Would have Hitler,or the USA have used the A Bomb in Europe?

magick · 16-10-2003 3:52pm #1

Now although the Reichs production of the A Bomb was behind the Allies, do you think a desprate Hitler would have used it ? Bear in mind he didnt use Chemical weapons against the Allies on the BattleField, however the Bomb could have had the potential to change the war in favour of the Reich.

Also lets consider the War continues to drag on, the US Admin not looking foward to progress through Germany and not happy with the body count, to bring to the war in Europe to a Swift end do you think they would have Dropped the Bomb on Germany? Would the European allies approve? What about the Russian reaction?

Barry Aldwell · 16-10-2003 11:07pm

Whatever about Hitler using the bomb on the Allies, the Russians would not have been very happy about a glowing green pit where some of their (soon to be removed to Russia) factories had been. Similarly the French wouldn't have been too hot on the idea of fallout.

Well, since everyone that was in power at the time is now dead, I guess we'll never have a concrete answer.

Manach · 16-10-2003 11:27pm

Edmund Teller, who recently pass away, I'd say would have had few problems with reducing Berlin, (and Moscow) to glowing ashes.
But given the free range the Allied air forces had at the closing stages of the conflict, ie Dresden, no need of a nuclear option.

secret_squirrel · 16-10-2003 11:37pm

the yanks nuked japan due to the horrific cost they predicted for an invasion of mainland Japan. The same cost didnt apply for surrounded germany.

And as for hitler..probably...he already had a delivery system in the shape of the V2. Bang goes london, paris and then moscow if it had the range. Only the americans left fighting on foreign radio active soil......

17-10-2003 4:39pm

Personally i think Hitler would have used it. If he had it prior to US entering the War, he could have won by taking out London.

As for the allies in europe, i don't think they could have used it. With Japan they were attacking Japanese soil, whereas in europe they would be hitting occupied territories. As for hitting Germany itself, they had too many intelligence operations and terrorist groups working to endanger them.

Victor · 24-10-2003 9:49pm

Originally posted by Troy Warm Spike
Personally i think Hitler would have used it. If he had it prior to US entering the War, he could have won by taking out London.

No, they would have nuked anything but London (Portmouth / Southhampton / Plymouth and the RN might have been an attractive target). They could then hold London to ransom and force a peace to their liking. Nuking London first would simply mean occupying (or not) a radioactive city.

Originally posted by Troy Warm Spike
As for hitting Germany itself, they had too many intelligence operations and terrorist groups working to endanger them.

Killing a few hundred or thousand supporters in [random German city], would not have prevented the use of a nuclear weapon.

Capt'n Midnight · 02-11-2003 1:36am

In an interview with General Paul Tibbets, and Robert Del Tredici (Columbus Ohio, Feb 25 1985)

I was notified in September 1944 that the United States was undertaking the development of the atomic bomb. My Responsibility was to deveop and train an Air Force organization capable of dropping the new weapon. Not too many people knew the directive also said to be prepared to make simultaneous drops in Europe and Japan. This is what was meant when they termed it a "split operation."

The plan was to use atomic weapons on Germany and Japan at exactly the same time?

That is correct.

.......

Anyway, there were three that were readily available.

I always thought it was only two...

There were three. And when Japan didn't surrender after the one in Hagasaki, I flashed a code word to Wendover, Utah, and that bomb was loaded into an airplane and headed for the Pacific but got stopped at Moffat Field because the war was over.

What thype of bomb was the third bomb?

It was the Nagasaki type.

REF: AT WORK IN THE FIELDS OF THE BOMB - HARRAP - 1987
ISBN 0 245-54600-6

Capt'n Midnight · 02-11-2003 1:50am

So the US was preparing to Bomb Germany (any bets on Dresden as a probable target ?) and they were preparing to Nuke Japan again.

Hitler did not use gas simply because it would be used against back against them . cf the handcuffing incident on the Dieppe raid. This threat of retaliation is why the British and American POW's were treated well, - they were quite prepared to maltreat any German prisoners.

So not to put too fine a point on it the USA / Germany / Russia would quite happily have used weapons of mass distruction on thier enemies as long as thier enemies wern't able to reply in kind. - Think about the Dambusters raid or the carpet bombing of workers houses in the cities.

The reason Japan was nuked was to get data on the effects of nuclear weapons on PEOPLE. Raids on Tokoyo killed more people than the atomic bombs..

Victor · 02-11-2003 1:24pm

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
So the US was preparing to Bomb Germany (any bets on Dresden as a probable target ?)

Not sure when Dresden was bombed, but I get the impression it wouldn't have been a viable target. In any case it had little strategic value. No they would probably have picked a relatively intact city critical to the war effort and most likely in the East (future Russian zone). Possibly an ideal target would have been Berlin as you might get to kill Hitler without making him a martyr to the cause.

Also note the ambivalance towards radiation right into the 1960s, even though problems with X-rays were known certainly by 1890.

The Corinthian · 11-11-2003 6:47pm

It’s probably a question of racism, when you come down to it.

Hitler was ironically against the use of poison gas in war, having witnessed its effects first hand in WWI. This has often been cited as one of the reasons that Germany never deployed nerve agents, such as Sarin, even though they had developed it log before the end of the war. Chances are Germany would not have employed WMD, including the A-bomb, largely because she viewed Britain as a ‘fraternal nation’. Against the Russians, of course, would probably have been a different story.

The same goes for US use of the A-bomb against Germany. There was certainly an underlying racism present in the US that viewed the Japanese differently to Germans or Italians - After all, America was and is essentially a quasi-European nation. To exemplify this, American-Japanese were interned during the war in the US while German-Americans and Italo-Americans were not.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-11-2003 7:55pm

Originally posted by Victor
Not sure when Dresden was bombed, but I get the impression it wouldn't have been a viable target. In any case it had little strategic value. No they would probably have picked a relatively intact city critical to the war effort and most likely in the East (future Russian zone). Possibly an ideal target would have been Berlin as you might get to kill Hitler without making him a martyr to the cause.

Also note the ambivalance towards radiation right into the 1960s, even though problems with X-rays were known certainly by 1890.

Dresden was NEVER a viable target, and had not been heavily attacked before (similar to the three Japanese cities targeted)

Re: radiation - the allies had gieger counters deployed in 1944 just in case the Germans were leaving behing scorched earth. Also at a conference in 1947 US, Canada, UK threw out the concept of a safe level of radiation below which you were totally safe.

Mr Corinthian - to repeat myself - the main reason why the Germans did not use WMD is that they were sure they would be used back against them. Remember the scottish island only recently decontaminated from anthrax and the accidental release of mustard gas from american ships during an air raid in Bari..

Geromino · 12-11-2003 1:40am

Internment Camps
Contrary to what many people believe, the internment camps did not have only Japanese Americans, but also had German and Italian Americans. However, not all German and Italian Americans were not in the internment camps.

http://www.foitimes.com/internment/cc_tx.htm

Nesei and Japanese Americans in World War II

Japanese Americans did contribute to the war effort. More specifically, two units come to mind, the 442nd regimental combat team and the 100th infantry battalion. Both of these two units fought outstanding in the European Theater.

http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210341/442nd/splash442nd.htm

Germany and the A-Bomb

Germany did try to develop the A-Bomb. What would Adolf intentions if he had one, no one knows and could only speculate. However, The chief scientist was Werner Karl Heisenberg. He started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and in the end, had not developed a weapon. Thus entered a u-boat U-234 which Germany transferred its material to Japan via submarine. However, when Germany surrendered, the U boat commander surrendered to the USS Sutton on May 14, 1975. Thus ended any hopes of Japan using the atomic bomb.

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p11.htm
http://forum.japanreference.com/archive/topic/1464-1.html

United States and the A-Bomb on Japan

The United States, by the time the US had developed the weapon, only had one reasonable target, Japan. There is a lot of controversy out there that President Truman made the decision for relaliation on Japan striking the US first, and some have used the word racism as well. However, President Truman believed that the Japanese Government flatly rejected the Postdam conference and thus had no choice but to make a command decision: either land on Japan or use the atomic bomb. What most people did not realize was that the weapon was very experimental. Under laboratory condiditons, such an event can take place; however, practically, no one really knew.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/teacher/abomb.htm
url]http://oror.essortment.com/presidenttruman_rywp.htm[/url]

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2003 2:37pm

there were two type of bomb - uranium and plutonimum

the uranium bomb was NOT expiremental - all you need to do is hold a critical mass which can easily be done using conventional explosives - U does not explode as quickly so you have maybe 1ms to get the critical mass together

the plutonium bomb WAS expirmental - fission was much faster so you had to create the critical mass much faster - hence the explosive lenses and the need for a test.

From a given amount of uranium you can make one U bomb or use a breeder reactor to generate enough plutonium to make 10-100 bombs... hence the reason for looking at the more complex experimental type of bomb

Geromino · 12-11-2003 3:22pm

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
there were two type of bomb - uranium and plutonimum

the uranium bomb was NOT expiremental - all you need to do is hold a critical mass which can easily be done using conventional explosives - U does not explode as quickly so you have maybe 1ms to get the critical mass together

the plutonium bomb WAS expirmental - fission was much faster so you had to create the critical mass much faster - hence the explosive lenses and the need for a test.

From a given amount of uranium you can make one U bomb or use a breeder reactor to generate enough plutonium to make 10-100 bombs... hence the reason for looking at the more complex experimental type of bomb

"Little Boy" was the uranium type and "Fat Boy" ws the plutonium type. And in both flights, the crew had protective lenses after the bomb was dropped. Also keep in mind that the critical mass was only first achieved in 1943 at a university laboratory. The best minds that one could muster came to a place called Los Alamos. Los Alamos was an intellectual city with only mission: to transform a laboratory experiment into a practical one. It took two additional years and numerous retests to make the experimental bomb that was detonated in April of 1945. I would hardly call this routine at this point in time.

A plant built in Oak Ridge, Tennessee was only completed in July of 1945 to produce the plutonium in three crude reactors and two crude reprocessing plants. I would hardly call this routine too.

Victor · 13-11-2003 12:08am

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
Dresden was NEVER a viable target, and had not been heavily attacked before (similar to the three Japanese cities targeted)

Dresden was bombed and virtually destroyed in it's entirity (it had little defences or preparations as it was an "excluded" target).

The Japanese targets were picked as they were largely intact and had military uses (one was a major army command centre).

Would have Hitler,or the USA have used the A Bomb in Europe?

Comments