Nuke Germany, Hitler surrenders?

[DominusNovus]

War in Europe drags out longer. Allies nuke one or more cities. Hitler orders a surrender.

Yes, its absurd. But so was the Japanese surrendering. Oh, but Hitler was a madman, he'd never give up. Well, to that, I say, he was a madman, he's fucking nuts, he could do something crazy like surrender.

Regardless.

Despite the sheer implausibility of it, the Third Reich surrenders to the Allies. What happens?

 

[V-J]

Despite the sheer implausibility of it, the Third Reich surrenders to the Allies.

It surrendered to the Allies in OTL.

 

[DominusNovus]

It surrendered to the Allies in OTL.

By order of the Fuhrer himself, in this scenario, if I didn't make that clear in the original post.

 

[V-J]

By order of the Fuhrer himself, in this scenario, if I didn't make that clear in the original post.

Well I'm failing to see what you're driving for since I can't see how it would diverge in any meaningful way from what happened historically. Not through the act itself, at least. From your scenario you may end up with different occupation zones and the like, but that is non-POD.

Although I should say that I think the premise is ASB. Hitler repeatedly and openly stressed that there was no question of him surrendering. You'd need a completely different Fuhrer-mentality for that, which would probably mean a different war altogether.

 

[Michele]

War in Europe drags out longer. Allies nuke one or more cities. Hitler orders a surrender.

Yes, its absurd. But so was the Japanese surrendering.

No, it wasn't. _Not_ surrendering was absurd.

 

[DominusNovus]

Well I'm failing to see what you're driving for since I can't see how it would diverge in any meaningful way from what happened historically. Not through the act itself, at least. From your scenario you may end up with different occupation zones and the like, but that is non-POD.

Although I should say that I think the premise is ASB. Hitler repeatedly and openly stressed that there was no question of him surrendering. You'd need a completely different Fuhrer-mentality for that, which would probably mean a different war altogether.

First of all, I'm not driving for anything except a discussion of what would happen.

Second of all, I know Hitler wouldn't surrender. Just like the allied commanders knew the Japanese would never surrender. Like I said, chalk it up to him being a lunatic.

 

[DominusNovus]

No, it wasn't. _Not_ surrendering was absurd.

...

I just can't win, can I?

 

[Analytical Engine]

...

I just can't win, can I?

No.

 

[Michele]

First of all, I'm not driving for anything except a discussion of what would happen.

Second of all, I know Hitler wouldn't surrender. Just like the allied commanders knew the Japanese would never surrender.

The Allies did not know anything like that. They actually knew, since they were reading the Japanese War Cabinet's laundry lists, that some of the members were for peace.

 

[Michele]

...

I just can't win, can I?

No, you can't, especially because the comparison between Hitler and the Japanese leadership won't lead anywhere.

The War Cabinet had six members. Three of them, basically, thought surrender could be possible only after a cataclismic final Great Battle – in Japan. In theory that was because of honor or face-saving; in practice one suspects they were also aware that, after having trampled all over the laws of war, they would have fine chances of hanging from a noose or having to commit suicide. The other three members had more practical ideas, but could not overcome the militarists.
However, even the militarists, while willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of their citizens, did not even envision the disappearance of Japan as a nation and a country. They still wanted to continue the fight after the second bomb, but at that point the Emperor spoke. The latter, fortunately, very much wanted Japan to survive.

In the other corner, you have Hitler. Once the Germans had proven, by allowing their enemies to defeat them, that they were not the Herrenvolk, the ones having the right of the mighty, the fittest to survive, well, Hitler was no longer interested in their survival. If they weren't the strongest then it was right for them to disappear, the alternative being to end up enslaved by the victors. Victory or death was no rhetorics with him. He was going to commit suiced and for all it mattered to him, the right thing all Germans and Germany itself should have done was exactly that. Cfr. his scorched-earth orders and utter disregard for civilian casualties even in the very last days of Berlin.

 

[DominusNovus]

Just stop. I started this thread, and I'm going to explain the scenario very simply, discuss the scenario.

Hitler is crazy. Hitler orders a surrender. What happens next?

 

[Michele]

Just stop. I started this thread, and I'm going to explain the scenario very simply, discuss the scenario.

Hitler is crazy. Hitler orders a surrender. What happens next?

What happened in OTL, which makes the scenario not very interesting as far as alternate history goes. Hitler will probably commit suicide all the same, thus quickly reducing any divergence to insignificance.

 

[DominusNovus]

What happened in OTL, which makes the scenario not very interesting as far as alternate history goes. Hitler will probably commit suicide all the same, thus quickly reducing any divergence to insignificance.

You don't think there's any significance to the surrender order coming from Hitler himself, while Germany is still strong enough that the allies feel it necessary to nuke germany? And that there's not much interesting to nuking germany in the first place?

Then go away.

 

[bouscher]

I do think it would have rushed the end of the war, but in any case, surrendering wasn't an option...the Allies wanted it all, or nothing...

 

[Earling]

At a guess the allies occupy Germany, taking up similar lines as to OTL.

 

[DominusNovus]

I do think it would have rushed the end of the war, but in any case, surrendering wasn't an option...the Allies wanted it all, or nothing...

And I'm saying he gives it to them. Just like the Japanese did, they surrendered unconditionally.

 

[Derek Jackson]

I personally do not think that Hitler would have surrendered. I wonder whether any folk around him might arrange "an accident" and have some other leader surrendering.

I am also curious about what the allies do if they devasate a few German towns ( and there were not that many available that had not been pretty badly bombed anyway) with nuclear weapons and the Nazis fight on.

I still have a question about whether there was any direct military use for these weapons.

Also we must be looking at a situation where Germamy was clearly going to lose already. The weapon could only be used if the allies had pretty near total control of the air, otherwise the risk would be intolerable.

 

[Michele]

You don't think there's any significance to the surrender order coming from Hitler himself, while Germany is still strong enough that the allies feel it necessary to nuke germany? And that there's not much interesting to nuking germany in the first place?

Then go away.

I don't think so and I'm not going away – you can stop reading my posts if you don't like them.

There is nothing much significant to the use of a couple of atomic weapons on Germany, no, not in the short term. The Allies had already razed whole neighborhoods in many German cities, using conventional bombing, and caused German casualties in the hundreds of thousands. The nukes available in 1945 weren't the multi-megaton doomsday weapons which we often unconsciously envision today when thinking about nuclear devices; they were 8-10 kilotons (8,000-10,000 tons of TNT). For comparison's sake, Dresden got about 4,000 tons of bombs within two days, though admittedly that tonnage includes the iron of the casings; Berlin got about 68,000 tons, though admittedly that's over the whole war. On the other hand, spreading the tonnage out over a wider area, like in a heavy conventional bombing, has its advantages over a single point of origin. This is to say that an 8-kt device is not altogether off the scale when compared to a 1,000-bomber conventional raid. Of which Germany got several.
Add that on German cities, they would make much less casualties than on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both because of several technical reasons and for the additional, obvious reason that if the war drags on in Europe until, say, August 1945, then there won't be much to bomb left anyway.
So in the short term it's just overkill.

In the medium term, there might be rather limited political consequences. Revisionists and Eastern German propagandists would be happier (for as long as both of that go on, that is, not forever). In the 1960-70s, we'd have titles like "The German Holocaust", "The Worst War Crime of Them All", "The Obliteration of (place German city name here)", and so on. Fortunately, those would still remain fringe lunatics and propaganda props, nothing terribly important.

As to Germany surrendering while it's still strong enough that the Allies deem it necessary to nuke it, that's a false premise, so it is of little significance, too. The Allies did not nuke Japan because it was still strong enough; they nuked it because it was the quickest and cheapest solution. The same would happen in Germany; even if the war drags on until the nukes are ready, Germany _isn't_ "strong".

 

[MrP]

I caught the latter half of a History Channel thingummy about Hitler this morning. Essential thrust was that Hitler suffered a progressive and catastrophic mental collapse as it became clear that he was not a new Messiah, leading the Germans to victory and their rightful place in the world, and that once the situation was irreversible, he'd kill himself. The suicide prediction was made in '43, IIRC. The point was also made that simply to write off mad dictators as, er, mad, undermined the capacity of others to deal with them. Everyone has their strings, and if one pulls them, one's puppet dances. However, there are certain things one simply cannot accomplish with a puppet. I don't think Hitler's the surrendering type. As V-J said, you'd have to change his mentality.

As Michele says, Germany's cities are structurally different from Japanese ones. They include a higher proportion of structurally strong concrete, brick and stone buildings, as opposed to more lightweight Japanese constructions of the era. So a bomb's explosive force would do less damage.

 

[Michele]

I personally do not think that Hitler would have surrendered. I wonder whether any folk around him might arrange "an accident" and have some other leader surrendering.

Attempted in 1944, as you know; failed; subsequent attempts made very difficult by obvious security measures.

I am also curious about what the allies do if they devasate a few German towns ( and there were not that many available that had not been pretty badly bombed anyway) with nuclear weapons and the Nazis fight on.

It's impossible to reply to this, because we don't know _why on Earth_ the Germans are able to drag the war on. If we knew that, we might consider what's really happening apart from a couple of above-average bombings.

I still have a question about whether there was any direct military use for these weapons.

Having the enemy surrender is a direct military use. Maybe you are asking whether there was some tactical use?

Also we must be looking at a situation where Germamy was clearly going to lose already. The weapon could only be used if the allies had pretty near total control of the air, otherwise the risk would be intolerable.

Yes - which undermines the assumption that Germany was still "strong enough". In this scenario, the Allies use those two bombs mainly in hopes to spare some servicemen's lives, and/or, if you espouse that line of thinking, for reasons which have less to do with winning the war: a) because the bombs are available, b) to show the Soviets.