(KR) The nuclear bombings of Britain were justified?

By 1945 the second great war was coming to it's end, with every single member of the internationale, be in America like Mexico, the Argentinian Commune, Colombia, Centroamerica or Chile, be in europe like North italy, France and Norway, be the Commune in Bengal in asia, having already surrendered either to the entente or the Reichspakt, but the Union of Britain still remained as a "Intransponible island on a sea of reaction" as their propaganda posters showed. The combined strenght of most of europe plus the American Union state garanteed almost total air control of Britain and their trade routes, but due the development of their own reserves of oil in scotland and the creation of syntethic refinaries the british still could pump enought fuel to keep the republican air force on the skies, even tough their navy was stuck on the ports. The Kaiserreich had signed as early as 1938 a agreement to return the island to canada if they liberated it, so a compreensible invasion plan nicknamed "Operation albatross" that we all know due the movies and video games, to invade the last member of the internationale, and thus over 2 million men invaded the Islands from the South. Then there is the polemic that I want to talk about: The use of nuclear weapons.

The UoB had a unlimited supply of equipment, especially rifles coming from all over the world from the defeated members of the internationale and also exiled divisions, to the point that the level of multiculturalism of the british army surpassed Alexander the great one, with Argentinians, french, italians, etc, composing a force of six million soldiers plus reserve fully equipped, and so the Reichspakt resorted to the use of the superbombs, with the first two being fired at the beginning of the invasion.

eUN5rRA.jpg

The bombings of Portsmouth and London.

The nuclear bomb that fell on London didn't reached the city center, instead exploded on the outskirts of the city and caused a massive blackout. It's objective was a last attempt to make the TuC to surrender before the invasion, but according to critics it strenghned their resolve to fight until the end now that the capital was vulnerable. As the landings happened on the South the bombing of Portsmouth destroyed the largest army reserve present on the area, thus reducing the capacity of the british army to respond in time for the invasion.

The invasion went on with massive casualties on both sides, the british resistance was so feral¹ that the combined assault bogged down after capturing Wessex. A landing in Anglia came close to be crushed by the UoB, thus prompting another nuclear strike, this time on Oxford, the cultural damage was unrepairable, as Wiston Churchill said.

ypDb8Dg.jpg


The First bombing was cautiously accepted by the Canadians due the garantee that London itself wouldn't be more destroyed by the explosion than it was already due the massive bombings, but the destruction of Oxford led to massive uproar in the entente and a soaring in their relations with the Reichspakt. Still the cooperation continued with more germans, canadians, Indians and free french arriving to help the americans. It should be noted that the canadian soldiers in Britain didn't reacted as bad as the Canadian public to the destruction of Oxford as they saw how the Republican military didn't seemed to collapse and that in the long run the city would end destroyed as Dover was due the "do or die" mentality of their corps (especially the exiled divisions) at this point.

The army of Montgomery was crushed in Cornwall and the coalition troops from Anglia moved west into the ruins of Oxford and linked with the troops in the south, cutting off London from the rest of the UoB. At this point while the military of the UoB remained unified, the government collapsed into many cliques as the Chairmen was evacuated to Edinburgh and so Oswald Mosley, leader of the totalist faction, made a blank coup to seize control of the forces in the capital and kept fighting. Niclas y Glais declared a independent Welsh republic but was arrested by the local garrison after the coalition refused to recognize his government and so the war continued. The last nuclear attack happened on the 9th of february of 1946 on London proper, wiping out large parts of the city but still not destroying the big ben and the Buckingham palace (named worker's palace at the time) and it became the most controversial because at this point it was clear that the city couldn't hold any more, but the american general staff claimed that it would take at least one month to crush the resistance on the city and would lead to way more death and destruction than the bombing, that killed Mosley and made the local garrison surrender.

eGZKP4S.jpg


The last major battle happened at Manchester, after it the Republican army collapsed and the government officially surrendered with the fall of Edinburg. Up until today the UK is the leader in the world on investiment of cancer treatment and most of London had to be reprojected and be rebuilt due the massive damage. At the same time other cities like Bristol and Manchester suffered similar levels of destruction even without the nuclear bombings due the ferocious defence by the UoB troops and the indiscriminated bombing campaign made by the coalition. This was also the last major war fought in human history and opened the Long peace that we are still on. The "Von Papen plan" of investiment and humanitarian aid flooded the island after the end of the war and with unlimited foreign resources the Island was mostly repaired by 1955, however the loss of human life of the british campaign was twice of the french one and the UK still holds birth policies and supports emigration from other members of the entente towards GB due the demographic desaster.

Based on that I ask: Was the atomic bombing justified? Dover, Bristol and Manchester showed us that London, Oxford and Portsmouth probably would end as destroyed as they were, but the difference is the long lasting effects of nuclear radiation. Did the explosions really diminished the war? What do you think?

¹Imagine OTL okinawa, but taking over the entire GB.
 
Well, hell, I'm biased if you look at my location, but what the hell.

London and Portsmouth were obviously military targets, and to be honest Oxford probably was equally necessary as strategically speaking it was the lynchpin of the British line. But as I walk down the streets of my university I can't help but think what was lost. Christchurch, Merton, Brasenose, a dozen other historical colleges... all gone. The Bodlien, a library of invaluable historical significance, gone. Rationally, I know there was no other way, and Syndicalism couldn't be allowed to persist. I just would have liked to see the colleges before Arne Jacobsen rebuilt them, you know?

Plus, couldn't Long have at the very least nuked Cambridge, too? Fair's fair, after all.
 
Last edited:
Well, hell, I'm biased if you look at my location, but what the hell.

London and Portsmouth were obviously military targets, and to be honest Oxford probably was equally necessary as strategically speaking it was the lynchpin of the British line. But as I walk down the streets of my university I can't help but think what was lost. Christchurch, Merton, Brasenose, a dozen other historical colleges... all gone. The Bodlien, a library of invaluable historical significance, gone. Rationally, I know there was no other way, and Syndicalism couldn't be allowed to persist. I just would have liked to see the colleges before Arne Jacobsen rebuilt them, you know?

Plus, couldn't Long have at the very least nuked Cambridge, too? Fair's fair, after all.

I find extremely cold to claim that he shoud have nuked more...
 
I find extremely cold to claim that he shoud have nuked more...
No, not MORE, specifically Cambridge. Oxford could have had a real shot at being the best in the world but Cambridge wins out easily now by virtue of not having to spend the 50s rebuilding after having all their academia gutted.
 
Well, I'm of the opinion that the nuclear bombings of Britain were as much messages to Boris Savinkov's Russian State and Konoe Fumimaro's Empire of Japan as they were to force a British surrender, but that's just me. The two things IMHO which prevented Russia and Japan from being crushed after the fall of the Syndicalists (even if Operation Barbarossa, the planned invasion of the Russian State, was actually considered by a vocal faction within the German leadership) were the exhaustion of the Entente and the Reichspakt and the fact the ultra-nationalist regimes in Petrograd and Tokyo hated the Syndies as much as (if not more) than the Entente/Reichspakt.

OOC: Think of "the atomic bombings in Britain were meant to be a warning to Russia and Japan" as TTL's analogue to the theory that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were meant as messages to the USSR.
 
Last edited:
So, your thoughts on the theory the bombings of Britain were meant to send a warning to the Russian State and the Empire of Japan?
 
So, your thoughts on the theory the bombings of Britain were meant to send a warning to the Russian State and the Empire of Japan?

I agree partially. It would be near impossible to defeat the UoB without the nukes and Both Japan and Russia didn't had nuclear stockpiles, heck, Japan didn't had began their own nuclear program, so while this sent them a message, the point that the main objective was to knock the UoB out of the war still seems very solid.
 
Top