Could nuclear weapons have gotten Germany to surrender in 45-47 without a Western Allies invasion of Germany?

[Trevayne]

In the ASB forum, there is an ongoing thread regarding the impact of a seriously improved German U-boat campaign. The thread is as follows:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-slimmest-of-victories-rewrite-of-the-narrowest-of-margins-ww2-u-boat-atl.546418/

Given the premise, some have suggested that Germany might actually hold out and get a white peace. I doubt it and generated some discussion by pointing out that if Germany can delay its surrender a few months, it gets nuked instead of Japan.

My question is assuming that due to a better U-boat war, Germany is still holding out in the summer of 1945. D-Day hasn't happened yet and the Soviets are still in Byelorussia, Ukraine, and the Baltics by August 1945. Given those factors, will Germany surrender after being hit with multiple nuclear weapons or will Germany hold on until physically occupied?

Follow on, roughly how many nuclear weapons would be needed to get Germany to surrender, 5, 10, 50, 500?

The basic assumption is that the U-boat war is even more successful than OTL from the very beginning and this means less lend-lease to the Soviets and UK and less Allied forces overall. Thus the Western Allies are roughly a year behind OTL. Germany is still getting bombed and the U--boats are still a menace.

My question is assuming that due to a better U-boat war, Germany is still holding out in the summer of 1945. D-Day hasn't happened yet and the Soviets are still in Byelorussia, Ukraine, and the Baltics by August 1945. Given those factors, will Germany surrender after being hit with multiple nuclear weapons or will Germany hold on until physically occupied?

Follow on, roughly how many nuclear weapons would be needed to get Germany to surrender, 1, 2, 5, 10, 50, or 100-500?

My own take is despite estimates that the overall bombing campaign being the equivalent in explosive value of 400 nuclear weapons, that does not mean it has the same shock and psychological impact of 400 nuclear detonations. I think they can be driven to surrender, especially if Hitler is nuked and dies with Berlin.

Note: I am not trying to argue the likelihood of the stated scenario. I think it would be pretty difficult for Germany to manage that kind of delay. I am just trying to get an idea of how many nukes it would need to get Germany to surrender if it did not yet have Allied troops on German soil when the bombs became available.

 

[Lalli]

Hitler at least is not going to surrend. But if Allies decide to nuke Berlin it would be enough since rest of generals would decide that it is not worth to fight anymore since no leadership and not point to fight to bitter end.

 

[A_simple_pilgrim]

Did Hitler even spend that much time in Berlin before he went into the bunker? I was under the impression he spent most of his time in the Alps. If they bomb Berlin and he's not there, then they'll lose their best chance of getting Hitler as he would remain far from nuclear bomb targeting areas.

 

[RedSword12]

If the Germans manage to bring the Soviets to a halt and prevent the Allies from advancing into Germany, they would be capable of putting up enough air defense to make the Western Allies hesitate to send nukes. That was a major reason IOTL why it was not seriously considered. Maybe then a conditional peace might be considered, especially if the Allies nuke Japan and the German government is spooked into suing for peace. If the Germans manage to keep the Allies out of France and stalemate the Soviets on Soviet territory, and watch Japan getting plastered, both sides might have enough incentive to tentatively commence some negotiations. Personally I think it would take a couple nukes before what's left of the civil service and the military have had enough and force the Nazi government to sue for peace. Hitler would have to be dragged into such kicking and screaming, but the prospect of Germany getting leveled wholesale would give even hardcore Nazis pause. Seeing so little progress on the ground and high losses, the Allies might be willing to pare down German starting terms into something they can consider acceptable.

 

[Gunnarnz]

If the Germans manage to bring the Soviets to a halt and prevent the Allies from advancing into Germany, they would be capable of putting up enough air defense to make the Western Allies hesitate to send nukes.

There are several solutions to that problem, but the most obvious one is probably also the simplest: nuke your way in, starting from the outside. Use nukes to clear a path through the air defences, starting from where you can reliably get a bomber to. It doesn't take many nukes, even on peripheral targets, before the air defence proposition becomes much more complicated. Any bomber flying alone probably is carrying a nuke, and you absolutely want to shoot it down, but you still can't ignore the 1000-bomber stream heading for the Ruhr. Their destruction might be less concentrated but it'll add up, and any of them might be carrying an a-bomb and waiting for the opportunity to separate from the stream and make an unscheduled excursion to Bielefeld (if it even exists).

This method uses more nukes, but you'd still probably need fewer than a dozen to start having an impact and you can stockpile some before you start the offensive (which you'd probably want to do anyway). If you can deliver an ongoing series of nuclear strikes I think the effects will become noticeable quickly and the German ability to reliably intercept bombers would be degraded relatively fast. I'm only guessing, but I think you'd need fewer than 50 to get the Nazi regime to a crisis point, possibly fewer than 10... but it would probably be more than 2 or 3.

 

[RedSword12]

There are several solutions to that problem, but the most obvious one is probably also the simplest: nuke your way in, starting from the outside. Use nukes to clear a path through the air defences, starting from where you can reliably get a bomber to. It doesn't take many nukes, even on peripheral targets, before the air defence proposition becomes much more complicated. Any bomber flying alone probably is carrying a nuke, and you absolutely want to shoot it down, but you still can't ignore the 1000-bomber stream heading for the Ruhr. Their destruction might be less concentrated but it'll add up, and any of them might be carrying an a-bomb and waiting for the opportunity to separate from the stream and make an unscheduled excursion to Bielefeld (if it even exists).

This method uses more nukes, but you'd still probably need fewer than a dozen to start having an impact and you can stockpile some before you start the offensive (which you'd probably want to do anyway). If you can deliver an ongoing series of nuclear strikes I think the effects will become noticeable quickly and the German ability to reliably intercept bombers would be degraded relatively fast. I'm only guessing, but I think you'd need fewer than 50 to get the Nazi regime to a crisis point, possibly fewer than 10... but it would probably be more than 2 or 3.

Given time the Allies could degrade German air defenses to risk nuclear attacks, but the Japanese would take the brunt of it first, and that gives the Germans time to process just how screwed they are if they continue the war.

 

[BELFAST]

I think no matter how many bombs are dropped on Germany Hitler will not surrender until there are boots on the ground occupying the whole country.

 

[Trevayne]

Hitler at least is not going to surrend. But if Allies decide to nuke Berlin it would be enough since rest of generals would decide that it is not worth to fight anymore since no leadership and not point to fight to bitter end.

I agree that the best chance of getting Germany to quit is if a nuke on Berlin kills Hitler. The rest of the Germans were loyalty to him and wouldn't quit until he was gone.

If the Germans manage to bring the Soviets to a halt and prevent the Allies from advancing into Germany, they would be capable of putting up enough air defense to make the Western Allies hesitate to send nukes. That was a major reason IOTL why it was not seriously considered. Maybe then a conditional peace might be considered, especially if the Allies nuke Japan and the German government is spooked into suing for peace. If the Germans manage to keep the Allies out of France and stalemate the Soviets on Soviet territory, and watch Japan getting plastered, both sides might have enough incentive to tentatively commence some negotiations. Personally I think it would take a couple nukes before what's left of the civil service and the military have had enough and force the Nazi government to sue for peace. Hitler would have to be dragged into such kicking and screaming, but the prospect of Germany getting leveled wholesale would give even hardcore Nazis pause. Seeing so little progress on the ground and high losses, the Allies might be willing to pare down German starting terms into something they can consider acceptable.

Err, no. AFIAK the allies were contemplating using the bomb on Germany. Germany didn't get nuked because it surrendered in time before the bomb was ready.

In this situation, there really isn't that much risk. If a bomb gets shot down it is probably going to detonate. They were so unstable they armed the weapon in flight because they didn't want a takeoff glitch to blow up the airfield. Going to Germany they might add back up fuzing, but I doubt they are too worried to use them on Getmany.

Even if it hit the ground and didn't go off with a nuclear detonation, the odds are very good there would be a conventional explosion that scatters fission able material over a couple of hundred yards.

 

[Lalli]

Did Hitler even spend that much time in Berlin before he went into the bunker? I was under the impression he spent most of his time in the Alps. If they bomb Berlin and he's not there, then they'll lose their best chance of getting Hitler as he would remain far from nuclear bomb targeting areas.

Good point. If Hitler is not killed Germany won't surrend. But still there might be military coup after couple nukes. They would realise that war is lost so Hitler is ousted.

If the Germans manage to bring the Soviets to a halt and prevent the Allies from advancing into Germany, they would be capable of putting up enough air defense to make the Western Allies hesitate to send nukes. That was a major reason IOTL why it was not seriously considered. Maybe then a conditional peace might be considered, especially if the Allies nuke Japan and the German government is spooked into suing for peace. If the Germans manage to keep the Allies out of France and stalemate the Soviets on Soviet territory, and watch Japan getting plastered, both sides might have enough incentive to tentatively commence some negotiations. Personally I think it would take a couple nukes before what's left of the civil service and the military have had enough and force the Nazi government to sue for peace. Hitler would have to be dragged into such kicking and screaming, but the prospect of Germany getting leveled wholesale would give even hardcore Nazis pause. Seeing so little progress on the ground and high losses, the Allies might be willing to pare down German starting terms into something they can consider acceptable.

Reason why nuclear weapons weren't used against Germany was that it surrended before Americans were ready to use them. Original plan was to use them in Germany. And not sure if Germany can get good enough air defense. Taking how badly Brits and Americans managed to bomb German cities it seems that German air defense wasn't particularly good.

And there is not way how Germany could get conditional peace. Allies demanded already unconditional surrending.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

With 15-20kt weapons, around 200 would effectively remove Germany as any sort of modern state, given that they would be ostensibly deployed against military/industrial targets, but the effects of that type of weapon would take out a decent sized city. The geography of Germany would have some ‘interesting’ ( in the “Chinese sense” ) compounding effects on that big a hit; not very good for survivors.

So anything over 200 is going to do the opposite of leading to a surrender, in that there wouldn’t be anything coherent left to surrender.

5 might have some sort of effect, if done in one night, depending on what was left to target.

A burst attack of 10 bombs would come close. 50, as of what was left in 1945, might even do too much. Hitting Essen, Duisburg, Wuppertal, Bochum, Dusseldorf, Nuremberg, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Leipzig, Dresden, Dortmund, Bremen, Regensburg, Munich, Cologne, Kiel, Hannover, Breslau and Kassel in a day or night would absolutely do it.

It could be said, in a certain fashion, that conventional bombing never really fully knocked out a city, not Dresden, Hamburg or Tokyo, though all of those did a shedload of damage in their own way and in specific areas; bombing of Tokyo did destroy more of an area than at Hiroshima, but the latter did experience ‘near total destruction’.

It would depend on the parameters of what Germany is left to be hit. Is it one with the Soviet Army at one gate and the WAllies at the other?

 

[A_simple_pilgrim]

I have some more thoughts about this situation that I’d like to share to see if they are realistic.

Could the Germans forcefully import foreign workers from Western Europe to work in repairing the shattered factories and cities caused by Nikes? Would the Allies be so determined to get that unconditional surrender that they kill millions of French, Dutch, Belgian and other Europeans to do so?

In a similar way can’t Germany disperse their industry and population to occupied territories in order to force the Allies to use their nukes in Western Europe, which they would obviously want to avoid?

Remember that IOTL, the majority of strategic bombing occurred once only the Reich was left after the2nd fall of France.

While this might seem unlikely, Nazi Germany showed tremendous amount of capacity to move many millions of people during their grisly work on the holocaust. If they still hold in the east somewhere in the baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine, they might finish the holocaust by 1945, and thus have the spare rail capacity and infrastructure to begin other mass population movements

Then there’s the possibility of chemical retaliation. Using nerve gas. While that made little sense OTL, if the allies have determined to kill millions if not tens of millions of Germans with nukes then the British anthrax starts looking pedestrian by comparison.

I have some more arguments about the logistics of actually ending the war to add later.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

For those reasons, if the Americans did elect to go for a nuclear attack on Germany, it makes more sense from their point of view to throw the kitchen sink rather than drop one or two, then wait a week for retaliation/distributing industry/shifting in hostages.

If the aim is to make Germany surrender, then there may well be a thought to finding a very exact Goldilocks zone of enough shock to do the job, but not so much as to leave no one capable of giving up.

There would be a desire to not give them the opportunity to repair any damage; I would note that repairing the damage of an air burst atomic bomb strike is rather different than repairing the aftermath of ~800 heavies with incendiaries. Ground burst is a whole other game.

 

[A_simple_pilgrim]

Some more thoughts about practicality.

In August 1945 the US will be in a similar position in the pacific, perhaps slightly worse due to focusing more on Germany. The big difference is will be probably no Soviet invasion of Manchuria to help push along the surrender.

This will leave the US with the same strategic calculus it had OTL. Half a million civilians died every month in Japanese occupation. The public and interest groups were screaming to end the war, open up East Asian business, save American PoWs, etc. The invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath according to predictions.

The US would have every reason to nuke Japan, and would probably require a few more than OTL due to no Soviet invasion. Would the US let the pacific sit for a few months when they can end it immediately? Would they wait until they have a large enough stockpile to shock and awe Germany before nuking Japan? Even if they do wait it out can the US produce dozens of nukes in secret into 1946 with the Germans never finding out?

You can make a reasonable argument that they just go ahead and knock out the Japanese first since they are already on their knees while Germany stands relatively strong. That would give the Germans knowledge of the bomb, and give them time to prepare by dispersing population and industry. While it would lead to a short term collapse in output, that’s more acceptable when the Soviet’s aren’t pushing against the Oder.

That would mean that the upcoming bombing campaign would be even longer and would consist of ground bursts to hit armored or resilient targets.

The allies would quickly learn of the risk of radiation and fallout when the irradiated particles from Germany start falling across the UK.

Would they continue the nuclear bombing then? And if they do how will they justify to their people the occupation of the government.

Even if there is a military coup against hitler, or he dies of bombing or medical reasons, the structure of the nazi party and its collaborators will be entrenched across Europe. The denazification and defascisation of Europe will require millions of troops on the ground to occupy it. How will the US justify to its people doing that if they know that it will be putting American soldiers in irradiated areas?

I just don’t see the Allies being willing to lose millions of men or destroy Europe when the Germans offer them a decent deal.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Could the Germans forcefully import foreign workers from Western Europe to work in repairing the shattered factories and cities caused by Nikes? Would the Allies be so determined to get that unconditional surrender that they kill millions of French, Dutch, Belgian and other Europeans to do so?

Well, it would be typical Nazi policy

But surely the Allies would have destroyed (through tactical nukes or conventional bombing) the main roads and railways between Germany and occupied territories, as well as the oil field (in Ploiesti), refineries and artificial oil plants

Germany won't be able to move around millions of workers (or construction equipment) needed to rebuild cities

 

[A_simple_pilgrim]

They didn’t destroy that infrastructure IOTL until 1945, by which point Germany was dedicating most of their output to holding back two simultaneous land invasions rather than air defense.

A 1945 Germany which holds most of Europe will have significantly more air industrial capacity and can dedicate more of it to air defense and protection.

If the allies take the time to bomb out inter European transport, that gives time to disperse population and industry. And destroying that transport would require massive bombing of Western European allies under occupation. Those governments in exile won’t be happy.

Besides the Germans have shown they aren’t afraid to make huge groups of people walk from point A to point B if infrastructure is damaged.

By the way without a foothold in southern Europe, bimbing time to ploesti will be anything but safe and simple as operation tidal wave showed. There’s pretty sharp constraints on what sort of bombing could be done from North Africa to southern Europe. The infrastructure just isn’t there and would be expensive and time consuming to build.

Final point is that if they could move millions of people across Europe in 1944 after the fall of France they could probably do it in 1945 in a much better industrial situation.

Side note: in the thread that inspired this one the Germans have good centimeter radar and are improving it combined with work on proximity fuses which could make mass bombing a real nightmare.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

You can make a reasonable argument that they just go ahead and knock out the Japanese first since they are already on their knees while Germany stands relatively strong. That would give the Germans knowledge of the bomb, and give them time to prepare by dispersing population and industry. While it would lead to a short term collapse in output, that’s more acceptable when the Soviet’s aren’t pushing against the Oder.

That would give them more incentive to accelerate their bomb program and probably concentrate on a single path for enriching Uranium. By 1943 OTL they already had gaseous centrifuges that could enrich Uranium to 7% in pre-production at Kiel (Paul Harteck's team) and a different method - Isotope Sluice/Velocity Trap built by Erich Rudolf Bagge in Austria that could do 5%.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Set against that scenario is that the development of the Bomb was aimed at the Germans, who were the greater foe and threat and were the most direct target of unconditional surrender. There was the thinking then, in 1943 and long before that point, that no agreement with Hitler and the Nazis was worth the paper it was written on. There was no deal decent enough that the Nazis could offer.

Putting a figurative thumb on the scales for Nazi Germany through giving them knowledge of the Bomb's viability (very much different from their @ situation), though, doesn't get over their lack of resources for a successful project of their own. [Chief among these is power generation capacity; Oak Ridge was in Tennessee for a reason.] The USA of 1945 wasn't particularly strategically incontinent, nor given to irrational decisions; superimposing these on as the first condition of a multi-stage effort to bring about German victory/a lack of Germany getting nuked off the map is simply a bit rickety, both in structure and thinking.

In this particular situation, there is no impetus to give the game away for the Lesser Enemy in Japan. Tokyo was on its last legs, although still thrashing around dangerously. In such a situation, if the Atomic Bomb isn't on the cards, then standing off and engaging in blockade and bombardment does the job at minimal cost; there would be a great cost to POWs held in Japan and the millions of civilians in Japanese occupied Asia, but the rollback of the latter was well underway and planned.

Can the US produce dozens of bombs into 1946 without the Germans knowing? Absolutely. German espionage in the USA and into the Manhattan Project is not highly regarded for a reason.

How many? The oft referred to number is 4/month, based on 1945 planning and keeping production lines going in an ongoing war. With Germany still around, that is 3 by the end of August 1945, 4 more in September, October, November, December and January, then an interesting Valentine's Day present for Hitler.

What does Germany do if it loses 15-20 cities, replete with industrial targets, in a single attack? It goes through the Kubler-Ross stages pretty dang quickly, as the prevailing winds are going to take a lot of the fallout back over Germany and the relative size of the country makes it relatively straightforward to reach breakdown. Whilst factories and machine tools proved quite resilient against fire bombing and area bombing, the atomic bomb is something a tad different.

 

[AlterKnacker]

I'm guessing that a much more successful Germany in the Battle of the Atlantic will butterfly away some of the USN success in the Pacific, due to the increased convoy escort duties in the Atlantic. So some of the first atomic fires will be on the Saint-Nazaire sub pens and other Atlantic ports.
Kiel may not be reachable, but perhaps a ground burst could knock out the Kiel canal?

 

[A_simple_pilgrim]

I just don’t see why 15-20 nukes is more psychologically devastating than almost 10 million soldiers on the each end of the country, and half of which people were quite sure intended to kill them all. Germany didn’t surrender really, it practically had to be dismantled in person.

 

[jlckansas]

Having aircraft is good, having fuel for the aircraft is better. Where would they get the fuel for all these aircraft and air defenses?