WI No WWII ini Europe until 1946?

[Don Lardo]

Would Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, and the rest have ended up in the USA if the war in Europe had not started until several years later?

No. Delaying rearmament doesn't delay the Nuremberg Laws or the implementation of the rest of the Nazis' anti-semitic agenda inside Germany.

Also, about the men you mentioned. Einstein had no involvement in the Manhattan Project beyond signing a letter written by others which alerted FDR to the prospect of a Nazi Bomb. Bohr famously got his estimate for critical mass wrong and, because of the way the Nazis had setup science in the Reich, there was no one how could challenge him about that mistake. [edit - Please see footnote] While Fermi's work with "atomic piles" was critical (no pun intended) for the production of fissionables, he worked on the Project as a general consultant and then primarily at Hanford. Like Einstein, it was felt having Fermi "disappear" behind the security veil drawn over Los Alamos would be too much of a red flag.

if the Reich is not at war until, let's split the difference and say in 1943 instead of in 1939, would the Holocaust been delayed? If so, then would "Jew Science" still be held in such contempt that all that could flee, would flee?

Seeing as Germany won't be occupying Poland, the Holocaust there and elsewhere in Eastern Europe will be delayed, but the Holocaust had already begun inside Germany in the 1930s. The Wannsee Conference "merely" expanded and industrialized a process which was already occurring.

IIRC in 1938 when Fermi received the Nobel Prize in Stockholm, he, his wife Laura, and their children emigrated to New York. This was mainly because of the new laws promulgated by the regime of Mussolini in order to bring Italian Fascism ideologically closer to German Nazism. Could Italy have developed the A-Bomb first if Fermi had stayed in Italy?

No. Italy is too poor to develop the industrial plant necessary for fissionable production. We often talk about how mismatched Japan was against the US. Well, during this period Italy ranked below Japan in industrial capacity.

Italy couldn't even afford to build the tanks it needed, so finding a spare 2 billion in 1940 USD will be impossible. And that's just the Bomb too. I often point out the need for a delivery system too. The US spent more on developing the B-29 than it did on the Manhattan Project.


Footnote - I stupidly and inexcusably confused Bohr with Heisenberg. Bohr isn't going to leave Europe without a German occupation of Denmark. However, seeing Bohr in the OTL didn't leave until '43, his presence or lack thereof won't effect a UK or US nuclear project.

 

[Mr Qwerty]

Niels Bohr was from Denmark, wasn't he? If Germany doesn't invade Denmark, he's got no reason to move.

On Japan: while it would be hard to overestimate the lunacy of their ruling class, I can't think they'd go to war without the golden opportunity to jump on the European colonial empires. With much face-saving grumbling, they'll back down-a bit, anyway-to try to end the US's embargo. And forget about hitting the USSR, they already tried that.

Yes, the British, French, Germans, Italians, Soviets, Americans, and Japanese will have nuclear programs, but they'll be leasurely-funded ones that don't produce results until after 1960.

 

[Don Lardo]

Niels Bohr was from Denmark, wasn't he? If Germany doesn't invade Denmark, he's got no reason to move.

Please accept my apologies. I inexcusably confused Bohr with Heisenberg earlier.

I'll correct the earlier post.

 

[Easterling]

On Japan: while it would be hard to overestimate the lunacy of their ruling class, I can't think they'd go to war without the golden opportunity to jump on the European colonial empires. With much face-saving grumbling, they'll back down-a bit, anyway-to try to end the US's embargo. And forget about hitting the USSR, they already tried that.

Actually, with no european war, the Japanese will have no other option but try and get an alliance with the URSS if thew want to continue their expansionism. But wether they can drag Stalin (who was considerably saner than Hitler, or the Japanese leaders, when it comes to international relations) into large scale war remains an open question. But I can see Stalin using them as an "icebreaker" and then backstabing them.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

Hitler rearmed at maximum pace because he wanted to start a war of aggression,

Incorrect.

He did not intend a war but a colonial land grab. He aimed this land grab eastward rather than at the existing colonies of London/Paris/Bruxelle/Amsterdam just to avoid a "modern" war, not that it did help. Had he intended a war of revenge against the western powers from day 1, he would have done much better against them.

 

[Urban fox]

I can only second what Hendryk has said above. Hitler had indeed told some of his staff to plan for a war with a later start, but in fact he could not have delayed WW2 much more both because of his personal impatience and because he had run up a huge deficit with his rearmament and construction projects so the only way he could avoid an economic collapse was to go to war ASAP.
What you are looking for is a scenario where Hitler never comes to power. Of course, in such case the Germans might not be the ones to start WW2 (but I believe a large scale war would still occur - the international situation after WW1 was too unstable). Maybe it would be the Soviets who started the war. Basically, something like the scenario of Red Alert.

Or Romania and Hungary could start tearing strips off each other, dont forget that even when those two were Axis allies. The Germans had to place Itakian troops between them to prevent them killing each other,

 

[Hero of Canton]

Gracias!

Gracias Atlantic Friend and Don Lardo for the detailed replies.

Hero of Canton

 

[Snake Featherston]

If the Reich waits too long it'll end up facing a USSR where T-34s are mainstream Main Battle Tanks while its armies weren't exactly the technological cutting edge in 1940 after WWII had already lasted a year. A single group of T-34s halted the German attacks in the Baltics in 1941 in their tracks, a Soviet army with that a regular part of its armored forces would stop the Nazis well before Smolensk, let alone Moscow.

Not to mention that Hitler is not exactly going to be more inclined to an independent set of generals than Stalin was. If he ever so much as suspects his generals of plotting against him, Night of the Long Knives Mk. II will purge the German Army. *That* might be the most plausible means to delay WWII until 1946. And if by some unfortunate circumstance he starts a war of aggression against a USSR that would start off outgunning his troops *as well as* outnumbering them his war against the USSR may go down as the prime moment when a dictator grabbed the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall in world history.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not really, in 1939 he planned only a limited war against Poland, for some limited territorial gains.

Invading most/all of Poland was planned for 1941 and war against the Soviet-Union planned for the 1943-1945 period.

If Hitler had to occupy territories for economical reasons, he would have focused on Romania instead of the Czechoslovake remnant, cutting a deal with Hungarya, because at least Romania actually had oil.

Except that he went to war with Poland knowing that in this case the UK and France might well really go to war with him, as they'd already begun re-arming and forming a joint army against him. When they issued the ultimatum he refused to pull back. That's why the war went from local campaign to big war. Of course when the USSR was his ally the blockade the Anglo-French imposed was kind of sort of nullified as a strategic concern for Germany......

Do ya'll agree with Geon? Could we see a war between the USSR vs an alliance of Germany, France and Britain? What might be the "Act of War" that triggers it? Poland? Finland? The Baltic Nations? Persia?

Hero of Canton

No, I can't see the USSR doing that. Stalin was evil, but he was not Stupid Evil like Hitler was. He was too intelligent to chance that kind of war.

Following up along this line of thought:

Would Stalin's desire to reclaim "traditional Russian territory" specifically Poland, Finland and the three Baltic States, have resulted in a war with Germany, Britain, and France or a subset of the same?

Hero of Canton

No, it would not have. In 1939 and 1940 Stalin vastly overestimated the strength of the democracies and was looking to them to form a military alliance against Germany. They weren't remotely interested in an alliance with the Soviets of that nature as Anti-Communism was a very powerful force pre-WWII in their politics. In hindsight, however, if the USSR had gone to war in an alliance with them in 1938 the Soviet manpower and firepower would then have been so superior to that of Nazi Germany that a 1938 war turns into a Soviet-wank.

Or as other posters have suggested, no Hitler, but rather someone not so "batshit insane". But who really would be a good candidate to take his place in history? Goring or Heinrich if Nazi? Manstein or Rommel if not?

Hero of Canton

Why not Ernst Rohm, if the Night of the Long Knives turns into a "Hitler dies, not Rohm" scenario?

Incorrect.

He did not intend a war but a colonial land grab. He aimed this land grab eastward rather than at the existing colonies of London/Paris/Bruxelle/Amsterdam just to avoid a "modern" war, not that it did help. Had he intended a war of revenge against the western powers from day 1, he would have done much better against them.

He didn't think the British and French would protect Poland, and he figured once the Soviets became his allies with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that if they had intended to they certainly wouldn't do so then. Instead, well.......reality did what it did, not what Hitler wanted it to do.

 

[Wyragen-TXRG4P]

If the Reich waits too long it'll end up facing a USSR where T-34s are mainstream Main Battle Tanks while its armies weren't exactly the technological cutting edge in 1940 after WWII had already lasted a year. A single group of T-34s halted the German attacks in the Baltics in 1941 in their tracks, a Soviet army with that a regular part of its armored forces would stop the Nazis well before Smolensk, let alone Moscow.

The thing is, they completely underestimated the Soviet-Union, they simply won´t see the scale of the danger of waiting a few more years.

By 46, they would be expecting a lasting war to defeat the Red Army and seize sovietic territories but instead, the war would be very short. Massive defeat in an all-out battle near the Soviet borders followed by an invasion of the axis and Germany itself by the Red Army. Reverse Barbarossa, lol.

He didn't think the British and French would protect Poland, and he figured once the Soviets became his allies with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that if they had intended to they certainly wouldn't do so then. Instead, well.......reality did what it did, not what Hitler wanted it to do.

Hitler wasn´t completely wrong thou, the Anglo-French didn´t launch an all-out offensive against the Rhineland uppon the declaration of war and Paris would certainly not have declared war if London had not done so already and demanded the French do the same.

 

[Easterling]

Or Romania and Hungary could start tearing strips off each other, dont forget that even when those two were Axis allies. The Germans had to place Itakian troops between them to prevent them killing each other,

Well that's not going to start ww2 all by itself, will it?

 

[Wendell]

However long the war in Europe could be delayed, and to whatever end, the war between Chna and Japan was already well underway, so the dynamics of World War II are immediately changed in calculations regarding the strength or weakness of possible allies and adversaries in East Asia.

 

[Urban fox]

Well that's not going to start ww2 all by itself, will it?

Unless they have Allies or another country tries to settle old scores at the same time. Yugoslavia is a powder-keg and Mussolini was always prone to rash action.

 

[Easterling]

the problem is that in this case one of the countries involved (Romania) did have allies, and disproportionalely more than the other. In order to change this you would need some major event that dramatically alters the balance of power in europe, like the rise of Nazi Germany IOTL. And neither Hungary nor Romania are important enough to be the source of such a major change.

 

[Jozon]

Incorrect.

He did not intend a war but a colonial land grab. He aimed this land grab eastward rather than at the existing colonies of London/Paris/Bruxelle/Amsterdam just to avoid a "modern" war, not that it did help.

How does that not classify as a war of agression???

Had he intended a war of revenge against the western powers from day 1, he would have done much better against them.

Hitler did want war with France. He just wanted to 'secure' his eastern border before he did so.

 

[Hero of Canton]

Stick a fork in me jack, cause I am done!

As the OP I thank everyone for their contributions both great and small and declare this thread done.

Thanks Again,

Hero of Canton