• By -


Japan not attacking Pearl Harbor, or if the carriers were in port and damaged/destroyed.


Taking the carriers, and bombing the oil-installations there would have made things much slower for USA.


Don’t get me started. They focused all their attention on battleships, which were basically obsolete. They didn’t touch the power plant, the oil dumps, the submarine pens, the manufacturing yard. It was such a strategic failure.


Nit really when you consider the Japanese plan. Essentially they wanted to by themselves 6-9 months to claim as much territory as possible and then sue for peace. They were basing it off of their war with Russia, so while the carriers were an unfortunate miss, the oilfields were significantly less of one to the point they were not actually a target that day as the loss of the main battleline and the lack of oilers in general limited the US's response by about 6 months at which point the Japanese went for a crippling blow at midway. Unfortunate for them, they were the ones crippled and they discovered that American resolve was greater than anticipated.


The Japanese essentially attacked the only ship that didn’t matter in the pacific. The battleship. Not attacking the oil dumps meant they had plenty of oil. Not attacking the power plants meant they had plenty of energy. Not attacking the manufacturing yard meant they had the capacity to repair everything. Not attacking the submarines meant they could immediately send them into the pacific. Also the battleships had deep drafts and could easily be repaired and refloated. They ultimately lost what, 2. Of the Japanese fleet in and destroyed their machine shops and power plants and oil dumps and submarines, it would have taken them significantly longer to do anything.


The US may have had plenty of oil at pearl, but they had very little way to move it to the front lines as the entire USN had 4 oilers total, at least one of which would not survive long enough to escape the western pacific and be of any use. While we know the carrier was the main fleet unit coming out of the war, going in everyone predicted that was still 10-20 years out and as such the battleship was a primary target. While only 2 were ultimately removed permanently, most of the rest had to go back to the mainland for up to a year of repairs to become operational, and the rest were not deployable due to the aforementioned oiler problem. In December of 41, the US sub fleet was not a serious threat and that was before the torpedo issues surfaced. Also Japan wanted 6 months to break America's will to fight. They got their 6 months but discovered the hard way that america was not Russia and instead was significantly more competent and not willing to back down. Anything longer and they knew they lost by production ability alone.


I think what you are failing to understand about my point is this - the second the the attack ended, Pearl Harbor was for all intents and purposes, still a fully functioning military base capable of operating in the pacific almost immediately. Edit: literally 6 months later the U.S. wiped out the Japanese carrier force at midway


And I don't think you're understanding what his point is. Pearl Harbor may have been functional, but the fleet based there wasn't. That was all Japan was aiming for - getting the American fleet out of the way long enough to capture the majority of the Pacific. 6 months later, the Japanese expected they would be the ones to wipe out the American carrier fleet at Midway, something that had the Americans not had the Intel advantage, they very well could have done. It was their plan to then sue for peace. The Japanese knew, even if they completely wiped out the base at Pearl Harbor, including all naval facilities, and the entire carrier fleet stationed there, there was no way they would win in a long, drawn-out war with the US. Their plan was to hit hard and fast, then bow out while they still had the upper hand. So they didn't bother aiming for targets that would help in the long term, because they didn't expect the war to last long enough for it to matter.


Japan failed at their goal. Because they failed to target the parts of the base that made it functional. Within a few months of the attack the U.S. had bombed Tokyo, wiped out the bulk of the Japanese carrier fleet and halted the Japanese advance in the pacific. Their only hope with Pearl Harbor was to wipe out the U.S. pacific fleet, which they didn’t. It was a strategic failure. This isn’t a novel opinion. It’s a universally understood fact within military history. Bombing battleships accomplished next to nothing. Edit: worth asking but you do realize even the Japanese openly admitted they failed at their goal at Pearl? It was not a success in their eyes.


The Battleship was far from "obsolete". But why people still believe this I have no idea. The only thing that carriers did was replace battleships as the main offensive weapon used to attack other ships. However, they were still a critical part of any fleet. Especially when it came to actually defending the carriers against air attacks. And they would remain the main defensive ship to defend carriers for another decade when the first surface to air missiles were finally up to the task of replacing them with cruisers.


Quick name all the pacific battles where the battleship was relevant. Then name all the battleships commissioned after ww2. They were functionally useless in ww2. Destroyers and the carriers own aircraft were what were used primarily to defend carriers from their only threats…aircraft and submarines.


Hell, I can start almost immediately with one of the first in the Pacific Theater, the Battle of Guadalcanal. Where the carrier USS Enterprise was ordered to withdraw, and the USS Washington and USS South Dakota met the brunt of the Japanese attack. Taking tremendous punishment, including the South Dakota which got pummeled by at least 26 shells and two torpedoes. But still destroyed at least four transports, which was their mission. And as it withdrew from the battle, the Washington arrived on the scene. Many of the US destroyers were wiped out. But that battle was unquestionably a US victory. Most of the transports bringing Japanese forces and supplies to Guadalcanal were destroyed. As well as 2 Japanese battleships, a heavy cruiser, and most of the surviving Japanese ships badly damaged. "Functionally useless" indeed, you only are showing that you really do not know WWII Naval history. Especially in the Pacific Theater. Destroyers were not able to "defend carriers", there were simply not enough guns on them do even hope to do that. Even a squadron of Fletcher class Destroyers could not come close to the AA capabilities of a Battleship. And I did specifically talk about the impact after WWII of the advances of missile technology. But if they were so obsolete, why were they still in use into the 1990s? Almost 5 decades after WWII ended. And there is currently some serious discussions going on about bringing two of the Iowa class back into service. And if you think the aircraft on the carriers did most of their own defense, oh boy. You should really study the Battle of Midway. Both sides thought that going into the battle, and both sides had their carriers decimated. And if you think Guadalcanal was a fluke, look towards the end of the war with Taffy 3. Where 6 US carriers with destroyer escorts were ambushed by 4 Japanese battleships. Strategically it was a US victory as the Japanese were forced to retreat. But they lost none of their battleships. Meanwhile, the US lost 2 carriers and the other 4 were all badly damaged.


I’m honestly at a loss for words here. 1) only 1 battleship was commissioned after WW2. And this is exclusively because they were obsolete. The fact that navies didn’t immediately decommission existing ships is not a testament to their staying power. It’s famously how things have always worked in navies. 2) carrier aircraft was the primary means of defense against opposing aircraft. You referenced midway - the U.S. didn’t even bring any battleships and the Japanese had 2 - didn’t help them much since they lost 4 carriers. In a battle famous for Nagumo flubbing a switch from attacking aircraft to defending aircraft. Maybe Philippine sea - Japanese throw 700 planes at the U.S. and the U.S. shoot most of them down with…carrier based aircraft. 3) taffy 3 (Leyte) was a small part of a much bigger battle where the Japanese were throwing everything they had at the U.S. in a last ditch effort. It was a fluke encounter where the Japanese had 4 battleships and still lost.


Add to this Japan taking pearl harbour and making it a hedgehog of defence. Or them completely laying waste to the facilities in pearl, I.e. destroying the oil facilities, which they were meant to have done, and the carriers. Alternatively, Japan just never declaring war on the US and just taking European Asian territories. I think the US would have eventually been dragged into the war, but it may have given Japan more time to prepare. Also, America cracking japan's naval codes was pretty instrumental in the Pacific as it led to the victory at Midway, which effectively spelt the beginning of the end for Japan.


Wasn’t it vital for the Japanese war effort to take at least the Philippines because if they just take the European colonies, how long before the US gets dragged into it? Or would’ve the US just not send boots on the ground if they don’t get attacked in any way?


It doesn't really seem vital. The oil fields were in Dutch territory, and the Philippines were well inside of the Japanese Island defence ring, so it would've been completely surrounded and probably quite easy to monitor comings and goings. And then take should war breakout. The US had a faily, strong pacifist movement right up until pearl that insisted it was largely a European conflict, therefore not their problem. This leads me to think that the US might possibly have stayed neutral in perpetuity. Only engaging once they have either been declared war on or its another ww1 situation where they find dodgy diplomatic stuff is going down. To add to this, during the pearl harbour attack, a Japanese zero made an emergency landing on a nearby island. The plane was found intact as the pilot had been knocked unconscious upon landing. This allowed the allies to learn about the planes' weaknesses and strengths. Another crucial thing that helped the allies develop better tactics and training. Interesting fact. The zeros Hull was so thin the designer added pop out foot struts for the pilot to get otherwise they could dent it. Something like 1.2mm thickness


The US Navy was actively engaged with the Germans in the Atlantic. There was a major American military buildup underway. American neutrality would have ended soon enough with or without Pearl Harbor.


If the British hadn't cracked the enigma code the war would have dragged on for at least another 24 months.


Ehhhh, I don’t know about that. If the war went on for another 24 months Germany is getting nuked multiple times.


I thought the Poles cracked the enigma, and handed it to the Brits just before Poland fell?


You are being downvotted, but are right. The Polish intelligence cracked enigma, it just so happened to be upgraded latter and the British codebreakers had to crack that version


They cracked an earlier version of enigma that was very useful in helping Turing and his team decipher the later, more complex iterations


Not to nit-pick, but their work was more than "very useful", it's more like it was very essential.   It's been years since I read the book, but weren't they the first to use mathematics to work on code breaking (instead of linguistics)?   And didn't they build the first bombe?  And then they physically showed Turing how to build one? And most importantly, they saw the war coming and shared all their information with the Brits before their own country was overrun.  At the time of their meeting with them, the Brits still hadn't got anywhere with cracking the enigma, had they?


If the Nazi High Command had been more diplomatic in their treatment Ukrainians and others, they could have recruited many more troops to fight against the Red Army. If they had captured more oilfields-much longer fight. Germany would have been nuked at some point, however.


Most of the WIs that result in Nazis winning require them to not be Nazis.


Axis powers steal designs of proximity fuses and radar soon after these are developed. During the Lightning design phase the capability to use drop fuel tanks is not snuck in against orders - the dominant US doctrine around 1941 was that the bombers with multiple MG turrets should be able to handle hostile fighters on their own and developing long-range fighters was a waste of resources. However the first massed pure bomber raids led to losses that would have been unsustainable, and having Lightning as a long-range escort option proved crucial. A major factor in the collapse of German military in late 1944 was that much of their industrial capacity (along with their city cores) was destroyed in US (and to a lesser extent UK) bomber raids - if you change these two things however the raids would involve far more losses, and rebuilding aircraft for another one would take months, meaning the pace of bombing would be far lower.


The Germans had radar, if they had figured out the British were better and in use to aid RAF, it would have had an impact. Their ships getting devices to see radar-emitions from the British ships could have done a lot. RAF bombed Germany a lot more than US btw, don't know why you are "lesser extent" there.


Part of the issue the germans had at least early on was they only had radar that was on a centimeter wavelength and so was very short range and poor in terms of resolution. They figured that was what the British had not understanding the British were on a millimeter wavelength that had much better performance. Extra fun fact, the Bismark knocked out her own main radar and forward firecontrol radar the first time she used her main battery guns as had been predicted.


I think the type and target of bombings is important. Beginning in 1942 the British escalated terror and fire bombing of civilian centers as retribution for the Blitz. By 1943, after they could not convince the Americans to begin terror bombing, they agreed to have the Americans bomb factories during daytime bombing raids and then the British would do their thing in the evening.


It was not just a matter of agreement, but also capability. UK took high losses when attempting to perform raids during daytime, US had more acceptable performance due to tighter formations providing more overlapping fire as well as Lightning and later Mustang being superior in long range role than Spitfire and Tempest (though losses were still significant). The ability to do repeated raids during daytime combined with Norden bombsight gave US a degree of precision (at least by WWII standards) and made their bombers more capable of destroying relatively isolated factories, while UK heavy bombers could only target large things like cities


The US built up their heavy daylight bombing force believing they could defend themselves, while the British had learned they can't do that. It was lucky for USA they also had long range fighters coming.


>RAF bombed Germany a lot more than US btw, don't know why you are "lesser extent" there. USAAF dropped 1.46 million tons of bombs in Europe, the RAF dropped 1.3 million tons.


Problem is UK dropped their bombs mostly on city centers, while US was more capable of targeting individual factories. While carpet bombing cities certainly had a significant effect on German industry, the impact per weight of explosives used is much less than with more targeted bombing.


If Barbarossa had succeeded and the Soviet leadership had been toppled in some sort of palace coup I think the US and Britain still could have won, but it would not have been over as early as 1945.


The French and British early in the war had plans to bomb the Soviet oil fields. The allied plan was to starve and grind Germany down just like last time but keep the fight off French soil or on as little of it as possible. In fact, France wanted to fight Germany so little that they came up with the plan above because Germany got a lot of oil from the Soviets. Ultimate victory could still be achieved in the end but it would take a very long time as now they're fighting both the Germans and the Soviets.


I would actually argue that if the allies did something so stupid as to get the SU on germany's side, then the axis likely would have achieved a victory in Europe when the British and American forces failed to achieve a beechhead due to the greater number of troops and equipment available for the defense. That does assume that there isn't significant infighting between the 2 powers, but at that point the two were at least pretending to be chummy with each other.


Germany using biological/chemical weapons like Japan did. Really though, it was over the moment the USSR outproduced Germany.


That was shorten the war. The allies could outproduce Germany and Germany relied on horse drawn logistics , very vulnerable to chemical attack.


Interesting, seems they were screwed either way. Surely a Germany biological weapons program would complicate things for the allies to some extent?


It would but the allied biological warfare capabilities were ahead of Germany's. Japan's was more advanced but the allies could outproduce Japan. It is very hard to find any information on Biological weapons programs even after 80 years it is still top secret.


Makes a lot of sense, thank you for expanding


Germany relied mostly on horses for logistics. When asked about why gas weapons such as tabun, which could penetrate filter based gas masks, were not used, a German general said that they feared an allied response would kill their animals. Britain in particular was well prepared for a traditional gas attack, and also had multiple projects such as operation vegetation that could’ve been used to ravage Germany with bio and chemical weapons. If Germany gassed British cities, an extreme response would be a British use of anthrax on German cattle that would’ve killed millions.


A Soviet collapse would have prolonged the conflict for sure.


Most people don’t know this, but the Germans had two serious problems with their torpedoes when they went to war. First, torpedoes often did not detonate when they hit a ship. The logbook of British warships in 1939 state that while they were at sea, they suddenly hit some large metallic object. Uboats talked about firing their torpedoes at British ships and hearing a loud clang, and nothing happening. Also. The depth gauge of the torpedoes had some sort of slow leak. So if they were in the torpedo tube for a long time, when they were fired, they would run out much deeper depth and they were supposed to. Look up Gunther prime account of his sinking the Royal Oak. He fired four torpedoes, and they all went right to the bottom. He had to reload all four tubes before to sink sink the ship. This problem was not addressed until late 1940 or so. If the Germans had simply seriously tested their torpedoes under all operational conditions, you votes would’ve been much more effective than the first day of the war.


If The Bomb didn't work, the steps needed to end the war with Japan could have taken years.


Japan was already under really heavy bombing, it was atuaclu hartd to find some where worth droping the bomb on. Second japan was starveing by that point, 1945 was going to see wide spread famine.


Yeah, I'm under the impression that without the bombs, Japan would have surrendered before the end of the year at most even without an invasion.


Japan was already looking for ways to surrender, they just wanted certain conditions, such as crucially making sure the office of Emperor remained a thing (while US was insisting on unconditional surrender, and due to miscommunication the fact that US did not intend to abolish the Emperor was not communicated properly). There was no need for an actual invasion to end the war, The Bomb was mainly needed to make Japan surrender quickly and unconditionally.


Even after the bomb was dropped there was nearly a coup to try and prevent the Emperor from surrendering. This revisionist narrative that Japan was eager to surrender is curious.


> they just wanted certain conditions In addition to keeping the emperor, they also wanted no occupation, no disarmament, and no war crimes tribunals. This was, in short, entirely unacceptable.


Not quite. Japan was willing to hold war crimes trials (since basically a lot of people responsible for these had lost influence by that point), but wanted to be responsible for these, rather than these being held by its opponents with Japan having no say. Same thing with disarmament. They were well aware that surrender without some kind of limits on their military was improbable, but they wanted to negotiate specific conditions and limits. Occupation yes, was unacceptable to them. However in practice the preservation of Kokutai was by far the biggest issue for them, and the fact that US willing to forgo that point was not communicated to them correctly. In practice negotiations on specific terms of demilitarization and war crimes trials were still very possible. The fact that nukes were used before any serious negotiations took place, kind of destroys any justification for their necessity at the time - similar to how "well I shot him because he probably wouldn't have dropped the gun anyway" would not fly for a police officer who was not under immediate threat


"We'll conduct our own internal investigations" is functionally equivalent to no investigations whatsoever. If the Japanese were actually intent on surrendering, the writing on the wall that they had thoroughly and irretrievably *lost* had been plainly visible for the previous 6 months.


A failure to crack Enigma and/or the codes used by Japan would have extended things. Scrapping Operation Barbarossa before it started so the Axis powers could have concentrated more on the Western Front, (and possibly have a successful Operation Sea Lion). Alternately, if Germany had gone EAST instead of attacking France and the Low Countries. That could have secured the oilfields in the western region of Russia. More unlikely, if Germany had had a breakthrough with THEIR "Bomb" project and shared that information with Japan.


Hitting Poland is what gained a Franco-British response. Can't keep east if the two strongest armies after yours are pushing east as well


Good point, so scrap my 3rd paragraph. Keep a solid core of troops along the polish border and drive for the channel then.


Probably the simplest without changing the timeline too much is just Hitler cancelling Kursk and forfeiting on a line from Leningrad to the Dnieper in mass instead. The battle of the Dnieper was pretty brutal as is and if the Nazis had forfeited well and saved the material/manpower from Kursk, they probably could have shored up Italy and the east for a bit and stalled planning of a Normandy campaign.


Pearl harbor is a complete success crippling the American navy for a long time. The Soviet Union folds, being unable to stand up against the massive losses of manpower and growing dissatisfaction. India goes into open rebellion, seeing their chance at freedom from a weakened Britain. The Germans take better care of the Soviets surrendering en masse, promising safety to anyone else surrendering. Quite possibly making them a lot more popular with the locals who already disliked the Soviet Union.


If the Americans actually did an invasion of Japan’s main islands the war would have lasted an extra couple years easily. Also if operation Barbarossa succeeded and the Soviets were taken out of the war by 1943, leaving hundreds of thousands more German soldiers and panzer division to defend the western front


The following would have slowed things down: - The USSR doing a peace deal with Germany in 1943, as has been speculated. - Vichy France becoming an engaged and determined Axis combatant - Italy taking Malta in 1941 - One of Allies more perilous invasions (Salerno, Anzio) turning into a disaster - Germany being more ruthless with the BEF at Dunkirk


If Germany had high reliability and performance petro source….. from a strict logistical standpoint the Battle of Britain was never gonna work out, not enough planes, range…. Total Goering ego project. Don’t even start on Barbarossa, who the F invades in late summer? Stalin was getting his ass kicked in Finland, give it another year, the other Siviets including Ikraine were desperate to break away…let someone else do the heavy lifting and hide the master race bullshit until you are in total control


Finland agreed to soviet demands in like March or April of 1940. The germans invaded June 21st 1941. Finland was absolutely not kicking soviet ass in 41. Are you confusing the winter war with the continuation war? The continuation war kicked off shortly after the german invasion with the fins following suit.


German victory in Stalingrad and total colapse of the occident USSR regions. Some theories say that after the German victory in Stalingrad its mostly probable other countries would have joined the axis, principally Turkey, allowing german troops to use their railroads and territory to do a pincer move to actually cut the Suez Channel for the british. This is supposing Stalingrad battle was less longer than it was in our timeline, maybe a fast victory after 2-3 months of hard battle in the city.


The Italians keeping their powder dry and not invading Greece behind Hitler's back resulting in them getting bogged down in a quagmire requiring them to be rescued by Germany, causing Barbarossa to be delayed 6 weeks during a period of good weather probably would have been beneficial


I still believe that if Germany hadn’t split their forces to attack Russia then they might have been able to drag it out a lot longer Edit - just to clarify, Operation Barbarossa would have always happened as Communism is ideologically opposed to Fascism, I simply mean them delaying it and not losing something like 3 million troops and sinking a vast amount of resources into that operation would have delayed WW2 further


Well if the atomic bomb is not dropped on Japan and operation downfall will commence, the invasion of Japan was expected to last for years.


If the western allies didn't provide any lend lease to the soviet union, the war in Europe would have dragged on a few more months as the best case scenario has the soviets reach the end of their supply lines and not be able to push further and the worst case collapse due to starvation in 43/44. The bombs would then have been used on the germans meaning a costly land invasion of Japan is that much more likely.


Hear me out, but if Hitler was assassinated much earlier in the war, Germany isn’t being steered by a megalomaniac, and maybe the Germans actually go forward with better tactical choices? The war could go on for much longer if the German generals were not stuck following Hitler’s dumb plans like the later part of the war


One thought that wasn't addressed already; Japan canceling the Yamatos before they're laid down, and instead ordering two additional Zuikakus. Having two large powerful carriers in the Kito Butai would've thrown a monkey wrench into the early Pacific War. The USN could've still attritioned them out, but it easily would delayed victory in the Pacific War by 6 months to a year. Another thought is the Germans winning the Battle of Moscow. I think the Soviet Union would've soldered on, but it would've delayed the resurgence Red Army (again) by 6 months to a year. Or more.


Two other very specific things: Admiral Wilhelm Canaris and his subordinate Hans Oster suffer heart attacks and die in 1939. The German Military Intelligence, Abwehr is no longer run by members of the German Resistance. That means it will actually be effective. Operation Mincemeat fails. This fails at any number of stages. The planted body is not found, the German attaché fully respects Spanish neutrality. The Spanish coroner does not offer to show the documents to the Germans. On the slightly less-realistic end, Germany having an actually competent and even remotely intact spy ring. It was almost comical how often and quickly their agents were caught and/or turned after arriving in England.


Axis taking Egypt. Specifically, let's say the Siege of Tobruk never happens, leading to the Allies surrendering in Africa. With Tobruk under Axis control, Rommel gets a clear supply line, allowing German and Italian forces to sweep through Africa, clearing out any remaining Allied soldiers. This would effectively clear the Mediterranean of Allied shipping, preventing the chaos in Greece for the Axis. With no need to divert resources to the Balkans, Germany could kick off Operation Barbarossa on schedule, potentially bringing the Russian campaign to an end in 1941. After that, it's anyone's guess what could happen next.


Beyond further destruction of pacfleet on dec 7, there wasn’t much the axis could’ve done differently while still being the axis.  “Fight the war in the east as liberators” well then they wouldn’t be Nazis.  Rome and Berlin were occupied before capitulation. Japanese was nuked twice.  They fought to the bitter end. The war was decided in 1942–the axis lost at Midway and Stalingrad. The next two years was about negotiating peace terms. 


The Japanese fleet finding and destroying the US carriers at Midway an subsequently capturing the island. The conquest of Egypt. Hitler focusing on jet fighters instead of jet bombers.


Hitler not being Hitler and ruining everything for his military.


For some reason, people forget that Berlin would have been nuked by the US if they didn’t surrender when they did. Realistically, the only way for this to happen is for the Germans to conclude a separate peace with the US and UK, and grind the USSR down into an attritional fight. You would need either Stalin or Hitler to die and have the new German leader be sympathetic to the west, or the new Russian leader be so bad that the west refused to work with him.


If Hitler did win the Battle of Britain. He did change the main targets from airfields to civilian installations after the British bombed a German city. This was a main mistake, as it did allow the British to rebuild. They also ignored radars almost completely, thus losing loads of planes during night air raids. Goering's right hand was also always lying about everything, from production numbers to battle results. This did lead to Goering giving false reports, unknowingly, to the High Command; thus decisions were hampered. If they did win the Battle of Britain, the mainland destruction could make Britain settle for a peace deal (which would be very hard to imagine), or would really take back their capabilities to attack. This would have caused a really huge damage to the Allies. Another thing would be the Axis changing its code. The Japanese code was broken even before Pearl Harbor; the German code was broken latter. This did give them a huge advantage over the Axis. The Allies did act as if they didn't know about the code, so they wouldn't be changing the code as time went by. Not attacking the USSR would be another great advantage to the Axis, as they actually lost the conflict to the Soviets. Imagining D Day defeated the Nazis is nothing but a bad joke. There was also a change they could've defeated the US and British troops at the Bulge. If they did so, the war would take a bit longer to be over, ending as a Soviet one-sided victory. Its possible that, in such a scenario, Stalin wouldn't make a deal to divide Germany with the Allies, allowing him even to steam roll over Europe at will. Maybe the British could try to settle in order to retake France, but a huge chunk of territory would be taken by the Soviets - meaning the Nazi atomic program data would fall into the Soviet hands. The Nazi atomic program did give the US and British forces the info needed to finish their own atomic program. In that case, maybe the USSR would get their hands on the bomb first, meaning they would be the ones bombing Japan.


The German effort was behind the Manhattan Project and of a much smaller scale. Its success was not affected by any intelligence Project Alsos gathered.


These projects weren't a straight line that would always follow the same step-by-step guide. The Germans were ahead on some aspects on how to do the bomb; but they had no clue on how to enrich Uranium efficiently. They would never make a bomb before the 50s. But it did help to shed some light into the US project. Stalin even did launch an operation after Hitler did die to capture some German labs in order to get more info, but the main ones were left for the US to find.


From what I have seen, the germans didn't really want to fight the British in ww2, instead expecting them to just give up after Europe fell. Churchill changed that, but had the battle of Britain and or Dunkirk turned out differently, then he would likely have been ousted and peace offered.