Would the Allies have dropped an atomic bomb on Germany?

[Aardvark86]

There doesn't seem to have ever been much discussion amongst the US and British about using an atomic bomb in the European theater. The war ended before practical deployment could be achieved, but there does not seem to have been any planning to ever use one. Why? The attached article gives some reasons, fear of an unexploded bomb falling into the hands of German scientists, and the bombs being best suited to the B-29. The second one seems to be a weak argument. The British Lancaster could do the job, and I don't believe transferring a wing of B-29s to England would have been that difficult as it is suggested to be. The vulnerability of the B-29 to a still potent Luftwaffe seems to be a bigger concern.
Of all the articles I could find no concerns were stated about collateral damage or fallout. Even those relatively weak atom bombs produced radioactive fallout. If the war in Europe had stalled in the Fall of 1944, and the Russians had been held back, would we have dropped an atom bomb that might have produced fallout that would have affected Soviet troops?
Interesting notes in the article about the early target planning done in 1943. I was somewhat surprised to see the Japanese fleet at Truk so prominently mentioned. However, a bomb dropped into that harbor, ringed by mountains, would have been devastating.
Discuss.
https://ieer.org/resource/commentary/always-the-target/

1. Us-uk no, ussr in a heartbeat.
2. At the end of the day it was clearly not going to be needed in germany. I suspect that’s the main reason.
3. Japan was perceived to be a different story in light of the island hopping campaign, whether rightfully or wrongfully. And yes there are ultimately racial and vengeance overtones. American boys in1942 signed up to go kill japs, not Germans.

 

[Sharky1203]

There doesn't seem to have ever been much discussion amongst the US and British about using an atomic bomb in the European theater. The war ended before practical deployment could be achieved, but there does not seem to have been any planning to ever use one. Why? The attached article gives some reasons, fear of an unexploded bomb falling into the hands of German scientists, and the bombs being best suited to the B-29. The second one seems to be a weak argument. The British Lancaster could do the job, and I don't believe transferring a wing of B-29s to England would have been that difficult as it is suggested to be. The vulnerability of the B-29 to a still potent Luftwaffe seems to be a bigger concern.
Of all the articles I could find no concerns were stated about collateral damage or fallout. Even those relatively weak atom bombs produced radioactive fallout. If the war in Europe had stalled in the Fall of 1944, and the Russians had been held back, would we have dropped an atom bomb that might have produced fallout that would have affected Soviet troops?
Interesting notes in the article about the early target planning done in 1943. I was somewhat surprised to see the Japanese fleet at Truk so prominently mentioned. However, a bomb dropped into that harbor, ringed by mountains, would have been devastating.
Discuss.
https://ieer.org/resource/commentary/always-the-target/

The German front was being pushed back and the Germans were turning on the Nazis. The Allies knew it was just a matter of time for the Germans to be taken over. Dropping a nuke on them would have been pointless.

The Japanese were a completely different fight. They were dugin and never willing to surrender. Surrender was not going to happen. After the huge fatigue from the campaigns in Europe, moving troops to focus on the Pacific campaign wasn't an option. They needed to end the war and the nukes seemed like the only option. With Japan not willing to surrender under any circumstances, FDR and the military leaders felt it was their only option.

It had nothing what so ever to do with race. It had everything to do with the fighting abilities of the Japanese.

 

[onlyTheObvious]

My understanding is the fire bombing of Tokyo under the direction of Curtis LeMay killed more people than the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

 

[Aardvark86]

Nuclear fall out was never a question on dropping the bomb

not quite right; i think binsfield actually has it right -- it was a 'known unknown' and some of the japanese targeting was driven by (to a small degree) the desire to study it.

 

[sober_teacher]

1. Us-uk no, ussr in a heartbeat.
2. At the end of the day it was clearly not going to be needed in germany. I suspect that’s the main reason.
3. Japan was perceived to be a different story in light of the island hopping campaign, whether rightfully or wrongfully. And yes there are ultimately racial and vengeance overtones. American boys in1942 signed up to go kill japs, not Germans.

Again, the bomb was successfully tested in July 1945, Germany surrendered two months earlier.

there was never a need to have that discussion.

 

[Titanhawk2]

There doesn't seem to have ever been much discussion amongst the US and British about using an atomic bomb in the European theater. The war ended before practical deployment could be achieved, but there does not seem to have been any planning to ever use one. Why? The attached article gives some reasons, fear of an unexploded bomb falling into the hands of German scientists, and the bombs being best suited to the B-29. The second one seems to be a weak argument. The British Lancaster could do the job, and I don't believe transferring a wing of B-29s to England would have been that difficult as it is suggested to be. The vulnerability of the B-29 to a still potent Luftwaffe seems to be a bigger concern.
Of all the articles I could find no concerns were stated about collateral damage or fallout. Even those relatively weak atom bombs produced radioactive fallout. If the war in Europe had stalled in the Fall of 1944, and the Russians had been held back, would we have dropped an atom bomb that might have produced fallout that would have affected Soviet troops?
Interesting notes in the article about the early target planning done in 1943. I was somewhat surprised to see the Japanese fleet at Truk so prominently mentioned. However, a bomb dropped into that harbor, ringed by mountains, would have been devastating.
Discuss.
https://ieer.org/resource/commentary/always-the-target/

I have to think Allied troops were so close to wherever one may have been dropped, they didn't consider it.

 

[GOHOX69]

This.

The civilian leadership and military in Aug 1945 looked at the atomic bomb as basically a BIG bomb. A tool to be used. The view of nuclear weapons as basically being end of the world last resort weapons didn't come about till later....once hydrogen bombs etc came out.

The weapons used at Hiroshima/Nagasaki would basically be considered a large "tactical" nuke nowadays.

My beef in regards to the argument against using them are basically.

1. Most of the arguments against are based on post war knowledge.

2. Also based off the current thinking on Nuclear weapons. End of the world, can't use weapons, that could destroy the world. Simply wasn't the case in 1945. Oppenheimer and the scientists realized what they unleashed...didn't mean civilian/military leadership totally understood the ramifications.

Brilliant analysis by you as always but wrong. There was plenty of fear, even if it was misguided, that the bomb would destroy the world. Here's a fun quote by the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb, not exactly a dove. He's the one who ultimately got Oppenheimer's clearance revoked.

"At a conference in the summer of 1942, almost a full year before Los Alamos opened, physicist Edward Teller raised the possibility of atomic bombs igniting Earth’s oceans or atmosphere."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/07/22/oppenheimer-manhattan-project-history-atomic-bomb-test/

If you want to obviate race and ethnic origin since all of you are white, please feel free. Non-whites, especially Asians, don't agree with you.

You know Mao always said power flows from the barrel of a gun. This is why many non white countries develop nukes and delivery systems. They don't want to be the next target of Caucasian rage.

 

[sober_teacher]

I have to think Allied troops were so close to wherever one may have been dropped, they didn't consider it.

One more time…IT WAS A MOOT POINT, GERMAN HAS ALREADY SURRENDERED.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Brilliant analysis by you as always but wrong. There was plenty of fear, even if it was misguided, that the bomb would destroy the world. Here's a fun quote by the guy who invented the hydrogen bomb, not exactly a dove. He's the one who ultimately got Oppenheimer's clearance revoked.

"At a conference in the summer of 1942, almost a full year before Los Alamos opened, physicist Edward Teller raised the possibility of atomic bombs igniting Earth’s oceans or atmosphere."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2023/07/22/oppenheimer-manhattan-project-history-atomic-bomb-test/

If you want to obviate race and ethnic origin since all of you are white, please feel free. Non-whites, especially Asians, don't agree with you.

You know Mao always said power flows from the barrel of a gun. This is why many non white countries develop nukes and delivery systems. They don't want to be the next target of Caucasian rage.

lol.

I said in my post scientists were aware of the dangers. Even cited Oppenheimer.

Talking about the mindset of civilian and military leadership.

 

[GOHOX69]

lol.

I said in my post scientists were aware of the dangers. Even cited Oppenheimer.

Talking about the mindset of civilian and military leadership.

And to the latter group, I'll still say that race and ethnic origin was a trait they considered. Anyhow, the question is moot. If a country has pride and sufficient economic progress, building a nuke, given today's tech, is simpler than the shit I do on a daily basis. The real key is who is the next idiot to use one. The us no longer has a monopoly or impunity.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

And to the latter group, I'll still say that race and ethnic origin was a trait they considered. Anyhow, the question is moot. If a country has pride and sufficient economic progress, building a nuke, given today's tech, is simpler than the shit I do on a daily basis. The real key is who is the next idiot to use one. The us no longer has a monopoly or impunity.

You're entitled to that opinion. I'll just counter by saying the atom bomb wasn't even tested till two months after Germany surrendered and we didn't hesitate to carpet bomb and flatten every major German city that was chalk full of white folks.

Cologne

 

[GOHOX69]

You're entitled to that opinion. I'll just counter by saying the atom bomb wasn't even tested till two months after Germany surrendered and we didn't hesitate to carpet bomb and flatten every major German city that was chalk full of white folks.

Cologne

Sure. I don't disagree that the Germans didn't suffer. But last I checked there's no fall out in cologne, no radiation, no birth defects. Things that continue to this date.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Sure. I don't disagree that the Germans didn't suffer. But last I checked there's no fall out in cologne, no radiation, no birth defects. Things that continue to this date.

fair enough

 

[OutbackBowl2017]

Not a thing in 1945.

Radioactive nuclear fall out is what I was referring to that could contaminate allied countries land and water.

 

[torbee]

I doubt the people in charge during WW2 could have foreseen that.

You might want to check out Oppenheimer.

They knew about the radiation issue.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

And to the latter group, I'll still say that race and ethnic origin was a trait they considered.

And this surprises no one.

 

[seminole97]

Radioactive nuclear fall out is what I was referring to that could contaminate allied countries land and water.

I’m trying to explain that our concepts of those things didn’t exist and weren’t a consideration in 1945.

We happily nuked ourselves in the early 50s and people took vacations to witness it.

It’s hard to wrap your head around today.

 

[BrianNole777]

You might want to check out Oppenheimer.

They knew about the radiation issue.

I'm sure Oppenheimer knew. I'm not sure President Truman knew or cared.

He met Oppenheimer once and called him a "crybaby scientist."

Why President Harry Truman Didn’t Like J. Robert Oppenheimer

The president met one-on-one with the nuclear physicist during a terse meeting that exemplified their differing views on atomic weapons.

www.biography.com

 

[fsu1jreed]

Sure. I don't disagree that the Germans didn't suffer. But last I checked there's no fall out in cologne, no radiation, no birth defects. Things that continue to this date.

Just recently watched this

 

[sober_teacher]

I'm sure Oppenheimer knew. I'm not sure President Truman knew or cared.

He met Oppenheimer once and called him a "crybaby scientist."

Why President Harry Truman Didn’t Like J. Robert Oppenheimer

The president met one-on-one with the nuclear physicist during a terse meeting that exemplified their differing views on atomic weapons.

www.biography.com

I’m not certain it was a matter of not caring so much as not fully grasping what he was being told.

 

[TJ8869]

London

London was too heavily defended. Even if Germany hadn't largely abandoned their nuclear weapons program in 1942 and they had successfully built and tested a bomb before they surrendered, they would have had a very limited number of them available. I doubt they would have had more than the three that we had. So it would have been critical to choose a target with relatively light air defenses. Otherwise the plane would have been shot down before dropping the bomb.

I'm guessing they would have chosen a populated city close behind the rapidly advancing Eastern front. Someplace where the Russians had recently taken control but had not yet set up strong air defenses.

 

[lucas80]

1. Us-uk no, ussr in a heartbeat.
2. At the end of the day it was clearly not going to be needed in germany. I suspect that’s the main reason.
3. Japan was perceived to be a different story in light of the island hopping campaign, whether rightfully or wrongfully. And yes there are ultimately racial and vengeance overtones. American boys in1942 signed up to go kill japs, not Germans.

True, but the original question was why as far back as 1943 was the primary talk of using the bomb agains Japan, and no talk of targets in Germany? I do think it's credible to say that the US controlled development and that once the decision was made to use the B-29s in the Pacific Theater that channeled the decision making.
It is an imponderable question given what we know, and the variables of how the war in Europe developed.

 

[sober_teacher]

True, but the original question was why as far back as 1943 was the primary talk of using the bomb agains Japan, and no talk of targets in Germany? I do think it's credible to say that the US controlled development and that once the decision was made to use the B-29s in the Pacific Theater that channeled the decision making.
It is an imponderable question given what we know, and the variables of how the war in Europe developed.

I could be wrong but I’m not sure they had many conversations, period, about dropping the bomb on either Japan or Germany prior to 1944 and it was becoming clear they were likely to have that capability before the end of the war.

I don’t doubt they had preliminary discussions but I’m not sure they had put a ton of thought beyond what might be available a couple years down the road. They were having enough issues with logistics, manpower and other more immediate concerns.

 

[redghost1974]

NOT dropping an atomic bomb was entirely possible. There's simply no justification for what happened.

The back door deals that made Truman VP put him in an odd position when he became president. I think he wanted to supersed FDR's legacy and forge his own by ending the war immediately to save as many American lives as possible.Not dropping the bomb wasn't really a consideration for him.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

I can't believe this thread is still going on...

 

[LunchBox50]

You're entitled to that opinion. I'll just counter by saying the atom bomb wasn't even tested till two months after Germany surrendered and we didn't hesitate to carpet bomb and flatten every major German city that was chalk full of white folks.

It's chock full — not chalk. Although maybe you meant chalk talking about white folks.