Germany surrendered 8 May 1945. The Trinity test was on 16 July 1945.
Last edited:
Could nuclear weapons have gotten Germany to surrender in 45-47 without a Western Allies invasion of Germany?
- Thread starter Trevayne
- Start date
Mein Fuehrer, the Zhukov is here. (It either turns into the Soviets marching to the Rhine River, without Overlord to contest it, since the Soviets were never real 'keepers of their word' under Stalin. Or, Valkyrie 2: Chemical Weapons Boogaloo if we aren't including the Soviets or they have been defeated, as if Hitler dies the OKW and SS are gonna rip each other apart.)
OP states that the Soviet Union is still in the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine by 1945. Ignoring how this occured, if it did the Soviet Union would not be able to quickly push to Berlin even if they get nuked. They needed the resources and population of that occupied territory to be re-integrated in order to assume an offensive posture, as they are likely only propped up by lend lease if they can't push the germans back in 1945.
I'm sorry huh? Propped up by Lend Lease? That's only 8% of wartime production my guy. "Re-integration" also falls flat when you realize that the Reichkommosarits were already collapsing to partisans and ineffective attempts to continue General Plan Ost.
I disagree. The nukes and Western Allied bombing + boots on the ground are the issue. The Soviet Union was not invincible, and was running short on manpower 1944-45. They could have been at the very least stalemated, if the Western Front did not occur.
Last edited:
Something to keep in mind is nukes or no-nukes the Allies were going to put troops into Germany either way. Unconditional surrender AND occupation were both stipulated from early one as this was the second time in a single generation that Germany had gone walk-about and everyone was wanting to make sure it didn't happen again.
As has been mentioned the main issue with using a nuclear bomb on Germany was right up until surrender the Germans still had an effective air defense system which meant the 'standard' attack pattern of a single bomber aircraft was dicey at best.
Randy
As has been mentioned the main issue with using a nuclear bomb on Germany was right up until surrender the Germans still had an effective air defense system which meant the 'standard' attack pattern of a single bomber aircraft was dicey at best.
Randy
What I see happening is either the Reich tearing itself apart, as while the Soviets are running out of men, the German's grasp on even their own generals was beginning to grow more and more untenable, and was tanking Germany's War Effort, which may escalate, or Stalin's 1943 Peace Deal being reconsidered, of course with the USSR keeping all of the Baltic.
Re: air defence ... only an issue after the first bomb is dropped (assuming the Nazi's work out how it was delivered), since a single aircraft will be assumed to be a reconnassance aircraft .. which is a good argument for dropping as many bombs as you can in the first attack.
After which you send over a single bomber (without a nuke) escorted by 1,000 fighters ... The Luftwaffa will be forced to send up everything they have left and you keep knocking them out of the sky until the last Nazi fighter is shot down ... then send your bombers with the nukes ..
NB. What was the max /effective height of the German 88mm AA gun (which I seem to recall was by far the most common used for AA defence) ?
Did the B29 fly above that ???
After which you send over a single bomber (without a nuke) escorted by 1,000 fighters ... The Luftwaffa will be forced to send up everything they have left and you keep knocking them out of the sky until the last Nazi fighter is shot down ... then send your bombers with the nukes ..
NB. What was the max /effective height of the German 88mm AA gun (which I seem to recall was by far the most common used for AA defence) ?
Did the B29 fly above that ???
Problem is those first few bombs are also training and data gathering flights which means you can't drop very many as you don't have very many at that point. And it's not alone really as you have several other bombers including ones that will accompany the dropping aircraft almost all the way through the bomb run. IIRC the Japanese air defense forces did actually notice and note on the way the bombing runs were done, they just had to little resource to commit to attacking them.
The Germans are unlikely to fall for such a ruse, it's kind of hard to make the threat credible when you've already had a demonstration that the one that dropped the first nuke did NOT have any escorts.
IIRC the Luftwaffe had done some emergency procurement to get weapons that would be effective against the suspected performance of the B-29. (The US encouraged this by sending a B-29 to England and flying over Europe some to make the Germans think they would be used against them)
Randy
The 128 had better range and blast radius than the 88, so a B29 would need to fly above 128mm effective range to be secure. However, the assorted jet and rocket fighters could potentially be a threat, so an unescorted bomber or three needs also to fly above their effective range if that's greater.
That's not necessarily an impossible task but does make like more difficult for planning.
Another aspect is how much impact weather has - are the Pacific conditions more or less favourable than in Europe?
That's not necessarily an impossible task but does make like more difficult for planning.
Another aspect is how much impact weather has - are the Pacific conditions more or less favourable than in Europe?
Rather than surrendering, nuclear bombs might have gotten the Germans to use chemical and biological weapons against the Allies in response, which would in turn cause Germany to be hit with such weapons in kind. If Hitler and his circle know they are going down, they will try to take as many as they can with them.
Last edited:
The Nazi Party had significantly radicalized over the course of the war and by 1945 it was, at least by March, openly speaking about things in suicidal terms that were akin to contemporary Japanese propaganda about a People in Arms and facing down their destiny
The fact that Spring 1945 was perhaps the mass suicide peak in modern European history isn't a coincidence.
So I wouldn't count it out that they would take nuke after nuke and maintain regime loyalty around Hitler. But the army itself I think would be in a state of collapse and likely overthrow the gvt to make peace.
The fact that Spring 1945 was perhaps the mass suicide peak in modern European history isn't a coincidence.
So I wouldn't count it out that they would take nuke after nuke and maintain regime loyalty around Hitler. But the army itself I think would be in a state of collapse and likely overthrow the gvt to make peace.
Im recalling what happened to Geyer von Schweppebergs HQ of Panzer Gruppe West in June 1944. Allied signals intel alerted that a imporitant HQ was setting up south of Caen. On the morning of 10 June a RAF photo recon mission got pictures of the site, that confirmed the presence of vehicles associated with a HQ, radio antenna, ect.. Approximately six hours later a RAF bomber mission unloaded 350 tons on Schwppenberg & company. He was wounded, his entire command staff killed or wounded, as well as the comm techs, clerks, vehicle drivers, & the rest. The armored attack planned for the next morning fell apart with the Panzer Groups communications literally destroyed.
This causes me to ask what happens if a few nukes are dropped on Runsteadts HQ for OB West, 7th Army HQ, and one or two other critical HQ at H -4 or H-2 on 6th June? I strongly suspect communications within OB West, Army Group B, and 7th Army would be down for some 24 hours with attendant paralysis of the reserves and a high level of confusion among the corps and division commanders.
There was a tremendous jet stream present over the Tokyo area for a sizeable duration of the B-29 bombing campaign. It could reach speeds of 200+ kph and significantly affected accuracy on a number of raids. I can't recall if similar conditions were ever present over Germany or elsewhere in occupied Europe.
I agree that surrender only becomes possible after Hitler's death. However, let's assume he is vaporised by a nuke. We suddenly have no body to show to the German people that their leader is gone, and no body to show to the allies to explain why he is not being handed over. In OTL a body was not needed because there was witnesses, whereas all the witnesses are vaporised alongside Hitler in this situation. Everyone being uncertain if Hitler is dead or just in hiding complicates any attempt to surrender.
You really think someone with his ego and personality type could lie low indefinitely?
IIRC Lend lease was only about 10-15% of Soviet trucks, planes, and tanks. Not insignificant, but also not enough to totally change the course of the war.
The fundamental problem for the Axis is that they just don't have the manpower or resources to take on both the Western Allies and the USSR. Against one or the other, they *might* have been able to force a stalemate, against both I think it's a truly unwinnable war. More U boats isn't gonna change that.