What Would Have Been The "German Hiroshima" Or The "German Nagasaki" ?

[Rattenfänger von Memphis]

Ultra was the name used for the Allies’s breaking of German secret codes during World War II. Without being able to decipher the German codes, some authorities have estimated the war, in a conventional, non-atomic bomb sense, could have lasted two to four years longer in Europe.

Sir Harry Hinsley, Bletchley Park veteran and official historian of British Intelligence in World War II, made a similar assessment of Ultra, saying that while the Allies would have won the war without it, "the war would have been something like two years longer, perhaps three years longer, possibly four years longer than it was. However, Hinsley and others have emphasized the difficulties of counterfactual history in attempting such conclusions, and some historians, such as Keegan, have said the shortening might have been as little as the three months it took the United States to deploy the atomic bomb.

Of course OTL Germany surrendered three months before atomic bombs were ready for use. But, if the war in Europe was still continuing in August 1945, I have two questions.

(1) Would the Allies have dropped atomic bombs in Europe ? I ask this because, in the 1970s, I was in the US Army stationed in South Korea. We had South Korean soldiers within our unit called KATUSAs (Korean Augmentation to the United States Army). Talking with them, the KATUSAs deeply hated and resented Japan who had colonized and mistreated their country until the end of World War II.

In spite of this extreme dislike, they thought it was horrible that the United States had dropped atomic bombs on Japan. They felt that the Americans would not have dropped atomic bombs on Germany, had they been available, because the Germans were a white race, unlike the Japanese. So I have long wondered if this were true.

(2) The second question is which targets in Europe would the Allies have chosen, and why. The two URL quotes below show the reasoning behind the choices of Japanese targets which I am assuming would be similar to how targets in Europe would have been chosen.

Atomic Bomb Target

In spring 1945, the U.S. military was considering different targets for the first deployment of the atomic bomb that summer. Between April and June, military leaders generated a long list of Japanese cities using three criteria:

First, the cities needed to be large, wider than three miles with sizable populations;

second, they needed to have “high strategic value,” meaning military installations of some kind;

and third, they needed to have escaped the U.S.’s ongoing firebombing campaign begun in March 1945.

Very few areas met all the qualifications; among them were Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata. By the end of May 1945, these cities had become the finalists, Despite the presence of military targets, Nagasaki was not selected as one of the U.S. target cities in May 1945. It had been on an earlier list in April but had been dropped. The city’s hilly geography and the presence of a POW camp made it a less than ideal target for the atomic bomb, and U.S. officials had four candidate cities that suited their purposes.with Kyoto and Hiroshima being the two primary targets.

Then in early June, Nagasaki’s fortunes changed. U.S. Secretary of War Henry Stimson wanted Kyoto removed from the target list, on the grounds that the city was too culturally significant to the Japanese to be destroyed. Some say his personal fondness for the city—he visited in the 1920s and may have honeymooned there—was the real reason he appealed to President Harry Truman to remove Kyoto from the list.

Selection of Atomic Bomb targets

Some of the important considerations were:

1. The range of the aircraft which would carry the bomb.
2. The desirability of visual bombing in order to insure the most effective use of the bomb.
3. Probable weather conditions in the target areas.
4. Importance of having one primary and two secondary targets for each mission, so that if weather conditions prohibited bombing the target there would be at least two alternates.
5. Selection of targets to produce the greatest military effect on the Japanese people and thereby most effectively shorten the war.
6. The morale effect upon the enemy.

Dresden first comes to my mind as a choice because of OTL firebombing of that city as does Nuremberg, site of the Nazi rallies. There is also Leipzig, Hamburg, Frankfurt and Berlin to consider.

Just thinking of these names and famous cities as possible targets sickens me. War is truly a horrible experience. But what would the Allied war planners have done ?

 

[Popcorn]

I’m guessing they would use it on a medium size city in western Germany. That keeps it well within range of bombers and means it will be accessible to study the effects afterwards. There were probably plenty of places that could be spared the conventional bombing that would make it on to the short list.

 

[tonycat77]

The Red army was at the Oder by February, i don't see nukes being used in europe unless the germans win big time.
Best case for using them is to have the allies lose the bulge big time, maybe the smaller offensive instead of the antwerp drive hitler insisted was used instead, so the allied armies are defeated in bulk or something.

 

[tonycat77]

The Red army was at the Oder by February, i don't see nukes being used in europe unless the germans win big time.
Best case for using them is to have the allies lose the bulge big time, maybe the smaller offensive instead of the antwerp drive hitler insisted was used instead, so the allied armies are defeated in bulk or something.

Make the war last longer in europe by a more sucessful germany just means you have luft'46 planes in service, proximity fuse ammo for flak and their SAMs , etc.
Way more dangerous than Japan at the same time period (it was said more b-29s were lost over america in accidents than shot down by the japanese!)

If you also use them in europe, expect the paranoia of Stalin to grow 10 fold, East germany being a lot more popular (at least the soviets didn't nuke us!) and other butterflies i can't even think of right now.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

We’ve had these threads before. Here’s a reply of mine from one of the latest:

Some previously discussion on here has indicated that the Luna Works might've been a pretty good target. Most industrial targets when struck by a conventional bombing run, would be repaired within a few weeks unless continually restruck, but a direct hit by a 20 kiloton device probably wouldn't have left much too repair. Putting an atom bomb in her would be a good signal to the Germans what their dealing with and wipe out the largest synthetic fuel plant too boot.

That... probably depends more on the prevailing situation. If it's because, say, D-Day in '44 failed but come August '45 the Soviets have taken Berlin and are rolling through Central Germany while the WAllies landing in Southern France is at last now rapidly driving for the Rhine, then there probably isn't as much impetus to do compared too a situation where the Soviets collased in '41 or '42 and the German ground forces are looking so strong that the WAllies don't even dare attempt a landing.

An excellent question! It's certainly a possibility, but how much of a probability is it? I can't say. I can definitely say it's not something that's necessarily guaranteed, but whether it's more or less likely is up in the air. Too many unknowables.

Probably a little bit of Column A and a little bit of Column B here, at least in Europe.

Probably not outside of Europe.

Good questions and let me toss in a third one: Might the fact the nukes have already been used on Germany take off the shock altogether enough that even using them on Japan doesn't convince them to surrender? This is another one where I have to admit the imponderables are too much for us too say and all I can answer is "maybe, maybe not."

Make the war last longer in europe by a more sucessful germany just means you have luft'46 planes in service

Oh man, it’s been a long time since we had anyone trot out Luft’46 unironically. Anyone remember the CGI jokes?

 

[tonycat77]

We’ve had these threads before. Here’s a reply of mine from one of the latest:



Oh man, it’s been a long time since we had anyone trot out Luft’46 unironically. Anyone remember the CGI jokes?

Don't worry, i don't believe in bizarre designs just made to keep engineers from getting drafted.
I mean stuff like Ta-152s, Me-262s with He 011s engines, better high altitude engines, etc.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Don't worry, i don't believe in bizarre designs just made to keep engineers from getting drafted.
I mean stuff like Ta-152s, Me-262s with He 011s engines, better high altitude engines, etc.

Without the fuel and pilots, they aren’t enough to shift the scene if the USAAF has already ground the Luftwaffe into collapse.

 

[tonycat77]

Without the fuel and pilots, they aren’t enough to shift the scene if the USAAF has already ground the Luftwaffe into collapse.

If germany is as without fuel as OTL, i doubt they will need nukes to use on them.

 

[Canuck Wingnut]

So Alex Wellerstein's blog has a great article related to this discussion. The TL;DR is- the Manhattan Project never got to the point of picking targets in Germany, since by the time the Bomb was sufficiently developed Germany was essentially screwed. General Groves (head of the Manhattan Project) claimed post-war that he and FDR discussed bombing Germany in 1944, had no moral objections to it, but that it was impractical before VE Day.

As for what targets they would have picked- the focus on the Pacific for the early targeting committee was on ports, aiming to wipe out the only assets that could theoretically be used in retaliation against the continental US- the navy. Obviously the situation is different, but if I lived in Hamburg TTL I'd be nervous. Of course, the other obvious option is Berlin- try and knock out the whole of government in one hit- but again, not the route they eventually went with for Japan (though they considered it), but with the Red Army to take the occupation casualties trying to keep enough of a functional government to sign a surrender document might be less of a concern.

Interesting you mention Dresden specifically...

 

[Dorknought]

Dresden...twice

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Nuremburg.

 

[pompejus]

Since it is very unlikely Germany would surrender after only two atomic bombs were dropped, how would the atomic bomb be used after they bombed two German cities? Would they still continue to bomb German cities, even if it does not cause the nazi's to surrender? Or would they use it in a different way, more strategicaly (or tacticaly, I always confuse the two). As in destroy opposing armies (or structures) and then move in. How would that change the war and the use of atomic bombs in future wars?

 

[Cryptic]

(1) Would the Allies have dropped atomic bombs in Europe ?

In spite of this extreme dislike, they thought it was horrible that the United States had dropped atomic bombs on Japan. They felt that the Americans would not have dropped atomic bombs on Germany, had they been available, because the Germans were a white race, unlike the Japanese. So I have long wondered if this were true.

I am pretty sure that they would have.

The British and Americans attacked Hamburg and Dresden with the most destructive weapons they had available at the moment- massed incendiary bombs against a target selected for its vulnerability to those weapons. I believe that the attacks were also timed for optimal weather in regards to spreading fires as well.

In either case, the two fire raids on German targets produced as many immediate casualties as the atomic bombs did. Furthermore, the Dresden raid was probably pushing the justification envelope, even by the very harsh "total war" mathematics of WWII.

Thus, as two German cities were de facto "nuked" IOTL, I believe that the allies would of used atomic weapons against Germany if German resistance was still viable and would cost a significant number of allied lives to end.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Given the highly centralized command structure, centered on OKW/Hitler hindsight suggest Berlin. Aside from trapping Hitler in his bunker for a few days it takes out the regional phones for some days, and trashes the rail centers, and remaining airfields there. Basically this puts the nazi/military command system into a sort of chaotic paralysis for 3-4 days across the Reich, and in the region for a week or more. If Hitler is permanently buried in his bunker, along with other key members of OKW the effects can become long term.

Of course the Allies have to: A. Grasp the possibility. B. Know where & when Hitler/OKW are vulnerable.

Fuel production is a obvious target. I'd also take a look at key rail choke points in the Ruhr. As part of a CLARION style operation, in tandem with conventional bombers three or four of these might create a mega version of the Transportation Plan in the railway & bridge dense Ruhr cities.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Since it is very unlikely Germany would surrender after only two atomic bombs were dropped, how would the atomic bomb be used after they bombed two German cities?

It appears approx five more would have been available through December, about one every three to four weeks. That fits the estimated Plutonium production rate at Haniford, and the material already available.

Would they still continue to bomb German cities, even if it does not cause the nazi's to surrender? Or would they use it in a different way, more strategicaly (or tacticaly, I always confuse the two). As in destroy opposing armies (or structures) and then move in. How would that change the war and the use of atomic bombs in future wars?

Yes. Air attacks on Japan continued and were planned until the surrender was agreed and accepted. When the German government asked for surrender in 1945 air attacks continued another day or two until the surrender went into effect.

 

[lionhead]

I'd say some other city, because most high target cities by Spring 1945 were aready rubble. Especially Nurnberg, Munchen, Hamburg, Dresden, Leipzig, Munster, Hanover, etc.

Maybe Frankfurt? Although that might be too much West and captureable rather than nukeable. Friedrichshafen maybe?

 

[oberdada]

Depends on the situation.

If the US knows that Hitler will never capitulate, then it makes sense to drop it where he is.
Likely Berlin.

 

[Alanith]

Depends on the situation.

If the US knows that Hitler will never capitulate, then it makes sense to drop it where he is.
Likely Berlin.

Agreed. Kill the snakes head and see if the body will surrender.

 

[viewcode]

The answer is kind of obvious. If we assume that nukes were available in January 1945 then the cities attacked would be those that were bombed IRL between January and May, and presumbly in the same sequence. I think a Lancaster had the capacity to carry a nuke, so it would have been within the range of a Lancaster and with the same probability of success. Dresden was Feb 45 and I'm sure Bomber Harris would have seized the opportunity with both hands.

Of course it would have been the USAAF, but did the Americans have any Superfortresses in theater?

 

[Alanith]

The answer is kind of obvious. If we assume that nukes were available in January 1945 then the cities attacked would be those that were bombed IRL between January and May, and presumbly in the same sequence. I think a Lancaster had the capacity to carry a nuke, so it would have been within the range of a Lancaster and with the same probability of success. Dresden was Feb 45 and I'm sure Bomber Harris would have seized the opportunity with both hands.

Of course it would have been the USAAF, but did the Americans have any Superfortresses in theater?

If the bomb and Superfortress were available early enough, planes could have been sent to England. Certainly phasing out the B-17 could have been in the cards if the B-29 has production to spare.