If Hitler got the bomb...

4,128 Views | 35 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by cecil77
Mort Rainey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Say Hitler's scientists beat the Manhattan project to the punch in late 1944. What do you think he does with the bombs? Let's say he has a limited amount, just like the US did at first. Maybe two to use in the first month. Where does he drop them?

I feel like the most obvious target is London, right? He can't exactly drop it on the allies in France or western Russia because the soldiers are spread out and he'd kill his own men. Does he try to get the second one across the water to NYC? Or does he try to fly it to Moscow?
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
London and either Paris or Antwerp. Paris for morale effect, Antwerp to kill the port and influx of supplies.
RPag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow. WW2 was essentially a war in the East and the failure to capture these key cities combined to form a high water mark of the Nazi war machine. Plus, he would have been able to kill millions of Slavs instantly instead of having to starve them.

On a side note, at least one German officer in Belarus wrote in his journal that he wished for nuclear weapons in order to clear the marshes of partisans.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I for one tend to think he would use it on the Western Allies and bomb London, Paris, Antwerp, the Normandy Bridgehead etc..... my main reason for this thinking is he only used his new vengeance weapons (V1s and V2s) on the West.
ABATTBQ87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

I for one tend to think he would use it on the Western Allies and bomb London, Paris, Antwerp, the Normandy Bridgehead etc..... my main reason for this thinking is he only used his new vengeance weapons (V1s and V2s) on the West.


With German officers trying to kill Hitler and wanting to sue the west for peace so that they could focus their attention to the East and Russia there is no way Germany would use a nuclear device on the allies they would have used it on a Soviets to kill as many as possible
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ABATTBQ87 said:

JABQ04 said:

I for one tend to think he would use it on the Western Allies and bomb London, Paris, Antwerp, the Normandy Bridgehead etc..... my main reason for this thinking is he only used his new vengeance weapons (V1s and V2s) on the West.


With German officers trying to kill Hitler and wanting to sue the west for peace so that they could focus their attention to the East and Russia there is no way Germany would use a nuclear device on the allies they would have used it on a Soviets to kill as many as possible


Winter offensive says otherwise.
Aggies Revenge
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Logically you are correct. But you have to take into account the Hitler factor. He knew the Soviets would never make peace, but breaking the will of the Western Allies was possible. Vaporizing London and a major port full of war material would have been a very enticing tool to breaking the Allies.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Absolutely against the Soviets. Our western centric approach often makes the war on the Western front bigger than it was. The war against the Soviets was ideologically central to the entire German war effort. If Hitler could have vaporized Leningrad, Stalingrad, and Moscow he would have done it in a heartbeat. I imagine the potential for further atomic strikes against the Western Allies would have seriously changed the calculous in Washington and London.

The V-1 had a range of about 160 miles and the V-2 had about 200 miles so they could only reach Britain from bases in France and Holland. By 1944 there weren't any major targets in the East within range. Remember, V-1 and V-2 were not precision weapons by any definition so they had to target big cities if they hoped to hit anything.
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Also another reason I think atomic weapons being utilized on the Western Allies was Allied Air Supremacy. If the Germans had an A-Bomb I don't think they would have rosked wasting it on a bombing run when by late '44 the Luftwaffe was done. I would imagine if they developed the bomb it would have been delivered via a V1 or V2. My bet is V2 as the V1 was occasionally able to be intercepted. Therefore your targets are going to be major cities to the west.
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

Also another reason I think atomic weapons being utilized on the Western Allies was Allied Air Supremacy. If the Germans had an A-Bomb I don't think they would have rosked wasting it on a bombing run when by late '44 the Luftwaffe was done. I would imagine if they developed the bomb it would have been delivered via a V1 or V2. My bet is V2 as the V1 was occasionally able to be intercepted. Therefore your targets are going to be major cities to the west.

Well, we're talking hypotheticals so if the Germans developed the atomic bomb then they could have developed a delivery system as well. The V-1 had a about a 2,000kg payload and the V-2 had about a 1,000kg payload. Fat Man and Little Boy both weighed in at over 4,000kg.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

On a side note, at least one German officer in Belarus wrote in his journal that he wished for nuclear weapons in order to clear the marshes of partisans.
I didn't think the possibility of nuclear weapons was known to the world before Hiroshima.
RPag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's from Timothy Snyder's book, Bloodlands. "Belarus, with its plentiful forests and swamps, was ideal territory for partisan warfare. The German army chief of staff later fantasized about using nuclear weapons to clear its wetlands of human population. This technology was not yet available, of course, but the fantasy gives a sense of both the ruthlessness of German planning and the fears aroused by difficult terrain"(pg 234). He cites a German work so I can't easily verify the source but interesting nonetheless.

Edit-- The general was Franz Halder.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RPag said:

It's from Timothy Snyder's book, Bloodlands. "Belarus, with its plentiful forests and swamps, was ideal territory for partisan warfare. The German army chief of staff later fantasized about using nuclear weapons to clear its wetlands of human population. This technology was not yet available, of course, but the fantasy gives a sense of both the ruthlessness of German planning and the fears aroused by difficult terrain"(pg 234). He cites a German work so I can't easily verify the source but interesting nonetheless.

Edit-- The general was Franz Halder.

I've wondered why the Germans didn't use poison gas on the partisans in remote isolated problem areas like these. They had no concern about collateral damage and it would seem possible to protect the Germans surrounding the areas. As long as they didn't use this against the Allies and worked to keep it secret I doubt the Allies would escalate in response.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So the writing was from after the war? That makes more sense. Though the use of nuclear weapons against dispersed troops seems like a waste of time.
JonSnow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hitler wanted Russia as Lebensraum. He wanted Slavs dead or as slaves for German industry. So likely he would have used nukes in the Eastern front to clear out big cities. I think he would have used them in the West sort of like the US did with Japan, to destroy secondary cities to show the power of the weapon but spare Paris, London etc. Hitler wanted to rule Western Europe.

JonSnow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And if you assume Hitler could have had a nuke before Normandy, lightly defend the beach with some Romanian and Polish troops. Let the Allies make a beachhead and then use the nuke. Imagine the impact that would have had?
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Delivery would have been the issue.

The V2 carried a 1000Kg war head. The LIttle Boy weighed in at 4400Kg.

The German's never invested in long range bomber air craft and their fighters had short legs as well.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He would have bombed Pearl Harbor then the moon
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Paris for certain.

He didn't give a crap about his troops. He proved that when the Russians were killing them by the bushel at Stalingrad and other battles in central Russia. He may just have tried to nuke the Red Army and his own as well.

Possibly London or Antwerp.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pretty far fetched, unless some of the conspiracy stuff is true then the germans were far from capable. Our methods took a HUGE investment to pull off.

that said, I expect it would have been an interesting move to funnel the soviet armies into a series of attractive concentrations, maybe in the fulda gap, and nuke the **** out of them. But it would take quite a few to get even concentrated formations.

Maybe one or two on the biggest armored concentrations, and then try to get stalin himself in moscow.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Having read a lot of Manhattan Project history, a lot of the guys at Los Alamos were Jewish, many refugees, and part of the reason they were working their butts off was because they were terrified that Hitler would get The Bomb before the allies.

When Germany surrendered, they were ready to stop work and go home. Many of them were not happy the bomb would be used on Japan. But something like $25 Billion in today's dollars had been spent. No way in Hades were they going to invade Japan rather than use what they had.
RPag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If anything there was the opinion that the bombs could and should have been used earlier. Okinawa was fought from April 1 to June 22 and cost the lives of 20,000 Americans, the first atomic bomb was dropped on August 6. What was gained by that much human suffering when the ability to drop the bombs was around the corner?
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Two problems. The Manhattan scientists were confident that the "gun" device, the "Little Boy" used on Hiroshima, would work. In fact, Hiroshima was the first test of that weapon. The problem there, was simply uranium production, They couldn't make it fast enough. My guess is that there was no bomb of any kind available during Okinawa.

The implosion weapon, the "Fat Man" plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki, was not tested until July 16, 1945, at Trinity Site. After Okinawa. Up to that point, they weren't sure it would work.

After Hiroshima, Truman told the Japanese that the nuclear bombs would continue to fall. That was a bluff. We only had enough nuclear material for three. The two that we used, plus one more. When the Japanese did not immediately surrender after Nagasaki, the third was put on a plane out of Los Alamos, and flown to the West Coast to be put on a ship.

Japan surrendered while that plane was en route.
The Original AG 76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
back to the original what-if...
The logical best use in 43 or 44 was against Moscow. ( unless Hitler had a real arsenal of bombs..but lets assume he only had 2 or 3 just like the dilemma we faced) . All power in the USSR was centralized around Uncle Joe and therefor in Moscow. Moscow was even more important to the Soviet war effort than Berlin was to the Reich. Destroy Moscow , and by default stalin, and you totally decapitate the entire nation and its entire leadership structure. Stalin kept his underlings , even his generals, in very close proximity and the loss of all of them would cripple the entire Soviet system. By its very definition the Soviet system relied on a complete centralized rigid system for damn near everything. It was a Bernie wetdream system where EVERY aspect of every facet of the nations life was controlled by ministries in Moscow. Hell..even thought the USSR had so called republics and capitols etc Uncle Joe kept the rump Presidents and leaders of the far flung " Republics" in Moscow so he could manage and cajole them and their local affairs. His mania and fear of ANY usurer made sure that ANYONE of any talent or power was always under his watchful eye and the torture chambers of Beria and his NKVD goons and meant Moscow. Timing for this What-If is interesting as early in the war in the east when Moscow was in direct threat Stalin did remove most power from Moscow thinking that the city was doomed but as soon as the immediate threat was lifted he moved everyone back.
Paris had no strategic value and therefor not a worthwhile target and the US/British command structure was somewhat decentralized and scattered across southern England so it was not as critical to us and Moscow was to the mongrel hordes.
Depending on when in 44 the bombs were available you might make a case for a secondary strike on the port at Antwerp since the Allied effort in the west was always operating on a hairstring and woefully under-equiped and barely supplied .
However...you could also make a case for a secondary strike ( after Moscow) on London , but this would have to be pre-invasion. Even with a lot of HQ's scattered there was still a huge Allied infrastructure in London and virtually all of the British civil structure in addition to a lot of the joint commands so a hit on the city could paralyze the Allies to such an extent to critically hamper the invasion preps long enough to allow for the Germans to deal with the disorganized and headless Soviets.
Great what-If....
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The best thing that ever happened to Hitler from the Allied perspective after shooting himself, was getting gassed in World War I. Having experienced it, he decided he would not use it in World War II as too awful a weapon.
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The worst thing is that it wasn't a fatal dose
Mort Rainey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Two problems. The Manhattan scientists were confident that the "gun" device, the "Little Boy" used on Hiroshima, would work. In fact, Hiroshima was the first test of that weapon. The problem there, was simply uranium production, They couldn't make it fast enough. My guess is that there was no bomb of any kind available during Okinawa.

The implosion weapon, the "Fat Man" plutonium bomb used on Nagasaki, was not tested until July 16, 1945, at Trinity Site. After Okinawa. Up to that point, they weren't sure it would work.

After Hiroshima, Truman told the Japanese that the nuclear bombs would continue to fall. That was a bluff. We only had enough nuclear material for three. The two that we used, plus one more. When the Japanese did not immediately surrender after Nagasaki, the third was put on a plane out of Los Alamos, and flown to the West Coast to be put on a ship.

Japan surrendered while that plane was en route.
Was that one going to Tokyo?
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't recall. If my memory is correct, Tokyo wasn't much of a target, because it had been pretty much destroyed by fire bomb attacks. I recall that there was a list of proposed targets, and most of those, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had been largely spared from conventional bombing attacks.

I think part of the reasoning was to avoid encouraging the Japanese to build up anti-aircraft capability in the cities targeted for A-bombs. Part of the reasoning I'm relatively sure of, was that they wanted to leave those cities intact until the atom bomb fell. Sort of a take on the old before/after pictures. They wanted no doubt that a single bomb took out the whole city.

Bock's Car, the B-29 that hit Nagasaki, was originally given the target of Kokura. Kokura was obscured, partially due to fire bombing of another Japanese city. (Nagasaki was partially obscured, but the bombardier thought he had a good target, and dropped the bomb.) So I think it's logical to assume that Kokura would have gone back to the top of the target list.

Koyto, the ancient Imperial capital of Japan, was originally on the list of proposed targets, but was taken off by Secretary of War Stimson. He thought it was of such deep cultural significance that it should be spared. Some of the targeting committee wanted it hit because it had several universities. Their reasoning was that the people at universities would realize the significance of an atomic bomb.

Stimson eventually went to Truman to get his way.
ABATTBQ87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm watching a show about Germany and the SS and there are two things that are extremely clear about 1930s Germany they hated Communists and they hated the Jews so I have no doubt that if they would have had an atomic bomb they would have used it on one of those two groups.
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CanyonAg77 said:

Koyto, the ancient Imperial capital of Japan, was originally on the list of proposed targets, but was taken off by Secretary of War Stimson. He thought it was of such deep cultural significance that it should be spared.

Was it out of respect for that cultural significance that he wanted it spared, or fear of what the destruction of such a place would do the the Japanese psyche that led him to spare it?
CanyonAg77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Been a while since I read, but I think he had spent time there and was enamored of the architecture and cultural history.
Vestal_Flame
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hitler would have started with the Russians.
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fun discussion, but contrary to popular opinion, Hitler was no where near developing the bomb. Not even close.
Broseph
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did he try?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.