also, what makes you think the partisans could've made any difference when all of europe (incl uk/ussr) was under control of the krauts?! Hitler was always going to "germanise" the entire continent, ie make everybody speak german, learn german history, enjoy german holidays, etc, etc, this would've been esp relavent in countries like France, UK, low countries, etc, but in the slavic countries, im afraid the germans simply would've killed most of the "untermension" (spelling?) and moved many germans there, ie living space. by the time the US arrived, if at all, Germany would've had the entire continent either German, Germanic, or Pro-German and would've killed off the leaders, etc of the partisan groups.

didnt matter what happend of course the manhatten project would've kept going, but in an alternative history where the germans had control of Russia and the UK, the project would've had less scientists than it did, the Germans, with a relative peace for a number of years, would've been able to concentrate more on many of Hitler's secret projects with even more resources and manpower that would'nt have been impeded on, ie allied bombing of German factories, cities, etc. i have read an 'overview' of WW2, and in that the author states that there was a US army investigation team went into Germany straight after the war to investigate how close were the Germans off making the bomb and they came back saying that they had everything bar the suffice plutonium; pretty scary thought!

"the project would've had less scientists than it did," No. The refugee European physicists didn't leave Europe on holiday. They fled. The Jews fled for their lives. Many of the rest fled the fear of imprisonment, and the rest fled for political disgust with the Nazis, even if they were not themeselves under risk of arrest. None of this changes in the alternate scenario. Where there might have been some change would be had Britain been overrun and occupied. It's sometimes overlooked that Britain had a major, if secondary, role in the development of the bomb. They had a parallel program, with their own corps of continental refugee physicists. The results of this program were shared with the American program and contributed to the American bombs. OTOH, had the Germans looked as if they would actually conquer Britain, these scientists were on the short list for evacuation, for obvious reasons. They were up with the wonks who ran the code breaking project as strategic human assets. No, the Germans weren't that close. They knew the outlines, but didn't have the details, and the trick in the project *was* the details. Could the Germans have eventually produced a nuclear device? Yes. In time. Not before Germany could be reduced to a melted, radioactive ruin, however.

on 6/22/41, the ussr was undergoing a total and very broad reorganization of its armed forces. A very large factor in the red armys failures of the first year were due to surprise AND the additional confusion of this reformation. For people who like to argue that it was very possible for Germany to be much more succesful during World War 2 if so and so details were different, you must conversely examine the possibilities that would make the USSR be the overpowering behemoth of the war. Say a German attack occured one year later, facing a Red Army not only fully aware (due to the spy network in Germany) of the impending attack but using a revived version of Tukachevsky's (executed in the purge) Deep Operations strategic method, which was a Soviet contemporary military doctrine to blitzkrieg, and, arguably, better. More importantly, soviet troops would be far better trained and equipped due to the reorganization of the previous year. Perhaps not up to german standards but in sufficient numbers to outflank and push back a german attack rather well. Remember, during the war IRL, soviet troops recieved at most a month of very bad training, and officers about 6 months. This was due to the need of men to fill ever expanding gaps, making a vicious cycle of losses and brute force operations. In this alternate timeline, soviet troops and officers would be trained much more efficiently. Much of our perceptions of WWII for the USSR are based on the performance of wartime forces, not taking into account why they performed as they did and how a little extra time could have drastically changed this.

One question that has always interested me: Where was germany going to get the uranium from? Did it have sources that were being mined at the time? My recollection was that one of the very few sources in the world was in the Belgian Congo, which was under Allied control (clearly a mistake on the part of the Belgians, who should have done the honourable thing and become vichy-like collaborators). A lot of uranium was discovered after the war as people suddenly had a good reason to look for it, but was it available to Hitler at the time?

The Germans could have taken Moscow but could they have knocked Russia out of the war. I don't think so. They would have been like napoleon during his invasion. They would have the cities and the russians would control the countryside. As for partisans who said that Germany could have controlled the entire continent. Imagine the Germans trying to execute everyone. A general revolt even if ineffective would have tied down lots of troops for a long period of time as revolt to the Germans spread from one country to the next. Germany might have been a good military for a while but control of the seas would have invariablly gone to the US. Imagine carrier raids on the scale of the pacific in Eurpopean theatre. Think strategically and remember your beans and bullets. Germany could produce tanks and the like but only with the help of SLAVE labor. US had a uncontrollable supply of men and material that no matter what Germany and Japan did they still couldn't match it. You can have the best strategic maneuver in the world but the professionals think of Logistics and in that race the US is second to know one. Imagine the lend lease act not going overseas to other military allies. That would have meant a lot more to the US for materials to use in the war. If Germany had commanded the continent a very real sense of impending danger to the North American Continent would have resulted and who knows what the military democratic manufacturing complex could have come up with. Germany was good but she isn't that good especially with a mad man at the helm such as hitler.

Little historich information on the side: There were, at the relevant time, two nuke-scientists who could theoretically have build a nuclear bomb. Heisenberg had miscalculated the critical mass to 1.3k kilogramm (as opposed to about 1kg) and therefore thought the concept of an "atom-bomb" to be unrealistic. The other one (forgot his name) didn´t believe in the theorie of relativity - too jewish - and therefore couldn´t get the necessary basics straight. German nukes would have been way, way down the road.

That "reorganization" AchtungLagg mentioned was necessary because Stalin had had a large part of the Red Army officer corps murdered or deported to the gulags shortly before. This was one of the reasons Hitler beleived the Soviets would collapse, and that invasion should occur sooner, rather than later. The Red Army was still reeling from the purges when Barbarossa began. (Writings by Soviets of the era, including Red Army officers, confirm this, although this didn't appear in print for a *long* time since saying so was tantamount to a direct challenge to the Party, and, so, treason, in Soviet terms.) Second, I dispute suggestions that the Red Army was becoming a force which was mastering mobile warfare as the Wehrmacht was. The Red Army just was not run this way, at any point before or during WW2. Or, even, afterwards. While the Red Army evolved and improved, a *lot* after 1941, it never, ever was a force whose doctrine favored improvisation, turns on a dime, officers who could choose to go further than, or, worse, ignore their orders. Doing so was grounds for immediate arrest. Indeed, in many circumstances, grounds for summary execution by the political officer assigned. Improvisation, quick movements to seize opportunities which appeared in the fog of fighting was an inherent part of the new, mobile warfare. The Soviets, otoh, favored detailed plans and setpiece battles. This was the basis of their doctrine, even under Zhukov, and all through the Cold War. Zhukov was much better at it then many others, and he was less rigid than Stalin seemed to prefer in this. He was only able to *be* so, and survive, because by the time Stalin turned to him, the Soviet armies in the West had been annihilated and the Soviet Union was obviously close to complete defeat. And, the senior generals in the West fought the rest of the Great Patriotic War in real fear that they would be executed for deviating from whatever it was the Party decided was good strategy, the right plan for the next battle, or just for being too successful, and, so, seeming a posssible threat to Party control when the smoke cleared.

youre absolutely right. but since everyone is talking about what would happen to history if some things the germans did/didnt do were done/not done, (such as hitler being less strategically inept, etc) such what ifs are just as plausible as my what if on what would occur had tukachevsky and his clique not been killed in the 30s, then, yes, teh soviets would have had an army like you said, very set piece and rigid. But this was much more preferable than what happened in 41 isnt it? Read more on tukachevsky's Deep Operations strategies, they were not like german blitzkrieg, but very unique and more strategic in nature, whereas german innovation was more tactical. There are many very likely "what ifs" that could have made Barbarossa an absolute rout for the Germans.

If you are a German you take Moscow and then you take Gorky. Both centres radiate railways to the north and south. Beyond Gorky there is nothing except railways extending east-west into the interior. After that the Russians would have had to walk or drive on roads that didn't exist.