Stalin < Hitler

[Zhukov]

Some people state that stalin brought us closer to nuclear war than anyone ever could. Bull S**t! Just imagine if Hitler's atom bomb program had been completed. If the Soviets hadn't stoped the Germans on the eastern front and the allies hadn't bombed the norse-hydro plant, than Hitler would have harnessed the atom bomb. He would have bombed London, Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, sending us all to s**t! and after the fall of germany, he would have surely passed on his knowledge to the Japanese who would have bombed San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and Seattle! Stalin could sit on his butt with nukes up his a** talking about how he hated america, while hitler would have used to power to kill us all. F**k hitler!

[mastodon]

because of hitler's track record, it is logical to assume that he would use any and all power in his possession to the most unfeeling means possible. hitler did neglect the world's moral system in his methods of conquering the world. but is it intelligent to assume that hitler would indeed irradiate the world he hoped to rule? would hitler destroy his prized possession? i do believe that hitler, had he developed a nuclear bomb, would resort to such power if it was evident that germany was going to lose the war. such was hitler's reaction as germany was losing the war. his strategy was to allow no one victory if germany was not to have victory. hitler did destroy germany at the end of world war ii.

in short, it is attractive to believe hitler would nuke the world given the way he handled power. but it is also important to remember that hitler valued the world, and wanted a perfect world for the Aryan race.

[ILay]

Hello Mastodon!

I think I disagree: remember, the consequenses of the nuclear bombardment were studied far after the first explosions. Heavy studies started (AFAIK) in Russia as wel as in the USA in the 60s only.

IMHO, before, the nuclear bomb was just an ordinary bomb but of great power - in the minds of military chiefs and politicians (specially). At least, this gives me hope US leadership did not realize what they do then bombarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[ANDY-J2]

It is my understanding that the chances of Germany developing a nuclear capability during the war were extremely remote.Hitler's stated reason for not employing chemical and biological weapons during the war was that the technology involved was apparently so simple that he did not believe the western allies did not possess similar weapons.He reasoned that were he to employ such weapons the west would reply in kind.What he wasn't aware of was that German scientists were far in advance of their allied counterparts in the field of chemical and biological weaponry.The same was initially true of German atomic research,however Hitler regarded nuclear weapons as a pipe dream and diverted resources to the development of Jet aircraft and the V1 and V2 programmes.It is also possible that certain German scientists who were idealogically opposed to the Nazis were so aghast at the prospect of Hitler possesing such weapons that they deliberately created delays and exagerated the difficulties of creating an atomic bomb.Whatever the real reasons Hitler simply did not entertain the idea seriously and Allied bombing raids on research centres such as Peenemunde finally put paid to Germany's atomic research programme.

[mastodon]

Originally posted by ILay
IMHO, before, the nuclear bomb was just an ordinary bomb but of great power - in the minds of military chiefs and politicians (specially). At least, this gives me hope US leadership did not realize what they do then bombarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

i see your meaning. knowledge of the ramifications of nuclear capability was limited. not until later were the real consequences of the atom bomb known.

i still believe hitler would have shyed a bit from the prospect of a scorched earth.