Nuke Germany...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Remember we(America) were pursuing the A-Bomb to have a deterrent against the Germans if they developed an A-Bomb but that all changed when we learned the Germans were years behind us. It became a first strike weapon from that point on...

Up until early 1944, the bomb was still talked about as if it were going to be a deterrent against Germany. By August 1943, for example, Vannevar Bush was still reporting to Roosevelt that the Germans might be ahead, or at least neck-and-neck in the “race” for the bomb: “This may result in a situation where it will be necessary for us to stand the first punishing blows before we are in a position to destroy the enemy.” By early 1944, Groves had decided that the Germans having a bomb was “unlikely,” but that it still needed to be held out as a possibility. By late 1944, it was clear, from the Alsos mission, that Germany was nowhere near an atomic bomb — and indeed, they soon learned that the German program was in 1945 not even as far as where the Americans had gotten by the end of 1942. I put this out just as context for their thinking. Over the course of late 1943 through 1944, the bomb shifted from being a deterrent to a first-strike weapon — a weapon that was meant to be used, not held in reserve. So who would it strike?

And early target choice was:

The point of use of the first bomb was discussed and the general view appeared to be that its best point of use would be on a Japanese fleet concentration in the Harbor of Truk. General Styer suggested Tokio but it was pointed out that the bomb should be used where, if it failed to go off, it would land in water of sufficient depth to prevent easy salvage. The Japanese were selected as they would not be so apt to secure knowledge from it as would the Germans.1

Another point in the war: Germany off the list...

The first concrete discussion of targets came in the spring of 1945. These are the famous “Target Committee” meetings at Los Alamos which discussed what kind of target criteria they were using, what cities might fit it, and so on. Grim business, but entirely focused on Japan, in part because by that point it was clear that Germany’s defeat was imminent.

Let get back to the what if we had nuke Germany first in the war? What German city would we have taken out first? I figure what German cities were similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Let say we got the in the Fall of 1944 we have the A-bomb, would have used it against Germany first and Japan second but close together...

There were thoughts about using the bomb on Germany. Roosevelt ask:

At the conference that Secretary Stimson and myself had with President Roosevelt shortly before his departure, I believe it was December 30th or 31st of 1944, President Roosevelt was quite disturbed over the Battle of the Bulge and he asked me at that time whether I could bomb Germany as well as Japan. The plan had always been to bomb Japan because we thought the war in Germany was pretty apt to be over in the first place and in the second place the Japanese building construction was much more easily damaged by a bomb of this character than that in Germany. I urged President Roosevelt that it would be very difficult for various reasons.

I ask if we dropped a nuclear A-bomb what how would the course of the war changed?

Here is the link I used. It a good read goes more into why Germany was never a target even maybe racist reasons...

 

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1,171
If we hadn't lost those crack troops in the battle of the bulge, the war would have been longer, Yes the USA would have done it

either Berlin, Schweinfurt or Nürnberg (Your bomber command was obsessed with Nürnberg)
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Remember we(America) were pursuing the A-Bomb to have a deterrent against the Germans if they developed an A-Bomb but that all changed when we learned the Germans were years behind us. It became a first strike weapon from that point on...
No. The nuke didn't become a first-strike weapon at any point during WW2. Ignorance of war-fighting terminology. First strikes had already been made in Poland and the Pacific sphere, the former by Germany, the latter by the Japanese. First-strikes were no longer possible in that war, only strategic response.

There were a mere few A-bombs left capable of even coming on line after Nagasaki. It was yet a wonder weapon, a risky strategic asset with an extremely short history of success, to be considered in desperation just as the first two were. The remaining singular weapons were not standard between them or the two types deployed. This was a hedge against one or more of the types failing. Nothing assured, this was not a change of status from defensive retaliation to first-strike, but rather an ongoing calculation of efficacy.

That such decisions were made under duress and with no guarantee of success is called "Stepping Up." God help us if the second-guessing / focus-group / "devil's advocate" / "can't we just all get along" crowd had been in charge.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
i'm kinda against it
I understand it but if we would have had the A-bomb in the Fall of 44 we would have used it on Germany. Do you think it would have ended the war in Europe sooner? Would Hitler still try to hold out longer or be overthrown by his generals finally?
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
I understand it but if we would have had the A-bomb in the Fall of 44 we would have used it on Germany...
No. That's to misunderstand what was going on. While Germany might well have considered the use of an A-bomb against the Allied island of Britain (their only option given they didn't have a longer-range capability) the U.S. was certainly aware that the island Japan was the most strategic choice for such a weapon. Continental targets were not isolated or centralized enough to consider. With only 4-6 bombs total to use, how to "spend" them over a vast continent (no island!) of specific strategic targets?

That said, I think underlying racism was a factor in the decision to use the nukes on Asians rather than on European old-country relatives.
 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Over the course of late 1943 through 1944, the bomb shifted from being a deterrent to a first-strike weapon — a weapon that was meant to be used, not held in reserve. So who would it strike?
It seems you missed something when you read my first post...

The nuke didn't become a first-strike weapon at any point during WW2.
Timing maybe the only reason, the Germans missed the horror of nuclear weapons.

I think underlying racism was a factor in the decision to use the nukes on Asians rather than on European old-country relatives.
It has been mention so maybe we uses nukes on Japan first and see if that is enough to force Germany into surrender early.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Timing maybe the only reason, the Germans missed the horror of nuclear weapons.
You missed the poin entirely. For something to be a "first strike" it has to be THE first strike. You cannot have a first strike in the middle of war where somebody already struck first. The uranium and plutonium bombs were merely bigger, badder, way more expensive bombs. If there has been bombing for two years, it is no longer possible to strike first.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
For something to be a "first strike" it has to be THE first strike.
Okay, I will go along with notion but once wr learned the Germans were way behind us our leaders attitude change from one of defense to offense with thier new nuclear toy. First to use!
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
Okay, I will go along with notion but once wr learned the Germans were way behind us our leaders attitude change from one of defense to offense with thier new nuclear toy. First to use!
It would be impossible for the US not to be the first to use it. Nobody else had it. I'm not sure what you're getting at - switching from defense to offense? The US was always offensive minded militarily. The US was always going to bomb. All the belligerents were searching for a bigger hammer to beat on their enemies with. Absolutely nothing novel in that. Our egg heads just made a bigger hammer before the other guys. There was no great moral dilemma in 1945 because they all just looked at it as a bigger hammer. Pure and simple. The moral angst over the dropping of the bomb didn't exist until 25 years after the war.
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
...It has been mention so maybe we uses nukes on Japan first and see if that is enough to force Germany into surrender early.
I'm sure the Allies would have appreciated that consequence, if not primary a big secondary. But the Nazis had already capitulated. A consequence of the A-bomb drops as they were was to give Russia pause in its post-war goal to take advantage of countries weakened by war. Serendipity.
 
Top