What if...

Post Reply New Topic

What if Germany had held on 4 months longer and we nuked the Narzis?

That would have been True Justice. The A-Bomb essentially a Jewish invention brings down the Third Reich.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 06 Mar 2013, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

a lot of innocent Germans, the vast proportion of which had nothing to do with either national socialism or the holocaust, would have died.

It wouldnt have acheived much, in terms of justice.

Anyway once the triumvirate (Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels) had been finished so was the third Reich. It wouldnt have taken a nuke to convince Donitz to back down.

for the record, I don't think Hiroshima and Nagasaki should've been nuked, either.

People in the camps would have died. Nukes were probably the worst invention ever and should not be used.

It would have killed the people we were nuking them to save.

I don't know if we would have been willing to nuke Germany or not unless they had (or we believed they had) the capability to nuke us.
From what I've read and heard the Japanese were seen as being sub-human and therefor easier to use a WMD on.
A lot more Americans have German than Japanese ancestry and that would surely be taken into consideration.
Had Japan not been nuked into surrender the invasion of Japan would have very likely caused more casualties on both sides.

Although the jury is still out (and probably will be forever) I believe that the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved a hell of a lot more people than they killed.

First of all, the US had produced 500,000 purple hearts for the land invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall)... and that's only for the Allied casualties... And the Japanese had been instructing the populace to fight to the last man, woman and child...

As a result of the bombing, Japan instead surrendered to the US, and thus avoided getting drawn into a war with the USSR as well.

Second of all, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing meant that the effect of the use of nukes in war became apparent very swiftly after their invention.

Imagine if they had waited until the invention of the hydrogen bomb (the first one tested by the US was 450 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima) before using nukes in battle...

I read that the Japanese were ready and willing to agree to conditional surrender to keep their emperor, but that the US was demanding unconditional surrender and this is what led to the use of nukes. Dropping the second right after the first is a dick move.

it was more to do with saving American combatants, than Japanese civillians.

I'd have to agree, terrible invention is all there is to it.

Not if the Japanese would try to explain away the first bomb as a natural catastrophe...

Interesting comparison: When did the US realise that it was under attack on 911? After the first plane hit WTC? Or after the second one?

I dunno, a massive bomb while you're already in the middle of a war is a little harder to wave away than a plane suddenly crashing in a building in peacetime. And, it's not like they were given much time to sort it out and respond before they got hit again. A theory is that the bombs were dropped to show off to the USSR.

i'm at a loss to think what kind of natural phenomenon produces a mushroom cloud with a temperature of the sun's core.

of course they were. It was blatant pre emptive sabre rattling.

And if you live in Japan in 1945 prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would likely also be at a loss to think what kind of bomb produces a mushroom cloud with a temperature of the sun's core.

Quick test... Name the nuke:

That allies had not the least intention of rescuing the Jews of Europe. Their goal was to whip Nazi Germany solid

That terrible weapon save a million allied lives and many more japanese lives.