Germany defeated Soviet Union but soon facing nuclear armageddon from US bombing

[ghost1275]

What would happen to Europe? a vast of waste land still under Nazi control?

[maltesefalcon]

What is your timeline for this please? Any extension of an Ostfront lasting past summer of 1942 does not present a plausible scenario for a German victory.
In that time frame, a US nuclear arsenal was but a pipe dream.

[Terry Duncan]

Can you fill out this 'What If' to the point it fulfills the requirements set out in the rules please? If not the topic will be locked.

[ghost1275]

Oops excuse me for not reading the guide lines first. One more question, can we discuss alternative outcome of a historic event that was other than war/conflict?

[T. A. Gardner]

The question here is would Hitler try to get terms and a negotiated peace rather than see German cities go up in mushroom clouds as the populace turns against the government?

[Peter89]

The question here is would Hitler try to get terms and a negotiated peace rather than see German cities go up in mushroom clouds as the populace turns against the government?

I can't see the German population go into revolt because of A-bombs. The bombing campaign did pretty much the same to the German cities (long term effects of radiation was not clear then), and yes it lowered German morale, but it did not break it. It also sparkled the desire for revenge.

It worked on the Japanese because of the specific cultural environment (the West did something that they couldn't).

The military tried to kill Hitler a few times, my two cents are on their attempts.

[Terry Duncan]

Oops excuse me for not reading the guide lines first. One more question, can we discuss alternative outcome of a historic event that was other than war/conflict?

Yes you can, certainly. But please, do try to fill out a few more of your own thoughts on this topic.

[History Learner]

If the USSR has collapsed, the U.S. is going to seek terms; even if you believe they wouldn't, there was significant opposition to attempting a nuclear campaign on Germany from within the military due to specific ETO factors.

[Futurist]

If the USSR has collapsed, the U.S. is going to seek terms; even if you believe they wouldn't, there was significant opposition to attempting a nuclear campaign on Germany from within the military due to specific ETO factors.

What does ETO stand for?

[wm]

The first bombs were quite puny, and only such bombs were available in the first years. And there were not that many of them.

Here the black circle shows the conflagration area of the Hiroshima bomb, the red lines show the bomb drop zones during the Dresden bombing.

dre2.gif (17.8 KiB) Viewed 1153 times

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were densely built wooden cities without proper air-raid shelters (not to mention that people were outside the shelters during the bombings).

German cities were mostly brick and mortar with large open spaces inside the city limits. The German civil defense was excellent, the air shelters were everywhere. So in effect, there would be much less destruction and the death toll low by comparison.

[Carl Schwamberger]

If the USSR has collapsed, the U.S. is going to seek terms; even if you believe they wouldn't, there was significant opposition to attempting a nuclear campaign on Germany from within the military due to specific ETO factors.

What does ETO stand for?

European Theatre of Operations. MTO + Mediterranean Theatre, PTO - Pacific Theatre. The latter was not a official designation, but I grew up hearing WWII veterans use it & its present enough in the literature that it serves.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The first bombs were quite puny, and only such bombs were available in the first years. And there were not that many of them.

Exactly how many could be made is a open question. Groves reported the goal was a minimum of of 36 "devices" made & available in 1946. However when Japan surrendered the Plutonium breeder reactors were shut down for correcting a number of mechanical and design problems. Estimates for actual production in 1946, or the remainder of 1945 vary wth some optimists claiming over 50 bombs. Richard Rhodes in hi 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' suggests a minimum of 18 in 1946. More if the two breeder reactors at the production site at Hanford Oregon are kept running with fewer repairs. For 1945 its fairly clear Plutonium cores for 4-5 more devices would have been available by late November.

Here the black circle shows the conflagration area of the Hiroshima bomb, the red lines show the bomb drop zones during the Dresden bombing.
dre2.gif
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were densely built wooden cities without proper air-raid shelters (not to mention that people were outside the shelters during the bombings).

German cities were mostly brick and mortar with large open spaces inside the city limits. The German civil defense was excellent, the air shelters were everywhere. So in effect, there would be much less destruction and the death toll low by comparison.

Thats correct for deaths, at least in the short term. So a disappointment to the bomber advocates who argued for civilian casualties and "dehousing" as a path to crippling industrial production. On the up side for the industrial targeting model is the destruction within a few kilometers of ground zero is larger & longer lasting than attacks with conventional bombs. Bridges, railway marshaling yards, electrical transmission, communications, & factories in the immediate target area would not be repairable in the 3-60 day window typical of conventional raids. How much actual destruction there is also depends on the target choices the Allied leaders make.

[KDF33]

Hamburg in summer 1943 probably approximates the level of destruction of an early, comparatively low-yield nuclear weapon. Here's what Speer had to say about it:

(I)f you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse.

That's obviously just his opinion, and we don't know if it's based on detailed analysis, but I have a hard time seeing Germany absorbing 2-3 nuclear strikes per month in 1946 and not collapsing relatively quickly.

For one, and as Carl said, targeted bombing of military-industrial complexes would become far more effective, with almost no possibility of repairing damage.

[wm]

The Hiroshima bomb over Hamburg. The moderate blast damage radius (5 psi, 1.67 km) is shown.

At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread. The chances of a fire starting in commercial and residential damage are high, and buildings so damaged are at high risk of spreading fire. Often used as a benchmark for moderate damage in cities.
From NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

The map is from "Life beneath the Facades of Bombed-out Streets. Housing Situation in post-war Hamburg" by Joachim Döbler.

[Futurist]

hamburg.jpg

The Hiroshima bomb over Hamburg. The moderate blast damage radius (5 psi, 1.67 km) is shown.

At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread. The chances of a fire starting in commercial and residential damage are high, and buildings so damaged are at high risk of spreading fire. Often used as a benchmark for moderate damage in cities.
From NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

The map is from "Life beneath the Facades of Bombed-out Streets. Housing Situation in post-war Hamburg" by Joachim Döbler.

Why does the territory that got directly nuked (on top of; the light blue dot) not exhibit much damage? Because winds would have moved the effects of the nuke further to the east?