The British developed the turbojet engine, not the Germans and the Meteor went into production BEFORE the ME 262. The Allies simply didn't waste as much time and effort developing weapons that relied on untested technologies that wouldn't have influenced the outcome anyway.
The Wehrmacht and its capabilities was been highly overrated because of initial successes against unprepared foes at the beginning of the war. Despite the reputation for blitzkrieg, the Heer was heavily dependent on horses for mobility, particularly with artillery. The Luftwaffe never had any effective strategic bombers, and precious resources that could have gone toward subs were wasted on the Kriegsmarine's dreams of re-fighting the Battle of Jutland.
All these alternate histories are interesting fantasies, but were as close to reality as my dreams of playing in the NBA.
you made a couple of MAJOR mitakes in here, first being about the Russian tanks. I hate to break it to you, but this entire thread was about a scenario where RUSSIA AND GERMANY DID NOT FIGHT EACH OTHER AFTER DEC 1941.
Second, your analysis of the German atomic program is not in sync with some history networks. I don’t know if you’re right, or they are, but your view is hardly “settled science.”
You obviously just in a contrarian mood today…..bye
Anyway, the scenario presented was one which was intriguing. I actually think it was possible for Hitler to have won the war. It was less about the atom bomb and the aircraft and more about consolidating his clear gains in Europe proper.
Had he retreated in December 1941 to defensible lines, Hitler could have refocused on consolidating what he'd won in Western and Southern Europe. In addition, he could have sealed off the Mediterranean Sea and fully conquered North Africa, especially and including Egypt. Britain was in no position to hold back a North African force that was hundreds of thousand of soldiers, not just the handful that Rommel actually had.
With the westward focus, Hitler could have focused entirely on sealing off the UK from the Americans. This would have been possible had so much blood and treasure not been squandered on the Russian front. Even with the two nations formally at war, the battles would only have been at sea, at best. There would be very few alternatives for the Yanks if all of continental Europe was taken, North Africa was taken and the Mediterranean was sealed off. Ireland, perhaps could have been a staging ground. But given the distance it would have only been good for bombing runs, and during 1942 those runs would have hardly reached the coastline of Belgium and the Netherlands.
And, once a sitzkrieg of sorts took hold between the the two continents, nothing would have happened other than some naval battles. America's focus would have shifted to the Pacific Theater and, eventually, Britain would have had to negotiate a peace treaty not because they were conquered, but because they were starving.
The only unknown would be Russia. And that's where it gets really intriguing. I agree with you that Stalin intended to invade Germany himself, so Hitler merely beat him to the punch. But even Stalin considered a negotiated peace treaty with Hitler early during Barbarossa. So the notion that he would have agreed to at least a cessation of hostilities is not beyond the pale.
Hitler would have had a long border to defend in the East, to be sure, yet there is no doubt this could have been done well. It took Stalin 2 full years to make significant gains against Germany, after the Germans had bled themselves dry at Stalingrad, Kursk, the Crimea. Guderian had some very novel plans for mobile defense that Hitler never implemented, because Hitler didn't go off the offense until late 1943. It is very possible that Hitler's lines in the East would have held.
The atom bomb doesn't even figure into this. The Americans didn't achieve this until 1945. The Germans were far behind the Americans. The Russians didn't get a bomb until they stole the details in 1947. I'm talking about 1942 here. The Russians had lost 5 million men in 1941-42, and the only reason the Stalingrad pincer succeeded is because it wasn't a fair fight. Hitler fell into a trap, due his own hubris, and the Sixth Army was surrounded. Had the Sixth Army been fresh there is NO chance the Russians would have prevailed with their Siberian forces.
As for the out years of 1944, 1945 and beyond, who knows? If Europe had become stable, albeit under the Nazi yoke, and if Russia had tried several times to break the line but failed, there might have been an uneasy stability throughout Europe. Would America have still waged a futile war then? Even if the timetable for the atom bomb was unchanged, would they have dropped it on a German nation that wasn't even within reach? I'm not even certain today that the USA would have used the bomb on Caucasians; there is a lot of scholarship about that.