WI: Atomic Bombing on German cities?

[The_Persian_Cat]

Hello all,
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the surrender of Japan thereafter, happened a couple months after Germany was already defeated. It has been argued that the bombings were justified, as Imperial Japan's suicidal aversion to surrender would make an occupation of the home islands unreasonably costly. Whether or not this is true (I'm no expert, but it sounds like a bit of a racist stereotype to me) -- the incredible destructive capacity of atomic weapons was demonstrated for all the world to see. Japan surrendered unconditionally and almost immediately, and the Cold War followed shortly after the Hot War ended.

But how would history have changed if the US's first atomic bombs had been ready for deployment on Germany? Say, if the Manhattan Project had (somehow) been completed a little bit earlier. Or, say Germany had been able to slow the Allied advance by a few months, to the point that it the Nazis still held most of the German core territories + maybe Alpine Austria and Italy by August 1945. (How? I don't know -- bad logistic planning on the part of the Allies; better Enigma encryption; whatever)

Point is-- by August 1945, Nazi Germany still isn't defeated, and the USSR is marching towards Berlin. What would the consequences be if the US decided to drop the atomic bombs on two German cities (say, Dortmund and Essen -- two industrial hubs in the Rhineland) to force Germany's surrender? What would the diplomatic and political consequences of this be? How would it affect the Marshall Plan and American policy towards Europe? How would it affect attitudes towards the Nuremberg Trials and the prosecution of Nazi war criminals? How would it affect German/other European attitudes towards the Soviet Union, relative to the United States?
And would the diplomatic fallout (heh) have been different, if the US had nuked European cities rather than Asian ones? I'm sure that it'd certainly feel different to the Germans, of course-- but would the American public have reacted differently? Would the British public?
Cheers, all!

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Would the American public have reacted differently? Would the British public?

I don't see why they should've.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

I don't see why they should've.

For one thing, the invasion of Germany was already under way. Nuclear fallout could affect Allied soldiers, whether Soviet or Western. This might be seen as especially hostile, if the bomb was dropped to force a surrender which'd prevent the USSR from reaching/occupying Berlin first.
For another, nuclear fallout could affect surrounding countries. Japan is an island nation, so the risk of radiation blowing to other countries was relatively low.

But for a third -- it just seems like white Americans at the time were more ready to dehumanise Japanese people than German people. There were Nazi sympathisers and Nazi-inspired political movements-- but the Japanese had been subject to the Asian Exclusion Act since 1924. And while there were internment camps for German- and Italian-Americans, it was nowhere near on the same scale as Japanese-Americans.
Even in OTL, the bombing of Dresden has become a rallying point for American Nazi sympathisers, who use it dishonestly or ignorantly to claim Germany was the victim of WW2.

 

[DougM]

Great yet ANOTHER post where the OP just assumes that the Atom Bombs were not needed,
Is there any chance we can di for this Anti -US Anti-Bomb comments/posts what we did for the infamous sea mammal? Because this is both ridiculous, and insulting as well as getting out of control with how often this comes up.
Yes i know this OP wants to ”discus” using the bomb on Germany. But the opening statement about the real world use is obnocious.

First off it was the INVASIONS (would have taken more. then one. as Japan has several home islands) NOT the occupation that was the Issue.

Have you done any research or are you simply basing this on ”US BAD”, “US RACIST”?
The death toll and casualties figures for the the last several Islands that the US and its allies had invaded were horrible and getting worse. A huge number of civilians were also getting killed or killing themselves and a lot of Japanese soldiers were refusing to surrender. Add in the preparations that Japan was making to resist the invasion(s) and it was looking likely that the death toll on all sides and the civilians would have reached levels never before seen. So the US understandably “noped” out of that mess once they had an alternative.
You may want to do some research on that or at least read one of the various posts on here about that before making comments or starting posts by questioning if the US needed to use the bombs ir if the US was basically just being racist asses,

Even though you claim ignorance and that you want to avoid discussing the eal world use of the atomic bombs and if they were needed Your entire first post and your topic seams to be predicated on the Bombs NOT being needed and that you want to discuss if the world would view them differently if the US had dropped them on Germany (read that as drop then on white folk vs Asians) The implications of this taken all together seams to imply that you think the US would have not used them on “fellow white folks”. Which is frankly absurd and insulting.

You also have a second major problem. with you base assumption. In 1945 the US didnt NEED the Atom Bombs in Germany. You seam to think that the dangers of Fighting across France and into Germany POST D-Day and or Post the Break out were much the same as what the US and Allies faced in Japan. But that can not be farther from reality. In order to get even close to a similar situation we would have yo see the Atom Bombs ready in May 1944 BEFORE D-Day. So that the use of them could (hopefully) stop the need for any invasion and the subsequent battle across Europe. By 1945 the war in Europe was mostly a clean up operation. Yes many brave men died but that was nothing close to the expect scale for an invasion of Japan.

So you are not comparing anything close to like for like. Just one oft recited statistic. The US ordered so many purple hearts for the invasion of Japan that they were used for Korea and Vietnam and everything pretty much up through then end of the 20th century and maybe longer.
So we are looking at an Invasion that would have been BIGGER then D-Day. Conducted much farther from support (No GB just across the channel) against an prepared enemy that was much less likly yo surrender and much MORE likly to conduct suicide missions and that may very well get civilians (including children) involved in the fight. Oh and then once one zisland is taken we may very well have yo do it again on the Next home Island. And you want to compare that to the fighting in the last few months of the war in Europe?
Either you dont know what you are talking about or you are intentionally bating.

But what the heck i will ”fall for it”. NO if the A bomb was avail on Jan 1 1945 it would NOT have bern dropped on Germany.
1) Even if it was available in late 44 it most likly would not have been dropped on Germany. If you wish to try and conclude that as racist feel free. The truth is however simple war strategy. Once the Wallies have broke out of Normandy there was ZERO chance that they would be stopped. And even less chance that they could be pushed off the continent. So the Atomic bombs were not needed.
2) The US would have to send B-29s to Europe to deliver the Atom bombs? This is complicated.
3) The B-29 is obviously different then anything else and unless the US sends a lot of them it will be obvious that something is up.
4) The. US didnt have enough B-29s to send them in bulk to Europe and still supply the war in the Pacific and they were needed (because if range) in the pacific, The only need for them in Europe is to drop the Atom bomb.
5) Germany still had fighters/interceptors. The famous ME 262 for example.
6) Taking points 2,3,4 and 5 together and you get the scary possibility that Germany could gather its jets and shoot down the Bomber with the Atom bomb on it. After all the B-29 was going to stick out and be obvious so after the first Bomb it is pretty easy for Germany yo figure out that those B-29s are the once with the Nukes.
7) Production of Atom Bombs was SLOW. So if you use then in say March of 45 in Germany that is a bomb you cant use in Japan later.
Add all this together and odds are the are atock piled to be used en mass once they had an Air field close enough to attack from.

Now if you want them to be used in Germany then have them ready in late 43 or early 44 then they will be dropped. Or delay the nvasion of. France until late 45. But once the invasion goes through and the breakout happens they Atom bombs are not needed in Germany.

Heck if the invasion goes ahead and Works in Japan then you reduce the liklyhood of them being used there. Of course Japan has 2 to 4 main islands that need to be take (depending on how you count, what strategy you are using and how long Japan resists) So if Japan dies not give up after the fisrt island is take then you probably get them dropped to avoid the second invasion. And if the death toll is as bad as expected you may get them dropped as revenge.

Speaking of that. You also need to take into account that Japan was the couintry that the US blamed for getting the US into the war. So there was a bit of anger involved with that that we dont get (for the US) vs Germany. I had several uncles that fought in Europe vs Germany andone that fought in the Pacific. And my dad was born in Germany (to young to fight in the war) And my uncles never had a huge problem with my dad but they and my mother all had problems with Japan. So yes i am sure revenge had a hand to play. But nothing CLOSE to the simply reality that invading Japan was going to be a blood bath. And dropping the Atom Bomb(s) was likely going to avoid the invasion and its blood bath.
But dropping them on Germany would save less US lives. And it really was an either or. The US simply could not do both effectively.

Now you give the US B-29s on the order of B-17s and say one Atom Bomb a weeks starting in 1943 and you will see Germany/Europe blown to hell with them.

As for long term… It really wont make huge differences if the Atom Bombs are dropped in Europe. Other then more resistance to stationing US Atom Bombs in Europe post War.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

snip

Wow dude, chill. I acknowledge that the US didn't need atomic bombs in Germany, and that Germany surrendered before the atom bombs were ready -- which is why I proposed several scenarios where that wasn't the case. You can discuss this counterfactual without getting all huffy.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

But for a third -- it just seems like white Americans at the time were more ready to dehumanise Japanese people than German people. There were Nazi sympathisers and Nazi-inspired political movements-- but the Japanese had been subject to the Asian Exclusion Act since 1924. And while there were internment camps for German- and Italian-Americans, it was nowhere near on the same scale as Japanese-Americans.
Even in OTL, the bombing of Dresden has become a rallying point for American Nazi sympathisers, who use it dishonestly or ignorantly to claim Germany was the victim of WW2.

The racist aspect is increasingly exaggerated the more the decades increase. As a youth in the 1960s or 1970s I can't remember that aspect mentioned at all. My father & his peers I knew who fought in Europe were more disappointed a super weapon was not available to get it all overweigh sooner. They did not like killing several million German civilians but they did it anyway. My father thought the 200,000+ French civilians killed by Allied bombing tragic, but part fo getting the war over with. Note that my father was a second generation US citizen. His cousins were among the Germans targeted. He never suggested that was a obstacle to killing Germans.

If you examine the documents from the planning for the atomic weapons, by the British from 1940, or in the US 1942 - mid 1944 you will find Japan is absent from those reports, memos, meeting minutes. its all about using the weapon vs Germany. Rhoades in his history of the Brits and US atomic bomb development: 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'. Reviews those documents. its not until the late summer of 1944 when its clear Germany is near defeat that the discussion shifts to using the weapon vs Japan.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

And while there were internment camps for German- and Italian-Americans, it was nowhere near on the same scale as Japanese-Americans.

This had nothing to do with racism. It had everything to do with getting sucker punched at Pearl Harbor. I guarantee you that had Italy been the one who sneak attacked Pearl, the crackdown on Italian Americans would have been terrible to behold.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

The racist aspect is increasingly exaggerated the more the decades increase. As a youth in the 1960s or 1970s I can't remember that aspect mentioned at all. My father & his peers I knew who fought in Europe were more disappointed a super weapon was not available to get it all overweigh sooner. They did not like killing several million German civilians but they did it anyway. My father thought the 200,000+ French civilians killed by Allied bombing tragic, but part fo getting the war over with. Note that my father was a second generation US citizen. His cousins were among the Germans targeted. He never suggested that was a obstacle to killing Germans.

If you examine the documents from the planning for the atomic weapons, by the British from 1940, or in the US 1942 - mid 1944 you will find Japan is absent from those reports, memos, meeting minutes. its all about using the weapon vs Germany. Rhoades in his history of the Brits and US atomic bomb development: 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb'. Reviews those documents. its not until the late summer of 1944 when its clear Germany is near defeat that the discussion shifts to using the weapon vs Japan.

Thank you, I think I probably overstated the racism thing. And I apologise if I implied that your father's generation was somehow driven by racial hatred -- their sacrifice is truly heroic, and I beg your pardon.
Anyway, I acknowledge that the Americans developed the bomb fully expecting that they would use it on Germany. Likewise, Germany was Britain's priority when they began the Tube Alloys programme, and ditto for all the other Allied scientists who fled France, Poland, Germany itself, etc to work on Tube Alloys/the Manhattan Project. And the USSR certainly would have used the bomb against Germany if they had the chance -- they were fighting desperately to hold off a German invasion, and weren't even officially at war with Japan.

So, the plan was for the US to use the bomb on Germany, should the need and opportunity arise -- and this was uncontroversial among the Allied Powers. Still, Germany surrendered in May, so that didn't need to happen. I guess the more interesting question would be, "What would have been the consequences of using the atom bomb, if the D-Day invasion/Soviet offensive had been unsuccessful?" Instead of sweeping into Germany, both sides get entrenched in France, Poland, and Italy, and the bomb is used in the context of a contested European theatre.

 

[Polish Eagle]

The US actually decided to make Japan the primary target for the bomb as early as 1943--the stated justification being that they'd be less likely to be able to reverse engineer a dud. The fact that the US didn't bother constructing B-29 airfields in the ETO helps support the idea that, by 1944 at least, they did not plan to hit Germany with the bomb first.

I'm not sure the public would have reacted differently anyway. Few cared much about Dresden until David Irving wrote his little bit of Hitler apologia and Kurt Vonnegut uncritically turned it into a novel.

More interesting, though, is the consequence of the bomb being used...and the war dragging on for months after. Germany fought on despite similar losses of cities (like the aforementioned Dresden)--I'm not sure using the bomb against a Germany holding the lines at its pre-war borders would end the war rapidly. This would change post-war thoughts on atomic strategy--the USAF bodies who IOTL wanted the Army and Navy drawn down in favor of air power and atomic bombers would have a much harder sell if the bomb isn't the obvious war-winner it was for a few years IOTL.

 

[CalBear]

For one thing, the invasion of Germany was already under way. Nuclear fallout could affect Allied soldiers, whether Soviet or Western. This might be seen as especially hostile, if the bomb was dropped to force a surrender which'd prevent the USSR from reaching/occupying Berlin first.
For another, nuclear fallout could affect surrounding countries. Japan is an island nation, so the risk of radiation blowing to other countries was relatively low.

But for a third -- it just seems like white Americans at the time were more ready to dehumanise Japanese people than German people. There were Nazi sympathisers and Nazi-inspired political movements-- but the Japanese had been subject to the Asian Exclusion Act since 1924. And while there were internment camps for German- and Italian-Americans, it was nowhere near on the same scale as Japanese-Americans.
Even in OTL, the bombing of Dresden has become a rallying point for American Nazi sympathisers, who use it dishonestly or ignorantly to claim Germany was the victim of WW2.

This proceeds for a series of false assumptions.

1. No one really understood the implications of radioactive fallout in 1945*. U.S. invasions planning for Japan anticipated using, after a third military high value/population center strike with a Bomb, to use up to SEVEN weapons in what amounted to a tactical role directly againt IJA defensive position that would then, literally before the smoke cleared, be attack/occupied/past through by U.S. troops.

2. The U.S. senior command, especially, but not exclusively, Eisenhower, wanted nothing to do with Berlin. It was seen as pointless casualty sink, where the U.S./UK/French would occupy 2/3 of post war no matter who captured it.

3. The Japanese-American were NOT uniformly placed into Internment Camps. Those living in Hawaii were not. Those living exclusively in California (part of the Western Defense Command OA (Commanded by Lt Gen DeWitt and his evil little minion Major Karl Bendetsen) were interned. A family friend RIP ( a Nessi), who was living in Louisiana when the war began was not only not interned but was allowed to visit his family, who WERE interned, and leave (you read that right, guy went to see his folks in the Internment Camp, and was not just allowed, but REQUIRED to leave at the end of the day. DeWitt was a fool but Bendetsen was a straight up bastard).

Revisionism is rarely correct.

*As late has the early 1050s `950s the U.S. military would routinely bring buses that had been used to carry personnel to ABOVE GROUND nuclear testing, where the troops were deployed into basic slit trenches as close as six KM from Ground Zero, to test the effects of the weapon on the psychological health of troops) back to San Diego Naval Base and wash the dust and dirt off of them IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT. Clueless doesn't begin to cover it.

 

[Post]

More interesting, though, is the consequence of the bomb being used...and the war dragging on for months after. Germany fought on despite similar losses of cities (like the aforementioned Dresden)--I'm not sure using the bomb against a Germany holding the lines at its pre-war borders would end the war rapidly. This would change post-war thoughts on atomic strategy--the USAF bodies who IOTL wanted the Army and Navy drawn down in favor of air power and atomic bombers would have a much harder sell if the bomb isn't the obvious war-winner it was for a few years IOTL.

Good point. As long as Hitler is alive, Germany won't surrender. In Japan the emperor could make a final decision, In Germany only Hitler could.

 

[Father Maryland]

This proceeds for a series of false assumptions.

1. No one really understood the implications of radioactive fallout in 1945*. U.S. invasions planning for Japan anticipated using, after a third military high value/population center strike with a Bomb, to use up to SEVEN weapons in what amounted to a tactical role directly againt IJA defensive position that would then, literally before the smoke cleared, be attack/occupied/past through by U.S. troops.

2. The U.S. senior command, especially, but not exclusively, Eisenhower, wanted nothing to do with Berlin. It was seen as pointless casualty sink, where the U.S./UK/French would occupy 2/3 of post war no matter who captured it.

3. The Japanese-American were NOT uniformly placed into Internment Camps. Those living in Hawaii were not. Those living exclusively in California (part of the Western Defense Command OA (Commanded by Lt Gen DeWitt and his evil little minion Major Karl Bendetsen) were interned. A family friend RIP ( a Nessi), who was living in Louisiana when the war began was not only not interned but was allowed to visit his family, who WERE interned, and leave (you read that right, guy went to see his folks in the Internment Camp, and was not just allowed, but REQUIRED to leave at the end of the day. DeWitt was a fool but Bendetsen was a straight up bastard).

Revisionism is rarely correct.

*As late has the early 1050s the U.S. military would routinely bring buses that had been used to carry personnel to ABOVE GROUND nuclear testing, where the troops were deployed into basic slit trenches as close as six KM from Ground Zero, to test the effects of the weapon on the psychological health of troops) back to San Diego Naval Base and wash the dust and dirt off of them IN THE HOSPITAL PARKING LOT. Clueless doesn't begin to cover it.

I didn't realize SAC was one of the combatants at the Battle of Hastings.

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[CalBear]

The US actually decided to make Japan the primary target for the bomb as early as 1943--the stated justification being that they'd be less likely to be able to reverse engineer a dud. The fact that the US didn't bother constructing B-29 airfields in the ETO helps support the idea that, by 1944 at least, they did not plan to hit Germany with the bomb first.

I'm not sure the public would have reacted differently anyway. Few cared much about Dresden until David Irving wrote his little bit of Hitler apologia and Kurt Vonnegut uncritically turned it into a novel.

More interesting, though, is the consequence of the bomb being used...and the war dragging on for months after. Germany fought on despite similar losses of cities (like the aforementioned Dresden)--I'm not sure using the bomb against a Germany holding the lines at its pre-war borders would end the war rapidly. This would change post-war thoughts on atomic strategy--the USAF bodies who IOTL wanted the Army and Navy drawn down in favor of air power and atomic bombers would have a much harder sell if the bomb isn't the obvious war-winner it was for a few years IOTL.

This hits at a VERY important issue. The global Nuclear Taboo, which has undoubtedly prevented at least one, possibly more post 1945 uses of the "Specials" was, in large part, thanks to the perception of what the Bomb did in Japan as the actual frank effects. Hit the Reich and Hitler tells the Allies to fuck off afterwards that taboo is much weaker.

Additionally, pretty much every city over 50,000 population in Germany had already been heavily damaged, either by the 8th Air Force in its (not so, but we really tried) Daylight Precision Bombing campaign or by Bomber Harris's (damned right I'm trying to kill all the bastards I can get) Bomber Command well before the Bomb was available. Bombed rubble is a LOT less scary than "Undamaged at 08:14:59 (local) and pulverized, irradiated wasteland at 08:16" city.

 

[CalBear]

I didn't realize SAC was one of the combatants at the Battle of Hastings.

Sorry couldn't resist.

LEARN YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!

Fixed it.

 

[Polish Eagle]

This hits at a VERY important issue. The global Nuclear Taboo, which has undoubtedly prevented at least one, possibly more post 1945 uses of the "Specials" was, in large part, thanks to the perception of what the Bomb did in Japan as the actual frank effects. Hit the Reich and Hitler tells the Allies to fuck off afterwards that taboo is much weaker.

Additionally, pretty much every city over 50,000 population in Germany had already been heavily damaged, either by the 8th Air Force in its (not so, but we really tried) Daylight Precision Bombing campaign or by Bomber Harris's (damned right I'm trying to kill all the bastards I can get) Bomber Command well before the Bomb was available. Bombed rubble is a LOT less scary than "Undamaged at 08:14:59 (local) and pulverized, irradiated wasteland at 08:16" city.

The early Cold War will certainly look a lot different if the taboo looks different. The obvious change is that the US Army and Navy might not be drawn down as much as IOTL--leaving them more ready to react in Korea.

But that assumes the late 1940s progress in a recognizable way, which they might not.

Germany takes a bomb in Summer of 1945, Hitler tells Truman and Stalin to shove it up their backsides, and fights on until, say, Christmas. Then he blows his brains out in a bunker. More bombs fall but it's basically treated as "Extra-special normal bomb."

You probably see the bomb deployed against Japan as well in these last stages--but with Germany giving the example of fighting on, would Japan yield as IOTL? The Soviets also aren't going to push Manchuria before Germany is beaten. The Chinese, by 1945 IOTL, had gone on the offensive--the ROC forces might reach Shanghai and begin pushing into the Beijing area as Japan's home islands get invaded. I think that will leave Chiang in a stronger post-war position. The US Joint Chiefs wanted an invasion of Formosa, but that'll be rendered moot with Japan invaded and Shanghai liberated. Might the US plan to actually put boots on the ground in Korea? (perhaps Chinese forces?) I'm not aware of any planning for an invasion of Korea IOTL. With the Soviets busy in Europe, China and Korea might not go red at all.

Stalin gets the bomb in the late 1940s...but it's not as disturbing as IOTL. Just an extra-large firecracker. The Berlin blockade, or perhaps the Hungarian Revolution, serve as flashpoints for WWIII, when the United Nations (China included) decide to deal with the USSR once and for all.

 

[Father Maryland]

LEARN YOUR HISTORY!!!!!!!!

Fixed it.

OK now Curtis Lemay has an entire article in what was formerly a wiki page on something called "viking raids" but is now called "History of the Nordic Dead lands".

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I think if the USAAF were capable of conducting a raid of the order of devastation of the Tokyo raid or one of the 2 Atomic raids on Germany before it surrendered then they almost certainly would have done.

Anything to bring that hateful war to an earlier end!

 

[CaekDaemon]

where the troops were deployed into basic slit trenches as close as six KM from Ground Zero

For those that don't know what CalBear is referring to here, check out this test footage from 1959:

At 1:50, you can see the troops get out of their trenches and start heading towards the detonation. At 2:30, troops without even a slit trench just standing around, looking up at the cloud. One of the best things to visualize how bright a nuke flash actually is can be seen in this video: the face of the soldier at 1:21 as he stands up out of the trench, no goggles, and looks like someone's shining a lamp in his eyes.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

.... The fact that the US didn't bother constructing B-29 airfields in the ETO helps support the idea that, by 1944 at least, they did not plan to hit Germany with the bomb first.

Technically no they did not. However... A B29 did tour several air bases in the UK. The runways were adequate for a light use by the B29. Like a three plane attack element on the way to a target in Germany. In Africa there were several that saw heavy use. The ferry route for the initial deployment of the 20th Air Force ran from Kansas to Morroco (one overnight ferry flight), to Egypt or India, to China. The airfields used on this ferry route handled hundreds of the B29, had ground support personnel trained to repair them, and a parts stock. A B29 mission from either the UK, or the North African littoral is practical without any radical PoD, or even building a base. For Tibbits little bomb group the 'base' structure is adequate.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

The US actually decided to make Japan the primary target for the bomb as early as 1943--the stated justification being that they'd be less likely to be able to reverse engineer a dud. The fact that the US didn't bother constructing B-29 airfields in the ETO helps support the idea that, by 1944 at least, they did not plan to hit Germany with the bomb first.

Out of curiosity, could you drop an A-bomb from a Lancaster?