What if thread #1: What if the US had used the Bomb in Europe during WW2?

[Sava]

Yeah. That's it.

It makes perfect sense...

Hitler hated Jews and gays because he really hated himself. Perhaps you are really of French descent and secretly hate yourself SLowwy.

btw, don't misinterpret that as me comparing you to Hitler... I would never do that

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Wasn't Dresden all but destroyed by the US firebombing of civilians?

US and British. After all, it was the head of the RAF that came up with that strategy. It could've been called "Operation London Payback."

But, in real life, the firebombings started a day after the beginning of this scenario, on Feb. 13th, 1945. Before then it was relatively unscathed.

[Sava]

But, in real life, the firebombings started a day after the beginning of this scenario, on Feb. 13th, 1945. Before then it was relatively unscathed.

If that's the case, then I doubt a nuke would have been used. Considering how valuable the nukes were at the time, they would have gone with the firebombing no matter what.

US and British. After all, it was the head of the RAF that came up with that strategy. It could've been called "Operation London Payback."

It's unfortunate that the Allies proved they were just as evil as the Nazis in terms of targeting civilians. Our goals were just, our methods were not.

[JohnT]

No, Sava, the game isn't to determine if the scenario is plausible, it is to think about what would be the effects of such an action.

[Sava]

Plausibility is entirely relevant, and must be considered. That's like saying, "what would happen in WW2 if time-travelers came back and gave Japan laser weapons and space vehicles." I suppose it makes for good sci-fi... but I thought this thread was supposed to be somewhat realistic. Sorry.

[Zylka]

The firebombings were indeed a horrific atrocity seen as efficiently essential to German collapse, yet an A-bomb attack was quite out of range on European culture unless desperately needed. I am of the educated opinion that both could have been avoided and Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe stemmed if only a bargain surrender involving German collapse of Nazi governement and acceptance of the usual interm Allied control - with Germany remaining in control of Northern France, to be assimilated by language and loose culture before German self sovereignty was re-estabslished.

Leaving Southern France as the new nation would have been a much better scenario, as the people there are generally of more acceptable attitude, and would have a comparitively thriving economy unburdened by the ignorance of the north half. With the north majorly assimilated into German culture within 20 years, any re-unification sentiment would be near non-existent. Furthermore, future German aggression could just as easily have been stemmed with the inevitable diversion of fear towards the Soviet threat - which could not be contained out of Europe to full measures in any scenario.

Even still, an A-bombing of a smaller German town might have been necessary to instill a fear in them not unlike the post WW2 Japanese... and at about the same general population as Japan in my propsal - Germany would have provided a third major capitalist economic power to compete considerably with the US and Asian Isle, raising the speed and stakes for the cold war reds - and collapsing their efforts of evil much sooner.

War is a terrible thing, and no matter what - healing becomes the end result. That is where I try to come in.

-Doc

[TCO]

Right now, there is the latest Nazi denial thing going on in Germany which has all to do with wallowing in victemhood for the strategic bombing.

[GePap]

I agree with Sava that the sceenrio is utterly incredible, but it has nothing to do with arial bombing. To think the Germans had the ground forces to stop thier collapes that way is too far fetched. Not only could they have done didly to slow down the Red Army juggernaught on the Oder (specially since the Soviets had plenty of skilled commanders like KOnev ready to go), but they still had no forces in the west worth a damn, so even if they slowed the Soviets down, I can;t for the life of me think why the US and UK would not have raced in from the west and have been done with it by about the same time as the war came to an end anyway.

[JohnT]

[GePap]

When putting together a theoretical JohnT, you can't leave huge holes. For example, you never mention what happens to US and UK ground forces; If we only assume the changes you spell out, that still puts the US hitting the Elbe and coming just a few miles from Berlin from the west by mid april. Why should we just assume that if the Soviets faced a stalemate, all of a sudden the US and UK do?

I would have been simple to ask: what if the European war was delayed long anough for the first nukes to be used against Germany and not Japan.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by TCO
Right now, there is the latest Nazi denial thing going on in Germany which has all to do with wallowing in victemhood for the strategic bombing.

There is a big Difference between Denial of the atrocities of the Nazi-Regime (which of course exists within the Neonazi-Scen in Germany, but also in other countries [including the USA ]) and the thinking that the strategic Bombing of major urban civilian Areas in WW2 was a Atrocity.

As for the topic:
If an A-Bomb had been dropped on Dresden I think Germany anmd the USA would never have developed international relations after WW2 (unlike reality, where the two countries had very good relations, til Bush jr. went to war in Iraq )

And as DanielXY already mentioned, there would also be a much more strong antiamericanism in Germany, especially if those Comnmanders who ordered the bomb to be dropped never had been brought into a court for this atrocity.

Also there would have been a much stronger resistance to nuclear weapons ansd stationing them in Germany among the population of germany (much stronger than it had been in the 80s)

[Q Classic]

well, for one, you'd get rid of the kooks who think that the bomb being used on the japanese was racially motivated.

[chequita guevara]

Instead of moving back the date of the dropping of the bomb and Germany's surrender, why not move forward with the avaiblity of the bomb.

Assume instead of firebombing Dresden on Feb 13th, we atomic bombed it.




If we had atomic bombed Germany, Europe would hate us. So really, nothing would change.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If we had atomic bombed Germany, Europe would hate us.

Why? Germany didn't seem to mind us firebombing them. We killed more people that way than anything the atom bombs we had at the time could have done.

[foolish_icarus]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
We killed more people that way than anything the atom bombs we had at the time could have done.

agreed. Probably No significant difference to history