Atom Bomb

connacht100

Does anyone have any opinions as to why the Allies did not drop the atomic bomb on Germany???

Simi

Ah it wasn't ready in time?

dresden8

Yeah, the war was over. Even if it hadn't been the Germans were decisively beaten.

Japan on the other hand would have been a nightmare to invade. Is this the thread you were trying to start?

TerrorFirmer

It wasn't ready.

Tommy T

connacht100 wrote: »

Does anyone have any opinions as to why the Allies did not drop the atomic bomb on Germany???

The Germans were White Europeans...

boneless

Tommy T wrote: »

The Germans were White Europeans...

Operation Manhattan was not finished in time to drop the bomb on Germany and even if it had been, I agree with the sentiment of the above post.

However, from reading this subject in depth, I believe the A-Bomb was used to scare off the Soviets as much as to end the Pacific theatre of war.

conor2007

i would agree with the two above - good points

german scientists were instrumental in developing it also

#15

There were a few motivations (as far as I can gather) as to why they bombed Japan

-To end the war before the soviets could attack Japan. If they had helped to defeat japan, they would be looking for post-war concessions. Also served as a threat to Stalin.

-The US had previously made a demand for japan to surrender unconditionally. Truman could not go back on this decision as it had gained too much momentum. Yet japan refused to surrender and the military had made detailed plans to defend the country to the death. Japan still had large reserves of weapons and ammunition. About 2 million soldiers were still based at home, ready to fight any invasion (Cannot remember where I read this but tbh I would have doubts about this figure). This would have been a brutal conflict with high casualty numbers.

-There was a race issue, many americans at the time believed that the japanese were sub-human.

I just realised this does not really answer the OP!!

I'd say Germany was not subjected to the atom bomb because there was no need. The allies were making progress throughout Europe and even if the bomb was ready, I dont know if the US would have used it. Europe was strategically important, no point in obliterating it completely!

Victor

Were there suitable targets in Germany. While many southern German cities had seen much less bombing compared to others, were they as important to the German war effort.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the other cites on the bombing list were substantially intact.

TerrorFirmer

By about march 1945 the Western allies encountered no real resistance in the grand scheme of things. There was no real, well equipped German army group left to oppose them in reality. At this stage about >=90% of armored vehicles were being sent to the eastern front. I doubt they would have felt it necessary to drop a bomb on Germany, even if one had been ready. Two against the Japanese was enough to both accomplish military goals (a fight far more brutal and costly then the entire western European campaign awaited otherwise, whereas resistance in the west collasped in early 1945 after the Ardennes) and warn the Soviet Union against further expansion in Europe. That, and the fact that dropping Atomic weapons would not have shortened the war in Europe anyway, given that even if Hitler had been killed by such an attack any real potential successor was liable to be a war criminal with very little to gain in surrender. Unless this hypothetical attack happened after donitz had been named.

EamonnKeane

In any case, Germany would be needed as a strategic and economic ally in the cold war to come, whereas Japan wouldn't.

Capt'n Midnight

Had a bomb failed to explode its more likely the Germans could have used the materials or technology than the Japanese could.

The Trinity test was on July 16, 1945. Germany surrendered in May.
Had it failed then there would only have been a few uranium bombs available for use though the rest of '45-46.

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Had a bomb failed to explode its more likely the Germans could have used the materials or technology than the Japanese could.

I heard comments that technologically, each of the main powers were at about the same level. It was more that each choose a particular direction to go and as the war wore on dogma and available resources impacted on what decisions could be fulfilled. The Germans were good with tanks and missiles, the Americans with Aluminium and Uranium, the Soviets with mass production and so on.

Capt'n Midnight

plutonium was considered so toxic that there were suggestions of using it as a powder in a dirty bomb rather than a proper atomic bomb

during the advance in to europe the western allies checked for radiation in case of a scorched earth tactic

yes technologically they were very similar at the start of the war
the brits invented computers to speed up the polish system that broke enigma, but the germans were able to break as many allied codes so it balanced out
russia had the T34 and Shturmovik
all had operational radar, the allies got to microwaves first though the british choice of semiconductor detectors was based on researched published in germany the americans then found the british detectors worked better than their valves

TerrorFirmer

They were all insignificant in comparison to atomic weapons. German inventions could have turned the tide of war, the Atomic bomb could outright end it.

At least for the Allies, for the most part, new technology was implemented efficiently and properly. For Germany, many of their inventions were used in baffling roles that failed to take any real advantage of their advanced nature - V2's fired against England, Jet Fighters used as fighter-bombers, etc.

donaghs

Tommy T wrote: »

The Germans were White Europeans...

Maybe, people weren't sure what to expect from the new weapon. But didn't more people die in the bombing of Dresden than in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

The main answer once again though is that it was not ready. After that, unless people have documents or first person testimony on plans to drop the Bomb on Germany, its more speculation than history.

purple'n'gold

Tommy T wrote: »

The Germans were White Europeans...

White Europeans have been slaughtering each other on a grand scale for centuries. And the unnecessary allied bombing of Dresden demonstrated that they cared little for civilian causalities. No, Germany was already beaten, no need to use the new bomb. And as someone else has already pointed out, the western allies knew that they would need the post war Germany onside against the soviets.

Capt'n Midnight

HavoK wrote: »

They were all insignificant in comparison to atomic weapons. German inventions could have turned the tide of war, the Atomic bomb could outright end it.

Disagree Strongly.

The Americans simply could not have made enough Nukes in 46 to do anywhere near as much damage as the B29's were doing on a regular basis, quite litterly they were running out of main targets. More people were killed and more damage was caused in the conventional raids on Tokoyo than in either of the atomic bombings.

One problem with nuking the capital is that if you wipe out the chain of command who will be able to enforce a surrender ?

An atomic bomb is the equilivant of a bombing raid, the B29 program cost about the same as the manhattan project, apart from the radiation very similar effects when averaged across the whole city.

Lookup how the Russians got on when they invaded Manchuria to see just how weak the Japanese military machine was at the time, admittedly the best units had been sent south but the rest just folded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm had the Japanese not surrendered when they did then the Russians would have taken all of Korea, making it all one communist state, and probably more of the japanese islands than they did. ( Shaklin was Russian in living memory though)


By the 50's when each side had hundreds of atomic bombs then the total damage would be far worse than conventional bombing. But back in 45 they had the man power and lots of planes and very little opposition.


H-Bombs are a different story as they are up to 1,000 times worse than an atomic bomb.

TerrorFirmer

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Disagree Strongly.

The Americans simply could not have made enough Nukes in 46 to do anywhere near as much damage as the B29's were doing on a regular basis, quite litterly they were running out of main targets. More people were killed and more damage was caused in the conventional raids on Tokoyo than in either of the atomic bombings.

One problem with nuking the capital is that if you wipe out the chain of command who will be able to enforce a surrender ?

An atomic bomb is the equilivant of a bombing raid, the B29 program cost about the same as the manhattan project, apart from the radiation very similar effects when averaged across the whole city.

Lookup how the Russians got on when they invaded Manchuria to see just how weak the Japanese military machine was at the time, admittedly the best units had been sent south but the rest just folded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm had the Japanese not surrendered when they did then the Russians would have taken all of Korea, making it all one communist state, and probably more of the japanese islands than they did. ( Shaklin was Russian in living memory though)


By the 50's when each side had hundreds of atomic bombs then the total damage would be far worse than conventional bombing. But back in 45 they had the man power and lots of planes and very little opposition.


H-Bombs are a different story as they are up to 1,000 times worse than an atomic bomb.

Yes but that's the point - B29's could be shot down. the Luftwaffe was active right up until the surrender. That aside, you have massive expenditure of munitions with each raid. An atomic bomb not only obliterates the entire area, guaranteeing any 'target' as such is hit, but has a far more devastating effect on civilian morale owing to the fact that's there no real escape from the effects and/or aftermath of radiation even if you survive the initial attack.

Japan was being bombed regularly up to that point, it wasn't a question of casualties, but just the way in which the ordnance could now be delivered and the far more horrifying aftermath of an attack.

They also would have had no idea as to how fast, or in what quantities, the US could have delivered these weapons.

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Lookup how the Russians got on when they invaded Manchuria to see just how weak the Japanese military machine was at the time, admittedly the best units had been sent south but the rest just folded.

The Soviets and Japanese had a non-agression pact, hence the Japanese had no more than token garrisons on the Soviet border.

HavoK wrote: »

An atomic bomb not only obliterates the entire area, guaranteeing any 'target' as such is hit, but has a far more devastating effect on civilian morale owing to the fact that's there no real escape from the effects and/or aftermath of radiation even if you survive the initial attack.

The aftermath wasn't apprecaited at all, even by the Allies - hundreds of Australians based in Hiroshima after the war died from radiation-based cancers.

Japan was being bombed regularly up to that point, it wasn't a question of casualties, but just the way in which the ordnance could now be delivered and the far more horrifying aftermath of an attack.

With the Germany First policy, serious bombing of domestic Japan only got underway in 1945.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote: »

The Soviets and Japanese had a non-agression pact, hence the Japanese had no more than token garrisons on the Soviet border.
...
With the Germany First policy, serious bombing of domestic Japan only got underway in 1945.

The non-agression pact expired and the Soviets were dodging Japanese questions about renewing it. Communism was one of the big fears of the Japanese, especially in China.

Despite the men and equipment moved to other fronts it was still a sizeable force. Then again they were facing the Red Army and the Japanese had nothing comparable to the T34 or il2 .
1,040,000 men,
6,700 artillery,
1,000 tanks,
1,800 aircraft,
1,215 vehicles

yeah "Bombs Away LeMay" really ramped it up, conventional bombing had destroyed about 50% of the 64 biggest cities in Japan. There is a list comparing the damage to comparable sized US cities - very scary when you see it.

Capt'n Midnight

HavoK wrote: »

Yes but that's the point - B29's could be shot down.

Like the battle of the atlantic, the bombing campaign was a war of attrition. Of course the bombers 's could be shot down, BUT the German and Japanese defenders were also being shot down ( when they could get fuel to fly ). IIRC the survival rate of u-boat crews and RAF bomber command crews were similar - most died.

You can shoot down a plane, you can't shoot down 1,000 planes
Again the economics were the same. In the early days the B29 itself was far more dangerous to the crews than the enemy, later combat missions were safer than earlier training missions or delivery flights.

An atomic bomb not only obliterates the entire area, guaranteeing any 'target' as such is hit, but has a far more devastating effect on civilian morale owing to the fact that's there no real escape from the effects and/or aftermath of radiation even if you survive the initial attack.

NO NO NO
that is only true of a H-Bomb
an atomic bomb was the same as a very fast firestorm
people out doors survived as close a 1Km away, concrete buildings or under ground bunkers would allow even closer survival. be interesting to see just how close a hit you would need to take out one of the german flack towers.

They also would have had no idea as to how fast, or in what quantities, the US could have delivered these weapons.

true, but when the Red Army has steam rollered through the only industrial area largely unaffected by bombing your options are limited.

Victor

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The non-agression pact expired and the Soviets were dodging Japanese questions about renewing it. Communism was one of the big fears of the Japanese, especially in China.

The The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pactwasn't due to expire until 1946.

http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536904967&etailerid=19

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote: »

The The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pactwasn't due to expire until 1946.

http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/html/moreinfo.asp?bookid=536904967&etailerid=19

can't find my copy of Tolands book so I suppose wiki will have to do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

On April 5, 1945 the Soviet Union repudiated the pact, informing the Japanese government that "in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes known to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941."[2]

On August 8, 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and launched Operation August Storm keeping their promise to the other Allies at the Yalta Conference to enter the war with Japan three months after the end of World War II in Europe.[3] The Japanese argue that, while the Soviet Union ended the pact five years after the conclusion of the treaty, Operation August Storm still violated the treaty as a one-year cancellation period was in effect. [4]

Article three: The present Pact comes into force from the day of its ratification by both Contracting Parties and remains valid for five years. In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years.

Reminiscent of Chamberlain's peace of paper TBH.