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?
How much difference does it make?
He's assassinated, with or without a general coup.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.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?
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.
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.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Indeed the Nazi authorities own unpublished immediate estimates of ~ 25,000 have been confirmed post war by German historians.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)
Nothing left of dresden . What is a nuke going to do.
Munich . That's a different story.
You would have to speed up building the bomb then. .. So earlier us involvement in the war would helpThe idea is a nuclear bomb instead of otl fire bombing
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.