WI Dresden and Munich nuked and Hitler does not surrender

Had nuclear weapons been available earlier in 1945 and Germany been hit first I suspect that Hitler beign who he was would NOT surrender.

How much difference does it make?
 
Then either Allies would fight so long when they reach Berlin or there is coup, this time succesful one and military junta sues peace.
 
Had nuclear weapons been available earlier in 1945 and Germany been hit first I suspect that Hitler beign who he was would NOT surrender.

How much difference does it make?
The biggest difference would be that dropping nukes would not be considered a way to make other nations surrender (just like bombing cities with conventional bombs). It might change the use of nukes, as in they would probably be used more in the battlefield than just be reserved as targeting major cities.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I read that the biggest difference between Japanese and German cities was that due to widen building construction of Japanese cities the devastation was greater and over a greater area. The atomic bombing of brick and concrete German cities would not the same dramatic devastation. That being said it would still be immense. The bombing of Dresden which caused a fireball in the city that if I remember correctly was hundreds of degrees and destroyed city but still did not cause the Nazi to surrender.

No the best way to get Nazi gernany to surrender earlier would be to drop 2-3 bombs in Berlin. Cut off its head and then rest could surrender.
 
I read that the biggest difference between Japanese and German cities was that due to widen building construction of Japanese cities the devastation was greater and over a greater area. The atomic bombing of brick and concrete German cities would not the same dramatic devastation. That being said it would still be immense. The bombing of Dresden which caused a fireball in the city that if I remember correctly was hundreds of degrees and destroyed city but still did not cause the Nazi to surrender.

No the best way to get Nazi gernany to surrender earlier would be to drop 2-3 bombs in Berlin. Cut off its head and then rest could surrender.

Once again the Dresden 1945 myth is rolled out

The total casualties at Dresden were FAR less than the propaganda claims of 200,000 from the Nazis and their post war apologists.
Indeed the Nazi authorities own unpublished immediate estimates of ~ 25,000 have been confirmed post war by German historians.
Moreover most of the deaths were not caused by the RAF night raids which burned the city centre
but the subsequent and repeated over several day USAAF daylight raids on the rail and road routes out of the city.

For Germany the worst firestorm was at Hamburg in mid 1943 which killed ~42,000
but as you say did not cause a Nazi capitulation.

Of course the highest death toll from single incendiary raid was also by the USAAF on Tokyo which did kill nearly 100,000
closely followed by a whole series of similar raids on (almost) every Japanese city that killed another 200,000 in two months
and rendered millions homeless
but even that did not force a surrender

That needed the nuclear attacks that devastated only 2 cities and only killed another 100,000 immediately
(plus of course nearly as many delayed deaths from unexpected radiation poisoning)
 

Lusitania

Donor
Once again the Dresden 1945 myth is rolled out

The total casualties at Dresden were FAR less than the propaganda claims of 200,000 from the Nazis and their post war apologists.
Indeed the Nazi authorities own unpublished immediate estimates of ~ 25,000 have been confirmed post war by German historians.
Moreover most of the deaths were not caused by the RAF night raids which burned the city centre
but the subsequent and repeated over several day USAAF daylight raids on the rail and road routes out of the city.

For Germany the worst firestorm was at Hamburg in mid 1943 which killed ~42,000
but as you say did not cause a Nazi capitulation.

Of course the highest death toll from single incendiary raid was also by the USAAF on Tokyo which did kill nearly 100,000
closely followed by a whole series of similar raids on (almost) every Japanese city that killed another 200,000 in two months
and rendered millions homeless
but even that did not force a surrender

That needed the nuclear attacks that devastated only 2 cities and only killed another 100,000 immediately
(plus of course nearly as many delayed deaths from unexpected radiation poisoning)
Yes I did know of the myth, and I was explaining that European built cities are built differently and one single atomic bomb will not have the same impact.
 
The Germans have no way of knowing how many atomic bombs the USA had, and if the first are ready for use 6-12 months sooner, I expect the plan to build more would have been ramped up. What the Germans do know, the senior generals and so forth, is that the Americans can functionally destroy any German city they want with relatively little effort. That they can vaporize any major troop concentration they spot. Germany can't do diddly squat about it. Measures will be taken.

It is worth noting that the orders to reduce anything to a wasteland as you retreated, starting with burning Paris to the ground, were not followed out in most cases, especially on German soil. Sure, bridges were blown and so forth, but the scorched earth destruction to include homes and farms that Hitler ranted about never really happened.
 
I don't think it matters if you bomb cities with regular bombs or atomic bombs. Germany did not surrender OTL in early 1945. It won't suddenly surrender after the Atom Bomb. Nuclear weapons are not wonderweapons that force your opponent to surrender. The reason Japan surrendered was because it was already beaten, Russia had just declared war and the USA was about to attack the mainland. The Atom bomb was just one of the things that made Japan surrender. I don't think it was even the main thing.

If an atom bomb was dropped on Germany, Germany would not surrender, just like it didn't after years of bombing its cities. Noone would expect Hitler to surrender. I don't think the next atom bombs would not be used on cities. It hink they would be used tacticaly. Which would be bad. It would ruin parts of Europe with radiation and it would probably set a precendent. Nukes would be used tactically, so the chances of them being used tacticaly in the future would increase. Thing nukes in the Korea war, or nukes in the Vietnam war. There would not be a nuclear taboo.
 
I don't think the next atom bombs would not be used on cities. It hink they would be used tacticaly.

that is quite possible... and quite disastrous

One element of the US plans to invade Japan especially if there was fanatical resistance
was to use fission bombs to clear areas for occupation as logistic centers and forward airfields.
All to be built within days of the detonation.

with that POD we now know there would be tens of thousand of American radiation victims
and if the Japanese experience is anything to go by hundreds of thousands of hibakusha suffering both psychological damage and social prejudice.
 
that is quite possible... and quite disastrous

One element of the US plans to invade Japan especially if there was fanatical resistance
was to use fission bombs to clear areas for occupation as logistic centers and forward airfields.
All to be built within days of the detonation.

with that POD we now know there would be tens of thousand of American radiation victims
and if the Japanese experience is anything to go by hundreds of thousands of hibakusha suffering both psychological damage and social prejudice.

That's a POD I've never seen. It would radically change US attitudes to nuclear weapons while not necessarily affecting the USSR, which in turn would lead to a very different Cold War.
 
Top