Would the Allies have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany?

[sober_teacher]

I doubt the people in charge during WW2 could have foreseen that.

tbf fair - the scientists warned them of what to expect...but the soldiers probably didn't take those warnings as seriously as they might have after they actually used one and had physical evidence of the carnage and devastation it caused. It was an entirely new weapon that to non-scientists was almost impossible to appreciate what an atomic bomb was capable of.

Honestly, one reason I'm think it was a good thing they were used in Japan. Had they remained a mostly theoretical weapon (outside of tests), imo a nuclear exchange during the Cold War is much more likely.

 

[BrianNole777]

Work with isotopes had been known for 50 years prior to ww2.

Did Truman know or did he care?

 

[GOHOX69]

Did Truman know or did he care?

That's a policy issue, not science one. But it's inaccurate to say the effects of radiation were unknown at the time. I understand the exigency of usage but I still believe race had something to do with it. Maybe it wasn't a primary factor but it certainly made it easier to pull the proverbial trigger. I'm not here to defend the Japanese. They did barbaric things including whole sale rape of entire cities.

 

[BrianNole777]

That's a policy issue, not science one. But it's inaccurate to say the effects of radiation were unknown at the time. I understand the exigency of usage but I still believe race had something to do with it. Maybe it wasn't a primary factor but it certainly made it easier to pull the proverbial trigger. I'm not here to defend the Japanese. They did barbaric things including whole sale rape of entire cities.

I think it's all speculation at this point. We can't get into the head of Truman as he decided to drop the nuke.

I'd imagine his desire to end the war was stronger than any other motive by alot.

I think Albert Speer said Hitler would have ended the world if he could have in the last days of WW2.

CSB.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

It is all speculation by all of us on both sides. It's better to learn from history so we don't repeat it.

Edit: that should put this thread to bed

 

[BrianNole777]

Easier sure - but the battles at Okinawa, Iwo Jima imo factored in much more. Those Japanese KNEW they were doomed, and they were determined to sell their lives as dearly as possible. Given the limitations they faced, the resistance they mounted against US amphibious forces were quite frankly astounding.

Had resistance been weakening as they got closer, I think it's a tougher call regarding the bomb. But most estimates of invading Japan itself called for truly massive US casualties.

It also makes a difference in how you view the enemy when in Western Europe, the Allies and Germans fought a mostly "clean" war, especially compared to the brutality of the Eastern Front or what the Americans faced vs Japan.

And again, the decision to use in Europe was never a serious debate because it was over by the time we had the bomb.

It's interesting how Japan flourished after getting nuked twice and firebombed God knows how many times.

They're a super advanced economy and strong U.S. ally today.

CSB.

 

[preshlock]

@preshlock any opinion?

if Germany was still in the war probably. But by the spring of 1945 the Germans were in a state of complete collapse. After about mid-March 1945 it was pretty clear Germany wasn't staying in the war past the summer.

 

[preshlock]

Dresden is interesting because it was on brink of German collapse. At the time the Germans were still fighting reasonably effectively on both fronts. Less than 10% of the Greater Reich had been occupied. On the East Front the Soviets had only reached the Oder River at the beginning of the month & the Germans were gearing up for their last major offensive of the war near Lake Balaton. In the West the Allies still approaching the Rhine. While no one thought the Germans would last through the year most believed there was still much difficult fighting ahead.

 

[preshlock]

in general of course Normandy quickened the end of the war. But ultimately in Europe the war was won & lost on the Eastern Front.

 

[Mufasa94]

Nobody has accuse racism for being the reason.

And I never accused anyone of that for this subject.

Simply said that there were racial overtones. Get a grip. READ

Haha, funny you say read. Why don’t you? Or is it a guilty conscious that compelled you to respond?

 

[onlyTheObvious]

It's interesting how Japan flourished after getting nuked twice and firebombed God knows how many times.

They're a super advanced economy and strong U.S. ally today.

CSB.

McArthur probably deserves a decent amount of credit for how he showed a lot of respect for the Japanese people during occupation.

 

[Hawkeye Swarm]

I realize we killed a crap ton. I realize we fire bombed Dresden. However, still, I believe the ethos of genociding your own race prevented the allies from nuking their European brethren. Asians were third class people.

It's happened throughout history. Rwanda, Cambodia, Germany, etc...

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Has it been mentioned that the first atomic bomb test at Los Alamos was on 16 July 1945?

Germany surrendered on 7 May 1945.

Pretty solid reason not to use it on Germany.

If D-day had failed and Germany was still holding off the Russians in August 1945, the US would have dropped a couple on Germany. No question.

We had no problem totally obliterating every major German city as it was.

 

[Tenacious E]

There doesn't seem to have ever been much discussion amongst the US and British about using an atomic bomb in the European theater. The war ended before practical deployment could be achieved, but there does not seem to have been any planning to ever use one. Why? The attached article gives some reasons, fear of an unexploded bomb falling into the hands of German scientists, and the bombs being best suited to the B-29. The second one seems to be a weak argument. The British Lancaster could do the job, and I don't believe transferring a wing of B-29s to England would have been that difficult as it is suggested to be. The vulnerability of the B-29 to a still potent Luftwaffe seems to be a bigger concern.
Of all the articles I could find no concerns were stated about collateral damage or fallout. Even those relatively weak atom bombs produced radioactive fallout. If the war in Europe had stalled in the Fall of 1944, and the Russians had been held back, would we have dropped an atom bomb that might have produced fallout that would have affected Soviet troops?
Interesting notes in the article about the early target planning done in 1943. I was somewhat surprised to see the Japanese fleet at Truk so prominently mentioned. However, a bomb dropped into that harbor, ringed by mountains, would have been devastating.
Discuss.
https://ieer.org/resource/commentary/always-the-target/

unencumbered by the facts or anything in any articles, it was my casual understanding growing up that we used the bomb because they would very often fight to the death rather than surrender, and this was perceived as a way to break that resolve on a countrywide basis. It is also my understanding that as the war war on, we didn’t have the same issue with Germans. Whether the bomb was not perceived as the right tool for the German job, or some other reason, I have no idea. Perhaps there isn’t a clean answer.

 

[seminole97]

I realize we killed a crap ton. I realize we fire bombed Dresden. However, still, I believe the ethos of genociding your own race prevented the allies from nuking their European brethren. Asians were third class people.

Projection.

Star bellied Sneetches were a thing between the English and Scots, do you think any wogs could actually tell them apart?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

unencumbered by the facts or anything in any articles, it was my casual understanding growing up that we used the bomb because they would very often fight to the death rather than surrender, and this was perceived as a way to break that resolve on a countrywide basis. It is also my understanding that as the war war on, we didn’t have the same issue with Germans. Whether the bomb was not perceived as the right tool for the German job, or some other reason, I have no idea. Perhaps there isn’t a clean answer.

Post war analysis points to Japan being on the verge of surrender in Aug-Sep. They simply didn't have the means to fight.

That said, we'd just gone through a war where the Japanese simply did not surrender when any wetsern military would have. Fighting to the last man on every single Island. Sending Kamakaze's against our fleet. Civilians jumping off cliffs in Saipan rather than surrendering.

There were still units holding out in the jungles of the Phillipines a year after we basically had taken them back.

It's understandable that any intel on a Japanese surrender would have been taken as a grain of salt when deciding to drop the bombs.

We were preparing for the invasion of the home Islands and casualties, on both sides, would have been horrendous.

At the end of the day, most of the arguments against are based on post war (hindsight) knowledge of the Japanese situation.

 

[seminole97]

No offense Padre but firebombing a town doesn't subject it to radiation, fall out and fetal mutations and cancers that manifest even to this date.

No offense, but the threat of radioactive contamination simply didn’t exist as a consideration for the military at that time.
You just won’t find reference in the calculus.
This is all post-hoc construction from an entirely different viewpoint, not shared or expressed in 1945.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

No offense, but the threat of radioactive contamination simply didn’t exist as a consideration for the military at that time.
You just won’t find reference in the calculus.
This is all post-hoc construction from an entirely different viewpoint, not shared or expressed in 1945.

This.

The civilian leadership and military in Aug 1945 looked at the atomic bomb as basically a BIG bomb. A tool to be used. The view of nuclear weapons as basically being end of the world last resort weapons didn't come about till later....once hydrogen bombs etc came out.

The weapons used at Hiroshima/Nagasaki would basically be considered a large "tactical" nuke nowadays.

My beef in regards to the argument against using them are basically.

1. Most of the arguments against are based on post war knowledge.

2. Also based off the current thinking on Nuclear weapons. End of the world, can't use weapons, that could destroy the world. Simply wasn't the case in 1945. Oppenheimer and the scientists realized what they unleashed...didn't mean civilian/military leadership totally understood the ramifications.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Post war analysis points to Japan being on the verge of surrender in Aug-Sep. They simply didn't have the means to fight.

That said, we'd just gone through a war where the Japanese simply did not surrender when any wetsern military would have. Fighting to the last man on every single Island. Sending Kamakaze's against our fleet. Civilians jumping off cliffs in Saipan rather than surrendering.

There were still units holding out in the jungles of the Phillipines a year after we basically had taken them back.

It's understandable that any intel on a Japanese surrender would have been taken as a grain of salt when deciding to drop the bombs.

We were preparing for the invasion of the home Islands and casualties, on both sides, would have been horrendous.

At the end of the day, most of the arguments against are based on post war (hindsight) knowledge of the Japanese situation.

Hell, last Japanese soldier to surrender was in 1974

The Japanese soldier who kept on fighting after WW2 had finished

Lieutenant Onoda was still stubbornly fighting WW2 nearly thirty years after Japan had surrendered

www.history.co.uk

 

[Jimmy McGill]

There is no right or wrong IMHO on using the bombs in WW2. We just need to make sure they are never used again.

 

[Dorrman]

I think England would have. They firebombed the city of Hamburg almost burning the whole town to the ground. The next night a lot of the survivors were all in the same building so they decided to bomb that building. They killed almost 40,000 people

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

There is no right or wrong IMHO on using the bombs in WW2. We just need to make sure they are never used again.

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to come up with this.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to come up with this.

Are you obtuse or something? Don't know the word nuance? Mommy and Daddy didn't give you enough attention?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Are you obtuse or something? Don't know the word nuance? Mommy and Daddy didn't give you enough attention?

You tied yourself into pretzel. That's your problem.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

You tied yourself into pretzel. That's your problem.

Not really. I'm not an absolutist like you. My thoughts have been put out there on this thread. You can dissect them how you choose to with whatever agenda you have.

 

[Finance85]

I don't think the US would have dropped a bomb on Germany, at least not before Japan. I think there were too many unknown factors, particularly nuclear fallout.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Not really. I'm not an absolutist like you. My thoughts have been put out there on this thread. You can dissect them how you choose to with whatever agenda you have.

It's wrong to murder civilians. That's my agenda.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

It's wrong to murder civilians. That's my agenda.

I don't disagree. But when you are at full war like WWII, it is nearly impossible.

Today's standards are different than 1945 in warfare

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I don't think the US would have dropped a bomb on Germany, at least not before Japan. I think there were too many unknown factors, particularly nuclear fallout.

Nuclear fall out was never a question on dropping the bomb

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

I don't disagree. But when you are at full war like WWII, it is nearly impossible.

Today's standards are different than 1945 in warfare

NOT dropping an atomic bomb was entirely possible. There's simply no justification for what happened.

 

[Tenacious E]

I can't imagine the mental gymnastics it takes to come up with this.

Try reading the posts in this thread to limber up your brain; then, use it.

 

[preshlock]

It's wrong to murder civilians. That's my agenda.

so are against strategic bombing in general during WWII or specifically just the atomic bombs?

 

[preshlock]

Dresden is interesting because it was on brink of German collapse. At the time the Germans were still fighting reasonably effectively on both fronts. Less than 10% of the Greater Reich had been occupied. On the East Front the Soviets had only reached the Oder River at the beginning of the month & the Germans were gearing up for their last major offensive of the war near Lake Balaton. In the West the Allies still approaching the Rhine. While no one thought the Germans would last through the year most believed there was still much difficult fighting ahead.

another major point I simply forgot to make. Most of the bombers were from the Royal Air Force and overall authority for the mission was British Bomber Command.

 

[Finance85]

Nuclear fall out was never a question on dropping the bomb

I said too many unknowns. Fallout was just one of those. I also said before Japan. There was a lot more known after that.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Try reading the posts in this thread to limber up your brain; then, use it.

I'm comfortable where I stand on this.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I'm comfortable where I stand on this.

You are always comfortable where you stand. A truly intellect wanting to learn.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

I don't think the US would have dropped a bomb on Germany, at least not before Japan. I think there were too many unknown factors, particularly nuclear fallout.

They didn't give a crap about nuclear fallout at that time.

From 1946 to 1992, the U.S. government conducted more than 1,000 nuclear tests, during which unwitting troops were exposed to vast amounts of ionizing radiation. For protection, they wore utility jackets, helmets, and gas masks. They were told to cover their face with their arms.

 

[Tenacious E]

I'm comfortable where I stand on this.

The fact of the matter is that there were no good choices in the Pacific Theater. Just different choices, each with certain horrific consequences and each with uncertain results.

 

[sober_teacher]

They didn't give a crap about nuclear fallout at that time.

I’m not sure non-scientists really grasped what that was before seeing it happen.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

The fact of the matter is that there were no good choices in the Pacific Theater. Just different choices, each with certain horrific consequences, and uncertain anticipated results.

NOT dropping atomic bombs on civilians would have been a good choice.