WI the Allies invaded Japan and nuked Germany instead...?

I recall, that I once saw a TV documentation, where an american general(?) was cited that the wouldn't have nuked Germany, because they feared a non-detonating nuke would help the Germans to complet their own nuklear weaponds programm.

But anyway:
-They Allies had only the Rhine to cross to invade Germany and afterwards encountered little resistance between the Rhine and the Elbe. (as most of the German army was occupied in the East)

-Japan on the other hand was much harder to invade than Germany because 1) it is an iseland :) 2) it had an largly undefeated ground force (They lost on Okinawa ... because the allied air/sea controll prevented them from reenforcing & suppling. Not because they had no more quality troops.)

-Germany would have not surrendered because of atomic bombs. The WWII atomic bombs didn't do more damage then the coventional 1000 bomber attacks. So the < 10 bombs the Americans could drop wouldn't have made much difference. Hitler had decided to fight to the end anyway.

-No Allied invasion of Germany would mean, that by end of 1945 the red army would occupy the entire country, what could heavily influence the post war conferences.

-Japan was allready contemplating surrender before the bombs fell.
Hiroshima tipped the balance.
 
Or.....Breslau while being besieged by the Red Army. Now that's what I would call shock and awe.

When you absolutely, positively have to blow up everything in the room....


As for Wien; did it even have any strategic value? Just seems like a cultural center, kind of like Kyoto.
 
They were never going to nuke Germany unless it was the last possible alternative! Three prominent reasons why the bomb was used among others were 1. a message to the Ruskies 2. A hitherto untouched Hiroshima was left like that until the event because they wanted a live laboratory to use in on 3. THe Nazis were European and not Oriental, so there was inherent racism!
 
As the son of a returned Burma Railway PoW, I don't like this scenario at all! My father said that they wouldn't have lasted much longer, either through maltreatment or extermination, if his camp had not been liberated when it was.

Frightening, though, that I'm only me because of two atomic bombs.
 
If the allies would had nuke Germany it would have been Berlin or U-boat pens the North Sea Coast.

If the allied would had to invaded Japan it would been a blood bath. American and Japan would had both use chemical weapons. In the end every Japanese person on the islands would been death with in a year of lanching the ground attacks. In July allied intel declared everything on mainland japan a proper military target. So Japanese people would ended.
 

Shackel

Banned
Downfall was going to have nukes.

Southern Japan would most likely be decimated by the end of the war.
 
Invading Japan: A lot of dead Allied and Japanese soldiers and plus an invasion is certainly going to be a lot slower in forcing Japan's surrender than using nuclear weapons and that means a possible Soviet invasion of Hokkaido.
Although a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido is much less likely if fighting in Europe is still ongoing at the time of the US invasion, as would seem quite possible in this scenario.
 
Operation Downfall would result to stalemate, more American casualties and the Japanese will commit suicide instead of bowing to the Americans. It would be possible for the Soviets to invade Hokkaido.

Nuking Germany will not make much differences than in OTL. Nuking Germany will just aggravating the Soviets to move westward. It is a bad strategy to nuke Germany because Nazis may not surrender.
 
Let's not forget that nuking Germany, with the prevailing winds, would result in fallout (realistically very small amounts) landing on Soviet and Soviet-occupied territory. Stalin might be just a tad annoyed by that, no matter how minimal the practical effects.
 
Let's not forget that nuking Germany, with the prevailing winds, would result in fallout (realistically very small amounts) landing on Soviet and Soviet-occupied territory. Stalin might be just a tad annoyed by that, no matter how minimal the practical effects.
Fallout outside the immediate area of the detonation is unlikely to be a major issue with the fairly low yield of a first generation nuclear weapon. There are unlikely to be any immediate political repercussions from nuclear fallout either, since at that time nobody fully understood the dangers of nuclear fallout and radiation.
 
Well, first, you've got to accelerate the development of nukes so Nazi Germany is still a going concern when they are ready for deployment. That, or butterfly things around so Germany lasts quite a bit longer than in OTL.

Given the allies' overall "Germany First" notion, it makes sense that strong consideration would be given to using atomic weapons first against Germany if the European War was still waging. I agree with those who argue that consideration might be given to use of these weapons in a tactical situation (against troop concentrations, fixed defensive positions, etc) rather than German cities. Not because the US wanted to spare German civilians, but because the risk of the Luftwaffe or flak downing the bomber(s) carrying nukes would be much greater over the heavily defended Reich than near the front. A lot of effort went in to those first bombs - I think the US would be much more cautious deciding when and where to use them against Germany. You certainly wouldn't have a single bomber and a couple of photo planes saunter over Berlin! Actually, an ideal deployment (if the invasion of Europe were delayed or bombs accelerated) would have been against German defense or reserves prepositioned against the Normandy invasion. Thus, the very first use of nukes might be against France!

Assuming Japan was still in the fight, its unlikely that Nukes would force an immediate Nazi surrender. It is possible, however, that their use might cause German allies to waver earlier than they did in OTL, especially if the first bombs were actually used on them. YOu might get some sort of internal collapse.

You'd really have to change history to have the USA decide to invade Japan rather than nuke it if they've already dropped atom bombs against Germany. The general expectation was that the invasion of Japan would be very costly. Also, having seen the effects of atomic weapons in Europe, the Japanese just might be ready to surrender more easily once Germany is gone. Only if, for some unknown reason, the use of Atomic weapons in Europe absolutely failed to hasten the end of the war, could the US decide it might be better to invade Japan.
 
They were never going to nuke Germany unless it was the last possible alternative! Three prominent reasons why the bomb was used among others were 1. a message to the Ruskies 2. A hitherto untouched Hiroshima was left like that until the event because they wanted a live laboratory to use in on 3. THe Nazis were European and not Oriental, so there was inherent racism!

Disagree, and that last reason especially is a crock. The western allies' alledged fondness for fellow tan/pink/whites sure didn't help the citizens of Hamburg, Dresden, or Berlin against round the clock RAF and USAAF bombing. You need to remember that to military planners, the atomic bomb was just a more efficient REALLY BIG BOMB, that could do what it took hundreds of bombers to do previously. Fallout and radiation poisoning was hardly considered. Nuking Berlin just before the Red Army gets there might actually send an even stronger message to the Russians, and Hiroshima was not a "laboratory" - but as a previously unmolested and largely undefended city frequently overflown by US recon and weather planes - it presented a good and relatively safe target on which to drop the first bomb. Bad luck for people in Hiroshima, but certainly not the heartless science experiment you imply.
 
Top