Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

What about the Brazilian soldiers?

Well, second to the wikipedia page on the Brazilian soldiers that fought in WW2:

"The Brazilian Army and Air Force fought in Italy and the Navy in the Atlantic Ocean. During the eight months of the Italian campaign, the Brazilian Expeditionary Force managed to take 20,573 Axis prisoners, including two generals, 892 officers and 19,679 other ranks. During the War, Brazil lost 948 of its own men killed in action across all three services."

They made 20.000 prisioners, about 1% of the prisioners that the USSR made. What about that? They had 1% of the importance of the USSR?

 

The A-Bomb is an interesting point, but I think it would do more harm then good.

In history we are shown that Both Britain and Germany both kept large amounts of Poison gas stocks ready to go if the other jumped the gun.


Worst case alternate scenario:
-A Few bombs dropped on major German cities.

-Germans retaliate with Gas on cities in southern Britain killing millions

-British retaliate with Gas on Germany kills millions.


While that might not be the topic, it is disturbing none-the-less.

 

I think that you misunderstood me ,or more probably that I did not explain myself clearly :
I doubt that the Allies would have used automatically the ABombm against Germany because they had to reckon with the possibility of German reprisals
Would the use of the ABomb force Hitler to surrender ? In Japan,the political leadership did surrender,with the aid of the Emperor,but in Germany there was no political leadership .
About the military effectiveness of the Bomb:Japan was already defeated,but would the use of the Bomb in june 1944 against Germany made Overlord unnecessary ?What would be the use of the Bomb in march 1945 against Germany ?
I doubt very much that the possession of the Bomb would mean a automatic victory for the Allies and that game would be over .
I think this is only speculation without backing

 

I have seen absolutly no period sources that link atomic devices and poison gas. The former was outlawed and the latter wasn't for instance.

Did Germany really have this capability? You are also neglecting the British Biowarfare capability.

In essence it is far from certain that Germany would retaliate with chemical weapons if the allies used atomics. Indeed their failure to do so in the face of firebombing presents a rather convincing argument that they would not do so.

 

Again it's not at all clear that this was the case. Even if it was the Germans were likely to get the worst of the exchange.

 

Germany was the original target for the weapon remember, it wasn't used on Germany because the figthing in the ETO was over. If the reverse were true I believe it would have been used. They weren't spared becasue the were "white", they were spared because their portion of the war was over.

As to the Nazis gas stockpiles, we knew what they had, they knew what we (allies) had, and wouldn't risk a gas attack against the allies for that very reason. The DuPont people had tabun (and Hitler knew it), and his advisers assumed the allies also had sarin, which he had in only limited amounts. Both nerve gases are extremely difficult to disperse, and those versions were best used in "confined" areas like rooms and such. In the open air; not very effective actually.

The allies also had massive stockpiles of the "new and improved" mustard gas, as well as chlorine and Lewistite. Both nasty items as well. Hitler knew what we had, he also knew we were stockpiling the mustard gas "just in case" he used gas. He could only suspect that the Soviets had recieved both shells and bombs filled with gases in some of the L/L shipments, so he couldn't risk using the gas against anybody.

And as previously mentioned (lwd?) the firebombings of Hamburg, Koln, and Dresden didn't "unleash" the gas attacks, why would an atomic? Hitler was very despondent when informed that the "new, secret" compounds (nerve gas) were far from either secret or unknown. Knowing the superior production ability of the American plants, which he couldn't interdict, he dismissed gases completely as a weapon.

 

Roughly equal numbers of people were killed in the Tokyo firebombings. The bombing of Dresden killed about half the death toll. The thing to remember with comparisons to the European bombings is that in general, none of those campaigns were strategic bombing efforts targetted at civilians, against an unprepared target, that was intentionally untouched, under more or less ideal situations. (The relatively low kill count of Nagasaki shows the need for good conditions)

Conventional bombing, even with a smaller tonnage, can also distribute explosive firepower more efficiently than atomic weapons - the area destroyed in the Dresden bombings was 3 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, even including damage from fires for Hiroshima, but Dresden had a comparatively lower population density and harder buildings.

Add together the unreliability of early atomics, and the potential for unexploded weapons to be captured by the Germans...

There's also the public opinion issue. If the US starts using atomics in Europe, if the Germans do not surrender immediately, there's going to be serious questions at home. Two bombs followed by an immediate surrender is one thing, but if the Germans call their bluff, it's not at all certain that the US public is going to stand for a *sustained* bombing campaign against a civilian population. Japan was on the edge of defeat anyway, but winning the war with nukes alone is going to be a different proposition.

 

I don't completely disagree here, but Japan was on the edge of defeat only in the minds of the Americans, they were determined to fight to the last man, woman and child. Only the decree from their "living god, the son of the sun goddess" ended the war. The Germans certainly held Hitler in high esteem as well (at least some Germans), but no where near a diety status which had a nearly two millennia tradition. The Nazi Party was not even two decades in power, not two millennia.

Since Heisenberg had assured Hitler that the allies couldn't possibly produce an atomic during war time, and even if they managed it somehow, only one would be possible. A second would have completely discredited Heisenberg as per "wunderwaffe" in the atomic field, and hence no bluff would be called. The Germans would most certainly figure out quicker that it really was an atomic device, the Japanese didn't even send scientists to Nagasaki or Hiroshima for days after the second bomb to determine that it was an atomic explosion. I see no hesitating on the German end.

Of course just my opinion, but with their own nuclear physics history, I doubt it would take two on population centers as it did in Japan. One demonstration in the Baltic Sea, say Pennemunde which was largely deserted after the original RAF raids, and the threat of a second on a city might just do the trick and finally bring the Nazis control to an end in Germany.

As I say, IMO only.

 

It all depends when the bomb would be used:
june 1942 :a bomb on Berlin would not mean the end of the war (my VHO )
may 1944 :a bomb on Berlin,would that mean that Overlord was superfluous ?
march 1945 :would a bomb be usefull ? the end of the war was nearing
I think one can not reject that easily the danger of Hitler hitting back with poison gas(and there were enough fanatici who would execute that mission ):after Dresden,there was serious talking of denouncing the convention of Geneve .

 

Concerning poison gas :if the allies were convinced in 1942 that by using poising gas (without risk of German reprisal )the war would be finished in a few days,would they hesitate?
I know there was a convention forbidding the use of poison gas (I have read that the US did not sign -True ?),but the Germans were considered as not belonging to the civilised world,as enemy of mankind,against whom every thing was allowed .And if they used PG and the war was over who would protest (the aim justyfing the means and only sucess beying important )?I think the decision would be considered as right,having saved the lives of allied soldiers .
About the AB (in 1945 ) I think the risk would be great that Hitler(in a Gotterdammerung mood )would say:if I disappear,the others will be hurt also

 

Correct on the non-signing by America, but we verbally confirmed that we would not use gas unless it was used on our troops first. That was the stipulation in the convention afterall for all signatories as well. Those who used it first were open to retaliation in kind, and no criminal charges would be brought against the responders post-war. That would most surely have produced War Crimes charges against the allies in spite of using the gas against the Germans whom you are placing outside of the civilized world (for whatever reason). The horrors of the KZs and the Aktion Reinhard Camps were as of yet largely unknown in the west, although they were suspected.

I don't doubt that if Hitler had control of an atomic device he wouldn't have hesitated for a moment to use it.

 

That the Allies would not have "automatically used the atomic bomb on Germany is probably true; there would have been many reviews by many senior leaders, as well as scientific/technical committee reviews just as there was with the use of atomic bombs on Japan.

But in the end, the atomic bombs would have almost certainly (99.99% certainty) been dropped on Germany. This is supported by every document pertaining to the development of the atomic bomb I have ever seen.

Historically, the bomb did not become available until after Germany surrendered, but in the scenario posited, the Allies would probably choose not to invade continental Europe at all, and would wait for the atomic bombs to become available.

How Germany would react to an atomic attack, I can only speculate. But I personally feel the shock would be so great that one or two bombs would cause Germany's surrender. If that did not happen, the US was quite capable of launching an extended campaign of nuclear bombing which would render Germany's continued effective resistance impossible. In August, 1945, the US had the ability to produce one atomic bomb approximately every 10 days. The effects of an atomic bomb on a country at war is NOT speculation; we have the concrete example of Japan. Moreover, a continuing bombardment by atomic bombs, which the US was certainly capable of in 1945, would effectively bring all war activities to a halt. Germany would not be able to transport troops, food, raw materials, or fuel. Germany's infrastructure would be so massively damaged that no repair efforts could cope, government authority would fall apart (That was what the Emperor feared most in Japan's case). There would be no point in trying to continue the war effort under such circumstances.

The use of poison gas in retaliation would be problematical for Germany, it could not attack the US directly and measures against poison gas use on civilians had already been taken in Britain. In any case, the effectiveness of gas attacks on a large scale is greatly exaggerated. Poison gas is extremely difficult to use; the conditions for effective use are very exacting and dependent on parameters not easily controlled. Poison gas is most effective when used as a tactical weapon of opportunity on a small scale. Killing "millions" of people, or even thousands is extremely unlikely.

 

Reprisals?!! By late 1944 what could the Germans realistically do? Their "strategic" bomber force numbered a couple of hundred aircraft at most, operationally, just a couple of dozen He 177 and Do 217. The V-1 carried a 2000 lb warhead as did the V-2. Neither could reach targets in England by late 1944. But, assuming they could the Germans would need to fire 8 to 10 V-1 to have 1 reach its target due to Allied air defenses.
The bombers might be able to make a run at night using atitude and a steep glide slope to avoid interception. But, if the mini-blitz of early 1944 is any indication a strike would consist of just a handful of planes that scattered bombs over most of Southern England.
As for gas itself: It is grossly overrated as a weapon. In WW 1 it caused approxmately a third of the deaths conventional HE shelling of equal weight would have caused. It did cause about double the wounded in the form of troops suffering from exposure.
Against a civilian population in shelters with rudimentary gas masks (eg., the English urban population) casualties would have been light maybe a few hundred deaths and a few thousand more exposed.
After the first attack the US and Britain could have delieved a 1000 plane raid within a day or two dropping literally 50 times the gas on Germany. I would expect them to use mustard on an industrial site... say in the Ruhr. This wouldn't have caused a great number of casualties directly but, it would have near permanently shut down every industrial site and factory that got contaminated.
The Allies have the resources to devote to cleaning up a gas attack; the Germans don't. Mustard stays around for months, even years. Coating a factory with it would have rendered it uninhabitable for the Germans.

By late 1944 the Germans too were defeated. Only Hitler and his inner circle insisted on fighting to the finish. Unlike Japan I think Germany would have made the decision publically and socially if the Nazi leadership refused simply by quitting. Quitting work, quitting cities, surrendering to ground troops, etc. Historically this was bad enough. German cities lost about a third of their population due to people running from the bombing. The government responded by making unauthorized travel a crime punishable by imprisonment or death. Failing to report to work was also made a crime as absenteeism rose to nearly 40% of the urban population by mid-44.

 

Sure, they were in the same situation as in late 1918. Hitler insisted in fighting because he knew that if the allies captured him, he would be hanged. So, getting a few more months to live by trowing the population of his country to the death is a rational choice, considering who he was. He didn't really care.

 

Our knowledge that German reprisals would not be dangerous is irrelevant,what relevant is what Britain knew in 1944 :did they knew that the German reprisals would be ineffective ? Would Churchill take the risk,knowing what he knew,even if there was a very small risk that the reprisals could be catastrophic ?
About the political and military results of the bomb :would the bomb in 1942 force Germany to surrender ? would it make Overlord superfluous in 1944 ?The bomb was used in 1945 to make the invasion of Japan (operation Olympus ) superfluous .I don't think one can say that the bomb was 'a war winner ' ,you could only use the bomb against a city and hope that the enemy would surrender .

 

The atomics were earmarked for Germany. The only reason it wasn't dropped on the Germans was because they surrendered first, and if you read the scientists' memoirs and watch their TV interviews, you'd hear them they say that when Germany surrendered, the reaction from those involved with the Project was "OK, I guess we'll have to drop them on the Japanese instead." There is absolutely no doubt that the Americans were itching to shoot the works, and that they were not going to stop until the Germans surrendered. I don't think they could prosecute the war after, say, the vaporization of the Ruhr region.

 

Churchill was willing to risk reprisals by Germany in the case of anthrax spore laden cattle cakes, hoping that the cows and sheep would eat the cakes, the anthrax would infect the livestock and then the populace. So he was at least a bit willing to take the risks, even initiate them if necessary to defeat the Nazis. The atomics weren't known to be any different than other large explosive devices at the time of their usage.

The bombs cannot be used until they are ready, so anytime before they were used is too odd to discuss. That was too new and unknown a field for it to be rushed time-wise. If that fictional place could make them avalilable in 1942, WW2 as we know it wouldn't happen and we wouldn't have a topic. If it had been ready after Stalingrad, it might have easily forced the Germans to depose Hitler and surrender, remember "unconditional surrender (1943 on) held the statement that it was directed at the Fascists/Nazis/militarists, and their removal from power was the first thing that had to be done. An atomic after Stalingrad, perhaps Hitler is out and a surrender is negotiated. Hard to say just where the final lines would be drawn, but Germany would go back to its post-WW1 borders at the very least.

BTW, it was Operation Downfall, and it was split into two sections, the first was to be Olympic (not Olympus) against the island of Kyushu and Nagasaki was the command HQ for that area, and the second was to be Coronet on the Tokyo plain.

 

I know that the bombs were earmarket for Germany (Germany first strategy ),but were there already targets,or were the targets depending of the military situation ?If frankfurt was already occupied ,no bomb for Frankfurt ?
And were there cities who would be spared ? I am thinking on Hamburg (port necessary for the supplies after the war ),even on Berlin who would be the center of allied government after the war .
Was there any preliminary investigation which city would produce the'best results ' ?Would Berlin be a 'good' target ,with a surface of 883 square kms (much more than Hiroshima and with a lesser density of population )?
Last point :the fallout :was it already knew ?The fall-out would create problems for the advancing troops .
I know I am asking a lot of questions,sorry for that .

 

I'm assuming that the scenario we are looking at here is one where there is no war with Russia, so by this point the Germans are pretty much the indisputed rulers of Western Europe (and possibly the UK). In which case, it would take a lot to convince them that a war they might think they've already won is in fact unwinnable, something that would seem far harder than convincing Japan to surrender.

The question of how close Japan was to surrender without the nukes is a tough and probably unanswerable one. But certainly at that point, there was zero prospect of them winning, only of drawing things out to a long stalemate, until eventually the Americans declare a ceasefire or something.