World Opinion of the Atomic Bombing if Used on Germany

[Osakadave]

The anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki has just passed, and, as always, there was a slew of opinions on whether tjey were justified. (Please take any discussion of that elsewhere! It's off topic.)

In talking with someone earlier today, I wondered what they'd have thought if the bombs had been used on Germany.

So, what do the good minds of AH.com think?

Let's go with moving up the Manhattan Project schedule roughly 6 months. First test is in January, 1945. And assume the US does decide to use it on Germany and not Japan (not necessarily a given). And, just to parallel ir echo, assume Berlin is the first target, followed by a city or two lower down on the target list - Dresden and maybe Pforzheim.

What would the world think of it some 73 years later?

Would there be the same elements proclaiming the bombings to be unjustified crimes against humanity no matter what?

Might Germany actually be seen as a victem despite their enormous crimes, rather like Japan is in some circles?

Or would it be seen as more justified?

Assuming there is an equivilant to the Genbaku Dome - a widely recognized "symbol" of the bombing (Brandenburg Gate seems to be an obvious candidate), what would be it's cultural place? Might it be a UNESCO World Heritage site (or whatever TTL's equivalent might be)?

 

[TDM]

My first thought is that not much really changes in terms of the inherent arguments, conventional bombing killed more Germans that nuclear bombs killed Japanese (conventional bombing in Japan killed more Japanese that nuclear bombing come to that).

We have arguments now that the conventional bombing campaign in Germany weren't justified just as we have arguments that conventional bombing campaign in Japan weren't. IMO the arguments over Nuclear bombing are fundamentally based on the same stuff.

So I think its going to come down to two things:

1). Is there an inherent difference when it comes to Nuclear bombs vs. conventional. (It's going to be hard to avoid the topic of justification here but I'll try). Truth be told given the context of the time I don't really think there is one so I don't think we''ll see much difference between dropping A-bombs on German as compared to Japan in abstract.

but

2). difference in context between German and Japan in terms of previous bombing campaigns and perceived results. This I think will throw up differences that might change the argument

So OK firstly the Bombing campaign on Japan was compared to the one in Germany short lived (due to the requirements of airstrips, it's basically Oct 44 - Aug 45, so 10 months), Japan was already being militarily pushed back and defeated outside of Japan (the airstrips themselves were taken from previously occupied territory). The bombing campaign on Germany was much longer and commenced way earlier in terms of them being defeated and was ramped up before the end was clear, but equally the campaign in Japan was from the get go able to take advantages of advances in bombing technology that evolved during the German campaign so was proportionally more intense.

With that in mind I think a big difference comes down to does dropping nuclear bombs on Germany have a different effect on Germany than doing so on Japan. IMO dropping the bombs on Japan was one of the direct causes of the Japanese surrender and also means that no invasion of Japan was necessary. If the same effect can be had in Germany then I think there will be little change in attitude.

However the context of surrender and invasion is not the same for both so I don't think its right to assume the outcome for both will be the same. Japan is gong to be hard to invade, it's an island and even with overwhelming naval, air, and resource superiority it was seen as going to be a real shit show, I.e there were some serious reasons not to do it over and above the usual reasons when invading a country! Germany however is a slightly different story, obviously it was no cake walk but Germany is less hard to invade, it also getting pincered on both sides by land forces already. There's also the point that even if the Wallies think it's Nukes or invasion for Germany, do we think the Soviets are going to stop having just fought overland step by step from the Volga to Seelow?

But again what do you hit in Germany compared to Japan? I personally think Germany would have been more susceptible to a decapitation strike taking out leadership that would bring them to surrender than the Japanese were, but equally Germany was less likely to brought to surrender just because two city centres had just disappeared due to a new kind of bomb if Hitler and his elite are still about.

So I think you have the following likely scenarios:


1). We drop 1 or 2 on Germany get Hitler & Co., rest of Germany sues for peace, but we still jointly occupy Germany (if for no other reason than to stop the Soviets completely occupying it and having the red army parked in Alsace lorraine) but less fighting into Germany. Net result probably similar attitude toward their use to OTL

2). We drop 1 or 2 don't get Hitler, Hitler & Co basically go yeah and? We drop more and more and it basily becomes more an extension of the conventional bombing campaign. This will have a couple of effects. One it will potentially normalize the usage more than in OTL! But when the longer term side effect are more clear the backlash will potentially be greater as they will be more of it. Both of these (greater initial damage and long term damage) might have a knock on effect on German rebuilding and German attitudes post war, both to the war itself and maybe to the Soviets.

Anyway sorry no real conclusion there, just a few initial thoughts!

 

[Catsmate]

"Yay, good work".

 

[Maeglin]

Initial opinion is a shrug, and delight that the war is over.

Longer term, the Soviets (first outsiders to see the damage) use it for propaganda purposes.

 

[DougM]

To be viewed as close to the same we would need the bomb sometime before encountering a major military obstacle. The only obvious obstacle big enough in Europe was D Day. And that was a LOT before the suggested time the bombs become available.

6 months sooner is not of much use. Most German cities big enough to matter were already gutted so what does the bomb do for you? Other then taking out the Head Madman in Charge. And that is not a sure thing.

So if use them on Germany it will be questioned. You will get variations on the following.

What good did it do the city in question was already pretty much rubble so you just shook the rubble up.
Killing Hittler and all his staff (assuming you get them). made things worse as there was no one left in charge to negotiate a surrender.
You killed X number of poor starving citizens that just were trying to survive
The use of the bomb in February PROVES that the Wester Alies were on the verge of defeat and that the Battle of the Bulge was almost lost otherwise why use the bomb? (This could create a Germany only lost because of the bomb myth)
You only chose Europe (vs Japan) to deni Russia the Win or to otherwise limit Russia
You only chose Europe to demonstrate to Russia the effect of the bomb in order to intimidate them
And the big one.
You wasted the bomb in Europe when you could have used it against Japan and avoided (fill in blank here with anything and everything that happened after the first bomb was used in Europe).

So with only a 6 month or so earlier use (that means sometime in February I guess) using the bomb in Germany is pretty pointless. Germany is all but defeated by this point in time. No major obstacle remains, the troops are in place and marching forward. So frankly the Bomb would not be of much use. And can only be justified if you are building them faster then you can use. Because if you are only using then in Europe and not in the Pacific you will have huge backlash from the We could have used them on (pick any target in range at the time).

And let’s not forget getting then In February 45 or so will result in HUGE numbers of What If posts asking
“What if we got the bomb 8 or 10 months early and thus could have used them to avoid the horrible casualties of D Day and the ground war....”

 

[Tovarich]

There could be an immediate difference from perceptions of The Bomb if a load of Wallied troops went swanning on through a hot zone because nobody knew about the fallout yet.

And were it Russian troops, would they even believe the Wallies were unaware?
I expect the Atom Spies could confirm ignorance, but would the USSR be completely confident their ring wasn't broken at the time?

 

[Nik]

IMHO, if the Wallies got stuck in Normandy like they did in Italy, and the Bomb became available, it would be used.

Don't know about Berlin or Dresden, there were other sites where an assured kill-shot would be welcomed. The ball-bearing factory, that the USAF bombed and bombed and bombed and missed. Railway nexus supplying Eastern Front etc.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

They wouldn't drop it on Berlin for the same reason they didn't drop it on Tokyo, you want someone still alive and in charge to surrender to you. By 1945 most major German cities are rubble due to sustained Allied bombing so a relatively smaller city that isn't as damaged would likely be selected to better assess the performance of the bomb. Anyone know a good candidate?

As for postwar assessment, likely where it is today: that sucked but it helped end the war and we really shouldn't use it again. Both Germanys might be skittish about the deployment of nuclear weapons in the Cold War if they have firsthand experience with the bomb.

 

[Nik]

I don't know if the Wallies knew about that converted castle that the SS used as their 'cathedral'. IMHO, that would represent a potential target. Even if the walls still stood, it should burn well. Also the surrounding forest...

 

[Historyman 14]

As said by everyone else, I doubt we drop the first bomb on Berlin. You need someone alive to surrender Germany to the Allies first off. (A big reason why we didn't nuke Tokyo and besides throwing Japan into a blood rage. )

And using the bomb on Germany is a big waste. By 1945, Germany and it cities was flattened by Allied Bombings. (It's why there not that many historic buildings left after the War.) Nuremberg? Pulverized to about 90% of the city has been destroyed by January 1945. Luena/Merseburg? One of the most defended places in the Third Reich even by 1945. You risk the Germans blowing the bomber out of the sky and then the Germans have a A-Bomb. (However damage it may be.)


Dresden and Chemintz would work better.

 

[TDM]

Thing is Hitler commited suicide anyway in the OTL while berlin was being pounded by the Russians, the actual surrender of German forces and then of Germany was done by basically the closest generals or whoever else was there at the time.

Basically you can drop a-bomb on Hitler et al not really make that much of a change to how the surrender happened OTL. In fact if anything I think it makes a surrender easier because your left with German Generals, Donitz etc who might rather surrender to the Wallies now before the Soviets hit Berlin than draw it out.

The same is not true for Japan because if you drop a bomb on Hirohito you might just incite Japan to hold out for longer, and even if you don't the Japanese high command as a group is more set on defending to the last man anyway.

 

[Rockydroid]

Wasn't the bomb originally meant for Germany in the first place?

 

[kernals12]

Berlin would not be first on the target list. The allies needed a functioning government to negotiate the terms of surrender.

I think nuking Nazi Germany would be less controversial than nuking Japan. Who doesn't hate Nazis?

 

[RightHoJeeves]

Dresden and Chemintz would work better.

Good choice, especially since knowledge of the bomb likely butterflies away the Dresden fire bombing in February. Sure hope Kurt Vonnegut survives.

 

[TDM]

Berlin would not be first on the target list. The allies needed a functioning government to negotiate the terms of surrender.

I think nuking Nazi Germany would be less controversial than nuking Japan. Who doesn't hate Nazis?

Well it's not like the (very) interim german Flensburg government who actually surrendered was based in Berlin

 

[TDM]

...

And using the bomb on Germany is a big waste. By 1945, Germany and it cities was flattened by Allied Bombings. (It's why there not that many historic buildings left after the War.) Nuremberg? Pulverized to about 90% of the city has been destroyed by January 1945. Luena/Merseburg? One of the most defended places in the Third Reich even by 1945. You risk the Germans blowing the bomber out of the sky and then the Germans have a A-Bomb. (However damage it may be.)


Dresden and Chemintz would work better.

Thing is we're also firebombing and levelling Japanese cities pretty much as we like. I don't think the benefit of nuclear bombs here is in that we can destroy cities that we otherwise couldn't (we already could, and already were) it was the fact that now a single bomber could apparently do so at will.

 

[stodge]

Afternoon all

I always thought the most likely target would be Hanover - a city close enough to Berlin so the explosion would be visible and audible and it wouldn't take long for the horror to filter through.

Dresden would be interesting if it were used in February 45 - the Russians would see it and the likes of Koniev and Zhukov would make Stalin aware of the power of the weapon (of which he was already aware).

After that, Munich perhaps as a symbol of Nazi history and tradition.

 

[Rockydroid]

Berlin would not be first on the target list. The allies needed a functioning government to negotiate the terms of surrender.

I think nuking Nazi Germany would be less controversial than nuking Japan. Who doesn't hate Nazis?

I don't agree here. It would be equally controversial. Both nations were morally equivalent. Though I guess some people all too often forget that the Japanese were genocidal aggressors. But to be fair, they didn't mechanize mass murder the way the Nazi's did.

 

[The Red]

There could be an immediate difference from perceptions of The Bomb if a load of Wallied troops went swanning on through a hot zone because nobody knew about the fallout yet.

That's unlikely, unless they were entering the area almost immediately after the blast. The ionizing radiation from the blast itself and resulting "black rain" was most responsible for deaths due to radiation sickness at Hiroshima and Nagsaki, the half life of the lingering radionuclides was very short. Within a month plants had begun to regrow and American scientists could only find a negligible difference to regular background radiation. Even if the bomb dropped on Berlin decapitates the German war effort it's unlikely either the WAllies or the Soviets will arrive in time for the area to still be "hot".

 

[kernals12]

Afternoon all

I always thought the most likely target would be Hanover - a city close enough to Berlin so the explosion would be visible and audible and it wouldn't take long for the horror to filter through.

Dresden would be interesting if it were used in February 45 - the Russians would see it and the likes of Koniev and Zhukov would make Stalin aware of the power of the weapon (of which he was already aware).

After that, Munich perhaps as a symbol of Nazi history and tradition.

Bye Bye BMW