Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

[Readie]

Between 1945 and 1947 the US only developed 12 additional bombs to the 5 they produced in 1945. This very limited expansion of the US nuclear capability was not due to technical limitations, it was due to a desire to contain nuclear proliferation, and a general demobilisation following the outbreak of peace in 1945.

In 1947-8, with the cold war rapidly escalating the US quickly ramped up its nuclear arsenal. SAC stockpiled over 133 bombs in less than 18 months.

I do not know if there were additional facitlies developed for production of the necessary fissile material, but the change in American attitudes to a nuclear buildup was very rapid, and I dont see any reason why the same could not be done in an extended war with Germany. If the war had progressed into 1946, I dont think it implausible to speculate at least 100 bombs in US arsenal by the latter part of that year.

In 1948, General le May, then head of SAC developed the plan on the use of the nuclear arsenal. Essentially over a seven day period it had been planned to swamp the Soviets with over 150 bombs dropped on 70 cities within the USSR. This plan was repeatedly changed and repeatedly updated, as the threat evolved, and capabilities increased

I dont see why the US would not apply a similar strategy against the Germans. The Americans had no qualms about using WMDs in Europe against her enemies. the fact that the post war enemy was the USSR and not germany is irrelevant. My opinion, the US had the capacity to build abombs on an industrial scale by the end of 1945. They would be likley to have 100+ bombs by the latter part of 1946. They would be likley to use such an arsenal enmasse on a recalcitrant Germany as they planned to do against the Soviets if the need arose. The long term radiation effects were not that well known (I understand) and were of secondary concern anyway

Germany under the hail of 100 or so atomic bombs is a nuclear desert. The average casualties per bomb in Japan from August 1945 through to end of the year, was about 400000 per bomb. If 70-100 bombs were dropped on Germany the expected casualties could be as high as 28-40,000,000 million. All the major centres would be wiped off the map. The moral dilemmas this might pose are enormous and unthinkable, but I doubt that would have stopped the americans if they felt they had to resort to nuclear weapons. By 1948 they were quite prepred to undertake such a program against heir enemies, if the need arose.

Given the right incentives, such as a prolonged war, or use of WMDs by the Germans would IMO have given the US the casus belli to carry out such a policy.

I agree with you Michael,
If A bombs had been available and deployed on the scale you mention modern Europe would look very different now.
Even the most fanatic Nazi could not withstand repeated nuclear attacks and an early realisation of the enviable would have saved allied lives.Germany would have been destroyed at a safe distance.Is that not the goal of air warfare?
As far as Afghanistan and the Soviets are concerned I'm surprised that they didn't use low yield nuclear weapons...they may well have, would we have known?
I find it ironic that the 'world peace' we have known in our lifetime has been secured by nuclear weapons and the assurance of mutual destruction. Perhaps they did have their uses after all.
John

 

[Siegfried]

I'm not that convinced, that the Allies would drop an A-Bomb at germany.

Germany was at the middle of europe and many things can happen to friendly states that would be near the drop zone.
Where do you want to drop that thing, when even your own troops are on the ground at germany?

Also I think the german chemical weapons in conjunction with the V2, that could deliver this chemical weapons till england, was one major point, that japan was the goal and not germany.

The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying western civilisation as well due to a complete disregard of their own people and a total subjegation to short term economic gain. A hundred years of ant-german 'monster' propaganda ensured the mindless would be willing participants.

Churchills motivations were simply that he wanted a big British empire and couldn't stand the tought of a Rival:
Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Roosvelt at the end of the war was approaching the same kind of physical and moral sickness and fatique Hitler had.

 

[Readie]

The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying western civilisation as well due to a complete disregard of their own people and a total subjegation to short term economic gain. A hundred years of ant-german 'monster' propaganda ensured the mindless would be willing participants.

Churchills motivations were simply that he wanted a big British empire and couldn't stand the tought of a Rival:
Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Roosvelt at the end of the war was approaching the same kind of physical and moral sickness and fatique Hitler had.

You are obviously spoiling for another verbal fight Siegfried.....
Its getting a bit boring to be honest mate.
John

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Gentlemen, this thread started out with some really good information and discussion and has now turned into a mish mash of name calling and opinionated political bullsh!t. Here's the deal, get it back on track or else I'll shut it down and ban a few imbeciles on the way out. I hope I've made this crystal clear!!!!

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The allies were quite capable of dropping a bomb on Germany. They were, as has been shown, quite capable of destroying ......

The Allies were also quite capable of risking life an resources, spending blood and treasure to make sure the good people of Berlin didn't starve or freeze during the Soviet Blockade. If the Allies were intent on mere destruction .... there would have been no Nuremberg Trials .... no re-armament of Germany ... and certainly no German economic miracle.

But let's limit my speculation to the topic ... ... AIRPOWER: the Berlin "airlift" .... the candy-bar bombers in their 4-engined Douglas C-54's .... relentlessly returning to Berlin, night after night .... !!

AIR POWER CUTS TWO WAYS, Siggi. There's SHOCK and then there's AHHHHH ....


MM

 

[parsifal]

The moral dilemmas are massive, the human cost unthinkable. The whole armageddon scenario was predicated on that.

Thats the awful truth about armageddon scenarios. A lot of people get killed by them.

Western civilization has lived with the prospect of MAD since 1949. Both the Americans and the Russians openly planned the destruction of all human existence on this planet, should the need arise for it. But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war.

The difference between the scenario we are faced with in our world and this hypothetical is that whereas in our real world we started at peace (kinda) and with at least some semblance of rationality on both sides....a basic will to live if nothing else, in the era of WWII we had a country run by a madman, prepared to destroy his country and any other country that got in his way. Plus, it is at least arguable that his agenda was European domination, and quite possibly world domination. And he wanted to insitute a program of subversion, extermination and suppression of human rights.

The prospect of a nuclear holocaust in central Europe is stark, uncomfortable and murderous. The destruction of the German state an awful prospect. The prospect of a Nazi Germany remaining in control of Europe is even more horrifying and quite likley even more costly in human suffering and human life.

Which prospect is worse......ending the war by destroying Germany, or allowing Nazi Germany to survive and witness the destruction of Europe and possibly the world. Neither choice is comfortable, but one is less destructive than the other.

Truman had a similar choice in 1945.....end the war quickly by dropping the bomb, and inflicting several hundred thousands of casualties on the Japanese, or allow the war to drag on for months or years, at a potential cost of 1 million Allied lives, and possibly 10million+ Japanese casualties. he too chose the lesser of two levels of suffering

Ther is no good answer in this scenario, but ther are less bad ones

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war."

In these gloomy days of asymmetrical warfare, civilian combattants and bankrupt, dispirited Champions, I yearn for the stability of that MAD world.

MM

 

[parsifal]

Jeez you are cheery tonite MM I see

 

[Readie]

"... But the awful reality of that scenario has given us 65 years free of total war."


65 years for some countries but,not for the Americans British.

I sometimes think that there is no end to fighting....maybe we are programmed to endure war however fruitless the outcome may be.


John

 

[Jenisch]

Surely the Vladivostok region was extremely defended. It was there that the critically vulnerable Transiberian was. Even so, the IJA infatry tactics would be much more suitable in that region than in Mongolia. As well as the Japanese air power. The IJN also would cooperate with the armada and the naval air service.

Regarding Nomonhan comparisons, I think the Japanese defeat there is a little exaggerated. The casualities in both sides were similar, while the Japanese simply didn't know the scale of the Soviet attack, and therefore were not as well equiped as Zhukov's forces. The Germans were defeated in Stalingrad in a similar way, and nobody tells the German Army was a cr@p that could not compete with the Red Army.

I would not say the Japanese would have an acceptable chance of this in 1939-40. But in 1941 with the Germans, yes.

The oil supply problem resulting from the embargo was so severe (a supply of 800 million liters per year vs. 5,400 required), that a quick resolution by military or diplomatic means was essential. The Army calculated that on the basis of oil supply alone, resources were insufficient to simultaneously pursue conflicts in the south and the north. So plans for a war with the Soviet Union were shelved.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/south.htm

As we can see, the Japanese wanted to deal with the Soviet Union. One more error for Hitler's list. Had it not betrayed the Japanese by sign the pact with Stalin, just after the defeat in Nomonhan, and warned them of the Barbarossa, things could have happaned differently.

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... The causalities in both sides were similar..."

Alvin Coox wrote the definitive account from the Japanese perspective:

Amazon.com: Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 (9780804718356): Alvin Coox: Books

According to Coox:

The casualties were NOT similar ..... in the last days of the fighting the Soviets had surrounded the Japanese in many areas. After ceasefire, when discussing prisoner exchange, the Soviets said: "You bring your Russian prisoners and we'll bring our Japanese prisoners and we'll exchange". When the two sides got together the Soviets produced the same number of Japanese prisoners as the Japanese did Russian ..... BUT ... never declared how many more they were holding. The surplus was never disclosed and the men were sent off to die in labour camps in Siberia - some met local women and settled. In 1945, Japanese prisoners, taken in 1945, were shocked to see other Japanese prisoners in Siberia --- who didn't want to talk to them ....

Meanwhile back home in Japan, in 1939, the handling of the defeat was disgusting. The government simply told people that prisoners were "dead".

And officers taken prisoner by the Russians that were exchanged, were debriefed and then left alone in a room with a handgun after being told that their relatives considered them "dead".

The truth is that casualties on BOTH sides are not well known.

MM

 

[Jenisch]

Coox book tells about 20,000 Japanese casualities, mostly dead. The Japanese oficially claimed 8,766 killed and a similar number of wounded. The Soviets, almost 10,000 killed and about 15,000 wounded. Not to mention prisioners for both.

Coox book is nice, I just don't agree with all his interpretations but the first hand Japanese perspectives are surely interesting.

 

[michaelmaltby]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw

I wish I spoke Japanese.

MM

 

[Readie]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw

I wish I spoke Japanese.

MM

You can via the google translator option. it should auto prompt you.

John

 

[Jenisch]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifnyHamPFhw

I wish I spoke Japanese.

MM

Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.

About the Japanese vs Soviet Union question, I'd like to say that while this may appear, I'm not "pro Japanese". My goal is just see the perspective and possibilities of both sides in conflicts. This also applies for the original subject of this topic. That's why we had some conflicts here.

Most Russian and Western historians say the Japanese were with "fear" of the Soviets after Nomonhan, and this is mainly considerated by deduction of the events. The problem is there's evidence that this was not exactly what the Japanese themselfs used to think.

The World At War: Banzai! Japan 2/5 ::

At 8:36 of this video, there's a Japanese first hand statement that contradicts what those historians think.

It's almost a rule, that when people start to speak with terms like "the enemy had fear", "it was hopeless to attack", "this is the truth", etc, there's something wrong. This happened a lot during the Cold War, happened before it, happens today and will happen in the future. History has several viewpoints.

That's why I don't agree with historians like David Glantz. It was wrong to considerate only the German perspective of the Eastern Front like he says? Absolutely. But it's equally wrong to desconsiderate the German perspective now we have the "victorius" Soviet one. The fair thing to do is conciliate both perspectives. This also applies to Japan vs the Soviet Union, and for any other conflict. Pretty logic, but not what we have in history sometimes.

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945."

Nope ... dramatization of Nomonhan initial attack .... the film is from a famous Japanese novel .... and the end shows the Japanese burning their dead in huge pyres .

"... I don't agree with historians like David Glantz. It was wrong to considerate only the German perspective of the Eastern Front like he says? "

No quite sure what point you're making, Glantz certainly doesn't dismiss the Soviets, quite the opposite.

MM

 

[Jenisch]

"... Appears to be a movie or reconstitution of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945."

Nope ... dramatization of Nomonhan initial attack .... the film is from a famous Japanese novel .... and the end shows the Japanese burning their dead in huge pyres .

I thought that because of the T-34's.

No quite sure what point you're making, Glantz certainly doesn't dismiss the Soviets, quite the opposite.

I express myself incorrectly. My point with Glantz is that he puts the Eastern Front as the main stage of the war, while the Germans and the Western Allies considerate the war as a global conflict (indeed, the latter tried to minimize the Soviet contribution considerably, as well as vice versa).

When the Germans say they not lost the war because the East, they want to mean if they could concentrate everything against the Soviets, they would be able to deal with them.

Neither side is wrong or correct. It's just the perspective they have of the war.

 

[Procrastintor]

I think that it would be possible to take on Germany on air power alone (w/o USSR) if the US didn't have to divert forces to the PTO and CBI. If our carriers had been parked in the Atlantic/Mediterranean instead of the Pacific, then all those Wildcats, Warhawks, Liberators, Corsairs, Hellcats and all the other aircraft that became famous in the Pacific would be in the ETO and MTO, bringing all their famous hurt with them. The pilots that became famous in the AVG would be raining pain on the Luftwaffe instead of the IJAAF, and the Black Sheep's Corsairs would be flying over pine trees and snow instead of Palm trees and sand. In short, if the USSR attacked Japan INSTEAD of Germany, leaving us completely free to help Britain, then yes, the Allies could win the air war.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think you underestimate the Luftwaffe.

Remember without the USSR, the Germans free up a lot of airpower as well.

 

[vinnye]

I think that the U boats would have been quite happy to see US aircraft carriers parked in the Med or Atlantic!