Third Reich politics if the nukes start dropping on Germany

hairysamarian

The SS never faced the Bomb. If the Imperial Japanese military, who swam into the jaws of sharks rather than surrender OTL, could surrender in the face of atomic weapons... The Nazis weren't REALLY supermen, after all.:p
 
hairysamarian

The SS never faced the Bomb. If the Imperial Japanese military, who swam into the jaws of sharks rather than surrender OTL, could surrender in the face of atomic weapons... The Nazis weren't REALLY supermen, after all.:p

I realize they didn't face the bomb. However, they DID face destruction on a comparable level. Some nukes would have made things worse, but I question how much worse things could have been for them by that point.
EDIT: Short of total obliteration, at which point politics become irrelevant.

As for the Japanese, it was not the the destructive power itself that moved them. It was the demonstration that the Americans no longer needed to invade physically, and that therefore the Ketsu Go strategy was invalid. That, and the news of the Soviet landslide that was heading right for Japan by that point.
 
Last edited:
I realize they didn't face the bomb. However, they DID face destruction on a comparable level.* Some nukes would have made things worse, but I question how much worse things could have been for them by that point.

As for the Japanese, it was not the the destructive power itself that moved them. It was the demonstration that the Americans no longer needed to invade physically, and that therefore the Ketsu Go strategy was invalid. That, and the news of the Soviet landslide that was heading right for Japan by that point.

See some of my earlier posts.

Heavy strategic bombing =/= nuclear strikes.

Devastating a city with conventional strikes, even using incendiary firestorms, are absolutely no comparison to a city being wiped off the face of the Earth in a flash. Just because the aftermath pictures SEEM to look similar, doesn't equate the results. Try riding out the Hamburg firestorms.:( Then try riding out Hiroshima.:eek:
 
See some of my earlier posts.

Heavy strategic bombing =/= nuclear strikes.

Devastating a city with conventional strikes, even using incendiary firestorms, are absolutely no comparison to a city being wiped off the face of the Earth in a flash. Just because the aftermath pictures SEEM to look similar, doesn't equate the results. Try riding out the Hamburg firestorms.:( Then try riding out Hiroshima.:eek:

You got back in before my edit. Ah well. I pointed out that if the nuclear attacks are carried to that point, questions of politics and obedience are irrelevant because everyone is dead. Short of annihilation, there isn't much that could be done to the Germans that wasn't being done by conventional means already.

And ultimately, well, yes, I DO think Hitler commanded that kind of loyalty. At least among his inner circle and what you might call his Praetorian Guard. No one else could reach him by the end. Supermen they most certainly were not, as you correctly note. They were something scarier - devoted fanatics.
 
You got back in before my edit. Ah well. I pointed out that if the nuclear attacks are carried to that point, questions of politics and obedience are irrelevant because everyone is dead. Short of annihilation, there isn't much that could be done to the Germans that wasn't being done by conventional means already.

And ultimately, well, yes, I DO think Hitler commanded that kind of loyalty. At least among his inner circle and what you might call his Praetorian Guard. No one else could reach him by the end. Supermen they most certainly were not, as you correctly note. They were something scarier - devoted fanatics.

Well, OK. But remember also that as the Western Front was engulfed and destroyed (Army Group B destroyed) and the armies on the Eastern Front north and south of Berlin became separated from Berlin, Hitler for all practical purposes lost control of his armies outside of the immediate area of Berlin. He still issued his orders. Those orders simply weren't obeyed. And the SS were too busy turning their coats (into Heer) to bother anymore with enforcing Hitler's orders.

OTL, organized resistance in the West ceased at the end of February, 1945. After that, the Allies were just cutting up the carcass of a defeated Nazi Germany. By this time, Allied soldiers were fully aware of what the SS were, and were in no mood any more to take SS prisoners. The SS were well aware of this, and had been reduced to two classes: Those who wished to die with Fuehrer, and those who wished to live. There simply wasn't enough of the former to hold on to power in Germany as things were collapsing around them.

I suppose what you might see is something that Eisenhower refused OTL but really couldn't ITTL: Local surrenders. As happened in Northern Italy, so could happen everywhere else. From local units to army groups, the German generals could simply ORDER their troops to immediately surrender to the nearest Allied troop formation, as well as open up the road and rail networks to allow the Allied armies to advance as fast as possible, to prevent Hitler from trying to countermand their actions.

As to Hitler's devoted bodyguard? When the people become more afraid of something (atomic weapons) than they (Gestapo/SS), it will be more a matter of the SS doing their damndest not to enforce Hitlerian rule, but rather just flat out making a run for their lives!:D

Having a fanatically devoted bodyguard (on a national scale!) didn't do Ceaucescu (spelled right?) any good in Romania...:p

In the so-called "Germany Campaign" of April-May 1945, the Allies basically took to the Autobahn and drove to the Red Army. When they encountered a German town that opened fire on their convoys, they stopped, deployed artillery, and opened fire. The poor artillery supply units had become overloaded with unused ordnance and were begging the frontline troops to employ The Big Guns. Goodbye town. The word got out about what happened to towns that resisted.:mad: And what DIDN'T happen to towns that surrendered peacefully.:)

So you could easily see (again and again) what was attempted (and partially succeeded) in Munich: A company of infantry rose up and tried to convince the rest of the garrison to seize the city and surrender without a fight. Of course, the SS tried to put them down, and they were forced to flee. But not before causing the contagion of mutiny to spread to the rest of the Heer in Munich. Pathetically, while the US Army were welcomed into the city, the SS ignored them and went after the German Army mutineers! To the point where the American troops were attacking the SS from the rear while the SS were attacking their fellow Germans in the front! Not unlike what happened during the liberation of Dachau.

Add nukes to the formula, and you could see Anti-Nazi German civilian partisans (like the OTL '05 Movement) thrown into the mix.:)
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
Devastating a city with conventional strikes, even using incendiary firestorms, are absolutely no comparison to a city being wiped off the face of the Earth in a flash. Just because the aftermath pictures SEEM to look similar, doesn't equate the results. Try riding out the Hamburg firestorms. Then try riding out Hiroshima.
That is correct, Hamburg was far worse. The Hamburg firestorm continued for three days and killed people even well underground by asphyxiating them. Rescue workers entered the section of Hiroshima devastated by the bomb in the afternoon of the day of the bombing. The rescue effort was co-ordinated by the Marine Training Division Headquarters building at Ujina, only four kilometres from the epicentre of the bomb. The headquarters building was not significantly damaged by the blast and became a hospital for those wounded in the bombing.

The report sent to Tokyo on the bombing said that ‘with sufficient preparation and safety measures, it is nothing to be afraid of.’

It also has to be remembered that Japanese cities were far more vulnerable to strategic bombing because they were built from lightweight materials than German cities with their solid brickwork.
 

That is correct, Hamburg was far worse. The Hamburg firestorm continued for three days and killed people even well underground by asphyxiating them. Rescue workers entered the section of Hiroshima devastated by the bomb in the afternoon of the day of the bombing. The rescue effort was co-ordinated by the Marine Training Division Headquarters building at Ujina, only four kilometres from the epicentre of the bomb. The headquarters building was not significantly damaged by the blast and became a hospital for those wounded in the bombing.

The report sent to Tokyo on the bombing said that ‘with sufficient preparation and safety measures, it is nothing to be afraid of.’

It also has to be remembered that Japanese cities were far more vulnerable to strategic bombing because they were built from lightweight materials than German cities with their solid brickwork.

When the Hamburg firestorms ended, they ENDED. In Hamburg, the food was still safe to eat, the water to drink. How many people in Hamburg died of radiation poisoning, decalcification of their bones, and radiation-induced cancers? How many of the "rescue workers" sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki died of these symptoms during the course of the tragedy, and over the years to come? One Japanese military recon plane overflew the city of Hiroshima the day of the strike. They never landed. The entire air crew died of leukemia.

The "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued to die long after Hamburg was rebuilt postwar into a thriving metropolis. You can be philosophical about it, I suppose. Hamburg and Tokyo WERE terrible events. But I'd still prefer the conventional bombing. If Tokyo had been made an atomic target (only possible I think if the Emperor lived in Kyoto) I believe Japan would have been forced by circumstances to move the capital elsewhere. Most likely Kyoto itself (at least for a few generations).
 

Cook

Banned
The "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued to die long after...
That’s not relevant to the subject of the thread. The overall casualty rate, and the damage inflicted on the target cities were both lower in the atomic attacks than in the ‘thousand bomber’ and ‘maximum effort’ raids. There is nothing to suggest that, having withstood far more intense bombing that Japan did, that the Nazi state would suddenly buckle under atomic attack when the Japanese didn’t.
 
That’s not relevant to the subject of the thread. The overall casualty rate, and the damage inflicted on the target cities were both lower in the atomic attacks than in the ‘thousand bomber’ and ‘maximum effort’ raids. There is nothing to suggest that, having withstood far more intense bombing that Japan did, that the Nazi state would suddenly buckle under atomic attack when the Japanese didn’t.

Um...hmm.
Hiroshima August 6th.
Nagasaki/Soviet Dow August 9th.
Surrender August 14th
Eight days from start to finish?
That doesn't sound sound like a "the Japanese didn't" to me.
 
Um...hmm.
Hiroshima August 6th.
Nagasaki/Soviet Dow August 9th.
Surrender August 14th
Eight days from start to finish?
That doesn't sound sound like a "the Japanese didn't" to me.

Only because you are insisting that the Atomic Bomb caused the surrender. It was but one factor, and as pointed out earlier it was not the bomb's destructive power itself that caused the surrender. The Japanese had faced and suffered worse from the American Bombing campaign.
 

Cook

Banned
That doesn't sound sound like a "the Japanese didn't" to me.
Because we know from the post war interrogations of the members of the Japanese cabinet that it did not affect their decision at all. The factor that forced their surrender was the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on the 8th of August and invasion of Manchuria on the 9th. The Japanese were pathologically afraid of a Russian invasion of the sacred home islands of Japan and scrambled to surrender to the Americans before the Russians arrived.
 
Because we know from the post war interrogations of the members of the Japanese cabinet that it did not affect their decision at all. The factor that forced their surrender was the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on the 8th of August and invasion of Manchuria on the 9th. The Japanese were pathologically afraid of a Russian invasion of the sacred home islands of Japan and scrambled to surrender to the Americans before the Russians arrived.

Funny how a campaign almost completely ignored by western historians had so much relevance. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Atomic bombs had been delayed for a few weeks...

As has been pointed out, Atomic bombs at that time weren't the city killers of today, nor did they have the same mythology behind them, they were simply a much more efficient way of severely damaging a city and it's industry. If the Allies focus on industrial targets rather than cities, the war will end by late 1945.
 
If the Japanese did not surrendered because of the Nuclear bombing why Hirohito specifically mentioned it in his surrender speech? He could have mentioned that the Soviets have kicked their asses like hell in China and Korea, but he only mentioned that "the war had not gone well for them" and:
"Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

I think he took the atomic bombings quite seriously, and correctly IMHO ...
 
If the Japanese did not surrendered because of the Nuclear bombing why Hirohito specifically mentioned it in his surrender speech? He could have mentioned that the Soviets have kicked their asses like hell in China and Korea, but he only mentioned that "the war had not gone well for them" and:

He did say that, but he then transmitted something different to his Army and Navy a day or two later. I only found out recently he gave two speeches. One blaming the atomic bomb (for civilians) and the other the Soviet Union (for military personnel).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Um...hmm.
Hiroshima August 6th.
Nagasaki/Soviet Dow August 9th.
Surrender August 14th
Eight days from start to finish?
That doesn't sound sound like a "the Japanese didn't" to me.

To be fair the Japanese were as badly impacted by the Soviets DoW as the Bomb. The DoW took away their last faint hope of getting some sort or reasonable deal.

BTW: Following a demonstration on a city (poor Dresden, which was mainly untouched to that point, is likely), the Allies might well have gone straight to tactical use against the Reich, both in hopes of getting the Heer to see the handwrting on the wall and due to the lack of pristine targets (something that the mission planners had intentional preserved in Japan).
 
Only because you are insisting that the Atomic Bomb caused the surrender. It was but one factor, and as pointed out earlier it was not the bomb's destructive power itself that caused the surrender. The Japanese had faced and suffered worse from the American Bombing campaign.


I think it was a culmination of all these things. The American bombing campaign, the blockade etc. The Atomic bomb I think was the straw that broke the camel's back.
 
Does anyone realize that the psychology of the Japanese Emperor who was a meek sane nationalist, compared to Hitler, who is a nutcase is entirely different?

Keep in mind that Japanese officers wanted to continue the war, and attempted a coup.

Keep in mind Hitler probably would commit suicide and order his subordinates to make it look like he died in a nuclear attack so he'd be a martyr.
 
I think it was a culmination of all these things. The American bombing campaign, the blockade etc. The Atomic bomb I think was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I have a slightly more appropriate metaphor. The Bomb was the last nail in the coffin. The Soviet DoW was just cement being poured over on top of the tomb.:cool:

The Supreme War Council was certainly worried about a Soviet invasion, but as Paramushiro showed the Soviets simply didn't have the heavy lift capacity for a full blown invasion of Hokkaido. Put a few thousand kamikazes against the Soviet invasion forces and the Soviet Pacific Fleet (such as it was) will simply cease to exist. Yes, the defenses of Hokkaido were weak, but major amphibious operations and strategic airborne strikes simply weren't their thing in 1945. Think Unspeakable Sea Mammal, Pacific version.
 

Cook

Banned
If the Japanese did not surrendered because of the Nuclear bombing why Hirohito specifically mentioned it in his surrender speech?
Because, like the Japanese declaration of war, Hirohito’s announcement of the end of the war is a piece of propaganda that bares only a very loose connection to reality. The war was lost and Hirohito’s statement was the opening act in their campaign to win the peace; the Japanese government set about casting themselves as the innocent victims in the Pacific War.

We know from the interrogations conducted after the war as part of the Far East Asian War Crimes Tribunal what was going on in the Japanese cabinet in those days in August 1945. During the discussions in the Supreme War Leadership Council, the atomic bombings hardly rated a mention and were not considered significant in their decision to end the war.

This is hardly surprising since civilian casualties were of no importance to them; Vice-Admiral Onishi believed that a civilian death toll of 20 million would be acceptable to defeat the Americans, while Admiral Ugaki was mentioned 100 million. The other reason the Leadership Council did not consider the atomic bomb significant was that messages sent from the military headquarters in Hiroshima said that it ‘was nothing to be afraid of’, a message sent from only a few kilometres from the centre of the blast.

as Paramushiro showed the Soviets simply didn't have the heavy lift capacity for a full blown invasion of Hokkaido.
Which is not something that the Japanese knew; they’d just seen Manchuria overrun and 40 Japanese Divisions destroyed in a matter of days, as far as they were concerned they Red Army could be on the Emperor’s doorstep literally tomorrow.

The significance of this to the thread is that the Japanese did not decide to surrender because of the atomic bombings, but because their last strategic hopes had been dashed and their military situation had become impossible. Strategically they’d been hoping that the Russians would enter the war on their side right up until Molotov cancelled their mutual non-aggression pact, just as many senior Nazis hoped that the Anglo-Americans would start fighting the Russians and would ally themselves with the Reich. It’s insane but there you are. If American atomic bombs started falling on German cities the thinking would probably be the same; that the Americans could only have a few and they’d inevitably start fighting the Reds, 'so all we have to do is hold out a little longer…'
 
Last edited:
Top