I would like to acknowledge that the answer I gave was possibly from a faulty source I read a long time ago and would like to state I was more than likely wrong with my statement. I have done a little more research and have not really found anything concrete to back my statement. I apologize for the misinformation I thought to be true.
4 Likes
Hi fantastic of you to make a correction ! True scientific thinking !
2 Likes
don’t forget that nazi germany capitulated in may 1945, if the war would go on into 1946/1946, nazi germany would have, I think, got one atomic bomb
3 Likes
It is impossible that Germany could have produced an atomic bomb because:
- The Nazi’s had kicked all the Jewish Scientists off Germany which further hindered the Nuclear Production program and these Jewish Scientists helped America create the A-Bomb.
- (Massive spoilers ahead if you watch the day by day coverage!) A 9 man team of Norwegians sabotaged the Nuclear facility and destroyed a good chunk of the heavy water produced by the Germans which already caused a struggling program (because a lack of good scientists) to struggle even more.
- As the war progressed (SPOILERS AGAIN!!), the biggest fear of the Germans aka the soviets were gaining speed and ground… so the funding for the nuclear program had cuts which slows it even more.
- This I am not sure of but according to Potential History’s Why Germany could not have won WW2, he says after the Norwegian Raid Hitler Abandon’s the program all together because he views as Jewish Science and cancels the operation.
- Also not sure about this one though, the Germans also had very limited Uranium. So struggle for the A-Bomb intensifies.
3 Likes
don’t forget about the lack of collaboration between the university/scientist, each of them having their own project wich would cost a lot more ressource
3 Likes
There was a actual British group training to use Atomic Bombs on Lancasters in case the B-29 could not be modified in time. The B29 had to change the bomb bays from 2 to one for the A bomb.
This is detailed in a wonderful Mark Felton video.
4 Likes
Is this it?
2 Likes
Yes sir. Watching it again. These were both smaller than the grand slam although perhaps less aerodynamic. The British really were very advanced. I love how they pioneered aerial refueling.
3 Likes
Eventually the bombings done on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately on targets that still were intact, to get an accurate assessment of their destructive power and also to impress the Soviets. Almost every German city already lay in ruins at the end of the European war, so even when the Nazi’s had held out longer, using the atomic bomb would not have been sensible, imho.
3 Likes
I guess it only depends on what situation would have made the war last that much longer. A whole big series of what if’s would have to come into play. Otherwise I agree that Germany was not a great target.
3 Likes
Another issue, Dan, and I thank you for your contribution, might be that, already realizing the radiation problems and repercussions pending the Cold war it was not viable to bomb nukes inside Europe, your future ally, Putin, sorry, putting in harms way. Excuse my language but know I respect historical truth
3 Likes
Agreed but that is hindsight. I don’t think in summer of 1945, how much radiation is there was understood. And for the few who did, it certainly wasn’t common knowledge.
Look at Hiroshima today, that radiation didn’t stop it from becoming a thriving city. My “ally Putin”. Cough cough has a far bigger problem with Chernobyl.
3 Likes
At Los Alomos, the Manhattan Project surely was aware of the possible impact of radiation because they already tested a nuclear device. It was the question of being more effective to deter the Soviet union and try to beat the Japanese. As I stated earlier I believe that not the nuclear bombs did the job, but the involvement and blitzkrieg of the Soviets in Manchuria
2 Likes
Not of what you say is wrong but again, I feel this is hindsight. No one told Truman this bomb might kill another third of it’s direct victims via radiation and poison the ground for a number of years. I also question that anyone had ever done a long term study of radiation effects on health.
why are you saying the bomb didn’t end the war? I don’t know that anyone has asserted that. I thought the discussion was using it on Germany? The bomb was only one factor of the war ending but it was good evidence that when we warned our enemies, they should pay attention but they never did. You would have thought Tokyo would have taught them something but it didn’t.
4 Likes
Thanks for your replies and involvement. My first topic on this forum ushered in a great discussion upon the issue wether the classical theory of the 2 atombombattacks moved the Japanese Empire to surrender or, in my humble opinion, they were forced into surrender because of the Soviet involvement and that blitzkrieg-like (actually Bewegungskrieg) conquest of Manchuria, threatening the occupation of Sachalin and even beating the USA to the finishline.
You may think a lot about the Japanese but they weren’t that stupid to keep up the Bushido stubborn view of keeping up appearances until death when they underwent the full brunt of the Soviet force. Knowing what Stalin had in mind as a dictator, it was a no-brainer to surrender to the USA.
Also, please take into account that the Americans were willing to retain the Emperor Hiro Hito as symbolic head of state, what was essential to the Japanese to prevent loss of face, honourable surrender as a Japanese soldier mostly means Seppooko…ritual suicide
2 Likes
The best available source is still Richard Rhodes’ 1987 book “The Making of the Atomic Bomb”. The short answer is that the original plan was to use the bomb against Germany, but they surrendered before it was available. No target list had been established until the plutonium bomb was proved at the Trinity test.
Tokyo was never on the target list. Using an atomic bomb on Tokyo would have killed Hirohito, and the American planners knew that any surrender would require Hirohito’s approval. Target lists always had more than one city, depending on weather conditions. Remember that Nagasaki was an alternative when there was too much cloud cover over the primary target. The target list for the third bomb included Kyoto.
4 Likes
And Kobe, if I remember correctly. All cities that had barely been damaged
4 Likes
I agree that they did not know everrything about the long term + the weapon was brand new. I read some US Air Force documents which state that 1 nuke equals 239 B-29s. (you have to have a basis for calculations I guess.
In a what-if scenario it is not unlikely that the Allies would have used nukes against Germany and or its Allies had they become available. This would have been horrible but effective. E.g. Had they dropped a nuke on Kiel, the submarines would have been cooked and the radiation poisoning would prevent it from being used as a submarine base. This might have led to either defiant Nazi’s or complete panic in Germany or both. Hitler probably would not take the hint that it was hopeless.
Also the Allies were prepared to use nukes as a tactical weapon. More horrors. On the other hand the last 2 years of the war were exceedingly bloody.
So, while I don’t like what-ifs because they can go anywhere, the assumption that the Allies would use nukes is not too far fetched.
4 Likes
I’m no expert on this but I did learn that actually Kokura was the destination of the atomic bomb but due to bad weather they went to Nagasaki. Like many things in the war your destiny is based on weather.
4 Likes
Very much so. You had a highly trained elite air crew flying from a state of the art platform but from 30,000 feet, you can’t see what you can’t see. When you only had 1 shot, close wasn’t good enough lol.
3 Likes