SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Méo · 12-20-09, 11:33 PM

@Dowly

I understand your point of view, but with all my respect, I still disagree with you.

I think I can make a summary of the debate here in 3 points:

1) Where the U.S. could have strike with the atomic bomb?

2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?

1) Where the U.S. could have strike with an atomic bomb?

Correct me if i'm wrong but most (if not all) of German's main production facilities (tanks, aircrafts, submarines, etc.) were located in Germany or Austria.

About the armies, in a nuclear war, armies are much less important, In WWI 90% of victims were in the military. With weapons of mass destruction, 90% of victims are civilians (of course enemy civil population).

When the Nazi party came to power, they had the support of 43.9% of the German people. So they didn't even had the support of the majority of their own people.

So if Germany would have been struck by a large scale nuclear attack without even being unable to reply or to do the same on U.S. soil, the effect on the German population would have been awful. I think that dissent would have risen to an intolerable level (otherwise it would have been a mass suicide). In a such case they (the German people) would probably seek for survival and not for nazi ideology. I guess dissent would have been extremely high among military leaders too (they did not agree all with Hitler).

So to me, it's obvious, in that case, the best target would have been Germany.

2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

Some argue that the defence of the German sky was tight, well the reason behind all this is simple: they were being continuously bombed!!!

If Germany would not have been bombed at all (or very few) there would have been no reason to put a colossal effort in defending the German sky (assuming they were not aware that U.S. had the atomic bomb). the U.S. could simply pretend to avoid provocation.

And as I said earlier, there are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no accurate computer guided missiles.

So, for these reasons, I believe it could have been possible for the U.S. to launch a large scale nuclear sneak attack on the German homeland.

3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?

The U.S. knew that populations in occupied countries had the potential of being future allies (Patton said it to his troops before they landed in North Africa). It is possible to strike a zone in a country (in which the enemy could be) without a direct hit on important urban zones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsity_40pc.png

Even though, I don't think this would have been a necessity.

In some comments it seems like occupying a country is no big deal!!

I'm gonna retake my example about Finland & Soviet Union.

Imagine (again) that if your country would have been invaded by USSR:
thousands (if not hundred thousand) of soldiers killed, executions, Finnish villages burned, Finnish women raped, etc. These things are not easily forgivable for a population.

If the U.S. would have bombed Leningrad, there would probably have some nuclear fallout in Finland, but I really don't think it would have been enough for the Finnish people to forgive everything and join the Soviets ranks.

Edit: And I can hardly imagine a population joining a former oppressor who is in the impossibility to reply with the same magnitude.

12-20-09, 11:33 PM	#5
Méo Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,153 Downloads: 258 Uploads: 0	@Dowly I understand your point of view, but with all my respect, I still disagree with you. I think I can make a summary of the debate here in 3 points: 1) Where the U.S. could have strike with the atomic bomb? 2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland? 3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby? 1) Where the U.S. could have strike with an atomic bomb? Correct me if i'm wrong but most (if not all) of German's main production facilities (tanks, aircrafts, submarines, etc.) were located in Germany or Austria. About the armies, in a nuclear war, armies are much less important, In WWI 90% of victims were in the military. With weapons of mass destruction, 90% of victims are civilians (of course enemy civil population). When the Nazi party came to power, they had the support of 43.9% of the German people. So they didn't even had the support of the majority of their own people. So if Germany would have been struck by a large scale nuclear attack without even being unable to reply or to do the same on U.S. soil, the effect on the German population would have been awful. I think that dissent would have risen to an intolerable level (otherwise it would have been a mass suicide). In a such case they (the German people) would probably seek for survival and not for nazi ideology. I guess dissent would have been extremely high among military leaders too (they did not agree all with Hitler). So to me, it's obvious, in that case, the best target would have been Germany. 2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland? Some argue that the defence of the German sky was tight, well the reason behind all this is simple: they were being continuously bombed!!! If Germany would not have been bombed at all (or very few) there would have been no reason to put a colossal effort in defending the German sky (assuming they were not aware that U.S. had the atomic bomb). the U.S. could simply pretend to avoid provocation. And as I said earlier, there are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no accurate computer guided missiles. So, for these reasons, I believe it could have been possible for the U.S. to launch a large scale nuclear sneak attack on the German homeland. 3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby? The U.S. knew that populations in occupied countries had the potential of being future allies (Patton said it to his troops before they landed in North Africa). It is possible to strike a zone in a country (in which the enemy could be) without a direct hit on important urban zones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsity_40pc.png Even though, I don't think this would have been a necessity. In some comments it seems like occupying a country is no big deal!! I'm gonna retake my example about Finland & Soviet Union. Imagine (again) that if your country would have been invaded by USSR: thousands (if not hundred thousand) of soldiers killed, executions, Finnish villages burned, Finnish women raped, etc. These things are not easily forgivable for a population. If the U.S. would have bombed Leningrad, there would probably have some nuclear fallout in Finland, but I really don't think it would have been enough for the Finnish people to forgive everything and join the Soviets ranks. Edit: And I can hardly imagine a population joining a former oppressor who is in the impossibility to reply with the same magnitude. Last edited by Méo; 12-21-09 at 02:42 AM.