Discussion:
The United States gets nukes in 1942.
(too old to reply)
troll
2009-07-15 22:27:41 UTC
Permalink
It is difficult to think of what points of departure
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.

The best that I can come up with is that:

1. An equivalent of the Einstein-Szilard letter
gets written and sent to Roosevelt 2 or 3 years
earlier.

and probably more importantly.

2. Equivalents of the Briggs Advisory Committee
on Uranium and the S-1 Uranium Committee get
more heavily funded and start an equivalent of the
Manhattan Project much earlier.

The net result is that by early 1942 there are several
calutron plants in operation and a gaseous diffusion
plant is being built. Several reactors are also in
operation, however, someone also managed to
figure out that plutonium would not work so an
implosion trigger is still in the theoretical stages.

In March of 1942, in the desert of the western
United States, a weapon is tested. Debate
abounds as to whether to demonstrate the
test to the Germans and Japanese or keep
it secret. It will take about four more months
to get enough Uranium for the next weapon.

The test of the gun trigger device is successful,
even though it was not one hundred percent
sure that it would work when it was tested.
It operates about as well as our time line's
test of the implosion device, however the
test falls under sharp criticism, because it
was not used against a military target.

By middle July of 1942, enough highly
enriched Uranium for another bomb is
ready, and the components for the
next gun triggered bomb are assembled.

You are Roosevelt. How much that means
that you are you and how much that
means that you are Roosevelt is open
to speculation.

Either way, however, what do you do?

For a time line comparison, the bombing
of Pearl Harbor in our time line happened
in December of 1941, the Doolittle Raid
happened about April 18, 1942, the
end of the Battle of Corregidor and the
Battle of the Philippines, as well as the
Battle of the Coral Sea happened in the
early part of May, and the Battle of
Midway happened in early June of 1942.
In our time line Operation Torch, the
British-American invasion of French
North Africa started later in November
of 1942.

Intelligence estimates seem to indicate
that the Germans are much more likely
to be able to develop a bomb than
the Japanese, however the Japanese
might be in a much better position to
be able to deliver a weapon, at least
to the west coast of the United States,
if they were able to get one.

At the same time, however, a bomb
dropped in Europe might have a
much better chance of delivering
to target than an atomic Doolittle
raid.

There is also the possibility of
using it against military targets,
possibly a Japanese fleet, in the
Pacific. The problem with that
is having the atomic weapon in
the right place at the right time,
and finding a large enough and
concentrated Japanese fleet that
would be close enough together
to be a worthwhile target.

You could wait another four
months until two bombs are
ready, and then drop one in
each theater. However that
policy fell under severe criticism
when all of the enriched Uranium
235 was wasted with the first
atomic test.

You hear about the possibility
of an implosion trigger for
plutonium, but you are not
sure if that is ever going to
work or not at all.

If you do not use the bomb, and
try to keep the bomb secret,
you are not sure if plans for
the bomb are going to eventually
leak to either the Japanese or
to NAZI Germany either, even
if you do not use it.

What do you do?

Is either Germany or Japan
going to surrender? What
will they do?
William Black
2009-07-15 22:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
What do you do?
Drop it on Berlin.

Assuming you can find an aircraft to carry it...
Post by troll
Is either Germany or Japan
going to surrender? What
will they do?
Germany has little choice. Most of the government, intelligence and
high command system, and a fair quantity of the telecommunications
infrastructure, have just disappeared.

And you've got the added advantage of being able to demonstrate to the
USSR just how deadly you are.

Japan gets to wait until the next bomb is ready, but the Far Eastern
ground campaigns get all the toys being made ready for Europe...

Including all those aircraft...
--
William Black

So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...

Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Anthony Buckland
2009-07-15 23:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
It is difficult to think of what points of departure
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.
1. An equivalent of the Einstein-Szilard letter
gets written and sent to Roosevelt 2 or 3 years
earlier.
and probably more importantly.
2. Equivalents of the Briggs Advisory Committee
on Uranium and the S-1 Uranium Committee get
more heavily funded and start an equivalent of the
Manhattan Project much earlier.
The net result is that by early 1942 there are several
calutron plants in operation and a gaseous diffusion
plant is being built. Several reactors are also in
operation, however, someone also managed to
figure out that plutonium would not work so an
implosion trigger is still in the theoretical stages.
In March of 1942, in the desert of the western
United States, a weapon is tested. Debate
abounds as to whether to demonstrate the
test to the Germans and Japanese or keep
it secret. It will take about four more months
to get enough Uranium for the next weapon.
The test of the gun trigger device is successful,
even though it was not one hundred percent
sure that it would work when it was tested.
It operates about as well as our time line's
test of the implosion device, however the
test falls under sharp criticism, because it
was not used against a military target.
By middle July of 1942, enough highly
enriched Uranium for another bomb is
ready, and the components for the
next gun triggered bomb are assembled.
You are Roosevelt. How much that means
that you are you and how much that
means that you are Roosevelt is open
to speculation.
Either way, however, what do you do?
...
The problem in using it in Europe, specifically on Berlin,
is that you have nothing like the air superiority that made
dropping one on Hiroshima (and another on Nagasaki)
safe and reliable.

Your chances of getting it to Berlin, on a Lancaster if
nothing else (entered service that year, could carry
6300 kg of bombs), over a lot of enemy territory
bristling with anti-aircraft and fighter bases), would be
dicey by comparison. Sure you could surround it with
hundreds of other aircraft to hide its importance as a
single target. But Roosevelt and his planners have
to think, what if our only bomb goes down over
Germany? And worse, what if the Germans recover
enough to figure the weapon out or at least convince
themselves that such a thing can be constructed?
Suppose they actually recover the fissionable material
intact, a pearl beyond price considering their halting
and misguided nuclear research?
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-16 02:18:21 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 15, 6:01 pm, "Anthony Buckland"
Post by Anthony Buckland
Your chances of getting it to Berlin, on a Lancaster if
nothing else (entered service that year, could carry
6300 kg of bombs), over a lot of enemy territory
bristling with anti-aircraft and fighter bases), would be
dicey by comparison.
Yes, it's a risk, but not a huge one. The attack
would have to be at night, of course. The attack
route would be via the North Sea, across Denmark,
across the Baltic, and then south to Berlin.

The bomb carrier would be escorted by a shell of
nightfighters, and would in any case be at maximum
altitude.

Decoy raids would hit every possible nearby target.

The hardest part would be making sure the Bomb
landed somewhere near the target. Possibly that
could be coordinated with Mosquitos going in at
low altitude to mark the target point.
mike
2009-07-16 08:38:15 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 15, 6:01 pm, "Anthony Buckland"
Post by Anthony Buckland
Your chances of getting it to Berlin, on a Lancaster if
nothing else (entered service that year, could carry
6300 kg of bombs)
September 7, 1942, the Consolidated XB-32 made its first flight.
September 21, 1942, the Boeing XB-29 made its first flight.

Now in a world with a 4.5 ton bomb that would be ready in 1942,
its likely for the 1939 'VLR" Bomber program would have been
knocked down a notch or two

Boeing Model 341: a max speed of 405 mph at 25,000 feet with
(4) 2000 hp P&W R-2800 radials, manned gun turrets.
est. weight 85,672 pounds, about 7 tons lighter than what
became the XB-29, Boeing Model 345

faster than OTLs B-29, with more reliable engines, and no
pressurization or troublesome remote turrets, the things that
delayed the B-29 so long.

**
mike
**
Ed Stasiak
2009-07-17 03:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Anthony Buckland
Your chances of getting it to Berlin, on a Lancaster
if nothing else (entered service that year, could carry
6300 kg of bombs), over a lot of enemy territory
bristling with anti-aircraft and fighter bases), would
be dicey by comparison
How about building a couple of specially designed
ultra-high altitude Lancasters specifically for the
Berlin mission, capable of flying above the flak
and interceptor fighters,

No need for defensive guns, a pressurized cockpit,
longer wings, nitrous oxide system and _____ ?

It's not like pin-point accuracy would be needed.
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-17 17:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Stasiak
How about building a couple of specially designed
ultra-high altitude Lancasters specifically for the
Berlin mission, capable of flying above the flak
and interceptor fighters,
Not possible. German nachtjagers such
as Ju-88s in fighter configuration could
reach 10,000 meters. The ceiling of a base
Lancaster was 7,500 meters. There's no
way to tweak a Lanc that much.

Max altitude of the 88mm Flak 41 was 14,700 m.
Post by Ed Stasiak
It's not like pin-point accuracy would be needed.
Yabbut one doesn't want to miss the
aiming point by say 10 km.
Alfred Montestruc
2009-07-16 05:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
It is difficult to think of what points of departure
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.
1. An equivalent of the Einstein-Szilard letter
gets written and sent to Roosevelt 2 or 3 years
earlier.
and probably more importantly.
2. Equivalents of the Briggs Advisory Committee
on Uranium and the S-1 Uranium Committee get
more heavily funded and start an equivalent of the
Manhattan Project much earlier.
The net result is that by early 1942 there are several
calutron plants in operation and a gaseous diffusion
plant is being built.  Several reactors are also in
operation, however, someone also managed to
figure out that plutonium would not work so an
implosion trigger is still in the theoretical stages.
In March of 1942, in the desert of the western
United States, a weapon is tested.  Debate
abounds as to whether to demonstrate the
test to the Germans and Japanese or keep
it secret.  It will take about four more months
to get enough Uranium for the next weapon.
The test of the gun trigger device is successful,
even though it was not one hundred percent
sure that it would work when it was tested.
That is incorrect.

The gun type atom bomb our people were 100% sure would work reasonably
well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy


"Its design was never tested at the Trinity test site, unlike the more
complex plutonium bomb (Fat Man), which was tested. The available
supply of enriched uranium was very small at that time, and it was
felt that the simple design of a uranium "gun" type bomb was so sure
to work that there was no need to test it."


It is the implosion "Fat man" design that uses plutonium that they
were not 100% sure would work. It is still a trickier sort of bomb to
build in the sense that you must get the explosive lenses just right
or it will not work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man

"It was an implosion-type weapon with a plutonium core, similar to the
Trinity device tested only a month earlier in New Mexico.[1]"
Post by troll
It operates about as well as our time line's
test of the implosion device,
There was never a point at which the scientists had the materials to
make a gun type bomb, and were not 100% sure it would work. If they
have the material to make a gun type bomb some simple experiments will
show you that it will work.

Some accidents in those experiments killed some of the scientists at
Los Alamos.





however the
Post by troll
test falls under sharp criticism, because it
was not used against a military target.
As well they should, no test was needed of that type bomb.
Post by troll
By middle July of 1942, enough highly
enriched Uranium for another bomb is
ready, and the components for the
next gun triggered bomb are assembled.
You are Roosevelt.  How much that means
that you are you and how much that
means that you are Roosevelt is open
to speculation.
Either way, however, what do you do?
For a time line comparison, the bombing
of Pearl Harbor in our time line happened
in December of 1941, the Doolittle Raid
happened about April 18, 1942, the
end of the Battle of Corregidor and the
Battle of the Philippines, as well as the
Battle of the Coral Sea happened in the
early part of May, and the Battle of
Midway happened in early June of 1942.
In our time line Operation Torch, the
British-American invasion of French
North Africa started later in November
of 1942.
Intelligence estimates seem to indicate
that the Germans are much more likely
to be able to develop a bomb than
the Japanese, however the Japanese
might be in a much better position to
be able to deliver a weapon, at least
to the west coast of the United States,
if they were able to get one.
At the same time, however, a bomb
dropped in Europe might have a
much better chance of delivering
to target than an atomic Doolittle
raid.
There is also the possibility of
using it against military targets,
possibly a Japanese fleet, in the
Pacific. The problem with that
is having the atomic weapon in
the right place at the right time,
and finding a large enough and
concentrated Japanese fleet that
would be close enough together
to be a worthwhile target.
You could wait another four
months until two bombs are
ready, and then drop one in
each theater.  However that
policy fell under severe criticism
when all of the enriched Uranium
235 was wasted with the first
atomic test.
You hear about the possibility
of an implosion trigger for
plutonium, but you are not
sure if that is ever going to
work or not at all.
If you do not use the bomb, and
try to keep the bomb secret,
you are not sure if plans for
the bomb are going to eventually
leak to either the Japanese or
to NAZI Germany either, even
if you do not use it.
What do you do?
Well IMHO it is not necessary to use an atomic bomb to do this. but
the Allies should have made an all out effort to kill Hitler. If you
get rid of Hitler in 1942 (better in 1933, but, ,) you drastically
reduce the death count and will probably wind up with someone in power
in Germany who is a little easier to deal with.

Toward that end, nuke the wolf's lair.
Post by troll
Is either Germany or Japan
going to surrender?  What
will they do?
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-16 08:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
It is difficult to think of what points of departure
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.
1. An equivalent of the Einstein-Szilard letter
gets written and sent to Roosevelt 2 or 3 years
earlier.
Not possible. The letter was written in August 1939.
Two years before that, no one had grasped the
possibility of a fission chain reaction, and there
was no serious worry about a Great War.
Post by troll
2. Equivalents of the Briggs Advisory Committee
on Uranium and the S-1 Uranium Committee get
more heavily funded and start an equivalent of the
Manhattan Project much earlier.
Not going to happen. The budget for megascience
wasn't going to be allocated in peacetime.
Post by troll
The net result is that by early 1942 there are several
calutron plants in operation and a gaseous diffusion
plant is being built. Several reactors are also in
operation, however, someone also managed to
figure out that plutonium would not work so an
implosion trigger is still in the theoretical stages.
Actually, the best bet is for quicker development
of the graphite moderated reactor - to verify fission
chain reaction - followed by working out the plutonium
implosion bomb. The U-235 gun-type bomb required
the construction of an enormous infrastructure. It
could not have been achieved by 1942 by anyone.
AIUI, the plutonium bomb did not have that requirement.
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
Post by troll
however the Japanese
might be in a much better position to
be able to deliver a weapon, at least
to the west coast of the United States,
if they were able to get one.
Huh? The only way the Japanese could
deliver a Bomb to the U.S. would be in
a suicide submarine.

And no one thought Japan could build
a Bomb.
Post by troll
At the same time, however, a bomb
dropped in Europe might have a
much better chance of delivering
to target than an atomic Doolittle raid.
The latter would be impossible. The
U.S. had no way to get a plane that
could carry the Bomb anywhere near Japan.
Post by troll
What do you do?
Is either Germany or Japan going to surrender?
What will they do?
Nuking Berlin probably will not kill Hitler; the
Fuhrerbunker was fairly sturdy and at night
close targeting is impossible. It will damage
the city a lot. But Berlin is a big place.

Hitler won't surrender. But the devastation of
Berlin will scare the bejazus out of the rest
of the Germans - and their allies.

I'll accept the stated premise of one Bomb
every four months (for a while). So there will
be no immediate follow-up. That will hearten
the Germans after a while. Meanwhile there
will be a big increase in German air defenses
as the Germans desperately pursue total
air security.

When the second Bomb wrecks, say, Hamburg,
in Dec '42, German morale will crumble. They
know that they can't stop Allied bombers, and
they now know that the Allies have a truly
devastating weapon.

After the Hamburg raids, Speer said that if the
Allies could do that six more times, war production
would halt - but he did say "rapid repetition".

Even so, it becomes clear that the Allies
can destroy an entire German city with one
attack, and continue doing so indefinitely,
if slowly. Third time's the charm, as the
saying goes.

That means the Allies are certain to win the
war, eventually.

With defeats in the field in Africa, and at
Stalingrad, there will be general support
for peace by early 1943. OTL, the Schwarze
Kapelle tried to kill Hitler in March and nearly
succeeded. (The bomb on the plane failed
to go off; Hitler cancelled his visit to the
regiment whose officers were pledged to
take him out.) ATL, support is greater and
Hitler gets the chop.

The Allies probably have announced
"unconditional surrender" by this time.
The Germans will hate it, but submit.

The first Bomb will precede TORCH.
This will have a substantial effect on
opinion in Vichy France (including
Algeria). If the second Bomb goes
off before TORCH, a lot more Vichy
will jump on the bandwagon right
away, which means the Allies may
get Tunisia quickly. If so the remnants
of Rommel's forces are then trapped
out of supply and surrender.

Other points. Italy will dump Mussolini
and start talking peace no later than
12/42; after TORCH and Second
Alamein, the Allies will be in range
of Italy. Romania and Hungary may
also try to bail. Finland, too.

So the narrative is this:

On the night of July 20-21, 1942 (a favorable
date, perhaps?) Berlin got a bucket of sun.

The impact point was about 1,500 m NE
of the Fuhrerbunker, Central Berlin was
destroyed to a range of about 3 km with
substantial damage out to about 6 km.
Over 100,000 people were killed. Hitler
survived in his bunker, but immediately
moved to a secret underground location.

There was a moment of panic throughout
the Axis. The Allies threatened further
bombings, but when nothing happened
immediately, the panic abated for a
while. Nonetheless, the Schwarze
Kapelle suddenly found widespread
support for its proposed removal of
Hitler.

Goering and the Luftwaffe were told to
ensure that no Allied bombers would
ever again fly over the Reich. This was
impossible, but they did their best, moving
every available aircraft to Germany for
anti-bomber defenses. Hitler also gave
absolute priority to production of AA guns
and ammunition. As a last move, he
ordered an all-out renewed Blitz of London
in revenge.

These moves soon had consequences
for the fighting forces. The Eastern
Front was stripped of aircraft, and the
attack toward Stalingrad and the
Caucasus bogged down as Soviet
air attack ravaged the German forces.

The Second Blitz of London caused
almost as much damage as the first
Blitz, but the Luftwaffe's bomber forces
paid a heavy toll to British nightfighters
and AA, both of which were far more
effective than a year before. Then on
November 5, Bomb #2 destroyed
Hamburg. Another wave of panic
swept through the entire Axis.

Two days later, Allied troops landed
in French North Africa.. Resistance
was feeble. Few Vichy French officials
wanted to be associated with a losing
cause. Admiral Esteva in Tunisia
blocked the German attempt to fly in
and seize airfields. On November 10,
an Allied force occupied Bizerta and
Tripoli.

By the start of 1943, Alllied forces
had secured Tunisia and were facing
Axis forces on the Libyan border. Both
sides were weak, but Allied strength
was building rapidly. Rommel's forces
had retreated all the way from El Alamein
in Egypt to Buerat in central Libya.
Supply shipments from Italy were
completely interdicted.

The last Axis forces surrendered at
Tripoli on January 5.

On January 11, Mussolini was deposed
as head of Italy. On January 24, Italy
surrendered to the Allies and declared
war on Germany. Allied troops landed
at Taranto, Reggio, and Cagliari in
Sardinia.

On February 2, Romania declared
war on Germany and cut off oil
supplies from Ploiesti. Romania
also blocked supplies to Army Group
South. The Soviets recaptured Kharkov
on February 9, as Italian and Romanian
armies in Ukraine surrendered en masse.

Hitler was beside himself with rage
against the "traitors". But he could
do little to punish them. He still
insisted that German arms and
wunderwaffen would somehow win
the war.

On March 9, Bomb #3 devastated
Essen; it landed right in the Krupp
Werke complex, which was destroyed.

By now everyone, even many SS
leaders were ready for surrender. The
Schwarze Kapelle launched there
coup on March 14; they arrested Hitler,
Goering, Goebbels, and Himmler, and
issued a call for a truce.

The Allies rejected this completely.
On March 18, Soviet forces entered
Kiev, and Finland and Bulgaria
surrendered.

Germany surrendered on March 22.
Invid Fan
2009-07-16 15:05:01 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
This raises, to me, lots of interesting questions. First, would the US
actually kill that many civilians that early in the war? They tried to
really limit that with daylight bombings in the beginning, and only
worked up to massive fire bombings over time. Second, I'm curious as to
the domestic reaction to the FIRST real action of the US against
Germany being nukes. before there'd been much loss of life among US
troops. Either moral outrage or from then on nukes will be pushed as
the first response to any crisis :)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
William Black
2009-07-16 15:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Invid Fan
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
This raises, to me, lots of interesting questions. First, would the US
actually kill that many civilians that early in the war?
The scientists working on the bomb assumed that Berlin was the target.
--
William Black

So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...

Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Jack Linthicum
2009-07-16 17:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Invid Fan
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
This raises, to me, lots of interesting questions. First, would the US
actually kill that many civilians that early in the war?
The scientists working on the bomb assumed that Berlin was the target.
--
William Black
So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls,  no dialogue,  just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...
Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time? Was there any ability to identify him or his schedule
in traffic? I'm thinking super Yamamoto here.
William Black
2009-07-16 19:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time? Was there any ability to identify him or his schedule
in traffic? I'm thinking super Yamamoto here.
Operation Foxley reckoned they could fix him in time and place long
enough to get a rifle shot at Berghof as his routine there was known to
them.

SOE couldn't get a fix on his travel arrangement accurate enough to blow
up his train.

Looking at that it's reasonable to assume that they could fix him in
time and space with reasonable accuracy after he'd arrived somewhere,
but, unlike Yamamoto, couldn't get him in transit.
--
William Black

So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...

Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Dennis
2009-07-16 19:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time? Was there any ability to identify him or his schedule
in traffic? I'm thinking super Yamamoto here.
I've never heard a single thing about this. I know he varied his
schedule a lot to make himself a difficult target. As I'm sure you know,
ULTRA was in and out all the time.

Dennis
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-17 01:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time? Was there any ability to identify him or his schedule
in traffic? I'm thinking super Yamamoto here.
Not good, I'm thinking. AFAIK no such
intercepts were read. If the Allies had
known of Hitler's air trip to Finland
in 1942... I think the Nazis were too
cautious ever to send such traffic by
radio, even encrypted.

It still might be possible to determine
if Hitler was in Berlin.
William Black
2009-07-17 09:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time? Was there any ability to identify him or his schedule
in traffic? I'm thinking super Yamamoto here.
Not good, I'm thinking. AFAIK no such
intercepts were read.
They don't have to read them.

They need to know if his personal call sign is in Berlin that night...
--
William Black

So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...

Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-17 17:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time?
Not good, I'm thinking. AFAIK no such
intercepts were read.
They don't have to read them.
They need to know if his personal call sign is in Berlin that night...
I don't think it worked that way. Hitler
did not send messages personally,
or even by a personal operator. "Fuhrer
directives" went out through OKW
or the Party HQ, or to a relevant
ministry by courier.

Also, given the time required to
lay on a big raid, they need to
know or guess his plans for at
least 12 hours in advance.
William Black
2009-07-17 18:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by William Black
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Jack Linthicum
What was the Engima and radio intercept capability for finding Hitler
at that time?
Not good, I'm thinking. AFAIK no such
intercepts were read.
They don't have to read them.
They need to know if his personal call sign is in Berlin that night...
I don't think it worked that way. Hitler
did not send messages personally,
or even by a personal operator. "Fuhrer
directives" went out through OKW
or the Party HQ, or to a relevant
ministry by courier.
Also, given the time required to
lay on a big raid, they need to
know or guess his plans for at
least 12 hours in advance.
Operation Foxley had something like a 36 to 48 hour lead time and the
participants became 'highly perishable' after they entered the target
area...

The reason it didn't go ahead seems to have been political delays.

It therefore seems reasonable to assume they had some sort of handle on
Hitler's movements.

On the other hand the Operation Anthropoid team took six months to find
a location and opportunity for a clean shot at their target, and they
almost made a mess of it then...
--
William Black

So I looked at the script
It was six weeks filming in the desert.
No girls, no dialogue, just guys with guns.
They said "Do you want wages or a percentage?"
It looked like a certain turkey.
When they came the second time I was ready.
I haven't had to work since...

Eli Wallach on his roles in
"The Magnificent Seven"
and "The Good the Bad and The Ugly
Invid Fan
2009-07-16 17:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Black
Post by Invid Fan
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
This raises, to me, lots of interesting questions. First, would the US
actually kill that many civilians that early in the war?
The scientists working on the bomb assumed that Berlin was the target.
Yes, but many assumed that before the war even started :) I'm just
curious if the US would do that right off the bat, with no history of
escalation yet. I'm sure FDR and the generals might, but might there be
a chance there are also some reservations? Even if it's cynical concern
about how German Americans will react?
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-16 21:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Invid Fan
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by troll
Either way, however, what do you do?
Nuke Berlin.
This raises, to me, lots of interesting questions. First, would the US
actually kill that many civilians that early in the war?
The British would press for it. Lots
of warnings. Then BOOM. Besides which,
the object is to decapitate the regime.
That means Berlin. Oh, and the Soviets
are yelling for a Second Front.

There is no useful military target -
unless one goes after the U-boat pens
in France, and there are even bigger
problems with that.

Also, there is only one Bomb available,
per the premise. A demonstration with
no follow-up will be ineffective. Yes,
they could wait till a second Bomb is ready.
But that means foregoing the immediate effect
of using a Bomb. The death camps are in
full operation; thousands are dying every
day on the Eastern Front. If it can be
stopped, _now_, why wait?
The Old Man
2009-07-18 00:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Nuking Berlin probably will not kill Hitler; the Fuhrerbunker was fairly sturdy and at night close targeting is impossible. It will damage the city a lot. But Berlin is a big place.
<snip-a-doodle>
On the night of July 20-21, 1942 (a favorable date, perhaps?) Berlin got a bucket of sun.
The impact point was about 1,500 m NE of the Fuhrerbunker, Central Berlin was destroyed to a range of about 3 km with
substantial damage out to about 6 km. Over 100,000 people were killed. Hitler survived in his bunker, but immediately
moved to a secret underground location.
A question.
If the Fuhrerbunker is so close to Ground Zero, wouldn't Al and Evie
start to glow in the dark?
Especially if he is moved out right after the dust settles a bit, how
long would it take for any of the people in the Fuhrerbunker to die of
radiation poisoning, which was NOT well understood at this time.
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-18 20:20:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Nuking Berlin probably will not kill Hitler; the Fuhrerbunker was fairly sturdy and at night close targeting is impossible. It will damage the city a lot. But Berlin is a big place.
<snip-a-doodle>
On the night of July 20-21, 1942 (a favorable date, perhaps?) Berlin got a bucket of sun.
The impact point was about 1,500 m NE of the Fuhrerbunker,
A question.
If the Fuhrerbunker is so close to Ground Zero, wouldn't Al and Evie
start to glow in the dark?
Nope. A nuclear bomb produces a blast
and radiation flash - but someone who is
shielded by several meters of soil and
concrete isn't going to be irradiated very
much

Indeed, if Hitler is say 10 m underground,
and the Bomb goes off at 100 up, 1,500 m
away - there would be over 130 m of soil
and concrete between.
Post by The Old Man
Especially if he is moved out right after the dust settles a bit, how
long would it take for any of the people in the Fuhrerbunker to die of
radiation poisoning, which was NOT well understood at this time.
There would be some radiological danger
from inhaled debris, but fallout is not as
much of an acute danger as you seem
to think. Also, if the Bomb is an airburst,
even 100 m up, the Bomb itself would
be the main source of radioactive debris.

After a ground burst, the crater itself would
be deadly within five minutes. But this bomb
would be an air burst, and the bunker would
be well outside the crater. The crater from
the "Trinity" test was about 330m across.

AIUI, very few people died at Hiroshima
or Nagasaki who were not killed or seriously
injured by the blast.

Hitler would probably be trapped in the
bunker by rubble blocking the entrances.
Rescue workers would rush in to clear
the rubble and open the entrance. Then
the Fuhrer would be rushed to safety.
His radiological exposure would be
minimal.
SilentOtto
2009-08-08 22:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
Nuking Berlin probably will not kill Hitler; the Fuhrerbunker was fairly sturdy and at night close targeting is impossible. It will damage the city a lot. But Berlin is a big place.
<snip-a-doodle>
On the night of July 20-21, 1942 (a favorable date, perhaps?) Berlin got a bucket of sun.
The impact point was about 1,500 m NE of the Fuhrerbunker,
A question.
If the Fuhrerbunker is so close to Ground Zero, wouldn't Al and Evie
start to glow in the dark?
Nope. A  nuclear bomb produces a blast
and radiation flash - but someone who is
shielded by several meters of soil and
concrete isn't going to be irradiated very
much
Indeed, if Hitler is say 10 m underground,
and the Bomb goes off at 100 up, 1,500 m
away - there would be over 130 m of soil
and concrete between.
Post by The Old Man
Especially if he is moved out right after the dust settles a bit, how
long would it take for any of the people in the Fuhrerbunker to die of
radiation poisoning, which was NOT well understood at this time.
There would be some radiological danger
from inhaled debris, but fallout is not as
much of an acute danger as you seem
to think. Also, if the Bomb is an airburst,
even 100 m up, the Bomb itself would
be the main source of radioactive debris.
After a ground burst, the crater itself would
be deadly within five minutes.
Sorry... I know this is an old thread...

But could you clarify that statement a bit?

Do you mean that it would kill someone outright after five minutes, or
that five minutes in the crater would expose one to enough radiation
to prove fatal at some time in the future?

If the latter, how long could one reasonably expect to survive?
But this bomb
would be an air burst, and the bunker would
be well outside the crater. The crater from
the "Trinity" test was about 330m across.
AIUI, very few people died at Hiroshima
or Nagasaki who were not killed or seriously
injured by the blast.
Hitler would probably be trapped in the
bunker by rubble blocking the entrances.
Rescue workers would rush in to clear
the rubble and open the entrance. Then
the Fuhrer would be rushed to safety.
His radiological exposure would be
minimal.
Rich Rostrom
2009-08-08 22:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Rich Rostrom
After a ground burst, the crater itself would
be deadly within five minutes.
Do you mean that it would kill someone outright after five minutes, or
that five minutes in the crater would expose one to enough radiation
to prove fatal at some time in the future?
If the latter, how long could one reasonably expect to survive?
Five minutes exposure in the crater
would lead to death in a few days.

(My guess - IANA radiation biologist.)
SilentOtto
2009-08-09 04:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by SilentOtto
Post by Rich Rostrom
After a ground burst, the crater itself would
be deadly within five minutes.
Do you mean that it would kill someone outright after five minutes, or
that five minutes in the crater would expose one to enough radiation
to prove fatal at some time in the future?
If the latter, how long could one reasonably expect to survive?
Five minutes exposure in the crater
would lead to death in a few days.
(My guess - IANA radiation biologist.)
Thanks.

j***@centurytel.net
2009-07-16 18:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
What do you do?
Is either Germany or Japan
going to surrender?  What
will they do?
The Casablance Declaration calling for unconditional surrender didn't
happen till 1943, so maybe a demonstration then the U.S. offers to act
as a mediator.

Would it bring anyone to the negotiating table?

Of course a flaw is that the U.S. is already in the war, so maybe a
demonstration then request for a neutral power to offer its aid.
Rich Rostrom
2009-07-17 01:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
What do you do?
Is either Germany or Japan
going to surrender? What
will they do?
The Casablanca Declaration calling for unconditional surrender didn't
happen till 1943, so maybe a demonstration then the U.S. offers to act
as a mediator.
This is a good question. When the Casablanca
Declaration was issued in Feb 1943, it was
clear the war would not end soon.

ATL, the Bomb could possibly end the war
at once, and the Allies will have to
think seriously about surrender terms
before using it.

OT1H, they may think unconditional
surrender is too strong. OTOH, there
was a very strong feeling that giving
Germany any kind of terms would allow
the "Prussian officer corps" and the
General Staff to survive and build up
for another war - they were viewed as
the real cause of German aggression.

I think the demand would come down
to unconditional surrender; the power
of the Bomb would be too intoxicating;
although I think there might be a
declaration of principles promising
humane treatment and disclaiming the
more bizarre ideas that were being
floated (such as occupation for 50
years, forcibly imposed population
limits, or the abolition of the German
language).
Would it bring anyone to the negotiating table?
It would radically intimidate all
of Germany's allies and induce many
in Germany to join the Schwarze Kapelle.
T.J. Swoboda
2009-07-18 01:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by troll
It is difficult to think of what points of departure
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.
(snip)
ObWI: Some way, somehow, I initially read the subject of this thread
as "The United States *gets* nuked in 1942." Germany getting the bomb
by this time is ASB territory for OTL's Nazis, but... Suppose the POD
is Germany getting smarter tyrants who start a very similar war to
that of OTL. Just for fun, let's make von Richthofen the Fuhrer.

A month after Pearl Harbor, Manhattan goes up in a 15 kiloton
fireball. What next?
The Old Man
2009-07-18 12:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.J. Swoboda
Post by troll
could cause the U.S. to get nukes this much earlier
than it did in comparison to our time line.
(snip)
ObWI: Some way, somehow, I initially read the subject of this thread
as "The United States *gets* nuked in 1942."  Germany getting the bomb
by this time is ASB territory for OTL's Nazis, but...  Suppose the POD
is Germany getting smarter tyrants who start a very similar war to
that of OTL.  Just for fun, let's make von Richthofen the Fuhrer.
A month after Pearl Harbor, Manhattan goes up in a 15 kiloton
fireball.  What next?
I ~think~ that you'd have to drop the anti-Semitic stance of the
government. Many of the scientists were either Jewish, related by
marriage to Jews or were people who feared the authoritarian stance of
the Nazis as opposed to simple nationalism.
Could von Richtofen fulfill that role?
The Horny Goat
2009-07-19 00:58:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:34:19 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
I ~think~ that you'd have to drop the anti-Semitic stance of the
government. Many of the scientists were either Jewish, related by
marriage to Jews or were people who feared the authoritarian stance of
the Nazis as opposed to simple nationalism.
Could von Richtofen fulfill that role?
Assuming you mean MANFRED von Richthofen (aka 'The Red Baron') then
the most obvious change is that you have eliminated Hermann Goering as
a political force since his political reputation in Germany came from
his role as von Richthofen's successor at war-end.

(I'm assuming you mean Manfred rather than Lothar who died in 1922 or
his nephew Wolfram who went on to become a Luftwaffe Marshal but
wasn't really an important figure pre-war)

Given he was 25 when he died it is difficult to judge his politics too
much particularly on the subject of anti-Semiticism but given he
started in a Prussian military school at age 11 and was an Uhlan
officer before he started flying it is unlikely his politics would
have differed too much from his social class. Thus if you think of a
younger von Hindenburg you're probably right though von Ludendorff
threw in with the early Nazis so who really knows?

In this situation I think the most likely outcome would be something
resembling Johnny Pez's DBTL though I'm more optimistic than the
writers of the chances of avoiding a new war in the 1940s.
The Old Man
2009-07-19 16:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:34:19 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
I ~think~ that you'd have to drop the anti-Semitic stance of the
government. Many of the scientists were either Jewish, related by
marriage to Jews or were people who feared the authoritarian stance of
the Nazis as opposed to simple nationalism.
Could von Richtofen fulfill that role?
Assuming you mean MANFRED von Richthofen (aka 'The Red Baron') then
the most obvious change is that you have eliminated Hermann Goering as
a political force since his political reputation in Germany came from
his role as von Richthofen's successor at war-end.
(I'm assuming you mean Manfred rather than Lothar who died in 1922 or
his nephew Wolfram who went on to become a Luftwaffe Marshal but
wasn't really an important figure pre-war)
Given he was 25 when he died it is difficult to judge his politics too
much particularly on the subject of anti-Semiticism but given he
started in a Prussian military school at age 11 and was an Uhlan
officer before he started flying it is unlikely his politics would
have differed too much from his social class. Thus if you think of a
younger von Hindenburg you're probably right though von Ludendorff
threw in with the early Nazis so who really knows?
In this situation I think the most likely outcome would be something
resembling Johnny Pez's DBTL though I'm more optimistic than the
writers of the chances of avoiding a new war in the 1940s.
The reason that I wrote the way I did was because of something I read
years ago. Manfred seemed to be on good terms with Werner Voss (other
than a rivalry over Top Gun in the German Air Force) and didn't seem
to be hampered by anti-Semitism, although I could be wrong.
And yes, I DID think the original writer was refering to Manfred, and
not the other von Richtofen family members.
T.J. Swoboda
2009-08-08 21:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Old Man
The reason that I wrote the way I did was because of something I read
years ago. Manfred seemed to be on good terms with Werner Voss (other
than a rivalry over Top Gun in the German Air Force) and didn't seem
to be hampered by anti-Semitism, although I could be wrong.
And yes, I DID think the original writer was refering to Manfred, and
not the other von Richtofen family members.
Indeed I was, but we could replace Hitler and the NS Party with anyone
more reasonable.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...