How do you think it would be if... - Page 6

karamazovnew · 12-20-09, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

Trivial: Actually the first bombing of London was an accident. The Luftwaffe pilot took it for military area thus bombed it.

Then the British bombed Berlin in retaliation and then Hitler ordered a full campaign against London.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

So, for the nukes to have any effect (instead of pissing people off) you'd want to hit targets that matter.
Would you welcome soldiers from a nation that just nuked you, with open arms? I dont think so.

I'd just bomb Hitler's quarters. But remember that Enola Gay had a smooth flight over the ocean to Hiroshima. A bomber flying across Europe to Berlin with a nuclear bomb on board would be a huge risk.
The Japanese did welcome the Americans but... I wouldn't. On the other hand, everybody was tired of war. And the difference between a nuclear bomb and a firestorm like the one in Dresden is that a nuclear bomb kills you quicker and leaves a smooth terrain ready for reconstruction.

That was a joke of course, and a bad one.

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.

Freiwillige · 12-21-09, 06:07 AM

Time for my two cents. Firstly any honest historian would tell you that the Germans having plans of world conquest is ridicules WWII propaganda and belongs with the Nazi had UFO crowds. Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain, So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

Hitlers aims were and always had been East. Lebensraum he called it. I think it was for Hitler pre WWII about gaining back territory's lost to Germany in the east after WWI and gaining whatever else he could gain from the deal. Also Communism is and was the ideological enemy of National Socialism. So anything to destroy communism in Europe I think he would have went for foaming at the mouth. In fact many men volunteered to fight with Germany from occupied nations such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ukrain etc to fight against Communism.
It was a bit more common than many would admit today.

August · 12-21-09, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain

I think that if they had achieved air supremacy over the channel and southern England they would have been able to invade.

Quote:

So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

I agree that mounting an invasion force from 3000 miles away would have been most difficult.

Raptor1 · 12-21-09, 10:55 AM

1. Why wouldn't Germany's skies be defended by the Luftwaffe if they had won the ground war. Where else would the planes be?

2. Support for the Nazis would certainly grow if they had actually won the land war, the morale of the population would be very high in this case.

3. A single large nuclear attack, unless it could cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, would serve little purpose against a population whose morale is high from victory other than to make them angry and even more willing to fight.

Consider yourself a German, your fatherland just defeated every other nation in Europe. Now, the only enemies that resist you are on the other side of the sea, and they just brutally murdered a million of your countrymen. Are you going to immediately surrender or wish to see those that bombed you wiped from the earth?

It is only the sustained bombing, which would be nearly impossible to properly execute, that would eventually break the population's spirit.

--

Had Germany achieved air superiority over the Channel, they could very well have crossed it. What would happen once they land is another matter, but competently done an invasion of Britain could succeed. An invasion of America would be possible through a number of routes, but it would be extremely risky.

Task Force · 12-21-09, 12:29 PM

If they would have invaded america... they probably would have started is smaller South america courtrys and worked up...

But even more... How would they have invaded russia? I mean look at Germany And then russia... It seems impossiable. Unless the russian high command had made a even larger screw up... they would have eventualy out did thereselfs...

Méo · 12-21-09, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Where else would the planes be?

If Germany had never been bombed (or on very few occasions and assuming they were unaware that the Americans had the bomb) the whole luftwaffe would probably be in the sky burning fuel...(even if everything is rationed during wartime

)

The French would never have put a colossal effort in building the Maginot Line if there was no threat...

The British would never have put a colossal effort in defending their convoys if there was no threat...

The U.S. could have make them believe there was no threat. Göring was particularly good in underestimating the Americans. They ''could only build proper refrigerators.'' he already said.

OK many German Generals were extremely efficient.

OK the Wehrmacht was probably the best army ever.

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation...

Dowly · 12-21-09, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation...

I dont think anyone here thinks it would be invincible. But here's a food for the though.

Germany and it's military was extremely advanced in both tactics and equipment during WWII. Now, think if they'd had taken over Europe and would have some time where their factories and facilities would not been constantly bombed. Me262 might've seen service earlier, XXI, better tanks built with better materials and in greater numbers, the StG.44 etc.

Combine all that with battlehardened troops and with the fact that war couldnt be won with nukes but with troops on the ground, it would've been a bloody battle for anyone who would have attacked the Reich.

Méo · 12-21-09, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

Germany and it's military was extremely advanced in both tactics and equipment during WWII.

I was already aware of this and I agree with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

it would've been a bloody battle for anyone who would have attacked the Reich.

I agree with you only if nukes had never existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

the fact that war couldnt be won with nukes

Here I can only disagree...

The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

Dowly · 12-21-09, 03:04 PM

Then we'll just have to disagree.

Raptor1 · 12-21-09, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

If Germany had never been bombed (or on very few occasions and assuming they were unaware that the Americans had the bomb) the whole luftwaffe would probably be in the sky burning fuel...(even if everything is rationed during wartime

)

The French would never have put a colossal effort in building the Maginot Line if there was no threat...

The British would never have put a colossal effort in defending their convoys if there was no threat...

The U.S. could have make them believe there was no threat. Göring was particularly good in underestimating the Americans. They ''could only build proper refrigerators.'' he already said.

OK many German Generals were extremely efficient.

OK the Wehrmacht was probably the best army ever.

But a lot of people here seem to live in their imaginary world where the Third Reich is an invincible nation...

Considering how the Germans themselves used aerial strategic bombing on several occasions as far back as 1915, and how feared such attacks were during the interwar years. The Germans would certainly been prepared for such attacks, especially after victory in the land war would mean their fighters would have little else to do elsewhere.

Many German generals were extremely efficient, the Wehrmacht was a very good military force, but probably not the best army ever, the Third Reich was far from invincible. But you imply that the A-Bomb is a magic surrender-causing weapon in WWII, which I think is incorrect.

I also think you lost track of the original assumption. The question was whether Germany could win the war had they been competently led, nothing is certain in war, and I think that in some situations they could achieve favourable peace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Task Force

If they would have invaded america... they probably would have started is smaller South america courtrys and worked up...

But even more... How would they have invaded russia? I mean look at Germany And then russia... It seems impossiable. Unless the russian high command had made a even larger screw up... they would have eventualy out did thereselfs...

Conquering all of Russia would be unlikely, but winning against them to some extent was possible. The Germans made several horrible mistakes, under the leadership of Hitler, which cost them any chance of victory in the East (Some of these include the launching of Operation Typhoon, the diversion of the Fourth Panzer Army from Stalingrad and finally, and probably most importantly, Operation Citadel). I think that only after the Battle of Kursk were Germany's hopes of resisting the Red Army were completely shattered.

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

You're relying on results from 2 completely different situations.

Dowly · 12-21-09, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

The only time nukes were used in a war, it ended it. (and it was not used in overwhelming quantities)

That was a different thing. Japan had already been beaten and the nukes were just a kick in the head (you know, like you see in a street fight, guy goes down and he still gets kicked around).

Méo · 12-21-09, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

That was a different thing. Japan had already been beaten and the nukes were just a kick in the head (you know, like you see in a street fight, guy goes down and he still gets kicked around).

I undertsand and I was sure you would reply to me with this.

But Japan had lost several battles at sea but they were still controlling large parts of the Asian continent.

The thing is that if both U.S. & Germany had the nuclear weapon it would be a totally different debate.

At the beginning the U.S. were producing 3 bombs a month, it went on higher rates a bit later. And the atomic bomb was not absolutely vital to them, if it would have been (vital) I guess they would have put every effort in producing more.

There would have been 2 catastrophic things for the Germans:

1) Their major cities could have been struck.

2) It would have been impossible for them to reply with a such magnitude, not even close!!!

Raptor1 · 12-21-09, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

I undertsand and I was sure you would reply to me with this.

But Japan had lost several battles at sea but they were still controlling large parts of the Asian continent.

Japan might have controlled large parts of Asia, but that was only because large parts of it were not worth controlling except for the vital areas, which were either undel Allied control or bypassed and helpless. Japan has also been subjected to an overwhelming Soviet invasion in Manchuria on August 9th, which was arguably almost or as important to their decision to surrender as the Atomic bombs were.

Also don't forget that Japan was utterly starved by the submarine war, constantly firebombed from the air in raids which were much more devastating than both of the A-Bombs, and raided with impunity by carrier-based aircraft. Not to mention the fact that it's fleet was utterly destroyed and it's air power was practically non-existant (And nearly useless due to lack of fuel).

Lt.Fillipidis · 12-21-09, 09:22 PM

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

@Karamazovnew
There s a BBC series about WW2 events, going around these days in Greece.
A book along with a compilation of artificially colored film parts. One each week. Although i read about it in internet, its there too.
Just like you said, after the accidental bombing of London (instead of military areas), Churchill ordered a retaliation. By the next day the order was carried out and Hitler was still unaware about the bombing of London itself. So Hitler thought Churchill started it and retaliated and the story goes on.

12-20-09, 11:33 PM	#77
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.

12-21-09, 10:55 AM	#80
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stavka Posts: 8,211 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	1. Why wouldn't Germany's skies be defended by the Luftwaffe if they had won the ground war. Where else would the planes be? 2. Support for the Nazis would certainly grow if they had actually won the land war, the morale of the population would be very high in this case. 3. A single large nuclear attack, unless it could cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, would serve little purpose against a population whose morale is high from victory other than to make them angry and even more willing to fight. Consider yourself a German, your fatherland just defeated every other nation in Europe. Now, the only enemies that resist you are on the other side of the sea, and they just brutally murdered a million of your countrymen. Are you going to immediately surrender or wish to see those that bombed you wiped from the earth? It is only the sustained bombing, which would be nearly impossible to properly execute, that would eventually break the population's spirit. -- Had Germany achieved air superiority over the Channel, they could very well have crossed it. What would happen once they land is another matter, but competently done an invasion of Britain could succeed. An invasion of America would be possible through a number of routes, but it would be extremely risky. __________________ Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

12-21-09, 12:29 PM	#81
Task Force Rear Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SPACE!!!! Posts: 10,142 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	If they would have invaded america... they probably would have started is smaller South america courtrys and worked up... But even more... How would they have invaded russia? I mean look at Germany And then russia... It seems impossiable. Unless the russian high command had made a even larger screw up... they would have eventualy out did thereselfs... __________________ Task Force industries "Taking control of the world, one mind at a time"

12-21-09, 06:07 AM	#78
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Time for my two cents. Firstly any honest historian would tell you that the Germans having plans of world conquest is ridicules WWII propaganda and belongs with the Nazi had UFO crowds. Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain, So what makes one think that they could invade North America! Hitlers aims were and always had been East. Lebensraum he called it. I think it was for Hitler pre WWII about gaining back territory's lost to Germany in the east after WWI and gaining whatever else he could gain from the deal. Also Communism is and was the ideological enemy of National Socialism. So anything to destroy communism in Europe I think he would have went for foaming at the mouth. In fact many men volunteered to fight with Germany from occupied nations such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ukrain etc to fight against Communism. It was a bit more common than many would admit today.

12-21-09, 03:04 PM	#85
Dowly Lucky Jack Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Finland Posts: 25,053 Downloads: 32 Uploads: 0	Then we'll just have to disagree.

12-21-09, 09:22 PM	#90
Lt.Fillipidis Weps Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Veria, Greece Posts: 365 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	@ Meo There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks. Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there. Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb. @Karamazovnew There s a BBC series about WW2 events, going around these days in Greece. A book along with a compilation of artificially colored film parts. One each week. Although i read about it in internet, its there too. Just like you said, after the accidental bombing of London (instead of military areas), Churchill ordered a retaliation. By the next day the order was carried out and Hitler was still unaware about the bombing of London itself. So Hitler thought Churchill started it and retaliated and the story goes on.