Market Garden...Was success ever a possibility

[JonS]

Could overlord ever have even got off the beaches without the eastern front? not likely IMO. If they had somehow gained a strong foothold in normandy, maybe they could have held it, but could they have broken out? considering how much trouble it was in the event, I cant really see it being possible against an army 3 times the size. The western allies trying to defeat the huns in a land campaign on a single front would have made their casualties in WW1 seem trivial.

The Western Allies started winding up their production from sometime around early 1944. Even so the UK alone was building more tanks and a/c than the Germans, and without the Soviets in the game it is unlikely those production plans would have been lowered. The Western Allies also had quite significant army, navy, and air force resources in the Pacific, which could easily have been redirected towards Europe had the need arisen.

WWII without the Soviets would undoubtedly have taken longer, and cost more US and UK blood, but the final outcome would've been more-or-less the same, albeit with a lower average building height in more German cities.

[sburke]

albeit with a lower average building height in more German cities.

LOL very dry sir, very dry.

The other point to this, would more German units really have made a difference or simply provided more targets? The Germans were incapable of maintaining supply to the units that were there. Increasing the supply requirements doesn't seem like it would be translatable to combat power.

[YankeeDog]

The Germans were on a crash course almost regardless of events on the battlefield by 1944. Their war production was running on synthetic fuel made from coal and slave labor. Albert Speer's miracles notwithstanding, none of this was sustainable over the long term.

Even excluding the A-bomb, unless you posit some sort of resolution to the war on the East Front that creates at least a detente giving access to with Russia's natural resources (something that I find HIGHLY unlikely), the German economy simply can't sustain the effort much longer. It doesn't matter if they repulse Overlord; in a year or two they wouldn't have been afford to build any more Tiger IIs, Me 262s, or V-2 anyway, much less fuel and arm them.

Not to mention Hitler had clearly descended from Evil Genius to just plain 'ol Nuts by 1944. Only a matter of time before he did something even more irrational to screw up the German war effort.

Of course, any of a number of better decisions by the Germans, or poorer ones by the Allies, could have prolonged the war substantially and cost a lot more lives. But it would have taken a succession of highly unlikely events going Germany's way for them to turn things around in 1944, or even reach a point where they had enough leverage bring the Allies to the table for a negotiated peace.

[Michael Emrys]

Could overlord ever have even got off the beaches without the eastern front? not likely IMO. If they had somehow gained a strong foothold in normandy, maybe they could have held it, but could they have broken out? considering how much trouble it was in the event, I cant really see it being possible against an army 3 times the size.

Good point. In arguing why an attempted invasion in '42 or even '43 would likely have ended either in failure or at best stalemate, one of the preconditions for success I mention is the German army being bled nearly white on the Eastern Front.

Michael

[JonS]

Incidentally ...

Take nuclear weapons out of the equation

... why? That makes about as much sense as taking the Cavity Magnetron, the VT fuse, or the Tiger 'out of the equation'. All were developed during the war, with the specific intent of using them on the enemy during the war.

[dieseltaylor]

Incidentally ...

Originally Posted by Dave85

Take nuclear weapons out of the equation

... why? That makes about as much sense as taking the Cavity Magnetron, the VT fuse, or the Tiger 'out of the equation'. All were developed during the war, with the specific intent of using them on the enemy during the war.

As to the use of the atom bomb ....

I have trouble envisaging a US President authorising a nuclear strike on mainland Europe. Peenumunde possibly. Politically might not go down very well. The other weapon developments you mention were actually highly usable.

Furthermore if Russia was knocked out the need to demonstrate ruthlessness to the Russians was less and one might consider the flattening of a remote Jpanese island suitably intimidating.

[Michael Emrys]

I have trouble envisaging a US President authorising a nuclear strike on mainland Europe.

I don't. That's what the bomb was originally developed for. In fact, some of the scientists who built it who felt that it was wrong to use it on Japan were quite willing to see it used on Germany.

Michael

[dieseltaylor]

Some? ME! We expect better of you.

And it should be pointed out I said the President : ) Scientists aren't elected.

[sburke]

Some? ME! We expect better of you.

And it should be pointed out I said the President : ) Scientists aren't elected.

Enough news pics and caskets coming home and I think it wouldn't take much for the American public to decide pretty quickly, nuke em Besides in those days we didn't really get how different the bomb was. Just that we had a cool new uber weapon. Take out Berlin and the core Nazi command and control, yeah I think the Amereican public would have been fine with that

Heck we had no problem with the fire bombing campaign

[YankeeDog]

As noted, the A-Bomb was originally designed for use on Germany; this was definitely in the plan if it came available in time. Further, even disregarding the historical evidence of what the Allies envisioned doing with the A-bomb, bear in mind that by the end of 1944 the Allies had already firebombed many German cities into oblivion, in some cases obliterating dozens of square miles of buildings and causing tens of thousands of civilian casualties per raid in the process. So it's hard to see why the wouldn't have used the A-bomb on a German city if the Allied troops weren't yet inside Germany when the bomb had become operational.

Bear in mind that the long-term radiation effects of atomic weaponry weren't very well appreciated at the time, especially by the non-scientist political leadership. So from Truman's perspective, the A-Bomb was simply a way of accomplishing with one plane and one bomb, what had already been done with hundreds of planes and thousands of bombs to Luebeck, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc.

[dieseltaylor]

Reading a bit further it is rather disturbing to see that the effects were not well appreciated!

One Minute after the Detonation of the Atomic Bomb: the Erased Effect of Residual Radiation

By TAKAHASHI, Hiroko

　　After the detonation of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many people were exposed to the blast, heat and initial radiation. In addition to these people, many more people were exposed to the residual radiation which came from black rain, water and food, radioactive dust and so on. In 1947, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission was established by the Presidential Order of Harry Truman for research on people exposed to the Atomic Bomb. This article focuses on how the U.S. Government handled the facts about residual radiation and how ABCC scientists discussed it in the 1940s and 50s.

　　On September 5, 1945, Wilfred Burchett, a correspondent for the Daily Express, based on data gathered in Hiroshima reported as follows: "People are still dying, mysteriously and horribly--people who were uninjured in the cataclysm--from an unknown something which I can only describe as the atomic plague." Concerned about this report, Brigadier General F. Thomas Farrell, chief of the War Department's atomic bomb mission (Manhattan Project), issued a statement denying that the damage was from radiation. He said, "the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were detonated at such a high altitude that no radiation remained, and that even if some people died later, it was because of injuries sustained at the time of the explosion." According to The New York Times on September 13, 1945, he said, "The weapon's chief effect was blast" and that "his group of scientists" found no evidence of continuing radioactivity in the blasted area on Sep. 9 when they began their investigation.

　　After this statement, the Manhattan Engineer district continued an investigation of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Mentioning the data which were collected in late September and early October 1945, they concluded, "No harmful amount of persistent radioactivity was present after the explosion."

　　However, in 1950, scientists of ABCC noticed the effects of residual radiation and started the "Residual Radiation Survey" by collecting information on the people who had radiation signs and symptoms after entering the city after the bombing. However, according to Lowell Woodbury, physician in the statistic department of the ABCC, "Due to pressure of other work and a shortage of investigators, this projected was not actually initiated."

　　Woodbury pointed out the possibility that "The black rain left a deposit sufficiently radioactive to cause radiation signs and symptoms in extremely sensitive individuals, and that deposit was largely washed away in the September rains and typhoon," and the necessity of more detailed investigations. But this investigation was not conducted. On the other hand, the conclusion of the Manhattan District Report, "No harmful effect of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki," even though it was conducted after the typhoon and rains, is still the standard which is applied today.

　　The US government has continuously denied the influence of residual radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However this official view was not based on detailed scientific research.

[YankeeDog]

Well into the 1950s, even most scientists' appreciation of the long-term dangers from fallout and lingering high-energy radiation was pretty incomplete. But the lay public's understanding of these dangers was nearly nonexistent. And most political and military leaders were little better off than the lay public. High-ranking U.S. military leaders often personally walked across the sites of the early A-Bomb tests within days and sometimes only hours of the detonations, putting themselves at substantial risk of health complications due to radiation exposure. And then there's what they ordered enlisted men to do in and around test sites...

My mother-in-law loves to tell the story about how, as a child in the 1950s, when she went to the shoe store, they would put your feet inside a little wooden box with viewports on the top so they could show you a real-time X-ray of your feet inside your shoes. The box was totally unshielded. No lead aprons or anything were worn by anyone. So basically, the customer and everyone within a few feet of the foot x-ray machine was getting the equivalent of about a chest x-ray's worth of radiation, just to make sure the child's shoes fit right.

Certainly not a healthy thing for a child to be exposed to every 6 months or so when they went to buy shoes. But think about the shoe salesman, who was getting the equivalent of several chest x-rays a day, every workday. Yikes. Glad I wasn't a shoe salesman in the 1950s...

[Michael Emrys]

Some? ME! We expect better of you.

You misread. Perhaps I could have worded it more like: "Some of the scientists who built the bomb felt that it was wrong to use it on Japan even though they had no reservations about it being used against Germany." I didn't write it that way because it shifts the stress in a different direction than I meant for it to go, but it means essentially the same thing and avoids your problems with comprehension.

Michael

[Vark]

I have a bound collection of original copies of "Flying" magazine (44-45), looking at the sentiments expressed in the articles and adverts I'd think the US would have no problems nuking Germany. The hatred though, expressed in the articles towards the Japanese though is of another dimension.

I wonder if the scientists, who had no problem using their creation on the Germans, were Jewish? Another 'great' Nazi idea, persecute some of your top scientists so they flee to your soon to be foe. Once ensconced in their new 'home', many willingly use their abilities to strike back at their tormentors!

[Boche]

In fact, some of the scientists who built it who felt that it was wrong to use it on Japan were quite willing to see it used on Germany.

Michael

Probably Anime fans

[altipueri]

So how come people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now?

(Google is your friend)

Frankly, I'd drop one on the bloody Welsh.

[YankeeDog]

So how come people live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now?

(Google is your friend)

Frankly, I'd drop one on the bloody Welsh.

??

Not exactly sure what you're getting at.

The greatest short-term danger to being in area where an atomic bomb has detonated recently, and especially a relatively "dirty" A-bomb such as the ones dropped on Japan, is actually from radioactive particulate matter dispersed by the explosion -- if you breathe this in or ingest it, it settles into your body, collects in certain areas such as your thyroid, and then continues to irradiate you from the inside for weeks and months to come. This can most certainly kill you, quickly via simple radiation poisoning if you ingest enough, or more slowly weeks, months, or years later, typically via various forms of cancer. Such afflictions killed thousands in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the weeks, months, and years after August, 1945.

But most of the radioactive particulates dissipate fairly quickly -- they get washed out of the air and the ground by rainfall, blown away by wind, etc., until they're so dispersed that the increased radiation level in any one area isn't very significant. There is, to this day, a higher background radiation level in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than surrounding areas, but the level today, or, indeed, just a few years after the bombs were dropped is not high enough to dramatically increase cancer risk.

So, basically, being in the immediate vicinity of the A-bomb detonations within the first few days and weeks after the explosion was really bad for you. Eating food products raised in the area probably caused elevated cancer risk for multiple growing seasons -- many food products tend to capture the radioactive fallout, and if you eat radioactive food, the particles will stay inside you.

And similarly, American military officials, scientists, and soldiers who walked across A-bomb test sites just hours after detonation, sometimes with nothing to protect them other than standard uniforms and perhaps a paper mask, were most definitely increasing their cancer risk substantially.

But the increased risk of cancer from living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today due to the A-Bomb detonations is be very, small. Much smaller than, say, inhaling carcinogens due to auto pollution, or even from eating a piece of overly-charred meat.

[Spinoza]

Relevant?...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Relevant?...

No.

..................

[ArgusEye]

My mother-in-law loves to tell the story about how, as a child in the 1950s, when she went to the shoe store, they would put your feet inside a little wooden box with viewports on the top so they could show you a real-time X-ray of your feet inside your shoes. The box was totally unshielded. No lead aprons or anything were worn by anyone. So basically, the customer and everyone within a few feet of the foot x-ray machine was getting the equivalent of about a chest x-ray's worth of radiation, just to make sure the child's shoes fit right.

Try 250 chest x-rays for a quick shoe fitting, a fussy child could typically get to 1500 chest x-rays. Radiation burns were not unheard of in shoe salesmen. These things were insanity.

[MikeyD]

The reason why Germany still had intact cities in early '45 for the allies to fire bomb, like Desden, was because the US had been saving a few high profile targets for 'demonstration purposes' for when the a-bomb became available. You loose some of the 'shock effect' in dropping your a-bomb on an already burned-out shell of a city. That's why Hiroshima had been largely untouched as well. Dresden got removed from the a-bomb list when it was discovered you could create 'fire hurricane' events from saturation fire bombing, with equally horriffic effect.

[MengJiaoRedux]

But let me take a different view on OMG.

There's the failure of Allied intelligence to spot and/or identify an entire SS Panzer Corps deployed in close proximity to the landing zones of the First Parachute Division.

Was this due to German use of landlines rather than radio as they fell back into the Hunnish Telephone Net?

Suppose that Corps had not been there, as apparently was thought in planning the operation.

[Erwin]

This was just a TV documentary, but it held that Intelligence DID report the tank tracks of Panzer Divs around Arnhem etc. But, plans, vested interests and egos were so far committed that the reports were ignored. (Kinda like... oh never mind...)

[Broadsword56]

This was just a TV documentary, but it held that Intelligence DID report the tank tracks of Panzer Divs around Arnhem etc. But, plans, vested interests and egos were so far committed that the reports were ignored. (Kinda like... oh never mind...)

Yes, this is a pattern of institutional failure that often repeats itself in large bureaucracies when...

1. There's a big plan that acquires a momentum of its own,

2. Some underlings discover flaws and try to blow the whistle/alert superiors,

3. The organization ignores/squelches dissent.

4. The operation takes place anyway, ends in disaster, and no one is willing to take responsibility, even though later investigations show someone had to know about the flaws and someone with the power to stop the operation elected no to do so.

Sometimes because the underlings don't protest loudly enough, not wanting to risk their own careers. Or sometimes their bosses bury the warnings in a desk drawer because they're afraid exposing the failure will reflect badly on their department. Or sometimes the operation is just so big, involves so much prestige and money, has powerful political backing, and is so deep-rooted that it has acquired an unstoppable momentum of its own.

In addition to Market Garden, consider some other examples...

*Double agents in WWII -- One of the spies in occupied Europe who did the British the most damage was a British agent who actually had been "turned" into a double agent by the Abwehr. What's worse is that the British officer who "ran" this agent from London actually knew for years that the agent was a turncoat, but covered it up because exposing it would have embarrassed and disgraced so many high-level people in the Allied spy bureaucracy. So the agent continued to work, London pretended he was genuine, and he continued to betray many good British agents to the Gestapo.

*Wall Street 2008 (those who warned of a housing bubble and tried to point out the dangers of a shadow banking system were ignored or shouted down).

*Iraq 2003 ("weapons of mass destruction" need I say more?)

*Space Shuttle Challenger 1986 (the engineer who tried and failed to stop the launch and went to sleep that night knowing it would blow up)

*Enron (the accountant who blew the whistle on massive fraud and even today still has difficulty finding a job).

*Bay of Pigs, 1961 (operation planning started with Eisenhower; Kennedy feared failure but felt it was too far along to stop, so all he did was yank the air support in a futile effort to keep US fingerprints off the mission.)

*Fast and Furious, 2012 (Begun under Bush with a different name, continued with a life of its own under Obama until the Justice Department finally managed to stop it.)

[altipueri]

Too true sadly.

I think the Dutch resistance warned about the SS Panzer Corps.