Effects of a nuclear strike on Germany in WW2

[NWO Sentryman]

Let's say D-Day was a bust for whatever reason (Germans prepared for it, bad weather etc.), and by August 1945, the US launches nuclear strikes on Berlin and Munich, killing hitler and ending the war.

How does that affect the post-ww2 setup?

 

[L.Y.S.]

It would've instantly started a war between the US-U.K. and the USSR. There were millions of Soviet troops in eastern Germany by that time.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

It would've instantly started a war between the US-U.K. and the USSR. There were millions of Soviet troops in eastern Germany by that time.

I mentioned D-Day being a bust. Logically, the Nazis would be able to hold the Red Army for longer without having to worry as much about a second front.

 

[angrysoba]

I mentioned D-Day being a bust. Logically, the Nazis would be able to hold the Red Army for longer without having to worry as much about a second front.

I don't know if it is "logically" true that the Nazis would have been able to hold the Red Army, although "logistically" they would have been in a better position to. Though I do not know if it was practically possible to do so.

To be honest, I don't know if things would have been that different. Is this idea predicated on the idea that the Soviet Union would have advanced further into Japan if the US had not dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I don't know if that is the case, given that it was only really at the demands of the UK and the US that the Soviet Union agreed to declare war on Japan. They took amount of the Korean peninsula that was hastily agreed to, and they took the north eastern islands off Hokkaido, and Sakhalin, but I don't really think they ever had any interest in occupying the Japanese mainland. Or perhaps they did.

As far as Europe is concerned, if D-day had failed, then how do we know the atomic bombs would have ended the war. It sounds to me like you are arguing that Germany itself is not invaded. Maybe they would have carried on fighting.

 

[Loss Leader]

I think atomic bombs on the major German cities would have ended the war. It certainly would have shattered the image in the German minds that they were in any way winning.

But if the US isn't in Europe when the bombs go off and the Nazis still hold France, I think that the USSR is in the best position to sweep in and take everything east of France. We win but the Russians get the better part of Europe.

 

[Hans]

They would have worsen and perhaps quicken the German collapse and the Russian armies would have overrun 'liberating' most of western Europe, taking out Franco too. Perhaps the only nations to have remained un-occupied by the Soviets would have been Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Switzerland, San Marino and those part of Italy not taken by the other allies the rest to include Greece would have been overrun and placed behind the yet to be created iron curtain

 

[Corsair 115]

I mentioned D-Day being a bust. Logically, the Nazis would be able to hold the Red Army for longer without having to worry as much about a second front.

I would point out that even without a successful ground campaign in Normandy the Germans still had lost control over their own airspace. Allied bombers would have continued to pound German infrastructure and cities into dust around the clock. Without working railway lines, without working oil refineries, it's only a matter of time before the German economy collapses, taking with it the ability to effectively resist.

The aerial campaign does end up being somewhat harder than in reality since the airbases and radar stations in France and the Low Countries would continue to operate. But the Allies already had air superiority by June of 1944, even before the invasion.

 

[catsmate]

I would point out that even without a successful ground campaign in Normandy the Germans still had lost control over their own airspace. Allied bombers would have continued to pound German infrastructure and cities into dust around the clock. Without working railway lines, without working oil refineries, it's only a matter of time before the German economy collapses, taking with it the ability to effectively resist.

The aerial campaign does end up being somewhat harder than in reality since the airbases and radar stations in France and the Low Countries would continue to operate. But the Allies already had air superiority by June of 1944, even before the invasion.

Plus the US had the ability to move bomber forces from the Pacific theatre to Europe, e.g. the B-29 wings.

That said a failed Overlord wouldn't eliminate the possibility of a cross-Chanel invasion in 1945, before the first nuclear weapons were available. Or even the adoption of the Southern Strategy with a push through Italy. I'd be surprised if the Western Allies weren't in Europe (though not via the Frisian Islands) before the first nukes were used.

A lot of the details depend on why Ovelord failed:
1. A working German spy ring
2. The Germans figure out their codes are broken (which has significant knock-on effects)
3. Better reconnaissance over southern England; did Hitler have a rare fit of sanity and not waste chromium and nickel on the jet bombers?
4. Was Rommel given his head?
5. Sheer dumb luck.
6. Bad weather. Historically about two weeks later a 'Storm of the Century' hit doing significant damage; did it arrive early
7. Gas. The Germans drench the beaches with mustard and nerve gases. Game over. The nukes aren't the worst that's coming Germany's way. Operation Vegetarian.


Politics.
Don't forget the political consequences
1. A failed amphibious invasion will remind Churchill's opponents (and they were numerous) of Gallipoli; a lost vote of no confidence is quite possible after such an event. He won in July 1942 but after such a defeat?
2. 1944 was also an election year in the USA, FDR will need some victory to survive the election, give the failure of Overlord and the lack of the liberation of Paris. Does Leyte Gulf happen as historically?
3. Then there's Stalin. He will be loudly demanding the Western Allies do something. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he restarts negotiations with Hitler. If the WA find out (was the German discovery that their codes were broken the cause for the failure of Overlord?) then the whole alliance is in jeopardy.
4. And finally let's not forget DeGaulle and the French. They're not particularly influential but they'll be unhappy at the loss of the chance to liberate France and at the elimination of the Maquis.

 

[Border Reiver]

It would have simply delayed things in Europe.

Remember that Rome fell to the Allies two days prior to D-Day, and that the Allies were steadily driving north. The diversion of troops and materiel to Italy would have had a major effect in Italy and would possibly have forced the Germans to commit additional troops to that sector to protect southern France or Yugoslavia.


Picture the Look of a post-war Europe if the Allies had managed to liberate a portion of The Balkans.

 

[catsmate]

OK, let's run with this.

Firstly, the least disturbing and somewhat plausible reason for Overlord to fail is the weather.
Historically the invasion was scheduled for 05JUN and then postponed a day until Eisenhower took the decision to let it proceed. Let's say he doesn't do that, maybe the advice from Stagg wasn't as reassuring, or maybe the weather was slightly worse and he didn't want to risk the landing craft. So the landings are postponed until the next suitable (tides and moon) date which would be 18JUN.
Just in time for some of the worst channel storms of the twentieth century....
(OK, I know that chaos theory would suggest that after the postponement of D-Day the storms might not happen, but run with it OK?)

So the invasion fails. The Germans are aware of the attack (the delay has buggered any chance of complete secrecy) and the allies are caught by the storm in the early stages of the landing (historically it arrived very quickly and without being forecast), with troops trying to establish themselves on the beaches. The beachheads are deprived of resupply and reinforcements for nearly four days. The huge Allied advantage in airpower and naval gunfire support would have been eliminated. Hitler releases the German reserves and Rommel destroys the invasion on the beaches, and destroys the airborne forces before they could link up with the main invasion force.

Immediate results.

• The initial invasion force is essentially wiped out, over one hundred thousand killed or captured, including pretty much all the airborne troops. Lots of equipment captured or destroyed, including the landing craft, amphibious and other specialised tanks.
• The Mulberry artificial harbors would have been destroyed, probably before reaching the French coast.
• The Allies cannot try again for months and probably won't manage secrecy for a second try.
• The Maquis are wiped out.
• The Americans are shocked, they'd pushed for a cross-Channel invasion in '43 and only agreed to wait due to British pressure; the defeat serious worries them.
• Eisenhower resigns. This will have some interesting long term consequences as it butterflys away his presidency.
• The politicians start looking for scapegoats
• Stalin is unhappy

Over the next couple of months the effects continue to multiply.

• The Allies cannot mount a second serious invasion attempt until September and there are reasons this won't happen.
• Germany looks stronger so minor Axis powers (like Romania) stop edging away form the alliance
• The Germans have more available reserves to move East so Soviet attacks (like the one that effectively destroyed Army Group Centre) are less effective.
• The Allies commit some of the forces intended for Northern France to Italy and start contemplating other options
• One of those options was Churchill's "soft underbelly", the Balkans. This assumes Churchill is still PM (I'm going to proceed with the assumption that he survives the inevitable confidence vote (but the knives are out).
• Roosevelt would be politically weakened by the disaster with elections coming up. The US Navy favoured the 'Japan first' strategy and I can see Roosevelt acquiescing, in the short term, as a political necessity after the D-Day disaster. Certainly he'd be very reluctant to push for another risky invasion with the election approaching. So, no Overlord II until 1945.
• The Soviets are monumentally unhappy because the promised second front hadn't happened.

The rest of 1944.

• The air war continues. It's slightly less effective as the Germans still control France, Belgium and the Low countries. This means that the German defenses are worn down more slowly and they have better ability than historically to resist the Soviet advance. Remember that late '44 saw rises in German production due to Speer's industry mobilisation
• The Allies progress more rapidly in Italy using forces that weren't used in France. However it's hard going.
• The Allies retain their overwhelming advantage in production and manpower. But a lot of their production is questionable in the light of German technical advances. It took hard lessons in Normandy for the US Army to accept the problems with the Sherman for example.
• The Germans are still hamstrung by having Hitler leading them.
• Roosevelt's health is an interesting point, historically he campaigned well in '44 but didn't live long into his fourth term. I'm going to assume he doesn't die before the election in November.
• Soviet advances continue but they're slower and more costly than historically. At some point even the Soviets might have been forced to gear down a bit.
• They Soviets might have even sought a separate peace, though that would have been difficult for even Stalin to pull off given the level of hatred the Nazi had managed to induce. I'm assuming that this doesn't happen.

The US elections of November 1944.
This is rather crystal-ball territory. I'm making five assumptions

• Disaster at D-Day: very bad for Roosevelt
• no Liberation of Paris: bad for Roosevelt
• Rome is captured: good for Roosevelt
• victory at Leyte Gulf: good for Roosevelt
• general unfocused US perception that things aren't going well: bad for Roosevelt
• Roosevelt's health is worse and he doesn't conceal it as well

So, crunch some numbers and apply this as a general swing to the historical US election results and what do we get?

• -3.0
• -0.5
• +0.75
• +1.0
• -0.5
• -0.5

An aggregate swing of 2.75% against Roosevelt and the Democratic party.
What does this mean?

Well for a start Thomas E. Dewey wins the 40th US presidential election.
(Wow, I didn't see that coming.)


Justification.
A 2.75% swing to Dewey means he carries; Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Oregon. That's 186 extra EC votes and changes the result to 246/285.
Fascinating. I think I need a good bio of Dewey.....

Senate and Congressional elections.
Historically the Democrats lost one Senate seat overall to the Republican party, leaving them 57. Assuming the same swing against the Democrats, overall this changes to 53/42. The Democrats retain a comfortable majority.
The Democrats fail to gain California. The Republicans hold Connecticut and Pennsylvania and gain Idaho.

In the House of Representatives the Democrats do worse and only grab six Republican seats and lose one of their own; giving the Democrats 227 seats to 203; a slim but workable majority (given the support of three other members).

 

[I Ratant]

I would point out that even without a successful ground campaign in Normandy the Germans still had lost control over their own airspace. Allied bombers would have continued to pound German infrastructure and cities into dust around the clock. Without working railway lines, without working oil refineries, it's only a matter of time before the German economy collapses, taking with it the ability to effectively resist.

The aerial campaign does end up being somewhat harder than in reality since the airbases and radar stations in France and the Low Countries would continue to operate. But the Allies already had air superiority by June of 1944, even before the invasion.

.
One of our "captured German scientists" at Lockheed in '71 told me "A tausand B-17s makes more noise" than the Sylmar earthquake.
I kinda woulda liked to have seen The Bomb used on Germany at the end... just to demonstrate to all who was the king bee in the world.

 

[Border Reiver]

There would have been some interesting effects in Canada as well:

As of D-Day the 1st Cdn Division and the 5th Armoured Brigade were about to start the process of being withdrawn to England in anticipation of redeployment to 1 Cdn Army group in NW Europe. Now kept in Italy, they will likely be joined by the rest of the Cdn Corps (2nd and 4th Div initially, and then 3rd Div after it is brought back up to strength after the failed D-Day landings). Casualties, especially amongst the infantry really start to mount, and trigger the Conscription Crisis early - possibly leading to the MacKenzie-King Cabinet having to resign due to non-confidence if most of the members from Quebec leave the cabinet as they threatened to when conscription for overseas service was brought up IRL, or simply as a result of social unrest.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

.
One of our "captured German scientists" at Lockheed in '71 told me "A tausand B-17s makes more noise" than the Sylmar earthquake.
I kinda woulda liked to have seen The Bomb used on Germany at the end... just to demonstrate to all who was the king bee in the world.

By August 1945 the United States had demonstrated to all who was the king bee in the world anyway.

 

[nota]

western powers also invaded the south of France late summer 1944
they had very little opposition there and quickly advanced in to the interior

 

[lobosrul]

western powers also invaded the south of France late summer 1944
they had very little opposition there and quickly advanced in to the interior

Yes, and why did they meet such little opposition at that time? I think you know.

Also, reading about the exploits of Audie Murphy the fighting in Southern France has maybe been under-exaggerated IMO.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plus the US had the ability to move bomber forces from the Pacific theatre to Europe, e.g. the B-29 wings.

The wings in the US were probably closer.

 

[I Ratant]

By August 1945 the United States had demonstrated to all who was the king bee in the world anyway.

.
While living there for 3 years, it bothered me that the typical German was not really impressed by their loss.... again...

 

[Corsair 115]

The air war continues. It's slightly less effective as the Germans still control France, Belgium and the Low countries. This means that the German defenses are worn down more slowly and they have better ability than historically to resist the Soviet advance. Remember that late '44 saw rises in German production due to Speer's industry mobilisation

The increase in aircraft production means nothing if you don't have the skilled pilots to fly them. And by mid-1944 Germany had relatively few skilled pilots left, and did not have the fuel to spare to train new pilots up to the necessary skill level. That meant fairly easy pickings for Allied fighter pilots.

Moreover, the U.S. build up in air strength was formidable. On March 6, 1944, the 8th Air Force had serviceable 1,082 heavy bombers and 654 escort fighters. Just three months later, on June 6, it had serviceable 2,243 heavy bombers and 961 fighters. That's a doubling of bomber strength and a 47% increase in fighter strength in just three months. Also available on June 6 were the 1,212 heavy bombers in Bomber Command and 875 fighters in Fighter Command. Then there's also the 9th Air Force and 2nd Tactical Air Force.

In total, the Allies on D-Day had serviceable 3,455 heavy bombers, 580 medium bombers, 409 light bombers, and 3,824 fighters/fighter-bombers. This was the aerial armada the Luftwaffe was facing over western Europe.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Regarding the "We nuke Germany, Russia sweeps in and absorbs most of Europe" scenario: would they have dared?

There was a lot of noise from men like Patton that Russia was going to be the next big problem. Might we not have felt justified in hitting Russia before they have an effective response, and winning a lasting peace through military strength?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Regarding the "We nuke Germany, Russia sweeps in and absorbs most of Europe" scenario: would they have dared?

There was a lot of noise from men like Patton that Russia was going to be the next big problem. Might we not have felt justified in hitting Russia before they have an effective response, and winning a lasting peace through military strength?

The whole problem with this is that I don't think Stalin would have believed he had the support to do it. Every bit of propaganda was pointed at defeating the Fascists. To suddenly go all Orwellian would have been risky even for Dzugashvili.