Should (and would) Churchill A-Bomb Berlin?

[Akiyama]

I'm currently toying with a timeline in which Japan does not attack Pearl Harbour, and I'd like some advice.

America has not entered the war against Germany, but continues to supply Britain with Lend-Lease. Also, Britain and the USA have been co-operating to try and build an atomic bomb. The atomic bomb project is a success and in October 1945 Britain takes delivery of two A-bombs.

The situation at the time the bombs are delivered is as follows. Italy surrendered in July. British troops occupy the Balkans (including Romania) and are engaging German forces on the plains of Hungary. The USSR has started slowly pushing the Germans back along the Eastern Front. It appears very likely that Germany will lose the war (they are fighting a losing battle on two fronts, three if you count defending Germany against British bombers, they are being outproduced, and they no longer have any source of oil).

What would, or should, Britain do with the A-bombs? Hitler is based in the Wolfsschanze in this TL, BTW, and not in Berlin - although he might visit Berlin for some reason or other. Britain does not have air superiority over Germany yet, although they are getting there. Assume the bombing of German cities is about a year behind OTL.

 

[Akiyama]

And another question: I'm planning to have Stalin die in 1949 (natural causes). Who would be in the running for the succession?

 

[Max Sinister]

Note that the allies didn't throw the bomb on Tokyo, although Kyoto was on the list of possible targets.

Berlin was mostly bombed to rubble already, and they wanted to test the bomb on an undestroyed city.

 

[stevep]

Akiyama

I think Britain should use the bomb on Germany as the quickest way to end the war and save a lot of lives. True a couple may not force a complete German collapse but they will have a big military, economic and psychological impact. Also I would expect more would be in the pipeline and even if they weren't the Germans wouldn't know this.

I also think Churchill would definitely do this.

Possible targets might be the Ruhr region and Hamburg, if it hasn't already been flattened as historically. [Two reasons for suggesting this. As a port city it would be easier to hit and less danger of the bomber being shot down. Also I think this was a major centre of U boat production].


In terms of an earlier death for Stalin and who might replace him I don’t really know enough plus there might be changes butterflying from events. A Britain using nukes in 45 has a big effect on the balance of power and might mean purging or more ideological elements. Or poorer performance of the military during the war – because less lend-lease to Russia and more German forces could have seen Zhukov get the chop possibly. Don’t know what sort of position Khurshev had in 49 so he might not be in the running. A lot of people were fearing Beria but that could mean he gets taken out as historically. Think those are the three options most people consider.

Steve

 

[simonbp]

The best target for a first generation atomic bomb would be an open, flat terrain, with lots of older, preferably flammable, buildings; note that flat Hiroshima suffered much more from a smaller bomb than hilly Nagasaki with a larger one. A port city seems unlikely, as the major target would be the port itself, and, IIRC, the Allies scrambled for as many seaports as they could get. A more likely target would be a weapons-production area or fuel depot, something that would genuinely effect the German war effort rather than just kill a lot of people...

Simon

 

[Sargon]

Beria could be a possible successor to Stalin, although in OTL he made so many enemies that his position did not last long after Stalin died and he was turfed out and executed.


Sargon

A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose

 

[Valamyr]

I have reservations about Britain's ability to fight on till 45 without America actively involved, much less land in the Balkans or get Italy to surrender on their own. Im also unsure the Americans would just give away their Abombs.

This being said, theyd probably hit Munich first.

 

[birdy]

I think a german analogue to Hiroshima ie mostly undamaged was Dresden.

 

[stevep]

I have reservations about Britain's ability to fight on till 45 without America actively involved, much less land in the Balkans or get Italy to surrender on their own. Im also unsure the Americans would just give away their Abombs.

This being said, theyd probably hit Munich first.

Valamyr

Depends on the circumstances. Avoid a couple of the bigger blunders and you could probably mop up N Africa in Jan/Feb 41 then secure the entire ME area a lot easier, freeing up the resources to defend Malaya and the Dutch Indies adequately. Those steps would make a big difference to the economic and military position of Britain. Presuming that Russia doesn't collapse the sort of scenario suggested would be practical although in those circumstances I hope we wouldn't put so much effort into Bomber Command. An invasion of the Balkans would then be possible, given the poor land communications in the region which makes it more difficult for the Germans to ship reinforcements that way. Not sure if we would get as far as Polesti without a serious collapse of the German forces but might occur if the eastern front has drained them like historically.

Steve

 

[zoomar]

Given the scenario you propose, I think Britain would be somewhat cautious. It is one thing to fly a single bomber over a city when you have virtually complete aerial superiority (Hiroshima) and quite another when air superiority is still being contested. I'm not sure Churchill would want to take the risk a bomber with a precious atomic bomb would get shot down over Nazi-held territory and possibly get reverse engineered.

In this situation, I think a battlefield application at the front (Balkans, maybe) or an attack on a coastal target would make more sense to try a little "shock and awe" without risking loss of the bomb and bomber.

 

[Derek Jackson]

The other problem is that Hitler is nuts. Bombing A bombing Berlin is a probleme because there would be nobody to surrender. Bombing another city would not make Hitler surrender. Bombing some place other than Berlin where Hitler happened to be (if we had the intel) might mean that whoever took over would seek terms, or it might not

 

[Mike Stearns]

I have reservations about Britain's ability to fight on till 45 without America actively involved, much less land in the Balkans or get Italy to surrender on their own. Im also unsure the Americans would just give away their Abombs.

This being said, theyd probably hit Munich first.

I agree that the Americans won't give away their bombs, at least not without asking for something in return. However, I disagree with the idea that the Brits couldn't win the war the war on their own. Britain had army of 3 million men in 1945. Canada had an army of 1 million men, as did the Free French for a combined total of 5 million fighting men. When you factor in the armies of other British Dominions, like New Zealand and Australia, you get a really big fighting force.