|
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 > |
Evildream
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 | 02:58 PM
yeah well, how would you fell if bin laden had the bomb. anyone would panic. it was probably clasified untill now. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 | 04:05 PM
From what I understand, this guy isn't claiming Germany had an atomic bomb, so much as that they were close to getting a dirty bomb. Radioactive, but not anywhere near as much explosive power. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 | 10:30 PM
He claims there are eye witness accounts of a bright flash and sudden gust of wind and that it destroyed a 500 sq mile area. That doesn't sound like a dirty bomb. And where was this working reactor in Berlin?
Not much technology involved in dirty bombs. Just pack radioactive material around a conventional explosive and set it off. And why waste scarce uranium on a device that had little destructive power when the goal is to make a big one that could alter the course of the war?
His description of a 'hybrid nuclear weapon' smaller than those used by the Allies does not seem possible. You require a certain amount of fissionable material to start a chain reaction. The Allies were hard pressed to come up with that amount so I think their's were the lowest yield possible. See Physics, Vol. 3 by Isaac Asimov for an explanation of how to enrich uranium and build a nuclear reactor. |
The Curator
in San Diego
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 | 10:38 PM
The BBC article says 500 sq m. Does that mean miles or meters?
I would imagine a blast that destroyed 500 sq. miles would be pretty hard to conceal. |
Katherine
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 | 10:55 PM
Who knows? Write to the Beeb and ask them to clarify their abbreviations? But you're right, 500 square miles would be pretty hard to conceal.
(On a side note, I always thought Brits only used kilometers and never miles, but then I started reading a whole lot of British books where the cars go X miles per hour and it's so many miles to Birmingham. Hm...) |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 02:20 AM
Oh, they've been trying to make us say km for ages now, but most of us (especially the older generation) are stubbornly sticking to miles. If there's one thing we're good at, it's holding on to less efficient things from the olden days.
😊 |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2005 | 08:37 AM
I think Alex is right. It must be meters. The first time I went to the link it showed up as '500 sq m--'. Now it says '500 sq m'. But I still should have taken it as meters. Forgot it was the BBC. Even so, 500 sq meters is not impressive for a conventional bomb. The British had what they called 'Earthquake' bombs. They weighed 22,000 lbs. The Lancaster bomber was the only plane that could carry it. I'm sure it did more damage than that. |
dfstuckey
|
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 | 04:57 AM
NZ has a long anti-nuclear history: While the first uranium atom was split to release energy, our Lord Rutherford was saying " The amount of energy to be derived from dividing an atom is minmal. Anyone talking about atomic energy is talking moonshine."
Then again, it was a German woman who did it, both of which would have got up Ernest's regal nose. |
DarkMoon
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 05:18 AM
there are still unconfirmed theories about how these hitler 'atom' bomb really worked. In this year there are specialists from different physics institute examining the radioactivity of the test sites.
One possible explanation of how the atomic bomb weren't ready enough to be used as a weapon is the size of the bomb mechanism. Using Uran 235 or a special blend of centrifuged Uran (germans had specially developped centrifuges for uran isotopes), and an array of conventional bomb material could produce the heat and pressure to comprime the uran 235 to a critical mass.
However such an array wasn't usable for use in a small bomb of one ton weight so the german couldn't produce a really effective atomic bomb because it would means to have more effective Uran like Plutonium the germans didn't have. |
Carl_P
in NY
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2005 | 05:22 PM
I read in an article in a navy mag, that the Germans did have the parts needed to build the bomb but had surrendered before testing it; so they sent them in an u-boat to Japan...I forgot what happened to the u-boat tho... |
Simon_G
|
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 | 04:47 PM
Nazi scientists developed the uranium centrifuge in 1942 at Kiel. They had a huge source of uranium in western Czechoslovakia. What was in short supply was electrical power for the centrifuges which used electromagnets. They also needed freedom from Allied bombing. Nazi U-boats shipped large quantities of uranium yellow cake to Asia for the Japanese A-bomb project from late 1943 onwards. The Japanese project at the Rikken Institute of Tokyo was destroyed by bombing but the project then shifted to Hungnam in northern Korea under the Japanese Imperial 8th Army laboratory. I do not accept that the alleged bomb let off at Ohdruf in March 1945 was merely radioactive material packed around explosives. I believe it was enriched uranium in a gun type device with uranium at less than bomb grade enrichment. I believe that this was the trump card that Himmler was trying to negotiate a favourable surrender to the west with in 1945. The Americans were negotiating with the SS through Operation Sunrise. I believe the OSS negotiators stalled for time and told Himmler what he wanted to hear. Himmler could only use a Nazi nuke as a negotiating card as long as he did not use it. By negotiating the allies probably held off it's use until it was too late to use it. |
Rod
in the land of smarties.
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 12:07 AM
Do you have any actual proof to back up your belief, Simon?
Didn't think so.
Maybe you should base your beliefs on things that have been or can be proven, not someone's revisionist history. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 | 07:26 AM
I think I heard that my husband's biological family is related to the Himmel's somewhow... |
McTodd
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 08:51 AM
'I believe it was enriched uranium in a gun type device with uranium at less than bomb grade enrichment.'
With less than bomb-grade uranium, it wouldn't have achieved fission. Fat lot of good that then.
As for the yellow cake taken to Japan, I once calculated how much enriched uranium could have been extracted from the roughly 700 kg of uranium oxide, and it came out at less than a half-kilo. Utterly useless on its own.
I have to say that I find the obsession with a Nazi Bomb slightly strange. What are these people who promote it trying to prove? That the Germans were cleverer than we've given them credit? Another retrospective justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No-one has produced concrete evidence thus far, only edifices of surmise built upon existing evidential foundations and shaky physics.
As for the power of the so-called bomb, it looks like Aunty Beeb may have confused metres with miles, and area with radius, to whit, according to this page (<a href="http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/docs/atombomb/Ruegen_more.html">AP Press - Hitler's Bum</a>):
'...the blast felled trees within a radius of about 500 to 600 yards.' |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 12:30 PM
The confusion of meters and miles was my fault. As mentioned above I saw 'sq m--' when I first went to the link. I was later changed to 'sq m' which would more than likely mean meters to the BBC.
There's no question that Germany had some brilliant engineers and physicists in the '30s and '40s. However, one country could not compete with the combined brain power in the rest of the world. Some, like Von Braun, did not reach their full potential until they were able to operate in a free society. Obviously their method of "produce or be shot" is not quite as good as the incentive of monetary reward and scientific recognition. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 02:04 PM
Still, almost everyone agreed that if anyone in the world could build the bomb it was Heisenberg. As I recall it's always been something of a mystery just why he didn't. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 | 04:47 PM
500 square meters? That's not terribly impressive. An average hand grenade has about a 700 square meter coverage without any difficulty, and with a lot less production cost.
I know that one of the main things keeping the Nazi nuclear weapons program from success was the difficulty in getting the materials they needed. Towards the end of the war, they were trying to get a big shipment of something (tritium? deuterium? I forget what, exactly) from a processing plant in Norway, but the Norwegian resistance was able to alert the British and the convoy was sunk. Without that shipment, the Nazis were supposed to have been unable to make anything. I'd have to read this guy's book to tell just how valid his claims are. |
McTodd
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 07:20 AM
'Still, almost everyone agreed that if anyone in the world could build the bomb it was Heisenberg. As I recall it's always been something of a mystery just why he didn't.'
True, but people are often wrong. Who would have thought a pair of bicycle mechanics would beat the esteemed Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to achieving powered flight? Yet everyone now remembers the Wrights, and hardly anyone remembers Langley...
But the essence of the solution is in your statement '...if anyONE in the world could build the bomb it was Heisenberg.' Perhaps that was true - but the US had the combined brains of dozens of top scientists from around the world, Heisenburg was virtually alone. It's not really much of a mystery at all. The group dynamics of so many scientists thinking about the problems in the Manhattan Project made it far more likely that they would succeed than a tiny isolated group in central Europe. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 07:49 AM
I never stated that I felt Heisenberg should have beaten the American's to the bomb. I fully agree that the group (however fractuous) working on the Manhattan project stood a much better chance of getting there first. This was never in question. The question is why Germany through Heisenberg's team didn't accomplish it as well.
Heisenberg made many obvious errors and wrong assumptions. I don't have my book here with me and it's been a long time since I read it so I don't have specifics unfortunately, but the general consensus seems to be that Heisenberg either a) wasn't all he was cracked up to be or was past his period of greatness, or b) he deliberately failed to deny Germany the use of the bomb. In his lifetime he seems never to have discussed either possibility. If I recall correctly, most scientists and scientific historians seemed to simply stay out of it while he was still alive, and now that he's dead, it would be almost impossible to definitively determine just why he failed. He certainly had the knowledge, mental reasoning skills, and even resources to produce at least one working atomic bomb.
While Germany didn't have the capability throughout most of the war to engage in full scale production of atomic weapons, only one or two would have really been necessary to reach a negotiated peace, if not outright victory, in Europe. How long would Great Britain have lasted with much of London obliterated? Especially when they didn't know if Germany possessed more bombs. |
David B.
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 10:35 AM
The Germans certainly weren't helped by their fixation on using Deuterium-Oxide (heavy-water) as a moderator.
Potentially a D20 design could have been a more efficient WMD factory that tne Stagg Fields Pile. But heavy water is hard to get and hard to work with. The Allies carbon-moderator designs were a huge advantage.
Thank you Mr. Fermi! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 10:48 AM
I don't think the Nazis had sufficient resources to build a bomb even if they had made best use of what they had. Look at the amount of money the Allies threw into the Manhattan Project and they just managed to do it. Scientists all over Europe were leaving in droves to avoid being caught in Hilter's dictatorship. That didn't help.
And even if the Nazi were successful in solving all the problems, they still would have had to get a bomb to British soil. The Americans were able to drop them on Japan because they had massive air superiority. By 1945 the Luftwaffe was not much of a threat. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 05:28 PM
Keep in mind that these were the same people who developed jet fighters and cruise missiles so don't underestimate their capabilities. I'm well aware that an atomic bomb is very different from either of those, but the talent was there. A V2 would have been capable of carrying a bomb to London. Would they ever have been capable of continuous production? Very unlikely unless they managed to defeat the Soviets, but a single atomic weapon used at just the right time would have worked wonders. At the very least it would have scared the Russians shitless and possibly led to a cease-fire. |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 07:47 PM
"A V2 would have been capable of carrying a bomb to London."
I disagree. I'm sure you have seen the pictures of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs called Little Boy and Fat Man. They were physically big. A V2 rocket had a maximum diameter of just over 5 feet. At the base of the warhead it was down to about 3 feet and ended in a point.
Then there's the problem of weight. I'm not sure what the 2 American bombs weighed but I bet it was more than the V2's warhead which was just under 1 ton.
Another problem would be timing the detonation. The V2 impacted at more than Mach 3. The warhead would have to triggered before that or the detonator would be destroyed and no nuclear explosion could occur. This would be tricky although not impossible. But since the Nazis would not likely have more than 1 bomb there would no chance to test their methods. |
Andy
|
Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 | 10:44 PM
"...If anyone in the world could build the bomb it was Heisenberg. As I recall it's always been something of a mystery just why he didn't."
<P>I heartilly recommend catching a performance of Michael Frayn's play <I>Copenhagen</I> for a wonderful dramatization of this very question. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 03:59 AM
New story came online yesterday:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm">Boom!</a>
This is of an alleged schematic for the alleged bomb. |
Peter
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 03:20 PM
It always amazed me that the scientists in the Manhatten project drove themselves at a frenzy because they were worried that the Germans would get there first. You would have thought that some of those bright people could have stopped and looked round them at all of the billions of dollars and huge facilities involved and understood that war-torn Germany could never compete.
The biggest historical "what-if", however, is not what if the Germans made an atomic bomb (they were a several billon dollars short), but what if the Russians had been a few months late getting to Berlin? The American bomb was meant for dropping on Germany. They only thought about dropping on Japan after Berlin fell. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 04:01 PM
With all their billions of dollars the Americans were still lagging behind the Germans in many technological areas, primarily rocketry and aircraft, which is why America and the USSR stripped the fallen Germany of all of it's top scientists. If money was all that mattered, why weren't we (America) employing jet aircraft at the start of the war? After all, Germany had a working prototype prior to the start of conflict. Where was ours? |
BlindMan
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 09:17 PM
How about the american nuclear bomb:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0806-05.htm |
LepreCon
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 11:13 PM
The irony is (or you can call it a double-triple irony)that the USA destroyed 2 japanese cities in 1945.The Twin Towers were designed by a japanese architect in the early 70s and destroyed in 2001.Is Mother Nature trying to say?:What goes around,comes around. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2005 | 11:34 PM
Wow. That's so totally nonsensical that I don't even know where to start. Let's just go with WTF??? What does that have to do with anything? |
LepreCon
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 12:30 AM
Apparently you are a person without imagination. |
LepreCon
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 12:36 AM
Also it has something to do with the nuclear bomb in general and the previous comments. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 12:36 AM
I have plenty of imagination, but you still aren't making sense. This isn't even a good coincidence. It's a meaninless observation. How can you compare over a hundred thousand people killed to under four thousand? How can you compare an act of war to an act of terrorism? And as far as the architect being Japanese, so what? What's the connection? Guess what, Germans have designed things that were destroyed too. And we bombed them as well. |
LepreCon
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 12:46 AM
Man.Think.Yes,it is a bit abstract,nonetheless it makes sense.If it doesn't,I can't help you. |
LepreCon
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 01:32 AM
And my last comment:
If you call the nuclear bombing of Japan an act of war,you must be out of you mind. |
Mort
in Just left of centre
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 02:31 AM
Sorry but i'm with Charybdis on this one, your Trade centre/Hiroshima link is mighty tenuous at best. as for that last statement, yes it was an act of war, what else was it? |
LaMa
in Europe
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 02:46 AM
Anyone who thinks Nazi Germany wouldn't have the resources for a serious atomic bomb project, is wrong I think. Indeed as Chary mentioned, the highly sophisticated level of the German rocketry project shows otherwise, as is their development of jet aircraft. With resources available that were not to the US, like slave labour and testing on humans, and the availabillity of resources (e.g. gold) in the occupied territories, they had a lot. Their main problem would have been to access geological resources (ores).
So some of the comments I see above really underestimate the capacities of Nazi Germany, and overestimate those of the US.
Fact is that the militairy technology of Nazi Germany was way above that of the alllied when the war started, and on a certain level remained so during the later part fo the war too. Their aircraft and other weaponry were technologically advanced compared to that of the allied. The main reason why they lost air supperiority neverthless, was a lack of trained pilots after some time (when many of the early batch were killed in action), and the impossibility to uphold high fighter and bomber production levels; as well as the one thing whhere the British were upfront from the Germans, and that was Radar (I'm convinced that without Radar, the Brits would have lost the Battle of Britain). |
Hawkeye
in Minnesota
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 07:59 AM
Don't forget that the Nazi's also had produced the HO-IX The First FLying wing Jet Airplane, of course it lost an engine and then crashed, but they had accomplished it. Also i have heard of the designs of the Nazi's on the History channel that they were trying to build aricraft that could be flown to Newyork and Drop a nuke there, some of their designs were cery close to coming to pruicion, one of the designs for this NewYork bomber were very close to that of the HO-IX
<a href="http://http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/go229.html">HO-IX Information</a>
<a href="http://http://images.google.com/images?q=HO-IX&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi">HO-IX Images</a>
I cant find anything on the history channel show right now though |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 09:38 AM
I don't think anyone doubts the Nazis had enough resources to build an atomic bomb. They just didn't have enough time.
I also don't think we have underestimated their capability here. Sure they were further ahead of the Americans and British in rocketry and jet aircraft development but Germany had been in war mode ever since Hitler came to power in the '30s. The Americans had no incentive since they were protected by the Atlantic on one side and the Pacific on the other. And Britain had been resting on their colonial laurels for a least half a century. Hell, they still had a calvary at the start of the war! Horsemen had to be retrained in the use of tanks, rapidly. Once the Axis threat was realized, America then mobilized its industry to a total war effort and that's when the tide began to turn.
From what I remember reading, the German design for a bomber that could reach New York never got out of the concept stage. Their whole aircraft industry was based on designs that were to be used in the European theater. Therefore they were small and had short range, just enough to fly from Germany to England and back. The Americans had to design aircraft to cross the country, the Atlantic and the Pacific because that's what they needed. In this respect they were far ahead of Germany, even at the beginning of the war.
But Germany's amazing technological capability couldn't overcome their biggest challenge. That was the fuel shortage problem they faced at the end of the war. Their superior jet aircraft were grounded. So it seems we in North America were safe from airborne nuclear attack. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 02:24 PM
Cap, nobody's disputing the fact that Germany would have been extremely hard pressed to attack America with atomic weapons. The question is did they have the ability to make an atomic weapon and, by extension, would it have made a difference. I think that they should have had the ability to make at least one bomb. Why they didn't is due to many factors but I don't believe that it comes down to "it was impossible".
Where the war would have gone if they had developed a bomb is anybody's guess. If deployed correctly I feel a single bomb, if developed early enough, could have given Germany the chance to stabilize either their western, or eastern fronts. Then the war would have gotten really shitty. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 04:37 PM
It is possible that the Nazis could have made and employed nuclear weapons, given just a bit more time. There would certainly have been some difficulties, though.
First, they would have required the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I don't think that there are many people who would doubt Germany's technical ability to put together a nuclear bomb; when one considers that the Nazis were employing jet aircraft and camera-guided cruise missiles, it's clear that the Germans had great technical knowledge. Whether they would have had the necessary knowledge of nuclear physics, though, is something that is less clear. Heisenberg is generally considered to have been one of the great physicists of the 20th century, but that doesn't automatically mean that he knew how to produce a nuclear weapon.
A second step needed in making a nuclear bomb would be a source of uranium. Uranium is actually one of the more common elements on Earth, but areas where it's concentrated enough to make it possible to mine are less common. Before WWII, uranium wasn't used for much other than as a pigment in the oxide form. There hadn't been much interest in mapping out areas for uranium mining; most of the current major mining areas weren't located until well after the war. The only fairly large source of uranium within the reach of the Nazi-occupied world would have been in the Ukraine, although I'm not sure when the uranium in that area was first located and mined. In any event, the Nazis couldn't have started mining there until around 1942, and their hold on the area was rather abbreviated. Out of the three naturally occurring uranium isotopes (U-238, 235, and 234), only U-235 makes a worthwhile weapon. On average, less that 1% of the uranium in any sample is U-235, so a whole lot of uranium has to be collected before any decent amount of weapons-grade uranium can be extracted. Only about 9/10 of the uranium in a good nuclear weapon needs to be U-235, but even so, could the Nazis have collected and transported enough uranium in the time they had?
A third difficulty would have been in getting the other materials needed and making use of them. There is more needed to make a nuclear weapon than just U-235. There was the deuterium that they needed, which they processed in Norway (and at least one major shipment of which was sunk). Getting enough deuterium for their plans would have been tricky. Also, very large amounts of sulphuric acid and fluorine are needed to extract and refine the uranium. During the last half of the war, Germany's factories were undergoing constant bombing. Sulphuric acid is an essential part of many industrial processes, and would have been in great demand and relatively short supply. Its use would have been severely rationed and watched over. The bombing would also have made it necessary to have the uranium-extracting and -refining plants well out of the way, as would the need to keep secrecy. Sending large amounts of sulphuric acid to some unknown, distant location would not only have hampered other aspects of the war effort, but would likely have attracted somebody's attention. Even so, the Nazis would probably have been willing to sacrifice a small amount of their current production of regular weaponry in favour of the possible production of nuclear weapons in the near future.
So yes, Germany would have had many obstacles to overcome before it could have started using nuclear weapons. But it was still quite possible that they could have done so if the war had continued on just a little longer in Europe. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 04:38 PM
Wow, that was long! |
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 | 10:56 PM
Wow, that was long!
I think we all agree on a lot of points but I've forgotten which ones.
So all those who think the original story behind this thread is false, please raise your hand... |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 12:16 AM
Since I haven't read this guy's book, I can't tell how valid his evidence may be. All the same, from what I do know of the times and situations I'd have to vote for false. |
Storm
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 11:54 AM
Wow,the Nazis tested the nuclear weapon at the time when they were surrounded by the enemies on both fronts.It doesn't make Americans look good.
If the Nazis had used few of those"hybrid tactical nuclear weapons",instead of testing it's power with limited casualties,and killed 100.000 americans,english or russians ,their act would've been considered as a war crime,because they were supposed to be bad guys.And there is no difference between weapons of mass destruction and gas chambers.
Looks to me like whistleblowing.I don't think people from BBC that stupid.
PS.They(Nazis) didn't need mass production,5-10 of those would had done the trick. |
McTodd
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 04:34 PM
But if Heisenberg 'wasn't all he was cracked up to be' then he did not 'certainly have the knowledge, mental reasoning skills, and even resources to produce at least one working atomic bomb.' And even if Heisenberg did get the theory right and design a workable bomb, it's just too much to expect that Germany had the resources to produce it. And even if they had, how would they have delivered it? They had no heavy bombers, and didn't have command of the air by 1945 anyway, and it's doubtful they could have produced a bomb as light as a ton to fit in a V2 rocket.
And the description of the so-called bomb that's been touted recently is inconsistent. Was it a 'proper' fission weapon, or was it a dirty bomb? |
McTodd
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 | 04:44 PM
Bugger, ignore my post above, I was responding to a post from Charybdis on Page 1 without having noticed that there were two more pages of messages! Duh!
Apart from that, I simply think that for an extraordinary claim like Herr Karlsch's requires extraordinary evidence to back it up, and he doesn't seem to have provided any. Articles Herr Karlsch has written himself, and which one would expect to carry the juiciest morsels of his evidence to support them, simply don't deliver.
And in the absence of proof, speculation about Germany's ability to produce a nuclear weapon is just that - speculation. Nobody denies that Germany had some incredible engineers and scientists and was far ahead of the Allies in many areas. But that says nothing about whether they had the right expertise to develop nuclear weapons, though. |
DeadandBuried
|
Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 | 11:31 PM
Fuck the nazi bomb!They didn't use it,but Americans did.
http://www.anawa.org.au/weapons/japan.html
Some nerd by name Einstein came up with his fucking "e=mc2" and other motherfuckers took it further to built the BOMB.
The little likeable man was nothing,but an evil genius,who was instrumental in creating the BOMB,when he signed the letter to Roosevelt in 1939,stating that "we must built the BOMB before the Nazis do it and use it against us".Later he condemned it's usage in Japan,but before he died, tried to justified his action,saying,that "may be there is someting good will come out of it".
Crap!
Yes,we found out later,that the Big Bang was the nuclear reaction.
So what! I would prefer not to know all that in exchange for a peace of mind.
We(human beings)are not suppose to have an access to this kind of power,because most of us are nothing,but a bloodthirsty animals,ready to kill each other.What if this power gets into the wrong hands? Then we all be a history. |
DeadAndBuried
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 12:04 AM
McTood,
"Nobody denies that Germany had some incredible engineers and scientists and was far ahead of the Allies in many areas".
Germany's incredible engineers and scientists(immigrants) had built the Bomb for the USA. |
DeadAndBuried
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 12:38 AM
Sorry about the prev.com.
Read:McTodd |
McTodd
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 | 01:55 PM
Ha ha, no worries about the name, DeadAndBuried!
Indeed, you're correct. But that's part of the point, they went to Britain and the USA, they didn't (sensibly) hang around in Germany or continental Europe.
Of course, if the Nazis hadn't persecuted the Jews, maybe Einstein and Co. would have stayed in Germany. But then, if the Nazis hadn't persecuted the Jews, they wouldn't have been Nazis. |
Scott D.
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 | 03:28 AM
In response to just the first page of threads that I've read, I would just like to make this comment: Much of this information was never classified. I can even remember watching a documentary as a teenager which dealt exclusively with just how close Germany was to having a Nuclear weapon. The core was completed in the final months of 1944. Historical (unclassified) facts state that had Germany had just 3 more months, they would have been in possession of weapons-grade plutonium. And there is much that is still classified. But then, all of this really is just mute, right? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 | 05:09 AM
But then, all of this really is just mute, right?
Do you mean 'moot', or do you just want us to shut up about it? 😊 |
havoc299
|
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 | 05:24 PM
I think all of us must believe, in general terms, in the official history. But own history often teaches us that the complete truth is only known 50 or 60 years later. Sometimes the real facts never reaches the dark out. The winners usually write the story with some interested shades...These are the things that must keep us awaken up.
I |
guest
|
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 | 08:27 PM
Has anyone read Joseph P. Farrell's book:
"Reich of the Black Sun" on just this topic?
ISBN 1931882398 from Adventures Unlimited Press 2004
If so, your comments would be appreciated. |
babbage
|
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:41 AM
I would not consider the research on nazi-germany nuclear bomb as a hoax. There are numerous eyewitness reports (like ohrdruf) and official reports made by pilots (british, german, russian). Rainer Karlsch, an academic economic historian of a well-established research institute in Berlin, found in russian archives reports from two very big explosions occured in March 1945 around the Area of Thuringia, which were very similiar in descriptions to that of a german pilot who watched a big red mushroomed cloud reaching to 20000 feets high.
And especially the report of some inhabitants of the area Ohrdruf/Thuringia who had to bury about 400 concentration camp prisoners who had to stay at the presumably "nuclear" test site and who got burned completely to black-coal. These events are still many told by the inhabitants of these areas.
As one poster before me already told, there is now some members of physic instituts who are going to examine the radioactive components of different earth samples derived from different deepths. These examinations will last till mid 2006 and will give an explanation if the compared to other areas very high radioactive emission is still nature's origin or caused by a specific explosion in the past. The radioactive emission of this place is the highest of Germany.
Ohrdruf and Thuringia were in East Germany (DDR). The russian occupied these areas and especially Ohrdruf, wich had a big military test site for Nazi Germany and now had been used by the red army as a military station.
More information about the topic can be found in physics world, june 2005, you can access it online. |
Kevin
|
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 | 04:23 PM
I have been trying to study this topic all day after an incidental mention in an article on alternet.org. It seems to me that if Heisenburg was able to devise how we made the Bomb shortly after notification that it had been dropped on Hiroshima, he wasn't lacking in the ability critics have stated. To me, it seems likely that he undermined the efforts on purpose. I think some of the "spin" at the time was the side effect of the Allied scramble after the war to nab Nazi scientists for their own use. It would have been in America's interest to downplay the nuclear abilities of certain scientists in order to keep the Russians from grabbing them. As others have stated though, this is all just speculation at this point. If we find that the Nazis did detonate a nuclear bomb or even a dirty bomb, we should all consider ourselves lucky that we managed to defeat the Nazis before Hitler's crazy ass could have used those weapons in even more terrifying ways than we did. |
Simon_G
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 | 08:05 PM
It |
Simon_G
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 | 08:18 PM
If others including Rod wish to read more about Japan |
Simon_G
|
Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2006 | 08:25 PM
Part 3 of 3
For those who stubbornly cling to the idea that Werner heisenberg was the leader of Nazi Germany's nuclear projects they had four rival nuclear projects. Information was not shared and from July 1944 the SS took over the HWA project.
Deputy Fuhrer Martin Bormannn became the leading patron of the HWA project in 1942 when armaments minister Albert speer tried to kill off the A-bomb project. Speer became a patron of the KWG project and the HWA project was largly hidden from Speer by Bormann:
(1) The Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft (KWG) project of Heisenberg to develop fission for nuclear power.
(2) The secretive OKM Naval Weapons Office or Kreigsmarine project under General Admiral Karl Witzell and Konteradmiral Wilhem Rhein (which amongst other things was involved with towed V-2 capsules and planning to power a type XXI u-boat with a nuclear reactor). The science team was led by scientist Prof Walther Bothe. When the OKM nuclear laboratory at Hamburg was destroyed by allied bombing in 1943, efforts were shifted to Koneigsberg on the Baltic.
(3) The plutonium bomb project of Dr Fritz Houtermans (who studied nuclear physics at the Ukraine Physics Insitute in 1934). The plutonium project was least likely to succeed because plutonium is derived by a six step chemical precipitation process from spent nuclear fuel. Since Heisenberg failed to develop the nuclear reactor a plutonium bomb was impossible.
(4) The Heereswaffenamt uranium enrichment project, subsequently taken over by the SS under leadership of Dr Paul Harteck. This HWA project had far superior funding to Heisenberg's project. Allied intelligence and bombings continually pin-pointed enrichment laboratories and bombed them before they came online. Harteck's final laboratory was found under a football stadium in Stadtilm by the ALSOS mission.
(5) Goering's privately funded Reichsforschungsrat-Goering (Physikalische Technishe Reichanstalt [PTR] at Ronneburg) to develop an A-bomb which was headed by Kurt Deibner. Diebner's efforts were later absorbed by the SS project under Paul Harteck. Deibner was also the German Army's chief nuclear physicist. Deibner was a strident campaigner for the A-bomb during 1941.
Simon Gunson
Wellington, New Zealand |
|
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 > |
