Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Nuke the Germans?

Discussion in 'Western Europe 1943 - 1945' started by tali-ihantala, Apr 19, 2010.

  1. tali-ihantala

    tali-ihantala Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a hypothesis going around that America would not have used nuclear weapons on the Germans because they were white, what do you guys think?
     
  2. Mehar

    Mehar Ace

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,366
    Likes Received:
    115
    I don't think that has much weight to it, my theories on the Atomic Bombs:

    1. No one knew the true effect of nuclear energy at the time, after Japan surrendered the US Army immediately sent scientists, medical staff, etc to the region to asses the damage done by the bombs.

    2. Germany had more long run value than Japan did if nuked, after all, a motivating factor for Japan to go to war in the first place was because they didn't have enough land to satisfy their needs. Japan is also an island while Germany is connected to land masses in Europe, the effects would have been harder to contain.
     
  3. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    Resentment from other Europeans, A rallying cry from from the USSR to the communist countries, division among German descendants in America; this wasnt the cast in Japan as America had literally no ties to them except for some immigrants who were relatively small in number.

    One big issue I think, was that they knew that if they hit Germany, UK would suffer the terrible consequences with a likely massive German retaliation with every last gas canister in the western front being shot or dropped onto major British cities one way or another,killing millions, but in contrast the Japanese didnt have such abilities, thus Japan was the only real target.
     
  4. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    That seems to be a rather simplistic analysis of a very complex situation. In reality, the issue of using nuclear weapons that was discussed in September 1944 predicted that they would not be available until August 1945. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/1.pdf) By April 1945, General Groves was predicting that "Within four months we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history, one bomb of which could destroy a whole city. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/3a.pdf) At that point, Germany was all but defeated, so there was no consideration of using it there. From the reading I've done, had the bomb been completed by, say, early 1944, I have no doubt that the prevailing wisdom would have also targeted Germany. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.
     
  5. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    I have said it before that the US and Britain were committed to a policy of defeating Germany first. There is nothing that leads me to believe that if the Allies had developed an Atomic weapon in 1943-44 that it wouldn't have been used in Europe first, especially when you consider that the advancement of the German progam was an unknown factor. IF the Germans had developed it first it most certainly would have been used against either Russia or Great Britain.
     
  6. whodunit

    whodunit Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    61
    Likes Received:
    5
    the Trinity was conducted on July 1945, so how on Earth would it be possible to use nuclear bomb against Germany? Even if the bomb was constructed earlier I think this wouldn't change a thing as for the beginning of 1945 Germany was already at the edge of disaster.
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    The results of the A-bomb on German cities would have been no worse and indeed perhaps not as severe as the firestorms.
    Is there anything to indicate that Germany even considered this? Even if they did would they have had the means to do so? Even if they had the means I suspect your casualty expectations are off by orders of magnitude.

    Germany was the prime target when the project started. There is little evidence that it would not have been the target upon completion had it still been a combatent.
     
    ickysdad, brndirt1 and Triple C like this.
  8. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    Most of the scientists who reminisced about the Manhattan Project believed they would use this weapon on Nazi Germany and reported feeling a kind of a disappointment when Germany beat the bomb by surrendering. Germany was the designated target for the bomb; the Luftwaffe had already burned London and the USAAF/RAF incinerated quite a few cities when it's their turn. There was nothing special about destroying a city. And the Allies had plenty of chemical weapons with which to retaliate, if it came to that.
     
  9. Totenkopf

    Totenkopf אוּרִיאֵל

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    89
    My bad there guys, I was trailing off into the idea of "no Western front because of the A-Bomb being a better alternative" ATL. lwd is correct of course.
     
  10. Spaniard

    Spaniard New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes Received:
    58

    I Believe Triple C is Right. I've read that a few times, makes more sense! This sounds like a might Black thread to me, is this Implying a racist angle ;). Their Hypotheses could be motivated by other factors???
     
  11. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    267
    I am not convinced that the allies would drop the bomb on German soil.

    The reasons behind the Japanese bombings was mainly because they feared so many loses from both sides including civilians. The Allies also knew that the Japanese were ruthless and would not surrender causing a long and hard battle for the Japanese mainland.

    However the Germans on the other hand, did surrender from time to time, they had a larger country to invade into, and there were not many natural bottlenecks like large mountains and coast lines. They knew once they had taken Normandy they knew the German strengths were dwindling and even the Germans knew the war was lost.

    On the other side of the country Russia was pushing the Germans back towards Berlin at an amazing rate, probably the fastest counter advance over such a long distance in history and were going to take Germany.

    So there was no need to drop the bomb on Germany the reasons for dropping it on Japan just don't hold here.
     
  12. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006

    But you have to consider that when efforts began to develop the weapons, August 1939, in was in response to Germany's U-235 enrichment program. In 1939 there was no way of knowing how tenacious an enemy the Japanese were going to be or how quickly the Germans would surrender once they were pushed back to their own soil.

    Even in 1942 when the Manhattan project was gaining momentum there was no clue as to how things would develop; in regards to an invasion of Europe or Japan.

    I would surmise that had the bombs been operational anytime prior to the summer of 1944 it would have been a an utmost certainty that the first bomb would have been dropped on Germany.

    You can't forget that the Allies had comitted to defeating Germany first. I can only assume that to mean had the weapons became operational soon it enough they would have been used on Germany first.

    Atom Bomb
    History of the Atomic Bomb and The Manhattan Project
    Germany First
     
    ickysdad, Triple C, Tomcat and 2 others like this.
  13. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    I tend to agree, not only because of the "Germany first" policy which was in complete effect. The main and driving forces behind the project were people who had reason to "beat the Germans" to the device. They were certain the Nazis were far ahead of the west in the field. This was wrong but unknown at the time.

    If the western allies had an atomic to use before the Nazis collapsed from the rest of the weight thrown against them it is certain (to my mind) that the atomics would have been used in Europe before being used in Japan.

    The fact that they weren't available doesn't change the fact that they were looked upon as simply "extremely large explosive devices", and not the radiation problems they were shown to be in later tests. As such there would be no compunction NOT to use an extremely effective high explosive against the Germans as easily as the Japanese.

    I doubt they would have been used on Berlin, just as they were not used on Tokyo. One needs someone with whom to deal in order to stop the war after all. I can see its being used in the Stuttgart area since we knew full well that was the new center for Nazi atomic research after they had been moved from Liepzig. This would have perhaps had two effects, disperse the uranium ore U-238 we knew they had stockpiled there, and disrupt their own research facilities in the process with a less numerous fatality level.

    Hitler had been publicially "professing new and wonderous secret weapons" which were about to show up in the Nazi arsenal. Now if the allies dropped a single bomb which destroyed a city, that might easily be seen as the "enemy got it first somehow" and a very good reason to quit the war.

    The Japanese were shocked that their enemies had "taken the power of their goddess" and turned it against them, the Nazis/Germans might have as easily been shocked that the "decadent" west had beat them to the technological marvel of atomic power. It wasn't ready in time, but if it had been ready in 1944 I don't doubt we (the west) would have used it against Germany.

    Of course we were so un-iformed of the radiation dangers we might also have used it with our own troops on the conteninent, using it as "beach softener" was still being discussed for parts of Operation Downfall if the Japanese didn't surrender. What we didn't know about this weapon is mind boggling in many respects.
     
    LRusso216 likes this.
  14. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,288
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Both Brad and Clint have summarized the concept quite well (much better than I could). The Germany First idea of the Allies leads me to believe that, if the weapon had been available earlier, it most certainly would have been used against Germany.

    Thanks for those links, Brad.
     
  15. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    267
    Great rebuttal Brad, and some good points to think on.
     
  16. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,131
    Likes Received:
    894
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I too have little doubt that if a bomb or two were ready and could have been used on Germany they would have been.

    There are several reasons for this:

    First, the US would have wanted to end the war in Europe as quickly as possible. From their perspective vaporizing a city or two would have been a major step in that direction.
    Next, the Germans may or may not figure out what the US used following a nuclear attack. There might be some confusion as their own physicists thought such a weapon impossible on size grounds due to a miscalculation. The Germans may initially think a new conventional explosive was the cause or, something along those lines.
    Then there is production. The US isn't going to stop making more bombs. So, using a few on Germany is not going to preclude Japan getting pasted a few months later. I seriously doubt that once the US started using nuclear weapons they would suddenly hesitate to continue doing so.

    As for targetting, I would have expected the US to try and hit a major production center rather than a political target initially. They might also target a city that is closer to the front lines on the basis of overrunning it quickly to assess the damage up close. There would definitely be alot of interest in seeing what a nuke can do and little fear of radiation effects as these were not well known or understood at the time.

    The Allies might also think that dropping a bomb as soon as it is available would have a serious morale effect on the Japanese. I have little doubt that the Allies would have quickly made known to the Japanese and in particular their public that they were next on the hit parade, that the US was coming for them and, there was no way to stop them. I possibly could have ratcheted up the desire of Japan to end the war too.

    So, there is every reason to believe the US would have gladly nuked Germany given the availability of ordinance to do so.
     
  17. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    Both Brad and T.A. pointed out a very important piece of the clue that many of us missed. The Americans were cranking out atomic weapons very quickly by late 1945 and the assembly process must have been designed prior to 1944. Why build so many if you didn't intend to use them?
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,322
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Location:
    Michigan
    IMO the only caveat to this is that once major allied forces crossed the Rhine all bets were off. This would be more due to the difficulty in picking a reasonable target than anything else.
     
  19. Mussolini

    Mussolini Gaming Guru WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2000
    Messages:
    5,739
    Likes Received:
    563
    Location:
    Festung Colorado
    A-Bomb developed prior to 1944 certainly offers the Allies the choice to use the bombs on the Germans, but I am not so sure they would do so. The Allies, as we know, were on a 'Total Surrender' policy in regards to the Germans, as making a Peace deal with them to end World War I clearly did not solve the problem. The Allies wanted to bash in Hitlers front door and so destroy the German Armed forces (and its cities) that the German Regime would change and they would not declare war again in the future. They wanted the German people to know they had been defeated.

    Call it late 1943 - there is still only the Eastern Front for the Germans to worry about. If the Allies were to drop a bomb on a German City I am not so sure the Germans would outright surrender. They certainly wouldn't want to give up all of their conquests and they'd still have a largely intact Military Force, with the possibility as viewing 'defeat' due to the Allies 'cheating' by using a WMD.

    When the A-Bombs were used on Japan, Japan had already gone through hundreds of defeats and was well retreating back to Japan. The 'take as many with you' attitude of the Japanese soldier would have made an invasion of Japan extremely costly on both sides and result in the destruction of the country, but the people were still very much behind their Emperor. I think the A-Bombs use showed the people and the Emperor that the US could destroy their cities and kill their people while not even losing one of their own, quite possibly flattening the home-islands of Japan. They really had no other option but surrender. Resources would also hinder Japan in the future in regards to a military, as it had in the past, and they didn't have the 'aggressive' history that the Germans had.
     
  20. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    I think what you need to look at is the Strategic Bombing that was taking place. As was cited in another thread the 8th Air Force lost more men in the bombing of Germany than the entire Marine Corps had lost in the Pacific. If you consider the loses the "One Plane, One Bomb, One City" approach would be very appealing to the commanders and crews in the 8th and the Lancaster Boys in the RAF.


    There is no doubt that this played a role in the decision to drop the bombs on Japan rather than a ground invasion. Your argument does not address the effect that a couple of "buckets of sunshine" being dropped on your country destroys your will to fight and wage war. In the past 65 years Japan has been mighty docile.
     

Share This Page