Definitely not Berlin for the same reason we didn't nuke Tokyo: we need a surviving government to negotiate the terms of surrender.
Munich most likely - due to its less damaged status than Berlin (not bombed much till 1944) & specific place in Nazi ideology as "birthplace of Nazi movement".
Yeah you do. It's better than letting Germany descend into anarchy and having to deal with a dozen warring factions.
Hamburg was already turned into a smoldering ruin in July 1943 and using such a powerful bomb on a purely symbolic target like Dresden makes no sense. That's why I think it would be one of the IG Farben mega-plants either in Ludwigshafen or Leuna. The allies lost a lot of planes and men trying to destroy them but they kept coming back until they had no fuel or electricity.
I am quite honestly at a loss as to what exactly your logical(?) argument is in the context of this thread.
My logic is simple: the atomic bomb would be applied with the same rationale as conventional bombing to hinder Germany's ability to wage war and short of a decapitating strike on Berlin which would pose major risks, major industrial sites would be the first places hit.
Given the supply and other issues in our own timeline, production of enough weapons by the allies for such a sortie rate would have likely been a major problem.
Dresden was still a major transport and logistics hub though? And there would be the issue of the concentration and POW camps in close proximity to the city as well.
Not nearly as important as the IG Farben plants or the Krupp steelworks.
I am quite sure that Munich was explicitly mentioned in certain WW2 memoirs (sorry, but I don't remember whose) as the first target, in the situation that Germany doesn't surrender until summer 1945.
Dresden was largely, if not entirely, untouched. Dropping one on it would be about target damage assessment for the Allies and planning for future targets, not about symbolism or the importance of the target. With Japan, the US deliberately put six cites off the target list to preserve them intact for atomic bombing just for that reason.
Frankly, when it comes to nazis and their international/global past and present ilk, my usually staunch anti capital punishment stance takes a holiday, so literal or metaphorical decapitation would have been on the table for me...
You appear to think of Germany as a feral place of various antagonistic tribal groups. While there is certainly some more or less friendly ribbing between different regions/federal states, that was decidedly not my experience growing up and maturing(?) in my mother (and father) country.
Just so. While target selection for Germany was never carried out, as it was clear the atomic bomb wouldn't be ready in time, I think it's very likely they'd look for similar criteria. Which would be targets of high strategic value within urban areas not less than three miles in diameter, which had not previously been (significantly) bombed.
I mean, the B-29 does have an altitude advantage, 31,000ft or so even with a nuke. But it'd take some extra planning to find a clear day and set up the fighter sweeps to allow the unarmed Silverplates to survive.
Since you would need the 'silverplate' version of a B-29 for delivery and evasion of the resulting blast, I'd think the way it would be delivered was the bombing plane would follow a mission profile for aerial reconnaissance. Weather and photo reconnaissance planes were common occurrences, and given fuel shortages by mid to late 1944, the Luftwaffe rarely bothered to intercept them.
And for every kilo of chemicals they tossed at the Allies, they'd get 10 in return. That's a losing game for them. One of the bigger problems for the Germans is as the war goes on, they have fewer and fewer means of delivering offensive ordinance, be it by artillery or aircraft. Many German divisions are equipped partially or entirely with captured ordinance that often has limited amounts of ammunition and isn't something standardized. Captured Russian artillery, pretty common, won't have chemical shells available for example.
Or bomb a target further east (eg Dresden, Potsdam) to send a not-so-subtle message to the Russians.
It's a matter of degree. Neither the 109 or 190 were going to intercept either at those altitudes and speeds. The most either might get, if lucky, was a single head on or high side pass. On radar, either might go unnoticed particularly if other raids were in progress. By late 1944, jamming and chaff were so heavy that it'd be difficult to pick a single aircraft out on the display much of the time.
This is sort of what the USAAF did in Japan. Single photo recon and weather aircraft, often B-32's at very high altitude, preceded strikes. They were often seen on a daily basis even when there was no strike coming. The Japanese military chose to ignore these planes as they saw little value in trying to intercept them and waste resources to do so.
See highlighted statement. I think you mean B-29s.
The downing of the Rotterdam-Gerät occurred in 1943. If the bomb had reached operational capability between the spring and autumn of 1944, Germany would no longer have had the resources or means to construct its own.
Ludwigshafen has already been mentioned, IIRC Nuremberg was suggested due to it having hosted Nazi rallies between 1923 and 1938.
In which case Britain likely answers with Operation Vegetarian and Germany is in serious trouble.
Would you? The British intentionally built their Yellow Sun nuclear bomb with a blunted nose to increase drag and avoid supersonic shock waves. Provided that you're willing to accept a longer freefall time it gives an aircraft longer to clear the detonation point, although I don't know if it would be enough.
