Would US nuke Germany ?

[makif130289]

Let's say US atomic bombs are ready by January 1945. Both Japan and Germany continues to fight. And we know that US policy is "Europe First". Do you think US would nuke Germany ? You know, allmost all US citizens are descendant of Europeans, nuking Europe would be certainly different from nuking a "foreign" country like Japan.

Finally, if USA decided to nuke Germany, which cities would be targeted ?

 

[KINGBEN]

Why wouldn't they be dropped on Germany. The Allies were conducting a bombing campaign which was killing thousands of German civilians, and I believe Roosevelt said they would be dropped on Germany if ready - I can't remember a source though.

 

[Calad]

Definitely. Berlin was first priority but Germany lost war before bombs were ready so Japan become target instead of.

 

[MDHP1997]

Definitely. Berlin was first priority but Germany lost war before bombs were ready so Japan become target instead of.

I've heard that aswell. The nuke was developed with the intention of nuking Germany, and then Japan when Germany lost.

 

[makif130289]

Definitely. Berlin was first priority but Germany lost war before bombs were ready so Japan become target instead of.

They didn't nuke Tokyo though. Maybe the thought was to keep Japanese authority intact.

 

[DoomBunny]

Normally, the question gets asked in a situation where Germany somehow survives an extra month or two. In that case, my answer is no, as there's no reason for the US to drop a nuke on Germany when most of it is already occupied and organised resistance has utterly collapsed. It would be a waste of a weapon better used on the Japanese.

In January though, things are different. Germany is still very much beaten, but most of Germany isn't occupied. Because of that, there's the potential for the bomb to be used. What worthy effect it would have from a military standpoint is somewhat dubious, as Hitler is in la-la land at this point.

They didn't nuke Tokyo though. Maybe the thought was to keep Japanese authority intact.

That was because Tokyo was already a smoking ruin, and killing the Emperor wasn't seen as a good idea. Hiroshima had far more military value, and was relatively undamaged (so the effect of the bomb could be properly seen).

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I suspect they would be far more hesitant to do it to Germany than Japan, but if it was really necessary, yes, they would. Ideally while several million soviet soldiers were within sight of the blast.

 

[makif130289]

I suspect they would be far more hesitant to do it to Germany than Japan, but if it was really necessary, yes, they would. Ideally while several million soviet soldiers were within sight of the blast.

My point is that both the British and the US politicians sympathized with German people much more than Soviet people. That is also seen in the Western Front. Both Germans and The Allies behaved each other much more respectfully compared to the Eastern Front. Staunch anti-nazi like Churchill personally intervened to save Kesselring after the war. Germany, afterall, was a member of Western civilization, Soviets and Japan weren't. I wonder if Americans would develop a restraint to use atomic bombs to destroy historical cities of their original homeland.

In January 1945, Germany was unoccupied, but was certainly doomed. ( Almost same situation with Japan of August 1945 )

 

[Centurion1973]

Dropping nuke on Germany would also have increased risk of that bomber being shot down - compared to Japan, German air defense was much more dangerous even in final stage of the war.

 

[Jazumir]

I read somewhere (!), that the chemical industry in the rhine valley would have been target no1. Makes sense, since chemical retaliation may have actually become an issue with the V2s and all that, not even exclusively to the front.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I read somewhere (!), that the chemical industry in the rhine valley would have been target no1. Makes sense, since chemical retaliation may have actually become an issue with the V2s and all that, not even exclusively to the front.

Not sure the French would have been too pleased with that

 

[makif130289]

I read somewhere (!), that the chemical industry in the rhine valley would have been target no1. Makes sense, since chemical retaliation may have actually become an issue with the V2s and all that, not even exclusively to the front.

What about radiation effects to France and Benelux countries ? Rhine is too close to the Allies..

 

[Amallric]

Noone was aware of the nocivity of the radiation at the time.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

Dropping nuke on Germany would also have increased risk of that bomber being shot down - compared to Japan, German air defense was much more dangerous even in final stage of the war.

I think only B-29 was able to carry the bomb in 1945. If you want to nuke Berlin then you will first fly to the Baltic Sea and then turn south. You should fly as much as possible over the sea because it will decrease detection risk and also, the conventional air force should support you by launching multiple air raids on other cities diverting the German air assets away. If you are able to fly to the Baltic Sea around Rostock and Stettin undetected then it would take some 15 minutes to fly over Berlin and the rest would be history.

 

[eleinvisible]

Noone was aware of the nocivity of the radiation at the time.

This is important, and to be fair the cities were being rebuilt soon after. It was not like a modern thermonuclear weapon.

USAAF wanted to use big weapons against the big enemy. To nuke Germany, already in the throes of death, would have been useless. To nuke Japan, who seemed willing to fight much longer, was useful. If it were earlier, let's say 1944, then yes, the USAAF may well have nuked Germany.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Also, the US had a concept to defeat Germany and it semed to work. The concept to defeat Japan was much more in doubt. Even if downfall would have suceeded the loss of life would have been enormous and the chance of it to fail wasnt that small. Certainly more risky then Overlord.

 

[DarthJF]

The nuke was developed to defeat Germany, not to defeat Japan. They just managed to defeat Germany before they could use nukes. If the Manhattan project had finished in 43 you can bet that they'd used it.

 

[Fornadan]

Suppose Berlin is nuked without warning 15 January 1945.

Who'd be left in the German leadership to negotiate a surrender?
And would that person actually manage to put an orderly surrender into effect, or would the country just collapse into anarchy and banditry?

 

[DoomBunny]

Dropping nuke on Germany would also have increased risk of that bomber being shot down - compared to Japan, German air defense was much more dangerous even in final stage of the war.

Very little chance, particularly if a B-29 is used (and it will be).

I think only B-29 was able to carry the bomb in 1945.

You could theoretically rig a Lancaster to do the job, but there wouldn't be much point in doing so. Nor any political will for it.

 

[Kuipy]

In January though, things are different. Germany is still very much beaten, but most of Germany isn't occupied. Because of that, there's the potential for the bomb to be used. What worthy effect it would have from a military standpoint is somewhat dubious, as Hitler is in la-la land at this point.

Would the Fuhrerbunker have been enough to protect H though (from the immediate blast I mean, not the radiations)? If not it's a good chance to finish him and possibly have someone more interested in surrendering take his place.