Germany’s victory in WWII with an atomic bomb would very much depend on when Germany got that power. From that point, I assume the ability of Germany to produce plutonium in a timely manner much more difficult than we had.
By mid 1943, Hitler was in retreat from the Soviet Union. The allies had clear air and naval superiority, and bombing areas of a steadily increasing range of German and occupied Cities. But Hitler had not yet developed a missile system, and no real way to get the U.S.
A bombing raid could get London, maybe. Assuming that the plane with it was not intercepted and shot down. Even if London got hit, it would be a matter of time before it could drop another, radiation fuel takes time to make. Plus, we could do similar damage with massive raids.
Maybe too late for Germany?
Assuming they got the bomb at the same time as they got the missile. I feel that would have been too late. Did we have napalm yet? Anyway, we were carrying on raids of astonishing damage, and the infrastracture of Germany was too damaged.
Build a Bomb? Maybe.
Build a Bomb that can fit on a V-2? Hail no!
The early A-Bombs were enormous! no way could they have been airborne in a missile.
Nor, indeed, in any German bomber.
In fact, the only German aircraft that could carry an A-Bomb of any consequence would be the Gigant Transport, a painfully slow aircraft. But nothing less could lift the dang thing.
Just for reference, Little Boy was about 9000 pounds, Fat Man was about 10.500. The Gigant wasn’t the only plane that could carry that heavy a payload. The HE-177 could too, if it could have gotten to the target…HE-177 “flying coffins” had the tendency to spontaneously combust. But you’re right, Bosda, Germany never really focused much on heavy bomber development.
If Germany had a few nukes they certainly wouldn’t waste them on the US or even Britain. The first nuke would have been used against Moscow, the second against Leningrad.
If they could decapitate the Soviet leadership there’s a good chance Russia would disintegrate. I don’t know how soon a replacement dictator could consoldiate power again, but he certainly wouldn’t be as effective as Stalin. Yes, Stalin was a disaster for the Russian army…in 1939. By 1943 the Russian army under Stalin was a very effective force. Maybe the Red Army could keep fighting even if Stalin and Moscow were gone…but maybe not.
If the Germans get nukes before D-Day, D-Day probably never happens. If it happens afterward the Germans could shift material from the eastern front to the western front. This means either a halt in the allied advance, or even a retreat. In any case, stalemate on both fronts means a negotiated peace, or if the ware continues Germany begins working on lighter bombs and heavier bombers.
I think it would depend on when they got the bomb technology, like others have said. If they got the technology really early on it isn’t inconceivable they could develop more adequate aircraft for carrying such a heavy payload. Then we’d have to see how aggressively they used the bomb.
The bomb could be useful in suing for peace. Show off the power of the bomb by nuking some Russian military units on the Eastern front, then sue for a general peace with the USSR and the UK, threatening carte blanche use of nuclear weapons against any invasion forces moving against Germany.
Given the limited power of early nukes, I’m not sure that one or two would have made much difference in the fight against Britain. They caused vast devastation in Japan, but the buildings there were mainly wood: all the photographs show that the stone buildings still stood. London - the obvious target - had lots of stone buildings to absorb the pressure wave and thus the resulting damage would be greatly limited but still significant. Further, the population would be safe in the Underground. At this point I think British stubbornness would rear its head.
If Germany had a large supply, then that’s a different matter.
Yet this would be just a bluff. Like I said earlier, production of nuclear stuff takes time. After one or two bombs, it would take some time to produce more, especially given Germany’s taxed industrial output, largely underground by late in the war, nullifying a “carte blanche” use against any invading force.
Wouldn’t have helped…probably would have hurt as it would have been yet one more wild project sucking up funding and man power. The Germans would have been much better off standardizing on a few successful tank/plane models, setting up a sane pilot training/rotation policy…and staying the hell out of Russia until at least they consolidated their gains in western Europe and resolved the whole England thing.
On the Eastern Front, I can’t imagine that a small number of nuclear weapons would have made any difference. The scale of the war was unimaginable by modern standards. The Red Army had about 13 million soldiers at the end of the war. Individual infantry divisions were expendable, there were hundreds of infantry divisions.
Assuming a very limited supply, 1939 or early 1940, perhaps earlier. Basically, he’s got to prevent Britain from entering the war in the first place. If Hitler nukes Warsaw or Dunkirk, I really don’t see Britain wanting to get involved until it had it’s own Bomb. That might take 2 years, by which time Hitler is tackling Russia, against which nukes are not very useful tactically because Russia is so big.
I’m under no illusion they could have used them to win the war, but Say they had them late 1943 they may have been able to use them to delay the end. A few key detonations could have slowed the advance.
Plus the first use would have thrown the enemy into a temporary disarray. Imagine being a Red army soldier in the rear watching forward columns being destroyed by a single bomb. Not just that but a very dramatic one at that. ( I’m sure all Cold war kids have the image of a mushroom cloud burned in the back of their minds.)
The initial shock could have allowed the Germans to either gain back some ground or to hold back the enemy. In the end though sheer numbers and the inability to mass produce more bombs would lead to the same result.
Also seeing as Hitler was willing to have every Berliner killed by fighting to the death long after the loss was inevitable something tells me he wouldn’t have thought twice about detonating one in Berlin when the Red army stormed in. Whether he could have had anyone loyal enough to drop it on their fellow Germans is another story.
Just out of curiosity, are any of the people here who argue Hitler using the bomb wouldn’t have made any difference the same ones who argue the U.S. would have compelled the Japanese to surrender if they had only demonstrated the bomb?
Let’s try these scenarios. The Germans are at the gates of Leningrad, but unable to take the city. They bring their prototype bomb as close as they can on a railroad car and detonate it. The resulting explosion flattens half the city and sets fire to the rest.
The Allies are advancing on Paris. Von Choltitz, instead of disobeying Hitler’s orders to burn the city, instead sets a bomb next to Notre Dame. The advancing troops are greeted by a brilliant flash and a mushroom cloud.
Considering Britain’s official policy was unconditional surrender and the Soviet’s drive to destroy the German’s for their betrayal and invasion lead to millions dying in savage attacks, I don’t think a couple of bombs would have broken the Allies determintaion to dismantle Nazi Germany. If anything it would strengthen resolve.
After all would you want to sue for peace with a nation that had broken treaties invaded lands slaughtering civilians and enslaving those they captured. Especially when that nation has atomic weapons? How could you ever feel safe or secure that they wouldn’t drop one in another surprise attack?
As for Japan. It was already all but beaten. The bombs were used to demonstrate the futility in hoping a prolonged resistence would end the war in a stalemate. The United States was already able to bomb at will by the time the bombs were dropped. If they had hundreds of those Super weapons apan didn’t stand a chance. Germany on the other hand had lost air superiority and could not just bomb at will.
Well, I don’t think anyone really picked up on WHY I don’t think Hitler having the bomb would have made no difference, but no…I think that in the case of Japan we did what we had too to stop the war. A demonstration wouldn’t have had the same effect IMHO.
Undoubtedly. The problem though is everyone in this thread is assuming getting the bomb is some kind of black box process that doesn’t effect anything else…i.e. Germany going after the bomb but with exactly the same number of planes, tanks, ships, etc. The war progressing the same but instead of Germany not having the bomb, magically they do now.
Germany’s problem was that they ALREADY had too many special projects going around. In order to get the bomb they would have been spread even thinner. That means less rocket research (but knowing Hitler there would still be SOME research), less jet plane design (but again, not NO jet plane design), less advanced tank research, etc etc. So, perhaps getting the bomb by '43 (completely unrealistic no matter HOW much they threw at the project) means that Germany now has fewer planes, and those of older designs, fewer tanks and much fewer of the more advanced tanks, longer times to get jets, etc.
Over all I see a massive atomic bomb project setting back Germany’s real world military capabilities by years…and frankly the German’s couldn’t afford even what they had, let alone to have it crippled further by a project sucking up vast resources. The US could and did do it…but we weren’t in the thick of the fighting for one thing. Our industrial might dwarfed every other nation for another. We had vast pools of personnel that didn’t need to be committed to the front. In short we were in a unique position to develop the atomic bomb when we did…and it took US until near the end of the war to finally get it done. Germany, had they tried to do the same thing, would have crippled their military and war fighting capabilities to do it…something they just couldn’t afford to do. Had they done it anyway they’d have had their bomb…about the time the roof was falling in on their heads.
With just a few nukes, Idon’t think Hitler would have used them. Even in the last days, he didn’t try to order mass gas-bombings of London or any other city. Partly, that was because he coudn’t. But he never seriously considered it, because he knew that the Allies would start mass extermination of German cities in retaliation. Mustard gas is quite as bad as nerve gas (which the germans had), but it still gets the job done in a horrific manner.
The power of a Hiroshima-class nuclear weapon (20 kt) should not be overestimated. According to one of the many on-line effects calculators, it would cause massive destruction (5 psi or greater overpressure) over an area of approximately 5 km^2. The city of Moscow is about 1000 km^2. It would take a 60 Mt bomb to completely destroy the city.