Science Alternate History: A Nazi Sputnik

[MattBaker]

There are, unfortunately, no what-ifs in history.

Or luckily since the Soviet Union capturing Central Europe with a Cold War bracing for impact sounds like Oceania and Eurasia.

And a little contribution to the original topic: Even an improved orbital version of a V2 wouldn't be able to put anything more than a few kilograms into orbit and even today this results in very bad spy satellites. Remember the first Iranian satellites? 450m per pixel IIRC. So unless the Nazis found a magical stash of Delta IV plans with a few thousands and hundred of thousands of slave workers you can't counter your Luftwaffe failure by spy-satellites. I'd say even today you can't. The US might have enough military satellites, but the Air Force is probably still better.

 

[APDAF]

There are, unfortunately, no what-ifs in history.

You and I know that is not true.

I know of plenty what-if's.

 

[garyw]

O
And a little contribution to the original topic: Even an improved orbital version of a V2 wouldn't be able to put anything more than a few kilograms into orbit and even today this results in very bad spy satellites. Remember the first Iranian satellites? 450m per pixel IIRC.

Not only that but there would be no way to get the pictures back down to the ground. The very first spy satellites used ejectable film canisters. When the V2 flew heatshields were just an idea and landing anything around Peenemünde would be quite a challenge. A water landing would be better but that would have it's own risks.

 

[Andy44]

Going from a primitive guided ballistic missile like the V2 to a simple orbital launch alone iwould've been a huge development project requiring lots of money and time. You have to invent technologies that didn't exist in 1943 before you can get to the launch pad.

Staged rockets, guidance schemes, algorithms, and physical systems, command and telemetry systems, improved propulsion, communications systems, reaction control, materials, handling procedures, ground systems, ground transportation, tracking stations, the list goes on and on.

Launching things into orbit is not a simple task, there is a lot of groundwork that has to be laid. And Germany would've had to do this while waging a war for its own survival, with ground sites under threat of aerial attack. North Korea is not in an active war with anyone and it took them decades to get to this point.

And once you can achieve orbit with a simple object like Sputnik or a spent upper stage equipped with a transmitter, there is another technological leap to developing and building a satellite that can do something useful. It took the two post-war superpowers 15 years to do this in peacetime with lavish money and resources. It's not credible that Germany could've done this in the middle of a disatrous war in the early 1940s, even though there were engineers in Germany who were already envisioning it. Von Braun and his crew, of course, and there was also Eugen Sanger, who had ideas for a spaceplane.

 

[MattBaker]

Staged rockets

Well, actually the Nazis had even that. Called [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinbote"]Rheinbote[/ame]. Although you're right if we go with 1943.:thumbup:

 

[statickid]

Launching nazi-sputnik wouldn't change anything. Its NOT a spy satellite, its a weakly transmitting beeper. Ww2 was not a cold war, If a beeping satellite could strike fear into the hearts of enemies, they would just fight harder and take more desperate measures.

But the point about gathering more intelligence is interesting. What about something more plausible, like a high altitude spy plane. It wouldn't have to be as extreme as the U2, just fly higher and faster than other planes of the time.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

But the point about gathering more intelligence is interesting. What about something more plausible, like a high altitude spy plane. It wouldn't have to be as extreme as the U2, just fly higher and faster than other planes of the time.

Actually they had something exactly like that. Lemme go look it up...

The Arado 234 jet bomber was also used for surveillance in almost that exact role.

Ahaha been :ninja:

 

[Urwumpe]

Actually they had something exactly like that. Lemme go look it up...

The Ar 234 was something like that. Actually a light bomber, that was too fast to catch.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234"]Arado Ar 234 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Linguofreak]

Might have actually been about as long - the USA was likely to make the A-bomb in about the same time frame, if not faster, except that now there would have been a few of them for the Germany.
Thus, the distraction would have come in 1945, and a much more shocking one than the west front.

Even without that the war might not have lasted a lot longer (unless the US was more serious than Roosevelt was likely to be about keeping the USSR out of Western Europe).

If Normandy had failed, a lot of the materiel earmarked for the fighting in France would have ended up with nowhere to go and might very well have ended up being shipped to Russia in the Arctic convoys. In 1944 and 1945, the US had around half the GDP of all of the major combatants on both sides combined, and more of that going to the eastern front could have sped things up there. Of course, I'm not sure what the Soviet logistical situation was at that time (as in, whether the rate of advance on the eastern front was manpower-limited or materiel-limited, or limited by other factors entirely), so it might or might not have actually helped.

On the other hand, if the US had been really desperate to keep the USSR out of Western Europe (which is not consistent with what I know of Roosevelt), and was feeling like playing hardball realpolitik, it could have withdrawn lend-lease aid to the USSR (once again, I don't know exactly how much that would have slowed the USSR down, but it probably would have done something).

A few other factors to consider, that don't have so much to do with the Eastern front:

1) The Western Allies already did have a beachhead in continental Europe at the time of the Normandy invasion (Italy). If Normandy had failed, the Italian campaign would probably have been pressed harder.

2) If Germany had been nuked first instead of Japan, the psychological effect on the Japanese would have been dulled, and the Emperor might not have been able to convince his military to surrender (he faced a coup attempt as it was). This might have prolonged the Pacific campaign considerably.

 

[Melvin]

Operation Barbarossa

Nothing could have been done to make that a successful operation. It was doomed from the start, and had it not been attempted the outcome of the war may have been very different.

 

[Urwumpe]

Nothing could have been done to make that a successful operation. It was doomed from the start, and had it not been attempted the outcome of the war may have been very different.

It wasn't doomed from the start... unless you call "Elderly Experts calling something impossible" impossible.

Fact is, out of many many attempts, nobody came as close to winning as Germany. Not that it would have changed the war much. The real enemy had still been the USA, and I strongly doubt that it is realistically possible to achieve a stalemate by dictating terms in the White House.

Would Germany have held Moscow during the winter, instead of trying to turn to the south during the winter, the USSR would have been in a very very bad situation. It still had most of its industry, but only a week of fighting away from the Germans. And it would have been the Soviets, who would have had to move and fight during the winter. The Germans had already reached their supply limits and would badly have needed winter for getting new supply chains set up.

Good thing for history: Hitler was a big idiot.
Sad thing: He couldn't sabotage all his skilled generals at once.

 

[Melvin]

Fact is, out of many many attempts, nobody came as close to winning as Germany.

Actually, as close as they may have come, the fact is that they still lost. The fact that Operation Barbarossa was a bad idea speaks for itself.

The rest of your post is pure speculation.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

It wasn't doomed from the start... unless you call "Elderly Experts calling something impossible" impossible.

Fact is, out of many many attempts, nobody came as close to winning as Germany. Not that it would have changed the war much. The real enemy had still been the USA, and I strongly doubt that it is realistically possible to achieve a stalemate by dictating terms in the White House.

Would Germany have held Moscow during the winter, instead of trying to turn to the south during the winter, the USSR would have been in a very very bad situation. It still had most of its industry, but only a week of fighting away from the Germans. And it would have been the Soviets, who would have had to move and fight during the winter. The Germans had already reached their supply limits and would badly have needed winter for getting new supply chains set up.

Good thing for history: Hitler was a big idiot.
Sad thing: He couldn't sabotage all his skilled generals at once.

Bang on. I think delivering Soviet Russia a knockout blow would have been pretty much impossible, but there's no question that capturing Moscow would have given the Germans solid control over pretty much all of western Russia. The Russian lines were stretched so thin, and all of the rail lines radiated outwards from Moscow. If the first dominoe falls...

Actually, as close as they may have come, the fact is that they still lost. The fact that Operation Barbarossa was a bad idea speaks for itself.

The rest of your post is pure speculation.

Well, this isnt really the place for an argument on this topic, but I would highly disagree with you on that conclusion. The Soviets were not ready for an assault in 1941, but they would have invaded by 1943-1944 at least, given the extreme political differences between the countries. Germany probably made the right decision to invade then, even if the invasion was ultimately a failure.

I can highly recommend one book on the subject for you, The Greatest Battle by Andrew Nagorski, which talks about the battle for Moscow, and the effects it had on the soviet people.

Please dont go around bolding words just to make a point. We all read the content of posts, even if we dont agree with them

 

[Melvin]

Well, this isnt really the place for an argument on this topic, but I would highly disagree with you on that conclusion. The Soviets were not ready for an assault in 1941, but they would have invaded by 1943-1944 at least, given the extreme political differences between the countries. Germany probably made the right decision to invade then, even if the invasion was ultimately a failure.

This whole paragraph is speculation.

I can highly recommend one book on the subject for you, The Greatest Battle by Andrew Nagorski, which talks about the battle for Moscow, and the effects it had on the soviet people.

After reading some reviews I don't hold much hope that this book will deliver any meaningful argument, but I went ahead and ordered it anyway.

Please dont go around bolding words just to make a point.

I will do as I please, thank you very much.

:tiphat:

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

This whole paragraph is speculation.

Perhaps, but both sides of the argument are speculation. Historians tend to do a lot of it, since past events are pretty meaningless to study if alternate endings are'nt considered.

After reading some reviews I don't hold much hope that this book will deliver any meaningful argument, but I went ahead and ordered it anyway.

Wow, wasnt expecting you to order it, but I think you will find it interesting nonetheless. The accounts about Western diplomats trying to work with Stalin are almost comical in a certain way.

Regardless of intelligence, it does seem clear that Hitler & Stalin were both rather prone to being delusional.

I will do as I please, thank you very much.

:tiphat:

I could get into a long, complicated argument on this, but its not worth the trouble. Suffice to say I read things regardless of whether theyre bolded or not.