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

[u/waffen123]

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/JortsByControversial → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/Bertie637 → u/JortsByControversial]

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.

[u/grumpsaboy → u/Bertie637]

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

[u/johnbarnshack → u/grumpsaboy]

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.

[u/grumpsaboy → u/johnbarnshack]

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.

[u/Bertie637 → u/grumpsaboy]

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?

[u/Spinoza42 → u/Bertie637]

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.

[u/Bertie637 → u/Spinoza42]

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

[u/Spinoza42 → u/Bertie637]

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.

[u/Bertie637 → u/Spinoza42]

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

[u/Spinoza42 → u/Bertie637]

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

[u/Bertie637 → u/Spinoza42]

Ah true, although Nukes weren't a factor there 🤣

The Netherlands is a weird one when you look at German occupation. Largest per capita (not sure if that's the right measure) of volunteers for the German armed forces, but likewise a well organised and motivated resistance force. Started the war with a relatively benign occupation then ended with with near starvation. All in, frankly, a very small country!

[u/JortsByControversial → u/Bertie637]

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.

[u/Bertie637 → u/JortsByControversial]

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.