Could a 1943 D-Day have conversely lead to an atomic bombed Germany?

[Malone]

It has been argued here quite extensively that an Operation Sledgehammer launched in 1943 would likely have been successfully repelled by the Germans. This would have made the Allies more hesitant to launch a second invasion so soon in 1944. Consequently, we can assume that the war in Europe would have likely been delayed compared to what happened IOTL.

The ability of the Americans to deploy atomic bombs was just a few months away from the surrender of Germany in May 1945. With the Germans potentially continuing to fight into the summer of 1945, it begs the question of whether they would have become a feasible target for the dropping of atomic bombs.

 

[MrHappy]

General thoughts in no particular order.

1. The atomic bomb was built with the expectation that it would be used against Germany. So, yes, the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany if Nazis were still putting up a stiff fight in September, 1945, and there was a viable German target available to bomb.

2. Op. Sledgehammer wasn't warmly accepted by the Allies (as a big messy group), just the US top brass. The British were largely opposed to the proposal from the very beginning. Note that the Brits were expected to lead the landing. I suspect that the early US enthusiasm was more the product of the US commanders' own inexperience in such matters. Accordingly, as planning progress, the difficulties of mounting a major offensive operation on Continental Europe became more evident and, as a result, US support began fading by June, 1942. I further suspect that the operation's postponements had less to do with thinking that the plan would come together in 1943, rather, the Allies wanted the plan to be available if the Eastern front began to go catawampus.

3. For Op. Sledgehammer to have had traction, the British COS and political leadership needed to accept the proposal. {I don't buy into the notion that the British were just junior partners in Allies and would go along with whatever b.s. proposal Roosevelt or Marshall threw onto the table.) This requires a POD for British thinking.

4. I'm assuming that for Op. Sledgehammer to proceed in 1943, Op. Torch is never undertaken. (Also that the eye-opener at Tarawa didn't occur sooner than OTL.) So what's the situation in North Africa, Italy and the remainder of the Med.?

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

But would have the Allies risked to nuke Germany?

OTL when this question was discussed in Washington in 1944 or 1945 the consensus reached was that the risk of having it shot down or captured was too high, in addition to the question where to actually use it? Every major city was destroyed by conventional bombs already so what was the point?

Though, if the Western Allies don't have a foothold in Western Europe then they might use it, but again, where? They will not risk a deep strike into the German heartland and they are certainly not going to nuke parts of France, Hannover or Wilhelmshaven might be the chosen targets but still, it will be a one time trick before the air defense is bolstered or the Allies run out of any valued target to hit.

Also, expect nerve gas variants of the V-1 and V-2 to be launched in retaliation against London and the use of Tabun filled shells against the Soviet Army.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

But would have the Allies risked to nuke Germany?

OTL when this question was discussed in Washington in 1944 or 1945 the consensus reached was that the risk of having it shot down or captured was too high, in addition to the question where to actually use it? Every major city was destroyed by conventional bombs already so what was the point?

Though, if the Western Allies don't have a foothold in Western Europe then they might use it, but again, where? They will not risk a deep strike into the German heartland and they are certainly not going to nuke parts of France, Hannover or Wilhelmshaven might be the chosen targets but still, it will be a one time trick before the air defense is bolstered or the Allies run out of any valued target to hit.

Also, expect nerve gas variants of the V-1 and V-2 to be launched in retaliation against London and the use of Tabun filled shells against the Soviet Army.

If you couldn't gain sufficient air superiority [1] wouldn't the solution be to wait until you did, or maybe collect a few bombs and then send them all at once so there's a good chance of most getting through?

As for the targets, important, accessible and able to be found by night and almost certainly German territory [2]. That puts Hamburg as one target, but not sure about the other 4 or 5.

[1] close to OTL over Japan in mid 45
[2] Slough? Betjamen vindicated!

 

[kham_coc]

The only realistic scenario where the Allies launch Dday in 1943, is one where the Soviets are either down, or going down.
If as is likely, the landing is Dieppe 2.0 then the soviets are out and there very likely is no Allied presence on the continent in 1945.
Then yes using Nukes would make sense (presuming there isn't peace in 43/44, which while plausible, is by no means probable) - The question then becomes where and for what purpose?
Realistically, with a much strengthened Luftwaffe, the only viable (as in acceptable) targets are coastal, either to support a landing in France, not popular with the French I would imagine and even with Nukes, could the Allies secure a landing in a scenario where the Wehrmacht could make maximum effort to contest it? - don't think so, but...

Or, punitively striking the German north Atlantic coast - The problem with Nukes of this era is that while powerful, they are still in the same league as conventional bombing, and we all know how little the Allied bombing did to impact German will to resist, especially in a scenario where the Soviets have fallen apart.
I don't see how Allied war aims, at least sufficient of them to constitute what they thought of as victory could be achieved absent boots on the ground and unconditional surrender (even with some Japan style fig leaf, like getting to keep Austria or something).

My two cents, is that in all scenarios where there is no eastern front, the reality on the ground unavoidably leads to some sort of negotiated outcome (whether with the Nazis, or, with the officers).

 

[Post]

The only realistic scenario where the Allies launch Dday in 1943, is one where the Soviets are either down, or going down.

Or if the Battle of the Atlantic is won sooner. Which is possible.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

The ability of the Americans to deploy atomic bombs was just a few months away from the surrender of Germany in May 1945. With the Germans potentially continuing to fight into the summer of 1945, it begs the question of whether they would have become a feasible target for the dropping of atomic bombs.

(Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Military History. Most of what I know about World War II is from reading about the War in the Pacific and the Wartime Political History of the countries involved. If I get anything egregiously wrong, please feel free to call me out on it.)

I don't know enough about Sledgehammer to answer this exact question, but as something I've thought a lot about before, I'd like to explore a bit about the effects of Atomic Strikes on Germany. For the sake of this scenario, let's say the US (somehow) moves faster on the Bomb and has 2 ready to deploy in November of 1944, 10 months before they did in OTL.

For reference, this is what the front looked like at the start of November 1944. (The Map is from "Atlas of the World Battle Fronts in Semimonthly Phases to August 15th 1945: Supplement to The Biennial report of The Chief of Staff of the United States Army July 1, 1943 to June 30 1945 To the Secretary of War..")

With the German Air Force not really a significant fighting force at this point the Western Allies probably could have gotten a bomber through to most German cities not east of the Oder–Neisse line. I, personally, do not think they would target any city that was occupied (Ie. Not part of Germany in 1933), and given the amount of bombing already done to most of Germany at this point, there aren't many Military targets left. I think the most likely target would be Berlin, given it's where most of the Government was located, and it could result in a decapitation strike if they strike when the leadership is mostly in the city at the time. The other 2 are Nuremberg and Munich, given that both that enlarged parts of the Nazi political movement before taking power and would be a largely symbolic blow to Nazism as a whole. For the sake of this hypothetical, I'll say the US decided to strike Berlin and Nuremberg.

The effects of such an attack would be huge; assuming the US strikes in the Government center of the city and when Allied Intelligence would have known most of Nazi leadership was in Berlin, the strike would be absolutely devastating for the German Government. Hitler, Ribbentrop, Himmler, Goring, Goebbels, Speer, Dontiz, and numerous generals, ministers, and other lower-ranking Government workers could be killed, entirely destroying any leadership in the country as well. German Armed Forces would probably collapse without any centralized structure for orders and a general confusion about why nobody in Berlin is responding, and with German forces already being stretched thin by late 1944. It is possible that large parts of the military would begin to surrender on the Western Front to Allied forces in the aftermath, as the Allies advance into Germany proper and the Russians take advantage of the disorganization between German units. It is also possible that a Government Minister is still alive, either from not being in Berlin or surviving the blast by sheer chance, and manages to agree to unconditional surrender rather quickly. More likely than not, though, it's pure chaos, and by the time anyone representing the German Government can agree to surrender, the Allies and the Soviet Union have liberated most of Europe and ended the war in effect before 1944 concludes. With the Germans out of the War, it's probable that the Soviets would invade Manchuria far earlier then IOTL, probably around March of 1945, this, combined with the Allies refocusing on Japan, probably leads to the Japanese putting up the flag in May or June, this would take slightly longer then TL without the bombs from what I read, but they would still probably surrender before any land invasion. The main effects of this would probably be merely that all of Korea comes under Soviet Influence.

I don't think the carving up of Europe by the Allies would change much here, except that I think the Allies would be willing to give up all of Berlin to the Soviet Union, there is a lot less of reason to keep it here, this avoids a lot of incidents like the Berlin Airlift and the Berlin Wall, and numerous incidents between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in Berlin during the Cold War, how this effects the Cold War is something that is hard to speculate. I think the largest impact is that in the West, the reception to the bombings are going to be very different then they were to Japan. Japan was an Asian country of Asian people that most of the US and European population had little attachment too. Germany is not the same, many in the US are descended from Germans, Berlin was a well known major city filled with White German people whom many Americans descended from, same with Europe, these are also Europeans that are wiped away in Atomic Hellfire with two cities now largely destroyed as a result. Famous buildings we still have around would be destroyed, cultural artifacts lost, a lot of Nazi leadership would be dead and not face trial, and Berlin would very likely not be the seat of any East Germany Government, with a much longer and more extensive repairs being needed. Not to mention the images of Germans suffering from radiation sickness that would pour out of both cities would leave a far bigger scar in the public, and create more outrage at these weapons being used then was the case IOTL. The war ending sooner also reduces deaths from the Holocaust by proxy, although I don't know of any numbers of how many were killed between November of 44 and May of 45 so I can't say an exact amount of how many, but it is undoubtably a significant amount, including Anne Frank, given that she died in Feburary or March of 1945. I also can't say for sure if that effects the impact of her journal being released, and if it still is, how much it changes it's general impact in history, culture and literature at large. Germany would also undoubtably have lasting cultural impacts from the bombings like Japan did IOTL.

Speaking of which, Japan not being hit by Nuclear Weapons fundamentally changes society in Post-War Japan, the butterflies of this are massive and unpredictable, so I won't speculate on most of them. I will, however, mention that this very likely eliminates the Gojira character and series, and given the sheer cultural impact of that city and a lot of the rather revolutionary practical visual effects it brought (along with suitmation into the mainstream) this probably creates a massive butterfly on film and media in general, in both the West and Japan in ways I could not possibly predict or even have an inkling of.

In general, the butterflies of this scenario and fucking massive and very hard to predict the aftermath of, especially if it happens in the event of an early D-Day as you've asked, even with a minimal change scenario like this they're massive! I have more thoughts on this scenario, as said I've thought about it a lot in my time (who knows, maybe I'll make it into a full timeline at some point), but this post is long enough as is, so I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

A nuclear strike on Berlin would be very destructive and disruptive, but you can be sure the nazi leadership would be in deep and strongly build bunkers [1]. I'm not at all sure how far away you'd need to be to survive a 20kt or so blast, but some concrete structures did OK in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a deep underground well built bunker is going to be pretty robust, so I'd think there's a good chance the leaders would survive. But then what? They would emerge to a scene of extreme devastation, confusion and dysfunction.

If they could get to Eagle's nest they might be able to regain control in a few days, but there will be a lot of uncertainty among the generals. Do they hold in place like they were told? Pull back because there's no orders for three or five days and hope Hitler doesn't fire or shoot them for cowardice when he is back in contact? What happens to supply chains etc.
These questions would also emerge from a conventional firestorm in Berlin.

[1] It's not impossible, but very unlikely that a raid could be launched without allowing a warning.

 

[jmc247]

If the Eastern Front was seen as caving in meaning Leningrad and Stalingrad falling its possible a too early invasion of mainland Europe happens and is repulsed. Then nukes are on the table, possibly even they use them tactically in a Summer/Fall 1945 invasion of Europe.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

A nuclear strike on Berlin would be very destructive and disruptive, but you can be sure the nazi leadership would be in deep and strongly build bunkers [1]. I'm not at all sure how far away you'd need to be to survive a 20kt or so blast, but some concrete structures did OK in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a deep underground well built bunker is going to be pretty robust, so I'd think there's a good chance the leaders would survive. But then what? They would emerge to a scene of extreme devastation, confusion and dysfunction.

If they could get to Eagle's nest they might be able to regain control in a few days, but there will be a lot of uncertainty among the generals. Do they hold in place like they were told? Pull back because there's no orders for three or five days and hope Hitler doesn't fire or shoot them for cowardice when he is back in contact? What happens to supply chains etc.
These questions would also emerge from a conventional firestorm in Berlin.

[1] It's not impossible, but very unlikely that a raid could be launched without allowing a warning.

The issue with Nazi Leadership, assuming they have a warning, hunkering down underground is it's entirely possible that debris locks them in and traps them with no way out. Nobody may be able to find them given the destruction, or hell, knowing they are trapped. Not to mention that it's not impossible for a single Allied plane carrying the bomb to sneak in. It'd be effectively a decapitation strike either way, at least for a significant while, it takes a while to transport out of a city hit with a Nuclear Bomb. Not to mention that leadership who survive probably suffer radiation sickness in the process of trying to leave the city, if any even can.

 

[MrHappy]

Why the focus on bombing Berlin?

I'd expect the Allies to utilize a targeting protocol for German targets similar to that used for ranking Japanese ones, to wit-- 1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are likely not to be attacked by the date the bomb(s) are ready for delivery. The last factor was to showcase the destructive potential of an atomic bomb. Accordingly, the "pristine" targets were preferred in order for the enemy to recognize that the ensuing damage was the result of just one bomb. Other factors included local air defenses, cloud cover, fallout predictions, the location of POWs, etc.

Berlin likely has the greatest concentration of air defenses in the Third Reich, and from the UK B-29 bases, there was a lot of flight time through German airspace. Aircraft survivability was another a critical factor. I suspect the Allies would take long looks at Hamburg, Kiel, and a half dozen cities in the Ruhr as more likely first targets.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

Why the focus on bombing Berlin?

I'd expect the Allies to utilize a targeting protocol for German targets similar to that used for ranking Japanese ones, to wit-- 1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are likely not to be attacked by the date the bomb(s) are ready for delivery. The last factor was to showcase the destructive potential of an atomic bomb. Accordingly, the "pristine" targets were preferred in order for the enemy to recognize that the ensuing damage was the result of just one bomb. Other factors included local air defenses, cloud cover, fallout predictions, the location of POWs, etc.

Berlin likely has the greatest concentration of air defenses in the Third Reich, and from the UK B-29 bases, there was a lot of flight time through German airspace. Aircraft survivability was another a critical factor. I suspect the Allies would take long looks at Hamburg, Kiel, and a half dozen cities in the Ruhr as more likely first targets.

By 1944/1945 there was not much else you could realistically bomb that would achieve much unless you go after the German Leadership in Berlin. If the goal is "win the war as quickly as possible," Berlin is the only reasonable target. If you don't hit after that, it'd probably be wiser just to save it for Japan. It isn't like German leadership would hear, "yeah Hamburg is gone now," and react at all by that stage of the war. I also don't think the Allies would want to bomb a city so close to the frontline for many a reason.

 

[CaptainCalvert]

By 1944/1945 there was not much else you could realistically bomb that would achieve much unless you go after the German Leadership in Berlin. If the goal is "win the war as quickly as possible," Berlin is the only reasonable target. If you don't hit after that, it'd probably be wiser just to save it for Japan. It isn't like German leadership would hear, "yeah Hamburg is gone now," and react at all by that stage of the war. I also don't think the Allies would want to bomb a city so close to the frontline for many a reason.

Another possibility would be anti-industry targets. Synthetic fuel plant? I'm sure we had one there yesteday...
Berlin and Vienna would be very well defended, but could a B29 fly above 128mm Flak and above realistic height for a Komet or similar point interceptor? Then again, do you need to attack by day for accuracy or to track the effects properly or is this a nicd to have?
I'm thinking that a night raid might push survivability up enough to balance the drawbacks.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

A lot of the German industry by 1944 was already underground, even in 1945 when Germany was pretty much bombed on a daily basis and started getting overrun, industrial production was still high, to 1943 levels if not 44. Synthetic fuel plants? Why waste a nuke on them? Their numbers as the years pass is increasing so taking out one won't decrease the overall fuel production.

Also, this scenario has the premise that Germany still controls France, so, their overall industrial and military situation should be even better than OTL.

The Me 163, Me 262 and Flak 128 could operate at the B29's maximum ceiling with some room to spare. There were more than 300 Me 163 built OTL with only 30 or so being commissioned for combat operations. The threat of the B29 in England will force the Germans to commission the full inventory to act as manned SAMs given that just the news of the B29 forced them to make the BV 155 and Ta 152H.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

Another possibility would be anti-industry targets. Synthetic fuel plant? I'm sure we had one there yesteday...
Berlin and Vienna would be very well defended, but could a B29 fly above 128mm Flak and above realistic height for a Komet or similar point interceptor? Then again, do you need to attack by day for accuracy or to track the effects properly or is this a nicd to have?
I'm thinking that a night raid might push survivability up enough to balance the drawbacks.

Worth noting a night raid makes it more likely that the German leadership on the ground also has less warning or none at all, so if the goal is decapitation, then it seems the best way to do that as well.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The threat of the B29 in England will force the Germans to commission the full inventory to act as manned SAMs given that just the news of the B29 forced them to make the BV 155 and Ta 152H.

While this is true it does require the Germans to be aware there are B29's in Britain and by that point in the war the chances of a German reconnaissance aircraft surviving to reach the US bomber airfields, take pictures and return to Germany were very slim. Not even the jet Arado Blitz was safe from interception once the Meteor entered service with fighter command, and they'd have to make the attempt in daylight.

 

[MrHappy]

I apologize for over-generalizing, I'm trying to be brief (and failing) and watch football as I write.

PIT answered my question: "why focus on Berlin?" Simply to decapitate German leadership. Likewise, the state of Germany's industrial cities in 1944 may very well have been in such a condition that the targeting criteria used for the Japanese bombings was meaningless applied to Germany. I just don't know.

let's say the US (somehow) moves faster on the Bomb and has 2 ready to deploy in November of 1944, 10 months before they did in OTL.

This is one item in Post #7 that's problematic. The absence of atomic bombs in November, 1944, wasn't a problem of some scientist not burning the midnight oil enough evenings. The problems were many; there were both technical and in fuel production issues. The only way the atomic bombs are ready in Nov. 1944 is if the Manhattan Project teams make correct choices at nearly every step, rather than a lot of trial & error. But I don't believe that making better choices at every step, though, make Post #7 ASB.

but some concrete structures did OK in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a deep underground well built bunker is going to be pretty robust, so I'd think there's a good chance the leaders would survive.

Several Hiroshima survivors were well within 1000' feet of the blast hypocenter, all were in reinforced concrete buildings. at the time of the blast, and not necessarily military-grade buildings. Survivability in reinforced bunkers specifically designed to protect against bombing would be likely be very high from the initial blast. But I suspect that some of the Nazi leadership begins to succumb to radiation exposure during the ensuing days and weeks.

 

[PlanetaryIceTea]

This is one item in Post #7 that's problematic. The absence of atomic bombs in November, 1944, wasn't a problem of some scientist not burning the midnight oil enough evenings. The problems were many; there were both technical and in fuel production issues. The only way the atomic bombs are ready in Nov. 1944 is if the Manhattan Project teams make correct choices at nearly every step, rather than a lot of trial & error. But I don't believe that making better choices at every step, though, make Post #7 ASB.

As stated, it definitely is ASB, and I fully acknowledge it. I more wanted to explore the general effects of a nuked Germany just to really set the stage for what is being suggested when Atomic Strikes on Germany is mentioned. (Also to note, it's entirely possible for the US to have the bomb by then if the Manhattan Project begins earlier, however, I'm not sure why it would be unless the US gets involved earlier, which changes the entire outlook of the war.) Think of Post #7 more as a thought experiment than an actual fully thought out Alternate History proposal.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

While this is true it does require the Germans to be aware there are B29's in Britain and by that point in the war the chances of a German reconnaissance aircraft surviving to reach the US bomber airfields, take pictures and return to Germany were very slim. Not even the jet Arado Blitz was safe from interception once the Meteor entered service with fighter command, and they'd have to make the attempt in daylight.

I mean, after they shoot down the first B-29 they will realize they bought them to Europe, and in case of a failed 1943 landing they will be more concerned about a possible repeat, so they will attempt to fly regular reconnaissance missions even if it is dangerous. As for the Arado, perhaps the B1/2 but the C1/2/3 were much faster than the Meteors F1/2/3, so they should be relatively untouched during the initial deployment of the B29 to Europe and use.

PIT answered my question: "why focus on Berlin?" Simply to decapitate German leadership. Likewise, the state of Germany's industrial cities in 1944 may very well have been in such a condition that the targeting criteria used for the Japanese bombings was meaningless applied to Germany. I just don't know.

It won't decapitate the German leadership, not everyone was in Berlin or huddled in the bunker, also, with the premise of no Western Front Hitler and his cronies would have even less of a reason to be in Berlin. He had dozen of temporary headquarters throughout the war which sometimes were only occupied by a dozen people so even if they nuke Berlin the chances of actually hurting the German leadership or governance are pretty low.

Several Hiroshima survivors were well within 1000' feet of the blast hypocenter, all were in reinforced concrete buildings. at the time of the blast, and not necessarily military-grade buildings. Survivability in reinforced bunkers specifically designed to protect against bombing would be likely be very high from the initial blast. But I suspect that some of the Nazi leadership begins to succumb to radiation exposure during the ensuing days and weeks.

Many succumbed to radiation poisoning because it took the Japanese a week to conclude that it was indeed a nuclear bomb and more to treat the survivors rightly. The German apparatus should be quicker on the uptake so the survivors might have better odds.

 

[Tolkiene]

It won't decapitate the German leadership, not everyone was in Berlin or huddled in the bunker, also, with the premise of no Western Front Hitler and his cronies would have even less of a reason to be in Berlin. He had dozen of temporary headquarters throughout the war which sometimes were only occupied by a dozen people so even if they nuke Berlin the chances of actually hurting the German leadership or governance are pretty low.

This is correct. Worth noting that Hitler stopped convening the cabinet from 1938. So it's not like the whole gang's going to be in Berlin for a cabinet session. Goebbels is likely to be in Berlin, but Bormann would be wherever Hitler is.

Göring spent most of his time in seclusion in Carinhall, living in his make-believe world. By 1944 he was actively avoiding being near Hitler out of fear of being on the receiving end of one of the latter's outbursts. Himmler obviously had an office Berlin, but spent a lot of his time in his field headquarters or command train. Or in Hohenlychen when he was plagued by ill health. He actually didn't spend much time in his office, and travelled a lot.