DBWI: Nuclear Weapons Used In Japan Only

What if nuclear weapons were used only to end the Pacific side of World War II for the Allies, not in both Germany AND Japan as in OTL?

OOC: If people don't understand the meaning of DBWI, look it up on our wiki.
 
But could possibly lead to this? Germany using the National Redoubt plan and retreating into Bavaria into their heavy fortifications made it imperative to nuke them. Attacking without the nuke would have cost too much, so nuking Innsbruck, where they where keeping a large amount of moved industry and supplies stockpiled, basically destroyed their will to fight, and let our push be almost unopposed except for the die hard SS formations. Happy we didn't use the nuke on Hitler's little fortress as planned, because if we did we wouldn't have captured him alive. With Japan, it was imperative that we used the other nuke on Osaka to at least try and make them surrender, even though it took the invasion of Kyushu for the conservatives to finally win the power struggle and offer surrender. I don't think it would have worked on Japan, because if one nuke hadn't made them surrender, what difference would two do?
 
Are we going under the assumption that some how Colonel von Stauffenberg's coup attempt (a.k.a. Operation VALKYRIE) somehow succeeded on July 20th, 1944? Other than that, I can't think of another situation, especially with Reinhard Heydrich's management of the Redoubt operation...

Also with Japan, General Korechika Anami was hardly convinced by the nuclear strike against Innsbruck or against Osaka. That is partially the reason President Truman felt compelled to allow Soviet intervention into the Pacific Theater. Either way we have both divided Germanys and Japans...
 
This is a really odd, Puget. And I'm not sure it makes that much sense--really, the USA began its nuclear weapons program to try to get an advantage against Nazi Germany.

The thing is that we'd need a fundamentally different Germany to get this to work--there is some evidence that averting Hitler's death on July 4th, 1941, could well have changed the entire nature of the war in Russia. I suggest that instead of the vast Partisan Hell that Germany encountered, that the Soviet Red Army might have survived, instead of losing first Moscow, then facing destruction in detail in 1942.

We needed Nuclear Weapons to secure beachheads in France; we needed them to dust the Wehrmacht--We'd need WW2 to end in 1946 or so, instead of 1948. But how can we realistically expect Stalin, who has purged his armed forces and the insane orders from Stavka that followed, to be any match for Fuhrer Heydrich?

Short answer--not unless WW2 is drastically different. We used something like 100 nuclear weapons in that conflict--getting it down to something like two means fundamentally rewriting the course of the war.
 
Top