Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Would the allies have dropped the bomb on them? I feel that it was easier for the allies to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki given the prevailing racist attitutes held at the time about the Japanese (i.e. as yellow skinned inferiors who were somehow "different from us"). Would the allies have dropped the bomb on white, European Germany had Germany held out for longer?
cheers,
Paul,
p.s. sorry if someone has posted this before, i suspect they probably have.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 2
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Hi Paul,
Long time no see, welcome back. Yes, I think David Kahn made that point some time ago with regard to the breaking of the Enigma codes (e.g. essential to the Normandy Landings). Of course the Allies would have dropped the bomb on Berlin or another major German city (they had few qualms about Dresden) and after all that was the original purpose of the bomb. That's why Einstein et al wrote that letter to FDR. And without Enigma codebreaking that would have been a very likely scenario.
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 3
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Interesting question. I would think not however. Not necessarily because of the racial issue, but because of the proximity of the Soviet Union and other European powers, especially when the bombs had been developed. I think a Nuclear attack by the US would have caused a break down in the already fragile international relations within the allies. So no, the US would not have dropped the a-bomb on a German target.
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 4
Posted by Lyceum2 (U1941441) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
I appreciate the enormity of the bombing of German cities, but you must remember that this was conventional bombing. A nuclear attack entails a step-up in intensity.
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 5
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
I don't see any reason why the US wouldn't drop the bombs. If the same argument was used that it would save Allied servicemens lives then i think it almost certainly would have been used.
Two questions though: Would say a bomb dropped on Munich or Hamburg actually make the Nazis surrender bearing in mind Hitlers mindset? And as a what if, what if the atom bomb was developed in early '43? how would that change the modern world?Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 6
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
And as a what if, what if the atom bomb was developed in early '43? how would that change the modern world?Β
We would all be outraged by the wanton loss of thousands of innocent German civilian lives, blissfully unaware of how many military and civilian (including German) lives had actually been thus saved.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 7
Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Not sure how much was known about the potential after effects but it would effectively left Europe as a Nuclear wasteland which the Soviets might not have been so keen to advance over had a cold war still happened. All I can say is thankfully they didn't!
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 8
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
How much of Japan was a nuclear wasteland in 1945?
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 9
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Not sure how much was known about the potential after effects but it would effectively left Europe as a Nuclear wasteland which the Soviets might not have been so keen to advance over had a cold war still happened. All I can say is thankfully they didn't!Β
They dropped Atomic Bombs on Japan not Nuclear Bombs (i.e. Hydrogen Bombs).
MBLink to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 10
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I am uncertain that they would have used them - the strategic benefits would have been less. Given that Germany could be invaded by land rather than a sea-borne invasion and their determination to fight to the end, it is hard to envisage any benefit. Also, iirc, there was only enough enriched uranium for two bombs in the short term so dropping one on Germany would mean not dropping two on Japan in 1945.
Even the Japanese surrender was influenced by additional events - the Russians attacking and an unofficial agreement that they could keep the Emporer, although the atomic weapons did their part.
Had the US dropped a bomb, for example, on Dresden, I doubt it would have made much difference to the course of WW2. It may, however, have made western nations more reluctant to have nuclear weapons sited on their countries.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 11
Posted by Italophile (U2460529) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I don't believe that atomic weapons would have been used against Germany. Quite apart from the reasons given by many posters, there is also the fact that Europe was not a purely American theatre of war. In the pacific theatre the Americans did not have to consult with their allies in the same way they had to in Europe and I doubt whether Churchill (or Atlee) would have agreed to it.
Mind you, Churchill might have agreed to a strike on the Soviet Union
.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 12
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I think you mean JMB they dropped fission bombs, rather than fusion bombs. Both types are both "atomic" and "nuclear" in that both the atom and the nucleus are involved.
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 13
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Oh I forgot to add I think they would have definately dropped them on Nazi Germany, especially in 1943 or so, and it may have cut the war short by killing Hitler. Certainly by 43 there were many people who knew the game was up, and some of them may have stepped into the void.
A terrible thing, but then again thats what they were designed for - and I have no doubt has Heisenberg et al had not been on completely the wrong track (in Werners case on purpose???) Hitler would have tried his own A-bomb on London and Moscow.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 14
Posted by Jon1858 (U3345384) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I don't think many people would have thought the war was over in 1943. Germany dominated all of Europe, and there wasn't even a front in the West. The war with Russia was far from over, and was still in the balance.
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 15
Posted by aapottsy (U2328780) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
JIM3152,
I entirely agree that the rationale behind dropping the bombs was to save allied lives.
However, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
For that reason the bombs would have never been dropped on Germany. Firstly, Germany (although many were fanatical adherents to the Hitler and the Third Reich) never had a bushidu culture and the suicide cult of kamikaze.
The US considered for some length about the morality of using the A bomb, from my understanding it weighed heavily on Truman's mind.
You must remember the circumstances in which the bomb was dropped. America unlike what many people like to portray them on this board, are not all trigger happy cowboys eager to let off steam with their new toys.
America had suffered enormous causalities in many pacific battles, in particular the then recent taking of Okinawa. The casualties were simply unacceptable and indeed terrible.
It was also estimated that it cost almost 2 million American and Allied lives to take Japan (I for one, think this figure is not too far from the truth - even school children were been trained to sacrifice themselves for the Emperor).
If these figures are to be believed, then the use of nuclear weapons actually saved at least 10 times the amount of lives it cost.
Bear in mind the greatest bombing atrocities were carried out with incendiary weapons, eg Dresden and Tokyo.
In my mind in 1945, it was ar that stage of the war game set and match for the allies. 6 more months would not have justified the use of nuclear weapons against Nazi Germany.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 16
Posted by JIMBOB52 (U3286524) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
It'ld depend on what the six months entailed, if you look at the massive number of casualties the USSR took in storming Berlin I could not envisage a situation where the Western allies would ever accept such casualties.
An atomic bombing campaign that ended the war, (and giving some thought to this I'ld suggest it would have to be Berlin bearing in mind Hitlers mind set) would have a three fold effect firstly the minimization of western casualties, a warning to the advancing Soviets, and its effect on the Japanese.
It would all depend however on when the bombs became available. the ramifications of an atom bomb being dropped in Europe whilst Barborrossa was at it's height are fascinating, an unbeaten German army but with the west having an atomic capacity.
Could hitler bring himself to surrender under those circumstances, would their be a coup? Has a seemingly invincible military culture ever found itself in a situation where technological advances allowed its enemies to commit such havoc?Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 17
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
Maybe not 1943 Jon, you might be right. But I would geusss certain people on the Nazi side had a good idea what the USA could do production wise, and that this might be a critical difference.
Maybe D+10 would have been more appropriate.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 18
Posted by Aloof Nudist (U1727083) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I appreciate the enormity of the bombing of German cities, but you must remember that this was conventional bombing. A nuclear attack entails a step-up in intensity. Β
Wrong. Dresden was destroyed much more thoroughly than Hirosima.Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 19
Posted by Jozef (U1330965) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
The fact of the matter is that it took just two atomic bombs to make fanatically determined Japanese see sense. Forget not that even last year there were geriatric Japanese diehards being found in island jungles. The Nazis were also fanatics, but surely not as fanatical as the Japanese. The Hiroshima bomb may have caused less damage than the firestorming of cities like Dresden, but because it was just one bomb, not many hundreds of thousands, and the destruction was instant, not lasting several successive days, it made that much of bigger impression. It even works on our imaginations today. And forget not that the war in Europe was 'Total War'.
Cheers, JozefLink to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 20
Posted by Grumpyniall (U3354668) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Yes i think they would have because they proved they were capable of it. They proved this in their actions in the pacfic and in dresden.
Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 21
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Thursday, 2nd March 2006
Lets not lose perspective here - I read somewhere in a case for the dropping of the A-bombs that every week you could open the New York Times and see the THOUSANDS of names of dead servicemen.Every day hundreds (thousands) died, anything that stopped it sooner would have been great. And that one historian, who was a GI at the time the war ended, just thanked god that he didn't have to enter that hell war, that he would not be maimed or die horribly.
As one of spike milligans mates said when he heard about Hiroshima "The A-bomb was too good for them; we should have dropped gas stoves full of poo!" People were sick of war.
Easy for us to sit at our screens and pontificate from a distance of 50 years.......Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 22
Posted by cheerfultonyadd (U3354567) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
No nuclear wasteland as such just a hell of a shock to the Jap leaders.
I walked through the centre of Hiroshima in June 1946 nobody told me not to!!! OK It was mostly flattened by bomb and fire but within 2 years the Japanese were building it back to normal.
TonyLink to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 23
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 3rd March 2006
Would the allies have dropped the bomb on them? I feel that it was easier for the allies to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki given the prevailing racist attitutes held at the time about the Japanese (i.e. as yellow skinned inferiors who were somehow "different from us"). Would the allies have dropped the bomb on white, European Germany had Germany held out for longer?
cheers,
Paul,
p.s. sorry if someone has posted this before, i suspect they probably have.Β
if the krauts had lasted longer, they could have nuked us. they had a flying wing and a a-bomb on the way, which would be ready by early '46 if i remember rightlyLink to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
-
Message 24
Posted by Brevabloke (U1685837) on Tuesday, 7th March 2006
Actually they did not really have an A-bomb on the way, they had gone up totally the wrong avenue of research regarding bomb making; not surprising since I believe thier main thrust of research was to provide a power plant for submarines.
And the Horten flying wing? A really interesting idea that probably needed another 5 years of research to make it worthwhile. Remember; thier engines were awful compared to the Nene etc...Link to this forum: What if the Germans had held out for 6 months longer
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.