The Nazis Bomb The US

[Chris]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Germans manage to build a long-range bomber and actually manage to bomb New York. In the absense of any nukes, this isn't actually going to win them the war (although it may cost them the war (quicker) because the resources they put into the super-bomber won't be used elsewhere), and they're still going to lose.

Question; will this have any other effects on history, beyond a footnote?

Chris

[Admiral Canaris]

In the short term? Great Bomber Scare in America.

This will probably be good for the Germans, in that the alarmed public will force a lot of resources to be diverted towards air defense and the like in major East Coast cities. On the other hand it increases the American commitment to the war, which might be a bad thing depending on when in the TL this happens.

In the greater scheme of things it might or might not contribute to a more paranoid American Cold War policy (for the early years at least) given they now have ample physical evidence they aren't untouchable to strategic bombers.

[gtrof]

Fortress America? At least that is what people will demand. First Pearl Harbor now Nazi bombers. Curious how many missions the Nazis mount with their long range bombers? I doubt they would be able to get away with it for long.

I agree it doesn't have any real effects for World War II. Maybe it speeds up development of the B-36 so the USA can strike at Germany directly. I'd expect more developed air defenses for the USA for the Cold War.

[MNPundit]

I don't know, wouldn't it simply be a replay of the U-boat spree along the eastern seaboard?

[Hades]

can anyone say nukes over berlin :eek:

[MNPundit]

can anyone say nukes over berlin :eek:
No because that wouldn't happen.

[Bruno]

It really does depend on how much damage this Nazi Super-Bomber accomplishes. I would imagine that the air defence system on the east coast -- which was a bit of a joke - would be immediately beefed up after the first attack, so that might have some slight ripple effects on the rest of the War (i.e. Instead of sending 100 fighters a month, the US sends 70 fighters a month and keeps the rest for home defence or whatever).

Beyond that though - as long as it was a one-off thing, I'm not seeing any big effects.

[Chris]

My theory was that it would do very little damage, without nukes. (Which they won't have, barring another change.)

Chris

[Phil Kearny]

A greater what if might be the result on the Soviets. The Nazi bombing may lead to even greater Soviet emphasis on bombers and a greater effort to capture the Nazi bomber technology.

[Cook]

can anyone say nukes over berlin :eek:

No because that wouldn't happen.

It is possibly important to say that the reason it won’t happen is because:
A) Nazi Germany surrenders before the Atomic Bomb is ready and
B) If Japan is anything to go by The Bomb would be used on a city other than the capital city so that there is someone left to negotiate surrender with.

[Cook]

A greater what if might be the result on the Soviets. The Nazi bombing may lead to even greater Soviet emphasis on bombers and a greater effort to capture the Nazi bomber technology.

Like the race to Peenemunde?

[MNPundit]

It is possibly important to say that the reason it won’t happen is because:Because a bomber (or even a few bombers) bombing New York will not be the impetus for a nuclear response to Berlin.

Other things maybe, but this incident will not be one of them.

[Cook]

The previous was not a list of options it was two immediate reasons why a Berlin Atomic Bombing was not on the cards.

[MNPundit]

The previous was not a list of options it was two immediate reasons why a Berlin Atomic Bombing was not on the cards.
As was my response as well. No one is going to nuke someone for bombing one of their cities one time.

[Cook]

I think it’s a reasonable to believe that had the Germans held out long enough for the Atomic Bomb to be available it would have been used on a German city.

This was after all total war.

A lot of the effects of a German bombing of a US City depends on how they manage it, and the level of damage of course.

The reaction to a strategic bomber is going to be different to that of a V missile or an aircraft launched from a ship or submarine.

[MNPundit]

I think it’s a reasonable to believe that had the Germans held out long enough for the Atomic Bomb to be available it would have been used on a German city. Likely! I read an anthology where Hitler developed usable jets by 1942, defeated the Normandy landings and had slowed the Russian advance in the eat to a crawl then got nuked in 1946. Anyhow, the consequence of their being nuked is because they are still in the war for whatever reason not because they made a single bombing run at New York City as Avalon1 implied.

Even if they have flocks and flights of long-range bombers they are not going to be nuked because of a raid on NYC, they are going to be nuked for other reasons tied to their long range bombers.