any serious threat from Germany. Hilter would have had to think about his next actions. I see only a couple of options:

Move on into Russia or go South and with a push from the Rommel, link up in the Arabian oil fields.

I suspect Hilter generals would have wanted to go South but Hitler's hate of the Slavs would have driven him to continue east in to Russia, stretching supply lines even further. If Hilter takes the expansion eastward, the war would have ended with an Allies victory but a couple of years later.

With the move South, that changes things. If Hitler would have taken the Arabian oil fields, I think that many of the Arabs in the region would have at worst been neutral to Germany, or at best, attacked British and French interests in the region.

With the Arabian oil fields secure, Hitler would have been able to fuel his and Japan's military and take a major headarch away from their military planners and the British with some help from the French, would have been forced to starting planning a campaign to retake the Arabian oil fields rather than focus on the invasion of mainland Europe.

With the South option taken and held for 12 months, I see the allies wanting a truce or a significant peace treaty.

War games have showed that based on Britains defences (including technology turning the channel into fire) and Germanys plan, they would not have been succesful.

By the time America arrived we had already beaten Germany in Africa, destroyed the Lutwaffe and bombed out major industrial complexes. The Royal Navy also sent convoys of aid to Russia throughout the war, the type of seas that makes crossing the Atlantic look a cakewalk.

reply to post by Freedom ERP

go South and with a push from the Rommel, link up in the Arabian oil fields.

do WHAT ?????????????

you do realise that by the time of the battle of stalingrad - Rommell`s position is untenable , dont you ?

he faces montgomerys 8th army from the east and a combined allied army from the west [ landed by op. torch ]

rommel is hardly in a position to make a " push " of over 3000km

and as paullus couldnt even take staligrad with what he had - i dont know how you expect him , or anyone else to advance another 1000 miles still further south

where are the troops , tanks , aircraft etc going to come from ?????????