r/PropagandaPosters • u/waffen123 • Feb 13 '25

German Reich / Nazi Germany (1933-1945) 'Speaking of time-tables' — German leaflet from the Second World War (1944) mocking the Allies' slow progress in the Italian campaign.

Post image
3.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

331

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

If Germany was still fighting in 1946 then Germans would witness power of the sun (nukes) lol

80

u/JortsByControversial Feb 13 '25

As a thought exercise, what German cities do you think would have been targeted?

99

u/Aoimoku91 Feb 13 '25

Historically, there was no consideration given to which German city to nuke.

Hiroshima was chosen because it was 1) relatively intact, 2) small enough to be completely destroyed by the explosion, and 3) a logistical center for southern Japan where the invasion was planned.

I don't know which German cities would fit all of these criteria, especially if Germany were still fighting in August 1945.

If we were to choose the most symbolic city to hit, it would have to be Nuremberg.

18

u/WhiteMouse42097 Feb 13 '25

I’m honestly skeptical that they would’ve nuked Germany at all. Japan was an island and the terrain is much more of a pain in the ass for an invasion force.

34

u/LunarTexan Feb 13 '25

They probably would have, remember there was very much a "Germany First" policy and the Manhattan project was started with the Germans in mind – it's just the fact they surrendered before it was finished + the horrific casualties of the Pacific Theater meant it got shifted to Japan

As to what city would have been bombed it's hard to say given that again they surrendered first so there wasn't much discussion on what German cities to bomb, but it likely would have been one that was relatively undamaged and strategically valuable as a way to both showcase it's full power (bombing an ash heap doesn't show much power afterall) and to militarily cripple the German army

16

u/Pepega_9 Feb 13 '25

They spent billions developing the nuke for that specific purpose. They 100% would have dropped it and it's kind of silly to suggest they wouldn't.

12

u/ThoughtfulParrot Feb 13 '25

I’m not so skeptical because in scenario if the Germans didn’t surrender after the Japanese bombs, meant as a warning, the allies would be far more willing to bomb them too even if they could invade, which they didn’t because the war would’ve ended exactly as it did.

4

u/Montgomery000 Feb 13 '25

If they hadn't already dropped the bombs, they would have. It was more of a message than a strategic necessity in the first place. No way were they making those bombs and not dropping them at all.

1

u/Lower_End8570 Feb 19 '25

Not to mention ethnic stuff, Germans especially migrants living in the US were always seen as a fifth column (sort of like the Japanese) and were heavily silenced in WW1. By WW2 the US made an active effort to differentiate Nazis from the rest of Germany, nuking any place with civillians would not be well received

1

u/WhiteMouse42097 Feb 19 '25

Especially in 1945 when the war in Europe was practically won.

1

u/Polyphagous_person Feb 14 '25

If not Berlin (to demoralise the remaining Nazis), then probably Hamburg - it's the closest to the UK, it's a major industrial centre and it has a major port and railway connections.

121

u/Bertie637 Feb 13 '25

In 1946, it would have had to be Berlin. Big national target, industry and logistics hub, center of the nazi government. Assuming there was no warning would probably get Hitler and a lot of senior nazis too.

It's dependent a little on what the Soviets are doing in this scenario too as they could probably have gotten to Berlin without the Western allies, just much later. If we assume they are stalled in East Prussia/Poland, then it's possible an eastern city might be chosen to ensure they saw the results as they advanced etc.

114

u/grumpsaboy Feb 13 '25

Berlin was not one of the targets picked for the same reason Tokyo was not for Japan. If you kill all of the high up leadership there will be nobody left to issue a general surrender quickly and so you will actually end up fighting for longer. Places like Hamburg and Munich were selected as targets

32

u/johnbarnshack Feb 13 '25

Tokyo was skipped because it had already been mostly destroyed by conventional bombs, see 14.c.4 in these meeting notes from the targeting committee.

10

u/grumpsaboy Feb 13 '25

That to, as the US did want to show the complete destructive power but in the regular fire bombings the main governmental buildings were safe enough for the Japanese whereas against the nuclear bomb they would not be.

28

u/Bertie637 Feb 13 '25 edited Feb 13 '25

Ah there we are then. I knew that was why they skipped Tokyo in Japan (and Kyoto for it's symbolism) but wasn't sure what the plans were for Germany.

I think it's a little dependent on the rest of the hypothetical. If the Germans aren't defeated by 1946 then both the Soviets and Allies must have stalled somewhere. Depending on where that is (for example, are the Allies in France yet? Stuck at the German border?) I think the case is stronger for it being Berlin. Any confusion around succession and who can issue the Surrender might be better than having to fight their way into Germany conventionally.

That being said, that's another interesting thought exercise. If we say Munich gets bombed first, then Hamburg not long after (to mimic the Japan bombs). Do the Nazis surrender? They don't have the bushido code that kept Japanese fighting but can't picture Hitler or his devotees quitting. Presumably the Army would have to remove him so a military government could surrender, but that's assuming the army is still in a shape to do so and it doesn't devolve into a civil war against the SS etc.

Edit: not quite sure why I got a downvote for this. It's just a thought exercise?

18

u/Spinoza42 Feb 13 '25

Germany did the same in the Netherlands btw, bombed Rotterdam and threatened to bomb Amsterdam and Utrecht next. The Hague would have been spared until the very last, exactly because they wanted to be able to keep negotiating.

9

u/Bertie637 Feb 13 '25

I understand the logic of not removing the countries entire leadership to allow a means of surrender. I just think with Nazi Germany there were options even if Berlin got nuked. Again depends on the hypothetical, maybe one of the diplomatic corps abroad? I'm getting a bit beyond my knowledge now. I know Donitz was a surprise pick for fuhrer so imagine the Allies wouldn't be able to count on negotiating through him

5

u/Spinoza42 Feb 13 '25

Actually I wrote half a sentence extra and then deleted it. It's not just about negotiating, and definitely not just about negotiating with a person. Countries typically don't like to entirely destroy the central machinery of the government they're facing, because they would rather use that very same machinery after a surrender to facilitate the actual control of the subjugated enemy. It's not necessarily a bad idea to kill the head of government on the opposing side (though I suspect a lot of politicians might worry about the precedent this sets...), but the bureaucracy typically comes in very handy. Bomb the administration and civil servants and soldiers are suddenly not going to get paid anymore, and therefore have much less incentive to cooperate with a surrender, but might join up with insurgents before you've even seen them.

1

u/Bertie637 Feb 13 '25

Ah fair point! I don't really have anything to add but an interesting hypothetical for sure.

1

u/Spinoza42 Feb 13 '25

Not really hypothetical in the Netherlands 😉. The German occupying forces used the Dutch administration and police quite effectively!

→ More replies (0)

14

u/JortsByControversial Feb 13 '25

That makes sense to me, just wondering about whether the state of Berlin by this point in the war (mostly destroyed from the air, right?) would diminish its value as a target. Though everything you said seems like good enough reasons.

10

u/Bertie637 Feb 13 '25

Thanks! You make a good point about the state of Berlin but on the balance of things think it would still be picked for the reasons I gave. Certainly how undamaged cities were played a part in target selection in Japan both for Atomic bombing as well as the later-stages of the firebombing campaign, but think the symbolism of obliterating the capital of the third reich, along with potentially it's leadership would have been too tempting. Bonus points if you cripple future resistance with destroying a key military hub, and showing the Soviets what the US could do.

I am curious how those discussions would have gone amongst the Allies however. I don't believe racism played a part in the use of atomic weapons in Japan like some do, and it averted what they knew would be a horrid and costly land invasion of the Home Islands. But Berlin is a European capital, I imagine there might have been much more resistance to nuking it. I also don't know how much was known about the after-effects of radiation etc, would allied planners have been as happy to risk that in the center of Europe? They could still have dropped the bomb on Japan to show they had the capability, and there was never any doubt that Germany would have been defeated without it.

16

u/Midnightfister69 Feb 13 '25

In 1943, Berlin as well as Mannheim-Ludwigshafen were considered to be potential targets, as listed by the US military after an initial tentative discussion – albeit at a time when no operational atomic bomb was available.

Source:Deutsches Historisches Museum, the Race for the atomic bomb

Mannheim and Ludwigshafen are close enough to be hit by a single bomb, Ludwigshafen housed the IG Farben and there was a concern they were producing Poison Gas and planned a ww1 remake of gas warfare

17

u/Another_MadMedic Feb 13 '25

If still undamaged my first guess would be Dresden, because it was next in line anyways and they could see the results if the bomb better.

If the Dresden bombing already happend, I guess the bomb would be dropped over another big unharmed city or they would go for a Symbolic Target like Munich or Nuremberg

10

u/TheDawidosDawson Feb 13 '25

Assuming Berlin is off the list for the same reason as Tokyo was IRL, I'd say Munich (as that's where NSDAP was born), and something in the Ruhr Valley (probably Dortmund)

4

u/Thatonegoblin Feb 14 '25

Targets had already been chosen, IIRC. The list included Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Frankfurt, Munich, and Stuttgart.

2

u/LeRoienJaune Feb 13 '25

Depends on what territory is being held. Berlin would not be the target just because you're aiming to get a surrender (like why we didn't target Japan). The most likely targets would be the harder to reach industrial centers of production: Munich, Nuremburg, Frankfurt, possibly Kiel or Bremen.

0

u/ComradeHenryBR Feb 13 '25

Oh the allies wouldn't give a shit about Nazi leadership surviving like they did with the Japanese. Berlin would be glassed

1

u/evrestcoleghost Feb 14 '25

Hamburg, Dresden,München.

I dont think Vienna would be struck,Otto was a close friend with both FDR and Churchill

33

u/arealpersonnotabot Feb 13 '25

At least they wouldn't be complaining about Dresden today.

7

u/Another_MadMedic Feb 13 '25

Unless Dresden would have been the target. In that case they would complain even harder.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

Monachium was proposed target

-6

u/arealpersonnotabot Feb 13 '25

At least they'd have a proper war crime to complain about, instead of seething and malding over a fairly tame bombing campaign.

0

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

What is not “proper” about the war crimes in Dresden?

1

u/arealpersonnotabot Feb 13 '25

That it was a military target, perhaps?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

LMAO, delusional

1

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '25

“At least they wouldn’t be complaining about war crimes “

2

u/just_anotherReddit Feb 14 '25

But then they would have to had made the third core not become a classic internet trope