Nuking Germany in 1945

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,947
Canary Islands-Spain
#1
Lets suppose the German offensive at the Ardennes had some degree of success. Add to this a massive (impossible) failure of the Soviets in late 1944.

In mid 1945, the Germans still retain most of its core territory. In summer, the US decide to throw a nuke over Berlin. What's next?
 
Jul 2016
8,188
USA
#2
What do you mean what's next? After Berlin gets hit then the most senior living Nazi politician or military officer surrenders and the war ends. If they don't surrender, more cities nuked until they do.
 
Jan 2018
137
Canada
#3
What do you mean what's next? After Berlin gets hit then the most senior living Nazi politician or military officer surrenders and the war ends. If they don't surrender, more cities nuked until they do.
I agree. Even if Germany had managed to pull off some miracle and survive till the summer of 1945, she would still be in a dreadfully unstable position. The atomic bombs would be the straw that broke the camels back.

The scenario is untenable. If Germany was to fight on after being nuked, you would need a different point of departure (POD). Something that would put them in a much more solid position than they would realistically be by August 1945.


OP, I don't think your POD is plausible. If you want a Germany strong enough to withstand an atomic bomb or two, then you need to go back much further than late 1944. Stopping the Jassy–Kishinev offensive would help the Reich (as it would secure Romania and their oil supply), but its only prolonging the inevitable. You would need to go back at least to operation Bagration, if not even further.
 
Jul 2016
8,188
USA
#4
Hitler dies in March 1943 when the bomb the Junker plotters put in his plane explodes over Minsk.

In that scenario new bossman, probably Goering manages to get and hold the crown, listens to some of his commanders and doesn't launch Citadel. Maybe they don't catch total hell in the big '43 Soviet offensives, maybe Goering allows the Dnieper/Dvina to be properly fortified. Operation Bagration doesn't happen like it does in '44 because Army Group Center hadn't been almost entirely stripped of armor and mobility assets, and because Army Group South hadn't gotten shoved back the previous year creating the Belarus balcony. Normandy doesnt happen in '44 either.

Then in July 1945 Trinity test bomb is detonated. The Jewish and communist scientists are still super motivated to nuke Germany so no opposition from them or anyone in Joint Chiefs. FDR administration was full of rapid German haters, Truman's administration was too (assuming he was VP in this alternate universe, or assuming FDR doesn't get voted out in '44 because of failures in Sicily and Italy).

So late summer of '45 Silverplate B-29s are moved to Europe, cases and physics packages arrive and are assembled, and they start with Berlin, then the symbolic Nazi cities of Munich and Nuremburg, then industrial targets in the Ruhr.

Then Germany surrenders unconditionally.
 
Jan 2018
137
Canada
#5
Hitler dies in March 1943 when the bomb the Junker plotters put in his plane explodes over Minsk.

In that scenario new bossman, probably Goering manages to get and hold the crown, listens to some of his commanders and doesn't launch Citadel. Maybe they don't catch total hell in the big '43 Soviet offensives, maybe Goering allows the Dnieper/Dvina to be properly fortified. Operation Bagration doesn't happen like it does in '44 because Army Group Center hadn't been almost entirely stripped of armor and mobility assets, and because Army Group South hadn't gotten shoved back the previous year creating the Belarus balcony. Normandy doesnt happen in '44 either.

Then in July 1945 Trinity test bomb is detonated. The Jewish and communist scientists are still super motivated to nuke Germany so no opposition from them or anyone in Joint Chiefs. FDR administration was full of rapid German haters, Truman's administration was too (assuming he was VP in this alternate universe, or assuming FDR doesn't get voted out in '44 because of failures in Sicily and Italy).

So late summer of '45 Silverplate B-29s are moved to Europe, cases and physics packages arrive and are assembled, and they start with Berlin, then the symbolic Nazi cities of Munich and Nuremburg, then industrial targets in the Ruhr.

Then Germany surrenders unconditionally.
If they were doing that much better in the eastern front, and there was no invasion of France, then the Reich would not be broken by 1 or 2 atomic bombs. Their economy would be stronger, their military would be stronger, and their morale would be stronger. Not as strong as it would be if they had beaten the Soviet Union, obviously. But alot more solid than they were in real life. You would need to destroy a dozen German cities to break their willingness and ability to continue the war.

And by that point, the question would well be who the bigger monsters were: The Allies, or the Nazis. By casually exterminating millions of civilians with their new superweapons (including many forced laborers from occupied Europe), the Americans and British would be looked upon with the same fear and loathing that the Germans were. In that scenario, the price of victory would be very high indeed.
 
Jul 2016
8,188
USA
#6
If they were doing that much better in the eastern front, and there was no invasion of France, then the Reich would not be broken by 1 or 2 atomic bombs. Their economy would be stronger, their military would be stronger, and their morale would be stronger. Not as strong as it would be if they had beaten the Soviet Union, obviously. But alot more solid than they were in real life. You would need to destroy a dozen German cities to break their willingness and ability to continue the war.
Of course nukes would break them. Think about this for a second. One plane, one bomb, one city leveled in a second. 10-12 capable of being made per month by October 45. Maybe they can shoot down some of the bombers, but they'll get through. The bomber will ALWAYS get through...

It wouldn't even get far enough to necessitate more than a few. Berlin gone, another big city gone, whomever alive running the Thousand Year Reich at that point throws in the towel.

And by that point, the question would well be who the bigger monsters were: The Allies, or the Nazis. By casually exterminating millions of civilians with their new superweapons (including many forced laborers from occupied Europe), the Americans and British would be looked upon with the same fear and loathing that the Germans were. In that scenario, the price of victory would be very high indeed.
Oh please, save that sentimentality for a war that isn't being fought against the most destructive regime in modern history responsible for the deaths of many tens of millions,with about 12 million done just through purpose built assembly line death camps. If you think anyone is shedding a tear for German civilians by 1945 to end the most destructive war in human history then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
Jan 2018
137
Canada
#7
Of course nukes would break them. Think about this for a second. One plane, one bomb, one city leveled in a second.
I never said it wouldn't. What I said was that one or two atom bombs would't be sufficient for the task. The Germans fought on after multiple citys had been bombed to rubble, Dresden being the worst example of this. In this scenario, their citys would be in better shape due to the better strategic situation and a less one sided air war. The Allies are going to need the atom bombs just to get things to the same point they were in OTL (original timeline).

10-12 capable of being made per month by October 45. Maybe they can shoot down some of the bombers, but they'll get through. The bomber will ALWAYS get through...
You're WAY OFF on your numbers, buddy. Oak Ridge and Hanford weren't producing that many atomic bombs by October 1945. I don't know where you got that idea. The Hull-Seaman conversation conclusively shows that the Americans could do 3 atomic bomb drops in August, with 3 bomb drops in September, and 3 or 4 bomb drops in October. If they stockpiled all their bombs and waited until the end of October to start dropping them (for maximum psychological shock), they'd have a total of about 9-10 atomic bombs.

It wouldn't even get far enough to necessitate more than a few. Berlin gone, another big city gone, whomever alive running the Thousand Year Reich at that point throws in the towel.
Oh, they'd fold all right. But not after one or two bombs. The Allies would have to get their hands alot bloodier than that to win. You'd need about 10 atom bombs to bring down the Reich. And that assuming that the Nazis don't manage to shoot down any of the silverplate B-29s carrying the package! Those are very special planes, you know. Converting regular B-29s to a silverplate is an expensive and time consuming process.

Also, its worth remembering that even by 1945 (when they were on the verge of final defeat), the Germans had a superior air defense network to the Japanese. They had more radar systems, more and better flak guns, more and better interceptors, etc. In a timeline where the Reich wasn't exhausted and drained by the eastern front, this would be even more true. The Allies would be hard pressed to gain air superiority over Germany. Especially when you consider the annoying presence of the Me 262s.

Oh please, save that sentimentality for a war that isn't being fought against the most destructive regime in modern history responsible for the deaths of many tens of millions,with about 12 million done just through purpose built assembly line death camps. If you think anyone is shedding a tear for German civilians by 1945 to end the most destructive war in human history then I have a bridge to sell you.
Ah, I see. Bombing civilians in their homes and streets is perfectly fine and moral, but rounding them up and killing them in camps is the real McCoy. Sorry, but I don't see any real difference. Its just another example of Anglo-Americans exculpating themselves from blame, and saying that it isn't mass murder if they do it.

Anyway, where are you getting your numbers for the German death toll?
 
Jul 2016
8,188
USA
#9
I never said it wouldn't. What I said was that one or two atom bombs would't be sufficient for the task. The Germans fought on after multiple citys had been bombed to rubble, Dresden being the worst example of this. In this scenario, their citys would be in better shape due to the better strategic situation and a less one sided air war. The Allies are going to need the atom bombs just to get things to the same point they were in OTL (original timeline).
Nor Dresden nor any other city were bombed to rubble. The famous Dresden raid leveled a whopping 6.5 sq. km out of 320 square kilometers. And it took hundreds of bombers nearly a week to do that. A single bomber with a single atomic bomb can do that in a second.

You're WAY OFF on your numbers, buddy. Oak Ridge and Hanford weren't producing that many atomic bombs by October 1945. I don't know where you got that idea. The Hull-Seaman conversation conclusively shows that the Americans could do 3 atomic bomb drops in August, with 3 bomb drops in September, and 3 or 4 bomb drops in October. If they stockpiled all their bombs and waited until the end of October to start dropping them (for maximum psychological shock), they'd have a total of about 9-10 atomic bombs.
I'm not your buddy, pal. Your last post you were ranting about 1-2 atomic bombs in August which demonstrates you had no idea of the existence of the Demon Core until you ran off to Google to try to refute me. The manufacturing of atomic bombs was expected to be in full swing by October 1945. I got the numbers wrong, only three a month, not 10-12 (which was ~ total), but at least I didn't need to run off to Google to try to validate my knowledge on the subject. This is what you wrote:

"then the Reich would not be broken by 1 or 2 atomic bombs."

Ludicrously wrong. Germany would not have been nuked 1-2 times in August, they'd have gotten it three times and then up to three times a month until they surrendered.

Oh, they'd fold all right. But not after one or two bombs. The Allies would have to get their hands alot bloodier than that to win. You'd need about 10 atom bombs to bring down the Reich. And that assuming that the Nazis don't manage to shoot down any of the silverplate B-29s carrying the package! Those are very special planes, you know. Converting regular B-29s to a silverplate is an expensive and time consuming process.
You have absolutely no way of suggesting this. First, you weren't previously aware of a whole lot of history regarding bombing or the atomic bombs before you made your original posting on this subject that I refuted. You are just as ignorant now, regardless of proving you understand how Google works. Yes, the silverplates were special, and they also flew at incredibly high altitudes the Germans had never previously encountered bombers at. And as the saying goes (you're going to want to google this too), "The bombers will always get through." They'd have found a way to hit German cities, using diversionary tactics and all sorts of others, nuclear strategy was based on it.

Or are you suggesting that the nation who developed the atomic bomb and who devoted more time, money, personnel, and effort to strategic bombing than anyone one else didn't know what air defense was or how to deal with it?

Also, its worth remembering that even by 1945 (when they were on the verge of final defeat), the Germans had a superior air defense network to the Japanese. They had more radar systems, more and better flak guns, more and better interceptors, etc. In a timeline where the Reich wasn't exhausted and drained by the eastern front, this would be even more true. The Allies would be hard pressed to gain air superiority over Germany. Especially when you consider the annoying presence of the Me 262s.
"The bomber will always get through." All they need is one and the city center is gone.

Ah, I see. Bombing civilians in their homes and streets is perfectly fine and moral, but rounding them up and killing them in camps is the real McCoy. Sorry, but I don't see any real difference. Its just another example of Anglo-Americans exculpating themselves from blame, and saying that it isn't mass murder if they do it.
"Oh please, save that sentimentality for a war that isn't being fought against the most destructive regime in modern history responsible for the deaths of many tens of millions,with about 12 million done just through purpose built assembly line death camps. If you think anyone is shedding a tear for German civilians by 1945 to end the most destructive war in human history then I have a bridge to sell you."

You reap what you sow. Go cry somewhere else, you'll get no compassion from me for a nation that did what Germany did in WW2, they're lucky they all weren't liquidated at the end of the war for the sake of expedience and to prevent Germany from ever doing that again. And contrary to when the Germans tried liquidating others, at the point it would have been done to them, they'd have had no way at all to stop it from happening. The only thing that stopped it from happening is the victorious allies were better human beings than the Germans were.
 
Jul 2016
47
Tegelen
#10
Lets suppose the German offensive at the Ardennes had some degree of success. Add to this a massive (impossible) failure of the Soviets in late 1944.

In mid 1945, the Germans still retain most of its core territory. In summer, the US decide to throw a nuke over Berlin. What's next?
Would Germany ore is Germany able to launch Chemical armed V-2 at London as a retaliation.