PDA

View Full Version : German Nuclear Weapon Program



benno bratfisch
11-30-2012, 01:56 PM
Some days ago I saw a documentation on N24. According to the author the Germans made big advances until the bombing of a heavy water plant in Norway stopped them. That is complete nonsense. To make it short: there was no German nuclear weapon program at all.
But there is a really fascinating question: "Why was there no such program ?". Otto Hahn discovered the fission of Uranium in 1938 and a few month later another German scientist wrote: "give me one ton of Uranium and I send the Wannsee (a large lake in the outskirts of Berlin) into the orbit". The Germans knew the principles of fission and chain reaction before the outbreak of war.
The second thing you have to take into account is: The Americans did not develop THE A-Bomb. No, they developed two totally different types of A-Bombs and they used both types, the one in Hiroshima and the other one in Nagasaki. So the Germans could have one of the two types with probably less than half of the overall effort of the Manhattan Project.
The Nagasaki-bomb was based on Plutonium. This metal is "easy" to obtain (you can "breed" it in a reactor), but difficult to handle. For the Germans "too difficult to handle", they simply thought it would be impossible to make an A-Bomb out of Plutonium. The Hiroshima-bomb was based on Uranium-235. This metal is easy to handle, but it's extremely difficult to separate it from the other isotopes. You need huge plants with thousands of centrifuges (but no reactor and no heavy water, therefore the "bomb the plant in Norway and it's over"-theory is nonsense). The German scientists knew this would work, but no one with reputation made an attempt to convince Hitler. On the contrary, Heisenberg -in real desparation- asked his danish college Nils Bohr, what he would do in such a situation. You can imagine the answer. So Heisenberg decided to direct the effort towards a nuclear power plant (and for this, it's true, you need a reactor and heavy water as mediator). But even that failed. He never suceeded in establishing a self-sustaining chain reaction (Enrico Fermi achieved this in 1942 in the USA). So there was really no danger of Hitler getting an A-bomb into his hands.

pdf27
12-02-2012, 01:11 AM
1) I'd be VERY cautious of any reports of the Heisenberg-Bohr meeting - the two men completely disagree with what was said, and although Bohr is probably substantially more truthful having less of an axe to grind I suspect we'll never have an accurate description of what was said.
2) You're missing a fundamental point - Heisenberg made a massive cock-up in calculating critical mass of U-235, calculating it to be several hundred tonnes. This is well documented, and we know from the Farm Hall transcripts that initially Heisenberg didn't believe that the Hiroshima bomb was a nuclear one. Additionally they never got any plausible isotope separation project going - and the allies had two working ones.
3) The Germans did know that a Plutonium bomb was possible, they just didn't have any means to make Plutonium. Of the two possible moderators, Heavy Water was sabotaged by the British and Norwegians while the German experiments with Graphite failed completely to notice that their graphite samples were contaminated with Boron (actually very common - the Manhattan Project had the same problem, but Fermi spotted something was wrong and tried again with ultra-pure graphite from Petroleum Coke which worked).

Oddly, the Japanese atom bomb project was more advanced than the German one (not hard - they did at least calculate critical mass correctly). However, ultimately it was going nowhere due to a complete lack of understanding of needs and priorities - IIRC when the guy running it asked for funding to make either U-235 of Plutonium he was told to use a different, more easily available metal instead. In the end, the lab was burnt down in a B-29 raid and that was the end of the programme.

DVX
01-10-2013, 06:07 PM
The research of prof. Karlsh and the well documented books of the journalist Romersa (witness) now demonstrate quite undoubtufully that the Germans had a sort of tactical atomic bomb but with unsolved problems of ignition. Read here:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?12239-Hitler-s-secret-weapons

J.A.W.
05-18-2013, 05:44 PM
Speer's book also mentions certain aspects of these developments..
.. including depleted uranium as armour penetrator projectiles..

imi
05-19-2013, 03:56 AM
Hitler was susceptible about the chemical warfare because he's injured a gas attack in ww1 and he's denied the chemical weapons use in the german army

Nickdfresh
05-19-2013, 08:42 AM
I highly doubt the Germans had any sort of nuclear bomb, as their theories were way off and any bomb would have been enormous...

pdf27 might be one to weigh in on this...

Rising Sun*
05-19-2013, 09:10 AM
1) Oddly, the Japanese atom bomb project was more advanced than the German one (not hard - they did at least calculate critical mass correctly). However, ultimately it was going nowhere due to a complete lack of understanding of needs and priorities - IIRC when the guy running it asked for funding to make either U-235 of Plutonium he was told to use a different, more easily available metal instead. In the end, the lab was burnt down in a B-29 raid and that was the end of the programme.

Japanese "atom bomb project" or, I would suggest, more accurately "Japanese research related to a possible atomic weapon"?

Compared with the Manhattan Project and the resources and talent devoted to it, the Japanese didn't even get out of the blocks.

My understanding underscores yours, which is that at various levels there was a failure to appreciate the potential of such research and a failure to devote necessary resources to it.

However, even had there been higher recognition of the potential worth of such research, the absence of resources was inevitably a consequence of the larger problem facing Japan from late 1942 onwards, which was that it exhausted human, natural and military resources of all kinds a lot faster than it could replace them. The converse was true for the Allies, notably the US.

And even had there been higher recognition of such research, what resources did Japan have available to it and what resources could it have exploited to achieve an atomic weapon when, from 1943-44 onwards, it was being steadily strangled by the Allies, and predominantly by the American advance on its home islands?

pdf27
05-19-2013, 09:46 AM
Oh, I don't think the Japanese could have built a nuclear weapon - the industrial base wasn't there, and nor was the large number of physicists and engineers needed (at least, not once other programmes had been provided for). The point is that they realised it was possible and roughly what needed to be done. The Germans didn't even get that far.

Rising Sun*
05-19-2013, 10:46 AM
The point is that they realised it was possible and roughly what needed to be done. The Germans didn't even get that far.

Does this represent a failure of strategists to grasp scientific possibilities in Japan, while German scientists and strategists recognised the potential but lacked the ability to realise it?

pdf27
05-19-2013, 11:48 AM
Yes for Japan on a fairly grand scale - they got themselves into a naval war with the largest industrial power on the planet, and tried to kid themselves that bravery/martial spirit would be enough to overcome this.
In the specific case of Germany and nuclear weapons, they didn't even recognise the potential let alone do anything about realising it.

Nickdfresh
05-19-2013, 04:40 PM
Yes for Japan on a fairly grand scale - they got themselves into a naval war with the largest industrial power on the planet, and tried to kid themselves that bravery/martial spirit would be enough to overcome this.
In the specific case of Germany and nuclear weapons, they didn't even recognise the potential let alone do anything about realising it.

To be fair, the Japanese thought they'd be splitting responsibilities with the Germans against the resources of the U.S. (and Britain) and believed the "Third Force", the the martial spiritual superiority innate in all Japanese samurai warriors :) , would be enough to overcome U.S. ground forces and their inherent superiority in mobility and firepower - both hindered by the geography of Pacific atolls. Hitler was no less delusional in his belief that the Imperial Japanese Navy would largely negate U.S. naval assets in a global war as the Ostheer ground itself down into a battle of attrition with the Soviet Red Army...

pdf27
05-19-2013, 04:52 PM
To be fair, the Japanese thought they'd be splitting responsibilities with the Germans against the resources of the U.S. (and Britain)
The Pacific war was basically a naval war once they got the US involved. If they genuinely thought that the Kriegsmarine (bottled up as it was by geography and the second most powerful navy on the planet) would enable them to beat the most powerful navy about, they're even dumber than I thought.


and believed the "Third Force", the the martial spiritual superiority innate in all Japanese samurai warriors :) , would be enough to overcome U.S. ground forces and their inherent superiority in mobility and firepower - both hindered by the geography of Pacific atolls.
The US didn't really need to fight very many places on land - they just had to capture enough land for some airfields. Had it come to an invasion of Japan then maybe they would have been right, but IMHO even without nuclear weapons Operation Starvation was always more likely to be decisively implemented than Operation Downfall. That should have been obvious to the Japanese High Command - and they decided to ignore it.


Hitler was no less delusional in his belief that the Imperial Japanese Navy would largely negate U.S. naval assets in a global war as the Ostheer ground itself down into a battle of attrition with the Soviet Red Army...
Or indeed his belief that the USN was anything but an irrelevance to the Eastern Front...

Nickdfresh
05-19-2013, 05:10 PM
The Pacific war was basically a naval war once they got the US involved. If they genuinely thought that the Kriegsmarine (bottled up as it was by geography and the second most powerful navy on the planet) would enable them to beat the most powerful navy about, they're even dumber than I thought.

I don't disagree, though I would use hopeful, irrational, or desperate in place of "dumb." But I don't think they necessarily thought the Kriegsmarine would tie down the U.S. Navy, more that the United States projection of power would essentially draw it into a costly two-front war and minimize resources a bit. I concur that they clearly underestimated the capacity of U.S. industry and engaged in wishful thinking...



The US didn't really need to fight very many places on land - they just had to capture enough land for some airfields. Had it come to an invasion of Japan then maybe they would have been right, but IMHO even without nuclear weapons Operation Starvation was always more likely to be decisively implemented than Operation Downfall. That should have been obvious to the Japanese High Command - and they decided to ignore it.

That's assuming the Japanese believed the U.S. population would have the stomach to continue the war after successive defeats and the crippling of Pearl Harbor...


Or indeed his belief that the USN was anything but an irrelevance to the Eastern Front...

But they were, as was the Royal Navy. Germany was undergoing severe shortages even at the high water mark of the Third Reich after the defeat of France. Blockades and the lack of access of resources is what drove the Nazi invasion of Soviet Russia. It wasn't going to get better with direct U.S. involvement on the side of the British...

J.A.W.
05-19-2013, 05:21 PM
Didn't German forces inflict more casualties on U.S. forces than the Japanese did?

The PTO was 'small beer' in overall logistical terms..

Rising Sun*
05-20-2013, 07:14 AM
Didn't German forces inflict more casualties on U.S. forces than the Japanese did?

Yes. Europe:Japan ratio was about 3:1 for American casualties on bare numbers. I don't know which area of operations had the greater rate of casualties, i.e. number of casualties as a percentage of total forces committed, which is a more accurate measure of the intensity of fighting in each theatre. I'd be interested to know those rates.

However, the ETO required the Americans in their western and southern approaches to Germany to fight every German soldier every inch of the way, with the fighting intensifying as they approached Germany. In the PTO and especially the SWPA the Americans did not have to do this as they bypassed large enemy forces in New Guinea, Bougainville, Timor and the NEI, as well as avoiding what would have been a hugely costly land invasion of the Japanese home islands.

There are also other aspects which make comparisons difficult, such as the SWPA / PTO being very much a naval war where hundreds of people could be lost in the sinking of a single ship while the American involvement in the ETO was primarily an air and land war where losses in quick single events were much smaller, at least on land. Losses in massive air raids were probably on a similar scale at times. Again, we'd need to know the rates of casualties for a reasonable comparison.

Regardless of all that, there is no question that the fighting in the SWPA / PTO involved savagery and 'give no quarter' fighting which ETO American troops never experienced, and was much harder fighting than in the ETO.



The PTO was 'small beer' in overall logistical terms..

PTO /SWPA never occupied more than about 15% of total US resources, but that probably distorts the level of commitment of some forces, e.g:

1. The USMC fought almost exclusively in PTO /SWPA. Man for man, and no disrespect to the US Army soldiers who fought there, the USMC was worth a lot more than the US Army in the island assaults which were a feature of the PTO.

2. I expect I'm going to be corrected by someone who actually knows something about Atlantic and Mediterranean aircraft carrier actions as distinct from my complete lack of knowledge of those USN operations, but I suspect that USN aircraft carriers were predominantly deployed in the PTO /SWPA with the relevant screen of battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, whereas Britain was the aircraft carrier for the USAAF in its campaign against Europe.

3. There is also the division of responsibility between Britain and the US which left the PTO to the Americans and the SWPA to the Americans, Australians, and almost always overlooked Dutch, although the British made major contributions outside those theatres in the Burma / Indian Ocean areas against the Japanese.

J.A.W.
05-20-2013, 05:31 PM
Good points, there is some contention as to if all those brutal island hopping,
Marine infantry assault battles were even necessary..
& USAAF strategic bombing casualties attacking Germany were higher still than the Marines..
The Luftwaffe got a toll of G.I.s on troopships too, Slapton Sands was kinda rough via the Kreigsmarine
& I guess those burning in their 88mm perforated Shermans, drowning in the Rapido,
or being liquidated in the snow at Malmedy felt too much better off than the PTO boys..

Cojimar 1945
05-30-2013, 03:16 PM
One book I was reading suggested that the Japanese made little attempt to mobilize scientists in the civilian sector for weapons-related research. The suggestion is that there was considerable talent that was not utilized but I don't know how much evidence there is to support this view.

Cojimar 1945
05-30-2013, 03:19 PM
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that a country is doomed to lose a struggle against an adversary with greater resources. Didn't Russia possess considerably greater resources/industrial capacity than the Japanese at the time of the Russo-Japanese war? If Japan couldn't beat the U.S. because of their opponents greater resources than why would they stand a chance against Russia.

pdf27
05-30-2013, 05:14 PM
I suspect the answer is logistics. The Trans-Siberian railroad was a single track until after the war, and during the war it appears to have relied on ferries for part of the distance. The only other route the Russians had out there was around the Cape (don't think they were permitted through Suez, but not sure), and given their lack of worldwide bases (and the hostility of the British, who were allied with the Japanese at the time) their ships would be in very poor repair after the journey.

So that means the Russians were fighting on the wrong end of a 5,000 mile single track railway from their industrial base. In practice, that meant their industrial base was neutered, and they were logistically limited to what the railway could provide. The Japanese had no such limitation, fighting near to home, so the odds are they could deploy more industrial potential to the battlezone. It should also be noted that the Tsar was dealing with unrest at home and couldn't afford an extended war. He had to win quickly, or cut his losses and cover up as best he could.

The US, of course, being a seafaring nation facing onto the Pacific would not be logistically limited in any Pacific war - they might have some initial limits and hence in a short war be unable to exert their full power, but in any war lasting more than a year the Japanese were stuffed.

pdf27
05-31-2013, 01:14 AM
Update: after the Dogger Bank Incident (where the Russian Baltic Fleet opened fire on British trawlers in the North Sea, thinking they were Japanese torpedo boats) the British closed the Suez canal to the Russians. It should also be noted that the Japanese were astride the sea route from Europe to the Russian Far East, and when the Baltic fleet tried to make it to Vladivostok they were intercepted and sunk by the Japanese at Tsushima.

Rising Sun*
05-31-2013, 09:05 AM
Didn't Russia possess considerably greater resources/industrial capacity than the Japanese at the time of the Russo-Japanese war?

I don't know.

I do know that Japan undertook and achieved an astonishing rate and level of industrial and military development in the few decades between Commodore Perry and the Russo-Japanese war, which was assisted by bringing in overseas experts in various areas of development which made Japan the beneficiary of the latest knowledge and techniques in various area.

I don't know whether Russia matched this, or whether it was as up to date as Japan at the time.

As pdf27 said, there were serious geographical and logistical problems facing the Russians as they had to steam half way around the world before they could face the Japanese fleet, where they were duly beaten and had no replacements to enable them to continue to fight.

Compare this with WWII, where the USA could replace naval and merchant ships at a very much faster rate than Japan could after foolishly entering the war with insufficient shipping to meet the logistical needs of its ambitions. Similarly, the USA produced pilots, notably carrier pilots, at a very much faster rate than Japan did after losing the cream of its crop at Midway. The same with submarines, which steadily destroyed Japan's merchant shipping and lines of communication. Along with other problems such as Japan getting most of its oil from the USA before the war and then being reliant upon oil from the NEI, and to a lesser extent Burma and elsewhere, which had to be transported by ships subject to attack by the Allies (not just the Americans - the Dutch had a useful submarine fleet which escaped the Japanese invasion of the NEI). Meanwhile America had virtually all the oil it needed.

But the biggest difference between the Russo-Japanese war and the Pacific War was that the former was short and sweet where industrial capacity didn't matter much while the latter was long and gruelling where industrial capacity mattered most in sustaining the combatants, and Japan didn't have it.

JR*
05-31-2013, 10:17 AM
As regards the Russo-Japanese War, there was I think an interesting contrast between the combattants. Russia had begun the process of "modernising" back in the days of Tsar Peter the Great in the late 17th century. Prior to that, it had been a rather retarded medieval backwater, of limited significance in European affairs. The reforms of Peter and his successors achieved a great deal of success - albeit on a fairly narrow front. The most obvious progress was in producing a modern army, which did indeed help project the country into an increasingly prominent position in the course of the 18th century, arguably culminating in the major role played by the Russia in the destruction of Napoleon. Much of the progress in military matters was based on the influence and/or direct participation of non-Russian experts (even when, as was often the case, their advice went unappreciated by the native Russian aristocracy. Outside the military, and certain areas of the arts and crafts, Russia remained an incredibly backward social construction. The problem was that when the next great drive for economic development - the industrial revolution - came along, there was no Peter the Great to drive it as, in this Autocracy, would have been necessary for really rapid progress. The progressive Tsar, Nicholas I, was assasinated before he could really get into his stride; his successor, Alexander III, was a repressive martinet almost worthy of Stalin, who was more concerned with securing the power of the Dynasty than with economic matters. A repressive police state, suspicious of education and of "rising" administrative and economic classes (which tended to be repressed or, more commonly, co-opted as a sort of minor branch of the nobility, in the pre-Revolutionalry French style) did not provide a very healthy environment for development and investment. Not that there was no development and investment - it is just that it was distinctly sub-optimal, and largely confined to European Russia and the Ukraine. The wilds of Siberia and, to some extent, of the Caucasus, were still explorer territory for much of this period - a bit like the US Wild West.

Prior to the arrival of Commodore Perry, Japan had been in self-imposed isolation for some two and a half centuries. In fact, in some respects, the country was actually more backward than it had been in 1610. For example, the military capacity of the country had been more or less dismantled; the Tokugawa Shogunate gradually removed the gun from Japanese society altogether. In the late-18th century, Japanese production of firearms was effectively confined to decorative matchlock weapons used by the top nobility for hunting, and importation of firearms was forbidden. Perry's rude intrusion into this society administered a huge shock. The inability of the Shogunate to deal with the intrusion destabilised the regime, leading to its effective overthrow by a clique of "progressives" who took possession of the God-Emperor and, over the next decade or so, pretty rapidly dismantled the remains of the Shogunal system. The next item on their agenda was to propel Japan into a storm of modernisation and industrialisation, a process encouraged, for their own reasons, by foreign powers such as the US and the United Kingdom. By the time of Tsushima, Japan was a very different place. The militristic tendendencies of the technocratic rulers had produced military arms that were far and away the most effective in east Asia, an extraordinary achievement considering the short time in which this had been achieved. Japanese manufacturing had advanced in leaps and bounds; the country now mass-produced significant quantities of merchandise ranging from battleships to machine-made jewellery and western-style clothing. The Japanese financial and administrative systems had also advanced markedly in a Western direction. All in all, something at least generally resembling a Japanese take on a modern early 20th century state had come into being.

The social effects, of course, were not always very coherent, not surprising, given the rapidity of the change.I have read, in translation, a certain amount of the literature of this period, and it indicates that Japanese society was hovering in a rather confused fashion between traditional and imported fashions and values which had yet to be absorbed on much more than a fairly superficial level. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining the lamentable events of the 1930s and 1940s in the region.

In any event, when their interests clashed with those of the Japanese in the form of the Russo-Japanese War, the Russians (although they probably did not recognise the fact), were faced with fighting a vigorous enemy in the course of a current-phase economic and military modernisation, on his own ground, at the far end of a logistical desert far from Russia's all-too-limited industrial centres. Scarcely surprising that the inadequate Russian naval forces in the Far East were eliminated by Japan with relative ease. That really left the Russians with the option of sending their semi-obsolete Black Sea Fleet on an extraordinary journey eastwards if they wanted to maintain the war at all. In the East they lacked sufficient coaling stations. As a result, the Russian ships sailed against the superior Japanese vessels with their decks loaded with coal. Still, perhaps, not a foregone conclusion; but when Japanese Admiral Togo outmanoeuvred the Russians to bring them under lateral fire, the game was up for the Russians. Not a foregone conclusion - but it should not really have been as much of a surprise.

Of course, it is arguable that the false lessons learned by the Japanese, both about military technology and about the threat posed by Western opponents, helped set them up for the disaster of 1941-'45. At the time, there is very much a sense of a Power on the way down suffering defeat at the hands of one on an opposite trajectory. Best regards, JR.

J.A.W.
05-31-2013, 06:53 PM
& an irony is.. that in WW2, Churchill denied effective defence to British interests threatened by Japan,
by trying to impress Roosevelt by action in the Med/North Africa, diverting the needed equipment
to the USSR & keeping huge numbers of poorly employed Spitfires in Britain..

Much of the local population in Asia initially welcomed the departure of European colonial control..& the arrival of the Japanese with their promise of 'co-prosperity'

But just as Hitler largely did in Eastern Europe..
Nippon blew it - by treating most of those 'liberated' peoples as 'vassals' at best..& slaves at worst..

Rising Sun*
06-01-2013, 06:15 AM
But just as Hitler largely did in Eastern Europe..
Nippon blew it - by treating most of those 'liberated' peoples as 'vassals' at best..& slaves at worst..

The difference is that in Eastern Europe the Soviets mounted their own defence and offence and expelled the invader and chased it all the way back to Berlin, albeit with useful assistance from the other Allies.

No country including China and no colony invaded or occupied (i.e former French colonies) by Japan managed that or could have managed it.

Without the effort of the English-speaking Allies 1942-45, those peoples would have remained under Japanese control.

So it's another irony that the European colonialists freed their former colonies from the Japanese colonialists to enable, quite unintentionally, the local people to throw off the yoke of both lots of colonialists in the post-war period.

J.A.W.
06-01-2013, 07:01 AM
Well, it is certainly arguable that if Hitler had been more amenable..
.. to those who had been labouring under Stalin's fearful yoke..

& hadn't actually declared war on the US, so as to invite hoards of Mustangs rampante in `44..
just as Speer got his war economy into stride.. he might've done Stalin..

Also arguable.. is if Japan could've really rolled over the whole of China..

It was for sure, Roosevelt's policy to see off the old empires, & while the cold-war kind of put the US
on the 1/2 arsed anti-commie 3rd world merry-go-round.. they had old Europe carved up with Stalin..

So.. Nuke-backed US monetary hegemony in the West & Red Army/iron curtain hegemony in the East..

Nickdfresh
06-02-2013, 08:31 AM
Well, it is certainly arguable that if Hitler had been more amenable..
.. to those who had been labouring under Stalin's fearful yoke..

Not likely. Germany didn't (in the twisted Nazi view) have the luxury of sentimental notions of humanity. The Barbarossa planning was one that is largely a war crime in itself because it was predicated on feeding the Wehrmacht, and the German population as a whole that were already suffering chronic shortages at their "high-water" mark of controlling Western Europe at the expense of the Eastern populations and Soviet POW's that would starve and freeze to death. For instance, the German belief that the conquest of France would result in a windfall of coal production turned out to be illusionary as they failed to account for the fact that French coal miners' productivity would drop precipitously along with their moral after the defeat. Similar net drops in productivity was true across the board in food production and other resources in Western Europe putting the Germans in a quandary as they still now were responsible largely for the welfare of the populations reluctantly under their control - yet populations that didn't seem interested in both supporting their nations and the Nazi war effort...


& hadn't actually declared war on the US, so as to invite hoards of Mustangs rampante in `44..
just as Speer got his war economy into stride.. he might've done Stalin..

Hitler viewed war as inevitable with the U.S. as there was already an undeclared "U-boat War" between the U.S. Navy and the Kriegsmarine in which sailors on both sides were dying for over a year by that point. The United States had already started on the road to mobilization and was rebuilding its largely backwater armed forces with a completely mechanized Juggernaut. The Nazis knew this, and decided their best gamble was to act before the Americans could bring their full potential of industrialization to bear. The Americans were openly supporting the French prior to the fall, and then the British became the recipients of the windfall of arms and supplies after the defeat. Hitler viewed the FDR regime as little more than a facade controlled by a Jewish shadow gov't of Wall St. and Hollywood. His views may have been tainted with weird, conspiratorial bullshit. But in that view his actions make sense. He also saw the U.S. as a major source of Allied production whether directly in the war or not; and what he feared most was the huge potential of production of a American economy on a full on total war footing. His attack on the Soviet Union was an attempt to equalize the odds in an intercontinental "long war" by seizing and securing Soviet production facilities, its vast but inefficient agricultural resources, and its bonanza of resources such as the oil fields in the Crimea. Then the plan was to branch out into the Middle East via Iran and into the Far East into India once this was achieved and finally deal with the British before the Americans could fully mobilize.

The German High Command, even non or even anti-Nazis like Gen. Halder, thought that if they were able to destroy the majority of the Red Army by the time they reached the Dnieper-Dniester rivers, the Ostheer would achieve almost total victory and Stalin's regime would collapse or be replaced by a military junta more amenable to an armistice. Their view was not unrealistic. What was unrealistic was the massive failure of intelligence in which they underestimated the near boundless reserves of the Soviet Red forces to replenish themselves despite suffering massive, near-crippling losses initially. Perhaps most of all, they failed to account that the "inferior Slavs" would be able to reestablish their industries in the East and come back at the Wehrmacht with a whole newer generation of weaponry such as the T-34 tank to replace the largely obsolete cache of weapons destroyed or captured by the Ostheer and Luftwaffe. They also failed to realize that the entry of America in the war would result in the mecanization of the Soviet supply line fundamentally equalizing the Red Army's operational effectiveness with that of the Ostheer by the end of 1943.

In short, the Germans in Hitler's regime such as Albert Speer believed that the war in the East had to have been won by the end of 1942 so they could turn against the Western Allies with their booty of captured industry, equipment, and resources. It was in a sense a desperate gamble tainted by the often bizarre prism of Nazi ideology. But there was certainly a method to their madness...


Also arguable.. is if Japan could've really rolled over the whole of China..

It was for sure, Roosevelt's policy to see off the old empires, & while the cold-war kind of put the US
on the 1/2 arsed anti-commie 3rd world merry-go-round.. they had old Europe carved up with Stalin..

So.. Nuke-backed US monetary hegemony in the West & Red Army/iron curtain hegemony in the East..

I think you mean Truman's government. The U.S. didn't really have much of a choice unless they wanted a potentially disastrous war with the Soviets. And the Soviets did the most and suffered the most to defeat the Nazi-Germany regime. Of course they were going to get some sort of hegemony in Eastern Europe they had already steamrolled over...

Rising Sun*
06-02-2013, 08:31 AM
Also arguable.. is if Japan could've really rolled over the whole of China..

It didn't have to.

Control of the riches in Manchuria was enough.

As for rolling over the rest of China, the assorted Chinese forces were a long way short of being a unified national force determined to resist the Japanese.

There were plenty of instances of Chinese warlords shifting their allegiances and troops between the Nationalists, Communists and Japanese.

If Japan had devoted to China in 1941-45 the resources it devoted to its southward thrust, and hadn't annoyed the Allies sufficiently to increase their support dramatically for the Chinese during the same period, the result might have been different.

Except that Japan needed the oil in the NEI after the 1941 US / British embargoes threatened its capacity to wage war anywhere.

So Japan diluted its forces in China to go south and duly over-extended itself in the south. But it still held on rather well in China until the Soviets came in during the last few days of the war in their own form of blitzkreig.

Rising Sun*
06-02-2013, 09:14 AM
The Barbarossa planning was one that is largely a war crime in itself because it was predicated on feeding the Wehrmacht, and the German population as a whole that were already suffering chronic shortages at their "high-water" mark of controlling Western Europe at the expense of the Eastern populations and Soviet POW's that would starve and freeze to death.

But not much different in inhumane attitude and brutal human effect than the Soviet's own exploitation and starvation of the Ukraine a decade earlier in the Holodomor catastrophe.

Which is just another example to support my long held view that when it came to a contest between Hitler and Stalin, Stalin was going to win because he was the meanest bastard on the planet at the time and, unlike Hitler in the period 1941-43, had no more regard for his own people than any others as long as he survived.



[Hitler] also saw the U.S. as a major source of Allied production whether directly in the war or not; and what he feared most was the huge potential of production of a American economy on a full on total war footing.

Yet Hitler was realiant to a significant extent upon Ford and General Motors products early in his own war in Europe for his advances east and then west, which should have advertised to him that the US was a sleeping giant he had no hope of conquering once he had aroused it.


What was unrealistic was the massive failure of intelligence in which they underestimated the near boundless reserves of the Soviet Red forces to replenish themselves despite suffering massive, near-crippling losses initially. Perhaps most of all, they failed to account that the "inferior Slavs" would be able to reestablish their industries in the East and come back at the Wehrmacht with a whole newer generation of weaponry such as the T-34 tank to replace the largely obsolete cache of weapons destroyed or captured by the Ostheer and Luftwaffe.

Hindsight is a great gift we all have, but even modest foresight in 1941 might have indicated that the problem of increasingly long lines of communication eastwards favoured the Soviets in inverse proportion to the extent they disadvantaged the Germans.

One of the Germans' problems was that, like Napoleon, they focused too much upon taking Moscow as the emblem of victory over the USSR rather than realising that (as the Soviets did brilliantly after the war in shipping much of German industrial machinery back east, no doubt with the benefit of the following) the Soviets could take their industrial capacity eastwards faster than the Germans could advance, and then rebound when the Germans were over-extended.[/QUOTE]

Nickdfresh
06-05-2013, 05:41 AM
but not much different in inhumane attitude and brutal human effect than the soviet's own exploitation and starvation of the ukraine a decade earlier in the holodomor catastrophe.

Which is just another example to support my long held view that when it came to a contest between hitler and stalin, stalin was going to win because he was the meanest bastard on the planet at the time and, unlike hitler in the period 1941-43, had no more regard for his own people than any others as long as he survived.

I wasn't drawing moral parallels between dictatorships and their political systems. There is no question that Stalin murdered vast segments of his population from White adversaries to nationalists seeking to get out from under the Russian thumb to even members of his own political apparatchik based often on paranoia. It is indeed true that numbers of Soviets starved during the war because of the ruthless and absolute allocation of resources to the Soviet war effort...


Yet hitler was realiant to a significant extent upon ford and general motors products early in his own war in europe for his advances east and then west, which should have advertised to him that the us was a sleeping giant he had no hope of conquering once he had aroused it.

Then is not Holden guilty by association? :mrgreen: Meh, I think there is some truth to that but it tends to be a bit overstated. The advances in the East may have been more reliant on Peugeot, Renault, and Citroen rather than GM or Ford (something that would bite the Heer in the *** with the logistical nightmare they imposed on the already tenuous German supply system). The only vehicle I think any of the American "Big Three" could be held accountable for is perhaps some aspects of the Opel Bltiz truck. But I haven't looked into it. The Germans certainly marveled at American mass production but only truly achieved it in limited segments. After all, Ford and GM didn't make horse carts and trains! :)


Hindsight is a great gift we all have, but even modest foresight in 1941 might have indicated that the problem of increasingly long lines of communication eastwards favoured the soviets in inverse proportion to the extent they disadvantaged the germans.

I'm the best Monday Morning Quarterback there is! (as we call it here, a reference to American football - generally played on Sundays with failures bemoaned on Monday around the proverbial water cooler)...


One of the germans' problems was that, like napoleon, they focused too much upon taking moscow as the emblem of victory over the ussr rather than realising that (as the soviets did brilliantly after the war in shipping much of german industrial machinery back east, no doubt with the benefit of the following) the soviets could take their industrial capacity eastwards faster than the germans could advance, and then rebound when the germans were over-extended.

It's hard to pin it down to a single factor. But many would argue that the defeat at the gates of Moscow was the actual "turning point" of WWII as it was the first major, strategic setback suffered by the Wehrmacht on the ground, and the second one if we count the Battle of Britain...

Rising Sun*
06-05-2013, 07:49 AM
Meh, I think there is some truth to that but it tends to be a bit overstated. The advances in the East may have been more reliant on Peugeot, Renault, and Citroen rather than GM or Ford (something that would bite the Heer in the *** with the logistical nightmare they imposed on the already tenuous German supply system). The only vehicle I think any of the American "Big Three" could be held accountable for is perhaps some aspects of the Opel Bltiz truck. But I haven't looked into it. The Germans certainly marveled at American mass production but only truly achieved it in limited segments. After all, Ford and GM didn't make horse carts and trains! :)

Not vehicles, but GM's synthetic fuel technology which it apparently provided to I.G. Farben and without which Speer is reported as saying in 1977 that Hitler would never have invaded Poland. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n2aV2f7wrXgC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=speer+poland+general+motors+synthetic+fuel&source=bl&ots=16FmZZeTnR&sig=qnyYHK7pwCiHWSr3gni_WVb7Th4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SjGvUbvTCuPxiAfZ34HoCg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=speer%20poland%20general%20motors%20synthetic%20 fuel&f=false

I've tried to track down details of this after earlier attempts came to nothing #518 - 519 at http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/9608-Things-Hitler-could-have-done-to-win-WWII/page35 but, apart from versions such as the previous link the best I have been able to find is the following, which doesn't explain GM's involvement.


Innovations in chemistry and synthetic oil production in national strategy

In June 1932, when Hitler was leader of the National Socialist party (before he became Chancellor in 1933), I.G. Farben, the German chemical giant, met with Hitler about the continuing Nazi press attacks against the company as a tool of “international financial lords” and “money-mighty Jews” for the fact that Jews were in some senior positions. The Nazis also had been criticizing the company for its expensive project to manufacture synthetic oil from coal. At that time, Germany, and, in fact, Farben, was the world leader in chemistry, and one of its scientists, Friedrich Bergius, had, in 1913, invented the hydrogenation method to produce high-grade liquid fuel from coal which Farben patented the rights to in 1926. The hydrogenation process involved heating large amounts of hydrogen with coal at high temperatures and pressure in the presence of a catalyst. Fischer-Tropsch process which involved steam reforming of coal to produce Syn gas (mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide) that was subsequently converted to synthetic oil was the competing technology, but wasn’t as successful. Hydrogenation could also produce aviation fuel while the Fischer-Tropsch method could not. Hydrogenation received the highest accolade when, in 1931, Bergius (the inventor) and Bosch (the Chairman of I. G. Farben) shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

I.G. Farben had argued that synthetic fuels from coal could cut Germany’s dependence on foreign oil and also reduce the pressures on foreign exchange. Hitler became engrossed at the meeting with Farben in the synthetic oil discussion and endorsed the idea. When he became Chancellor of Germany in Jan 1933, his vision of the new Germany involved the autobahns, the limited-access highways without speed limits and the Volkswagen – “the people’s car” in 1934. He wished to subordinate all of Europe to the Nazi Reich and himself, and build the Nazi war machine (bombers, fighter planes, tanks, trucks) that all depended on oil. Thus, independent oil supply was vital, and the synthetic fuels from I. G. Farben would become an important strategic source.

Standard Oil of NJ, which had unsuccessfully been exploring alternatives to crude oil as early as 1921 and had acquired acres of shale oil in Colorado with the hope of extracting oil out of the shale, showed interest in the I.G. Farben technology. Standard saw the technology as a clear threat to its business and went into an agreement with I.G. Farben. They had no need to produce synthetic fuels because of the oversupply of crude oil but wanted to ensure that each stayed out of the other’s main fields of activity. Standard would also rather use hydrogenation to increase the gasoline yield and boost octane out of crude oil. In 1929, the two companies made an agreement whereby Standard had patent rights outside of Germany and, in exchange, I.G. Farben would receive 2% of Standard’s stock, or 546,000 shares valued at $35 million.

Pictures of 1931 Nobel Chemistry winners Carl Bosch (left) and Friedrich Bergius (right) for hydrogenation.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

I.G. Farben, had made a large commitment to synthetic fuels, but the oil surplus with the discovery of East Texas and the Great Depression made the synthetic oil production uneconomical. The cost of producing the synthetic oil was, for example, about 10 times the price per gallon of oil from the Gulf of Mexico. The only hope of saving the synthetic oil business was some sort of state support or bail out as tariff protection was not enough. The aviation fuel potential of hydrogenation won I.G Farben the support from the Air Force, the Luftwaffe. The German Army also lobbied on behalf of Farben that Germany’s oil supply would not be adequate for its warfare plans. To put things in perspective, coal supplied 90% of Germany’s energy, while oil only accounted for 5%.
Germany’s “blitzkrieg” attacks and strategy on Europe: Beginning of WWII

Two things demonstrated the danger of foreign oil dependence in the mid 1930s to Hitler: in Oct 1935, when Italy invaded Ethiopia, Mussolini almost faced an oil embargo; also, the “hated” Bolsheviks/Soviets who owned a large chain of gasoline stations throughout Germany in Feb 1936 abruptly stopped its deliveries of gasoline to Germany. In March 1936, Hitler re-militarized the Rhineland on the border of France in violation of international treaty agreement. When he was not challenged, he prepared for war by 1940 by inaugurating a four-year plan which aimed to reduce foreign oil dependence through new technology and chemistry. Thus, synthetic fuels industry was to become a central part of the overall war plan.

Hitler (left) pictured with some of his generals, 1942.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

By 1937-38, I. G. Farben was no longer an independent company but an arm of Nazi Germany. The company was “Nazified” and all Jewish officials and the anti-Nazi chairman, Carl Bosch, who had signed the agreement with Standard Oil, had been removed. By the time Germany started WWII in Europe with the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, 14 hydrogenation plants were in operation, and by 1940 synthetic oil output was 72,000 barrels per day or 46% of total oil supply. In terms of military operation, the Bergius process accounted for 95% of the total aviation gasoline. Hitler never forgot about the importance of oil in war and, in fact, his strategic approach to war, the blitzkrieg (“lightning war”-fierce but short), was based on it and was meant to lead to quick decisive victory before one runs out of petroleum. The blitzkrieg strategy worked surprisingly well not only in Poland in1939 but also in spring 1940 when Hitler’s forces overran Norway, the Low Countries, and France with ease.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/242

Rising Sun*
06-05-2013, 09:12 AM
Then is not Holden guilty by association? :mrgreen:

Nah, Holden as we know it post-war didn't exist before or during the war. (Meanwhile Ford is pulling out of Australia in a few years http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/ford-to-close-geelong-and-broadmeadows-plants/4707960 )

There was no fully fledged car making industry in Australia before the war, just various enterprises assembling various imported parts into fully assembled cars with various levels of local manufacturing. Holden was essentially a body maker fitting imported engines under an agreement with GM.

Post-war Holden as a fully fledged car maker is actually a direct product of WWII.

We got such a fright from the Japanese advance and our limited industrial capacity that we saw bringing in car manufacturing as a way to redress that, so we wouldn't be so vulnerable again.

It also fitted in with preserving relatively advanced industrial capacity developed by Holden during WWII and providing employment and economic development in the post war years. http://naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/find-of-the-month/2007-jan-16.aspx

Most of the cars around when I was a kid in the 1950s were a mix of older and recent imports from various countries and an increasing number of Holdens made here. For example, my paternal grandfather had a Holden from the early 1950s until his death in 1957; my father had a late forties then a mid fifties imported Chev in the first half of the 1950s, then a new imported Plymouth (endless trouble, but I loved the ?sailing ship? emblem on the C pillar - can't recall it clearly now) which he got rid of for a new Holden around 1958-9, which went really well until he got pissed and wrote it off and altered his face in 1962 by demonstrating that even a really good Holden was no match for a really well built bluestone wall. His next car was a ?1950s Jaguar with running boards, bug-eye lights, the most magnificent green felt lined tool box with recesses for each tool, and a sunroof which, in the era before seat belts, I made full use of by standing on the front passenger seat and standing up like a tank commander with my upper torso outside the car (this image was ruined a little by being joined by the stray mongrel mostly Alsatian dog the old man had adopted - or which had adopted us -, with its front paws on the roof and its ears and cheeks flapping in the wind and barking at everything and nothing as my drunken old man piloted his latest toy around the metropolis, but maybe the dog made me look a bit fearsomely Nazi as I was very blonde in those days). The emerging German theme was continued with his ?next (I think I've forgotten a car or two in those ancient, confused days) purchase of a new VW. It was a very versatile car, as my drunken old man demonstrated when there was flooding on a main road near us and he loaded me up and kept running the car into a flooded depression in the road where it seemed to sort of float across under momentum, with a magnificent bow wave. This car came to a sad end when, pissed as usual, he tried to cross a railway cutting by going to the left of the road bridge. The car went into the cutting and blocked the track, causing some difficulties with public transport and the relevant authorities. He replaced it with another VW which came to a sad end when, pissed as usual, he collided with another car; drove about 10 clicks on a front tyre deflated in the collision; stopped to change the tyre; and unwisely irritated a policeman who had turned up in response to various reports by saying to the policeman, in front of a crowd which had assembled in his wake, "Would you mind getting out my way? Can't you see I'm trying to change my tyre?". He blew .285

Meanwhile my paternal aunt also had a VW, my most vivid memory of which is that it used to move a little sideways when passing large vehicles coming the other way on highways on our regular country trips on much narrower roads than are common nowadays. She traded that in for a new HD Holden in the mid 1960s, which was a model distinguished by really clever pedestrian hip-splitting projections either side of the headlights
6544

My maternal grandfather had a Morris woody of some sort, but I can't recall exactly how it looked. It was like one of these https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=552&q=morris+woody&oq=morris+woody&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24.6449.8704.0.9409.12.12.0.0.0. 0.245.1704.4j4j4.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.15.img.Ww3jAWU rKP8

Nickdfresh
06-05-2013, 07:01 PM
Not vehicles, but GM's synthetic fuel technology which it apparently provided to I.G. Farben and without which Speer is reported as saying in 1977 that Hitler would never have invaded Poland. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n2aV2f7wrXgC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=speer+poland+general+motors+synthetic+fuel&source=bl&ots=16FmZZeTnR&sig=qnyYHK7pwCiHWSr3gni_WVb7Th4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SjGvUbvTCuPxiAfZ34HoCg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=speer%20poland%20general%20motors%20synthetic%20 fuel&f=false

I've tried to track down details of this after earlier attempts came to nothing #518 - 519 at http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php/9608-Things-Hitler-could-have-done-to-win-WWII/page35 but, apart from versions such as the previous link the best I have been able to find is the following, which doesn't explain GM's involvement.


https://www.e-education.psu.edu/egee120/node/242

No offense old mate, but if Albert Speer told me the sky was blue on a sunny day, I'd make sure to look up and check. Speer was largely a self-serving **** that saved his neck at Nuremberg by misrepresenting himself as the repentant, sophisticated Nazi that had true talent and a genius for organizing. In fact, his "Armaments Miracle" is largely a myth born of self-serving propaganda and misrepresentation during the war and the trumpeting of unskeptical historians and his own memoirs ever since. Adam Tooze, writer of the seminal Wages of Destruction, is particularly damning with the statistical evidence of Speer's efforts and credibility being wildly exaggerated as his capacity to take credit for his predecessors whilst expanding his domain in turf battles with other prominent Reich's program managers was boundless. All this while presiding over one of the most egregious examples of modern slave labor and the callous disregard of the genocidal murders of the Jewish workers while he was practically in bed with Himmler as Hitler's leading co-regime-pets. I think Speer is disingenuously trying to spread the blame around for Hitler's rise to power and his aggression in Poland, But to me this makes little sense as shortages rarely deflected the Fuhrer from following a very aggressive foreign policy, and his suppliers of oil in Romania and then the USSR were still very much in his sphere...

The truth is that you can't find any evidence because it doesn't exist. I think the above paper may be some apologist piece attempting to deflect blame away by casting it upon America. That is not to say however that American industries didn't have huge investments in Germany and a stake in Hitler's regime. Tooze states that GM was second only to Standard Oil with its roughly $55 billion investments and almost outright ownership of Germany's largest car manufacturer, Opel.

Whatever ever Hitler thought of IG Farben, the German chemical giant maintained a "relationship of equals" with Standard Oil and eclipsed other chemical companies such as Du Pont and Britain's ICI (Tooze, p. 116). Tooze writes that German companies, especially IG, had been working on synthetic chemical processes since the turn of the century with great success and had synthesized both ammonia and methane. The Former was used in explosives, the latter in the oil and gas industry. IG was in bed with the Nazi regime very early on. Tooze also writes:


By September 1923 Bosch's research group had synthesized methane, and in 1926, at its Leuna facility near Merseburg, in the central German industrial belt, IG Farben embarked on the construction of the world's first facility for the hydrogenation of, the alchemical process through which coal was transformed into petrol. This programme followed a clear scientific logic. But it was motivated by that most modern of fixations, the idea that one day all oil would run out.
...
It was this commitment to synthetic chemistry that made IG Farben into by far the closest and most important industrial collaborator of Hitler's regime... (126)

GM had nothing to do with this and I suspect it was the inverse - Standard Oil that benefited a good deal from IG Farben in the realm of synthetic technology - and not the other way around. They were also the first to create synthetic rubber, something that was completely useless prior to the war but completely integral to the Nazi ability to wage it once they started it...

Nickdfresh
06-05-2013, 07:13 PM
Nah, Holden as we know it post-war didn't exist before or during the war. (Meanwhile Ford is pulling out of Australia in a few years http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-23/ford-to-close-geelong-and-broadmeadows-plants/4707960 )

There was no fully fledged car making industry in Australia before the war, just various enterprises assembling various imported parts into fully assembled cars with various levels of local manufacturing. Holden was essentially a body maker fitting imported engines under an agreement with GM.

Post-war Holden as a fully fledged car maker is actually a direct product of WWII.

We got such a fright from the Japanese advance and our limited industrial capacity that we saw bringing in car manufacturing as a way to redress that, so we wouldn't be so vulnerable again.

It also fitted in with preserving relatively advanced industrial capacity developed by Holden during WWII and providing employment and economic development in the post war years. http://naa.gov.au/collection/snapshots/find-of-the-month/2007-jan-16.aspx

Most of the cars around when I was a kid in the 1950s were a mix of older and recent imports from various countries and an increasing number of Holdens made here. For example, my paternal grandfather had a Holden from the early 1950s until his death in 1957; my father had a late forties then a mid fifties imported Chev in the first half of the 1950s, then a new imported Plymouth (endless trouble, but I loved the ?sailing ship? emblem on the C pillar - can't recall it clearly now) which he got rid of for a new Holden around 1958-9, which went really well until he got pissed and wrote it off and altered his face in 1962 by demonstrating that even a really good Holden was no match for a really well built bluestone wall. His next car was a ?1950s Jaguar with running boards, bug-eye lights, the most magnificent green felt lined tool box with recesses for each tool, and a sunroof which, in the era before seat belts, I made full use of by standing on the front passenger seat and standing up like a tank commander with my upper torso outside the car (this image was ruined a little by being joined by the stray mongrel mostly Alsatian dog the old man had adopted - or which had adopted us -, with its front paws on the roof and its ears and cheeks flapping in the wind and barking at everything and nothing as my drunken old man piloted his latest toy around the metropolis, but maybe the dog made me look a bit fearsomely Nazi as I was very blonde in those days). The emerging German theme was continued with his ?next (I think I've forgotten a car or two in those ancient, confused days) purchase of a new VW. It was a very versatile car, as my drunken old man demonstrated when there was flooding on a main road near us and he loaded me up and kept running the car into a flooded depression in the road where it seemed to sort of float across under momentum, with a magnificent bow wave. This car came to a sad end when, pissed as usual, he tried to cross a railway cutting by going to the left of the road bridge. The car went into the cutting and blocked the track, causing some difficulties with public transport and the relevant authorities. He replaced it with another VW which came to a sad end when, pissed as usual, he collided with another car; drove about 10 clicks on a front tyre deflated in the collision; stopped to change the tyre; and unwisely irritated a policeman who had turned up in response to various reports by saying to the policeman, in front of a crowd which had assembled in his wake, "Would you mind getting out my way? Can't you see I'm trying to change my tyre?". He blew .285

Meanwhile my paternal aunt also had a VW, my most vivid memory of which is that it used to move a little sideways when passing large vehicles coming the other way on highways on our regular country trips on much narrower roads than are common nowadays. She traded that in for a new HD Holden in the mid 1960s, which was a model distinguished by really clever pedestrian hip-splitting projections either side of the headlights
6544

My maternal grandfather had a Morris woody of some sort, but I can't recall exactly how it looked. It was like one of these https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=552&q=morris+woody&oq=morris+woody&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24.6449.8704.0.9409.12.12.0.0.0. 0.245.1704.4j4j4.12.0...0.0...1ac.1.15.img.Ww3jAWU rKP8

My father owned a 1979 Beetle convertible, the last year they imported them into the States. I remember the car quite fondly, but by the time I was old enough it ceased being a daily driver and was something of a weekend show car that people would often leave cards with their number on it in case he wanted to sell it. He finally did about seven years ago for a pretty penny to a guy in Canada.

Hard to believe Ford is pulling out of Australia, maybe their just pissed that Holden is now imported into the United States and used almost exclusively as a police car - once the sole providence of the obsolete Ford Crown Victoria. The New York State Troopers are now driving the Chevy Caprice police car.
http://images24.fotki.com/v831/photos/4/49373/3541034/cnpca8029-vi.jpg
http://cdn.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Chevrolet-Caprice-PPV-3-625x354.jpg

Most of the locals have opted for the Ford Taurus SHO Police Interceptor...

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7104/7203779998_189743c0c9_z.jpg

tankgeezer
06-05-2013, 08:11 PM
Being a progressive State, Tennessee takes their law enforcement vehicles very seriously. I am pleased to see that the U.K. does the same with their Patrol cars. ;) :)

J.A.W.
06-07-2013, 03:19 AM
G.M. has been pleased to use the Aus designed rear-wheel drive platform in sporty 2-doors such as the
Camaro & previous Pontiac GTO & G8, as well as the long wheelbase cop cars.

Mopar makes a fairly good cop-car from the Charger, too.

Sadly, Ford Detroit put the kybosh on export to the US & other markets
of the big Aus-made rear-wheel drive Falcon sedan & Territory [SUV] vehicles..

Speer, it must be admitted..was a talented guy.. to be Hitler's best mate & cheat the hangman was no
mean feat..

Rising Sun*
06-07-2013, 05:12 AM
Being a progressive State, Tennessee takes their law enforcement vehicles very seriously. I am pleased to see that the U.K. does the same with their Patrol cars. ;) :)

I'm guessing that the Volksie is a pursuit vehicle?

Rising Sun*
06-07-2013, 05:21 AM
No offense old mate, but if Albert Speer told me the sky was blue on a sunny day, I'd make sure to look up and check. Speer was largely a self-serving **** that saved his neck at Nuremberg by misrepresenting himself as the repentant, sophisticated Nazi that had true talent and a genius for organizing. In fact, his "Armaments Miracle" is largely a myth born of self-serving propaganda and misrepresentation during the war and the trumpeting of unskeptical historians and his own memoirs ever since. Adam Tooze, writer of the seminal Wages of Destruction, is particularly damning with the statistical evidence of Speer's efforts and credibility being wildly exaggerated as his capacity to take credit for his predecessors whilst expanding his domain in turf battles with other prominent Reich's program managers was boundless. All this while presiding over one of the most egregious examples of modern slave labor and the callous disregard of the genocidal murders of the Jewish workers while he was practically in bed with Himmler as Hitler's leading co-regime-pets. I think Speer is disingenuously trying to spread the blame around for Hitler's rise to power and his aggression in Poland, But to me this makes little sense as shortages rarely deflected the Fuhrer from following a very aggressive foreign policy, and his suppliers of oil in Romania and then the USSR were still very much in his sphere...

The truth is that you can't find any evidence because it doesn't exist. I think the above paper may be some apologist piece attempting to deflect blame away by casting it upon America. That is not to say however that American industries didn't have huge investments in Germany and a stake in Hitler's regime. Tooze states that GM was second only to Standard Oil with its roughly $55 billion investments and almost outright ownership of Germany's largest car manufacturer, Opel.

Whatever ever Hitler thought of IG Farben, the German chemical giant maintained a "relationship of equals" with Standard Oil and eclipsed other chemical companies such as Du Pont and Britain's ICI (Tooze, p. 116). Tooze writes that German companies, especially IG, had been working on synthetic chemical processes since the turn of the century with great success and had synthesized both ammonia and methane. The Former was used in explosives, the latter in the oil and gas industry. IG was in bed with the Nazi regime very early on. Tooze also writes:



GM had nothing to do with this and I suspect it was the inverse - Standard Oil that benefited a good deal from IG Farben in the realm of synthetic technology - and not the other way around. They were also the first to create synthetic rubber, something that was completely useless prior to the war but completely integral to the Nazi ability to wage it once they started it...

I agree with your sentiments on Speer, although you fail to give him credit for his magical transformation of himself internationally post-war into 'the good Nazi' when the bastard should have hanged with the rest of them for presiding over, as you point out, a massive forced labour (and that's a polite term for it) program.

But that doesn't mean that we have to reject all he says as untrue, or modified to put himself in a better light.

I can't see that there was anything to his benefit in making the reported comment about GM's synthetic fuel technology, or why he would want to misrepresent that.

It's still something on which I'd like to be able to find primary sources, or better secondary sources.

Nickdfresh
06-09-2013, 11:02 AM
I agree with your sentiments on Speer, although you fail to give him credit for his magical transformation of himself internationally post-war into 'the good Nazi' when the bastard should have hanged with the rest of them for presiding over, as you point out, a massive forced labour (and that's a polite term for it) program.

But that doesn't mean that we have to reject all he says as untrue, or modified to put himself in a better light.

Speer has quite the mixed record and his wartime memoirs are unreliable, heavily politicized, and contradict his postwar statements of humanity and humility he seemed to so blatantly lack on his road to "reorganizing" the German war industry to which the "Armaments Miracle" can at best be only partially attributed to him. Speer was also the master of half-truths and red herrings...


I can't see that there was anything to his benefit in making the reported comment about GM's synthetic fuel technology, or why he would want to misrepresent that.

It's still something on which I'd like to be able to find primary sources, or better secondary sources.

I think his main benefit was indirect that he was furthering his agenda of deflecting guilt from himself as being Hitler's willing and enthusiastic servant and the last of his regime stalwarts by overly-tainting U.S. corporations with that brush. It is true that Speer passive aggressively opposed the Fuhrer's plan to completely destroy German industry before falling into Allied hands - but his opposition was never openly against Hitler and he only began to transition to the inevitable defeat in the last months of the war as 1.4 million German servicemen died in the last months of his waning "Armaments Miracle". The Wehrmacht suffered 450,000 casualties in January of 1945 alone (not to mention the deaths suffered by counted European civilians and service personnel and American "boys"), two or three months before Speer began his belated and meek opposition to Hitler's policies so exaggerated and trumpeted by him after the war...

tankgeezer
06-09-2013, 11:28 AM
I'm guessing that the Volksie is a pursuit vehicle?
Oddly enough, they were on occasion used for that, but mostly they were used for Heavy Truck traffic regulation, roadside inspections of safety equipment, brakes ,tires, etc. Plus the occasional Super Market opening,and other public events. But the choice of vehicles the Police use can either present a problem, or provide a solution to one.

Cojimar 1945
06-10-2013, 02:24 PM
I see the point about the Russians fighting far from where much of the countries resources are located and also see how only having one railway could make it difficult to rapidly transport soldiers and supplies to the battlefield.

However, I would think these difficulties could be overcome in a prolonged conflict. For example, I should think more railways could have been built and the Russians also had the ability to produce a greater number of ships than the Japanese. People make a point about Americans being determined to win after the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor but the Japanese seem to have also struck without warning in the Russo-Japanese war which I expect would have produced just as much outrage in the public and demand that the enemy be completely defeated. The Russians had shown a willingness to fight on despite tremendous casualties in prior conflicts and one might think they would have shown a similar tendency against the Japanese. Though the czar may have been unpopular with many of his subjects, it certainly seems plausible that public outrage would have served to outweigh distaste with the regime.

Cojimar 1945
06-10-2013, 02:30 PM
Another possible example of a country holding out against adversaries with much greater resources is Prussia in the Seven Years War. I believe Prussia's enemies had a huge advantage in population, fielded larger armies and possessed technology similar to what Prussia had.

pdf27
06-10-2013, 03:36 PM
The Russians had shown a willingness to fight on despite tremendous casualties in prior conflicts and one might think they would have shown a similar tendency against the Japanese. Though the czar may have been unpopular with many of his subjects, it certainly seems plausible that public outrage would have served to outweigh distaste with the regime.
I think the difference is that Napoleon was invading European Russia, then governed by a moderately effective Tsar. The Japanese were attacking Asiatic Russia - not the heartland - and particularly Russian colonial interests, and fighting an incompetent Tsar. Note the very different reaction a few years later when war with Germany and Austria-Hungary broke out, at least initially - the country rallied around the Tsar for a while, but when he failed he lost his crown and his head.

royal744
06-20-2013, 09:53 PM
Benno implies that the US (and earlier the British with their "Tubular Alloys" project) need not have bothered developing an atomic bomb because he asserts that there was no such program in Germany. I don't know precisely how true this is, but let's assume that it is true. When the Americans embarked on this project at the instigation of the English, Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein and, of course, Franklin Roosevelt, they were forced to confront the worst case scenario: that Germany was working on such a bomb since the English, US and German scientists (and probably many others) all knew it was theoretically possible. In war, it is usually not a very good idea to only consider the "best case" scenario - ie, "Nah, they're not working on it". Since the Germans were talented physicists, chemists and mathematicians it would be reasonable to assume that they were working on this. If you consider that "you don't know what you don't know" to have assumed anything else would have been criminal.
Incidentally, I don't think that heavy water plant was bombed so much as sabotaged by a British Commando team led by a Norwegian, as well as a ferry carrying heavy water having been sunk by a well-placed charge in the hull. Also, I observe that for all the pontificating and "crocodile morality" by the Japanese concerning the atomic bomb, had they succeeded in creating one, they wouldn't have hesitated for a nano-second in deploying it. The consummate irony is that if the Japanese had surrendered at the same time as Germany, no atomic bombs would have been dropped during WW2 at all.

royal744
06-20-2013, 10:10 PM
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that a country is doomed to lose a struggle against an adversary with greater resources. Didn't Russia possess considerably greater resources/industrial capacity than the Japanese at the time of the Russo-Japanese war? If Japan couldn't beat the U.S. because of their opponents greater resources than why would they stand a chance against Russia.

Consider, Cojimar, that the Russian fleet had to travel all the way around Africa, thru the Indian Ocean, etc. to finally reach their Pacific base. They were exhausted. Consider also that the "resources" and industry needed to process them were about 12 time zones to the west; and consider that the Russian fleet was 1) a shadow its earlier self and 2) that it's firing accuracy was not good. The Japanese were operating close to their home bases and had vastly superior night-fighting capabilities were the Russians had, um, none. Ironically, this gave the Japanese an inflated sense of their naval prowess that came back to bite them big time when the chips were down.

J.A.W.
07-05-2013, 12:29 AM
& if the nukes had not been used in anger against perfidious Nippon..
..then perhaps it is more likely that the cold war would've got hotter?
'Dr Manhattan' might've won a few Asian dust-ups that actually ended up draws, or losses..

pdf27
07-05-2013, 01:45 AM
& if the nukes had not been used in anger against perfidious Nippon..
..then perhaps it is more likely that the cold war would've got hotter?
'Dr Manhattan' might've won a few Asian dust-ups that actually ended up draws, or losses..
Acytually, I think it's scarier than that. Stalin was quite happy to push the western allies in Berlin and elsewhere, but wasn't willing to risk war - in part due to the US nuclear monopoly. If the word hadn't seen the effect of nuclear weapons on a live target, do you think he would have been so restrained?

Nickdfresh
07-05-2013, 01:51 PM
& if the nukes had not been used in anger against perfidious Nippon..
..then perhaps it is more likely that the cold war would've got hotter?
'Dr Manhattan' might've won a few Asian dust-ups that actually ended up draws, or losses..

If you're talking about Korea, the use of the bomb might have invited Soviet retaliation as it probably would have resulted in a full scale land war with China, a full scale war MacArthur was pining for. While Mac was crowing how we needed to nuke the bejesus out of the Chinese because they, Gen. Matthew Ridgeway stepped in and took over the 8th Army from the deceased Walker and quietly spanked the Chinese and pushed them back in several punishing operations like Ripper and Killer. All the time while MacArthur was becoming an alarmist old fool prone to histrionics on how the UN might need to withdraw.

Cojimar 1945
07-10-2013, 09:38 PM
Yes, the Russians did have to send their ships a long distance but from 1941-45 the U.S. was able to bring its navy thousands of miles to the Japanese home islands. As far as firing accuracy and night fighting capabilities go, I would think the Russians would have the means to correct such problems in a prolonged conflict. They might be initially disadvantaged but over time overcome their adversaries through greater resources.

The Russo-Japanese war is similar to the U.S. conflict with Japan in that in both instances the Japanese enjoyed some initial successes. However, the Russo-Japanese war only lasted about 1 year while the conflict with the U.S. dragged on much longer. If the U.S. had agreed to a peace treaty in 1942 or 1943 that allowed the Japanese to maintain all the territory they had conquered the peace would have been very favorable to Japan. However, I don't see how the Japanese would have had any reason to believe the Russians would be willing to agree to peace after such a short period of time.

Cojimar 1945
07-10-2013, 09:41 PM
I also see some hypocrisy in this condemnation of Speer. As I have mentioned in other threads, America's allies were engaged in a considerable amount of vile behavior in later conflicts. If Speer's complicity in slave labor is an issue then why is British and American complicity in the crimes of the South Korean regime somehow not an issue?

royal744
07-31-2013, 10:25 PM
Bringing it back to the topic at hand, I think it's pretty clear that there was a German nuclear program. This program may not have received the critical support of the German government that it needed to actually bear fruit, witness the tremendous investment made by the Americans to produce just three bombs before the end of the war. There is no other credible explanation for the German interest in the heavy water produced by Norsk Hydro. I'm open to other explanations if anyone has one.

pdf27
08-01-2013, 04:15 AM
Oh, that's well known - what is a little less well known is how incompetent it was. They'd completely screwed up their critical mass calculations and thought a bomb impossible but reactors for power feasible. When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Heisenberg et al were held as PoWs at Farm Hall near Cambridge, and all their conversations were bugged without their knowledge. From those it was clear they didn't initially realise that it was a nuclear bomb, and when it became clear that it was they attempted to rationalise their screw-up as deliberate sabotage. In reality, if we believe Bohr's account of the conversations he had with Heisenberg before his escape to the UK (and as he had less of an axe to grind, I tend to) it's clear that they would have done so if they could.

Another example is when they first tried to use graphite as a moderator. The physicist doing it (can't remember his name) was so lovesick that he didn't notice that his samples were contaminated with Boron, a ravenous neutron absorber. When this was later pointed out, German industry decided that producing sufficiently pure graphite was impossible - this at a time when the US was producing thousands of tonnes of the stuff from Petroleum Coke*.

* Funny story there - when Los Alamos first phoned up a chemical plant about getting the stuff, they were asked what priority they had and the physicist replied "I can give you an A now, AAA by the end of the week". This completely floored the plant guys, as they'd never seen more than a C before. After that, procurement at Los Alamos was reorganised somewhat to avoid that sort of collateral screwing up of US industry.

royal744
08-01-2013, 11:53 AM
Great stuff, pdf27... I did see a program on the History Channel about the Farm Hall recordings.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 06:54 AM
Some days ago I saw a documentation on N24. According to the author the Germans made big advances until the bombing of a heavy water plant in Norway stopped them. That is complete nonsense. To make it short: there was no German nuclear weapon program at all.

I don’t know where you get your nonsense?

There definitely was a German atomic weapons project in fact at least three, one was German Naval Ordnance, another by German Army Ordnance and also the SS project based in Vienna. Then of course we should not discount the Reichsforschungsrat (RFR) project either said by witness Claere Werner to have supervised two Atomic test blasts at Ohrdruf in March 1945

Hiesenberg was briefly the head of the civilian Uranium research project. If you refer to those research projects then they were never about development of atomic weapons. Heisenberg spent much of his time on trying to develop a nuclear reactor. The other major role of the civil Uranverin was to develop heavy water production and Uranium enrichment.



But there is a really fascinating question: "Why was there no such program ?". Otto Hahn discovered the fission of Uranium in 1938 and a few month later another German scientist wrote: "give me one ton of Uranium and I send the Wannsee (a large lake in the outskirts of Berlin) into the orbit". The Germans knew the principles of fission and chain reaction before the outbreak of war.

The second thing you have to take into account is: The Americans did not develop THE A-Bomb. No, they developed two totally different types of A-Bombs and they used both types, the one in Hiroshima and the other one in Nagasaki. So the Germans could have one of the two types with probably less than half of the overall effort of the Manhattan Project.

No the Manhattan Project only developed the Plutonium Mark III bomb “Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki. The Uranium weapon was not American in origin.
The Hiroshima bomb was developed in Germany and was known there as 76-Zentner. It was captured near Hanover in early April 1945 and flown out of an airfield in that area by the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh to Cherbourg, France for Operation LUSTY. If you research it you will discover that Lindbergh was embedded with General Patton’s 3rd Army.

If you bother to research even a little further you will find there was no history of Little Boy in the Manhattan project before April 1945. There was a similar project to develop a Plutonium gun device known as “Thin Man” which had to be abandoned in February 1945.
Up until the failure of “Thin Man” there was absolutely no project for the Little Boy Uranium bomb.

If you do some genuine research you will also find that the huge Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant K-25 did not even begin production until March 1945 and when that came online was only able to enrich Uranium to 2% U235, so where did all the 64kg of HEU for Little Boy come from?
The ten Caultrons of the Y-12 plant by February 1944 were only producing 200grams (ie 0.2kg) of 12% enriched U235 per month so perhaps you need to do some math and tell me how they arrived at 64 kilograms of HEU for HIROSHIMA, plus the Uranium for at least two Plutonium bombs (ie TRINITY and NAGASAKI) by August 1945?

During April 1945 Oppenheimer finally decided to serial link all three Oak Ridge processes using the results from one plant as feed stock for the next process and only by that method could they produce reasonably enriched Uranium for Hanford.




The Nagasaki-bomb was based on Plutonium. This metal is "easy" to obtain (you can "breed" it in a reactor), but difficult to handle. For the Germans "too difficult to handle", they simply thought it would be impossible to make an A-Bomb out of Plutonium.

They thought nothing of the kind…

More nonsense, you clearly have never heard of Jozef Schintlemeister in Vienna who was a huge proponent of the Plutonium bomb. Prof Fritz Houtermanns calculated the critical mass for Plutonium 239 and published this in a report (G-94) from October 1941. The Nazis called it Eka Osmium.



The Hiroshima-bomb was based on Uranium-235. This metal is easy to handle, but it's extremely difficult to separate it from the other isotopes. You need huge plants with thousands of centrifuges (but no reactor and no heavy water, therefore the "bomb the plant in Norway and it's over"-theory is nonsense).

By July 1944 the Germans had shipped 6,200kg of Heavy Water to the laboratory of Karl Wirtz in Silesia. Heisenberg only got 600kg and was told that this was all there was and thus the myth evolved that all of Germany’s Heavy Water was destroyed by sinking the Hydro ferry.

This 6,200kg incidentally does not include the Heavy Water production of the Linde Plant near Munich nor the IG Farben Leuna plant, not the two plants in the Italian Alps at Merano or Citrone.

The German scientists knew this would work, but no one with reputation made an attempt to convince Hitler. On the contrary, Heisenberg -in real desparation- asked his danish college Nils Bohr, what he would do in such a situation. You can imagine the answer.

Actually Heisenberg was quizzing Bohr about his pre-war experiments transmuting Thorium 232 into Protactinium 233 to obtain Uranium 233 for nuclear weapons. His speech notes for the June 1942 Harnack Haus conference found in KGB archives in Russia reveal that far from being a pacifist Heisenberg gave an address to fellow German scientists about the need to harvest Protactinium for an atomic bomb. During 1944 he was a consultant the Dallenbach project at Bisingen developing a Synchrotron to develop Plutonium through nuclear transmutation.



So Heisenberg decided to direct the effort towards a nuclear power plant (and for this, it's true, you need a reactor and heavy water as mediator). But even that failed. He never suceeded in establishing a self-sustaining chain reaction (Enrico Fermi achieved this in 1942 in the USA). So there was really no danger of Hitler getting an A-bomb into his hands.

Oh really then why did Roosevelt convey a threat to Hitler through Lisbon in July 1944 that the Allies would drop the bomb on Dresden unless Hitler sued for peace within six weeks?

This threat was in the conversations secretly recorded at Farm Hall in 1945 and was later confirmed by Dr Harteck in 1974.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 07:12 AM
Oh, that's well known - what is a little less well known is how incompetent it was. They'd completely screwed up their critical mass calculations and thought a bomb impossible but reactors for power feasible. When the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Heisenberg et al were held as PoWs at Farm Hall near Cambridge, and all their conversations were bugged without their knowledge.

Untrue:

June Rittner was responsible for the installation BY MI-6 of concealed microphones in all the bedrooms and living spaces at Farm Hall, near Godmanchester, Cambridgeshire. Ten German nuclear scientists who had been gathered up by ALSOS and kept in a hotel at Luxembourg were flown from Belgium to RAF Temspford on the 3rd of July 1945.

Three days after their arrival, the hidden microphones recorded this:

DIEBNER: “I wonder whether there are microphones installed here?”

HEISENBERG: “Microphones installed? [Laughing]. Oh no, they’re not as cute as all that. I don’t think they know the real Gestapo methods; they’re a bit old fashioned in that respect.”

After this exchange Diebner was quite guarded, but Heisenburg began loudly proclaiming his pacifist dislike for the Nazi regime and trying to tell all his fellows that he never supported the atomic bomb project anyway. Several colleagues drew away from him in disgust and even commented when he was not in the room about Heisenberg's hypocracy





From those it was clear they didn't initially realise that it was a nuclear bomb, and when it became clear that it was they attempted to rationalise their screw-up as deliberate sabotage. In reality, if we believe Bohr's account of the conversations he had with Heisenberg before his escape to the UK (and as he had less of an axe to grind, I tend to) it's clear that they would have done so if they could.

Another example is when they first tried to use graphite as a moderator. The physicist doing it (can't remember his name) was so lovesick that he didn't notice that his samples were contaminated with Boron, a ravenous neutron absorber. When this was later pointed out, German industry decided that producing sufficiently pure graphite was impossible - this at a time when the US was producing thousands of tonnes of the stuff from Petroleum Coke*.

not that he did not notice... the refining process used in Nazi Germany to obtain Carbon caused boron contamination so that his assessment was correct for the Carbon they had to work with... Had they used a different chemical process they could have obtained Carbon without Boron contamination.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 07:15 AM
Acytually, I think it's scarier than that. Stalin was quite happy to push the western allies in Berlin and elsewhere, but wasn't willing to risk war - in part due to the US nuclear monopoly. If the word hadn't seen the effect of nuclear weapons on a live target, do you think he would have been so restrained?

Simply not true because the Potsdam agreement was reached in July 1945 before the Bomb was used against Japan.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 07:26 AM
I highly doubt the Germans had any sort of nuclear bomb, as their theories were way off and any bomb would have been enormous...

pdf27 might be one to weigh in on this...

The Hiroshima bomb "Little Boy" weighed 8,900lbs (4,040kg). The German atomic bomb known as 76-Zentner was captured by Cmdr Ian Flemming's 30AU Royal Marine Commandos near Espelkamp on 4th April 1945 and that weapon weighed 3,800kg

Not to be confused with a small boosted fission bomb design by Dr Schumann and Dr Trinks in 1942 which the Japanese claimed in a diplomatic signal from Stockholm to Tokyo in 1944 to be a 5kg "Uranium atom smashing warhead of devastating effect." The signal was declassified by the American NSA in October 1978 from a MAGIC intercept in WWII.

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 07:38 AM
I don’t know where you get your nonsense?

....

No the Manhattan Project only developed the Plutonium Mark III bomb “Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki. The Uranium weapon was not American in origin.....

Ironically, I'd like to ask you the same question.

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 07:39 AM
The Hiroshima bomb "Little Boy" weighed 8,900lbs (4,040kg). The German atomic bomb known as 76-Zentner was captured by Cmdr Ian Flemming's 30AU Royal Marine Commandos near Espelkamp on 4th April 1945 and that weapon weighed 3,800kg

Not to be confused with a small boosted fission bomb design by Dr Schumann and Dr Trinks in 1942 which the Japanese claimed in a diplomatic signal from Stockholm to Tokyo in 1944 to be a 5kg "Uranium atom smashing warhead of devastating effect." The signal was declassified by the American NSA in October 1978 from a MAGIC intercept in WWII.

Awesome! Crackpot conspiracy sources from fanbois and completely disingenuous postwar rantings of Nazi scientists. "Yeah! We were so close, had it not been for Hitler..." :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 08:19 AM
The Hiroshima bomb "Little Boy" weighed 8,900lbs (4,040kg). The German atomic bomb known as 76-Zentner was captured by Cmdr Ian Flemming's 30AU Royal Marine Commandos near Espelkamp on 4th April 1945 and that weapon weighed 3,800kg

Not possible.

The bomb had already been found by the 8th Army a year before Fleming is alleged to have found it, which is a credit to the 8th Army which, among other things, wasn't anywhere near Espelkamp at the time due to the slight problem of the 8th Army not serving there and D Day having inconveniently not yet occurred to enable the 8th Army to be there in April 1944. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread993532/pg1
http://occupyilluminati.com/76-zentner-the-nazi-atomic-bomb-found-at-espelkamp-in-1945/

The German atomic bomb not found by the not present 8th Army was, according to the last highly credible link :rolleyes: a 76-Zentner 3.8 tonne Atomic Bomb inscribed “To be fired only by order of the Fuhrer.”. Presumably this was inscribed in really heavy chalk as an early example of fail safe firing systems for nuclear weapons. Jesus wept!

Given the apparent absence of a delivery system, presumably the Fuhrer was going to give the order to fire it (there being no mention of a nuclear trigger, but undoubtedly the Germans had one in April 1944 a good 15 months before the Manhattan Project had a bomb which could be detonated) to wipe out the strategically crucial area around Espelkamp, which oddly enough wasn't under serious Allied attack in April 1944 and even if it was the bomb could have wiped out Hanover (albeit out of range) and surrounds with absolutely no impact on the Allied threat to Germany, but an own goal for Germany.

Much the same in April 1945, but more so when things were more desperate.

Given that by April 1945 Hitler was doing everything he could to resist the Allies and to destroy Germany where he couldn't, why didn't he give the order to fire his massive weapon?

It appears that the author of the book about Fleming's 30 AU unit is utterly ignorant of Fleming's massively important capture of a working German atomic weapon. http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Ian_Fleming_s_Commandos_The_Story_of_the.html?id=q pxWkaXoyO8C&redir_esc=y as, apparently, was Hitler even about the existence of this magnificent weapon when he had one less than a month to live before committing suicide after throwing everything he had at the advancing Allies. Apart from his atomic bomb.

Yeah, right!

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 08:54 AM
Not possible.

The bomb had already been found by the 8th Army a year before Fleming is alleged to have found it, which is a credit to the 8th Army which, among other things, wasn't anywhere near Espelkamp at the time due to the slight problem of the 8th Army not serving there and D Day having inconveniently not yet occurred to enable the 8th Army to be there in April 1944.


If you are going to quote me from a post on another website then don't mislead people by failing to quote my explanation that I made a typo about the dates on that website, otherwise you are simply deliberately misleading people.

I also explained there that I was trying to relate what a German correspondent had told me in broken English. If you will not quote me in full then don't bother tricking people by partially quoting me

I did not mention the 8th Army in my post here. The 6th Para regiment supported by 3 Royal Tank Regiment went into Espelkamp but the underground bunker there was taken by 3RTR with 23rd Hussars (armored cars) and the 4th Shropshire Light Infantry. The records however are held at the Imperial War Museum in the file for the British 8th Army Corps which is probably why you are so confused.




Given the apparent absence of a delivery system


Strange you've never heard of this aircraft below with a 6,000kg bomb load which performed a number of successful air raids over england called the Steenbock raids, nor of the He-177B or He-277 which could bomb England from above 49,000ft?

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/He_177A7.jpg (http://s257.photobucket.com/user/727Kiwi/media/He_177A7.jpg.html)


... presumably the Fuhrer was going to give the order to fire it (there being no mention of a nuclear trigger, but undoubtedly the Germans had one in April 1944 a good 15 months before the Manhattan Project had a bomb which could be detonated) to wipe out the strategically crucial area around Espelkamp, which oddly enough wasn't under serious Allied attack in April 1944 and even if it was the bomb could have wiped out Hanover (albeit out of range) and surrounds with absolutely no impact on the Allied threat to Germany, but an own goal for Germany.

Clearly you have not done any research or you would know that the US 8th Air Force specifically targeted Espelkamp, Minden and Hanover on the tip off from a young SS Grenadier POW called Plumeyer who revealed under interrogation by the US 9th Army the location of this secret underground plant (MUNA Lubbecke)

No Espelkamp was captured 4th April 1945 and if you wish to check i suggest you visit the IWM records.




Given that by April 1945 Hitler was doing everything he could to resist the Allies and to destroy Germany where he couldn't, why didn't he give the order to fire his massive weapon?

Again I refer to Farm Hall transcripts which secretly tape recorded German nuclear scientists referring to an American threat to Hitler via Lisbon to abandon his nuclear weapons program or Dresden would be nuked. Churchill also waded in with a threat conveyed to Hitler via Romania's Marshall Antonsecu. Churchill threatened Hitler if he used the atomic bomb against Britain then the RAF would respond by delivering Anthrax all across Germany, which would lead to mass starvation within 2 weeks.

Other than derision Rising Sun you have offered no explanation why there are no design drawings for Little Boy, no records of who built it or when or how in the Manhattan project and you have not explained to us how the Americans who were struggling in crises in April 1945 to produce enough Uranium to fuel the Hanford reactors could have come up with 64kg of Uranium just five months short of bombing Hiroshima?

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 09:02 AM
Awesome! Crackpot conspiracy sources from fanbois and completely disingenuous postwar rantings of Nazi scientists. "Yeah! We were so close, had it not been for Hitler..." :rolleyes:

More derision from armchair experts who never research the facts themselves

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 09:07 AM
Ironically, I'd like to ask you the same question.

Since Nickdfresh you made the outrageously incorrect statement that the Germans had no atomic bomb project, something which any 8th grader could disprove with wikipedia, I guess it's easier to throw insults than answer the question.

Since you don't know several fundamental things about the nazi atomic bomb project for starters what qualifies you to question the facts?

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 09:26 AM
If you are going to quote me from a post on another website then don't mislead people by failing to quote my explanation that I made a typo about the dates on that website, otherwise you are simply deliberately misleading people.

I also explained there that I was trying to relate what a German correspondent had told me in broken English. If you will not quote me in full then don't bother tricking people by partially quoting me

I did not mention the 8th Army in my post here. The 6th Para regiment supported by 3 Royal Tank Regiment went into Espelkamp but the underground bunker there was taken by 3RTR with 23rd Hussars (armored cars) and the 4th Shropshire Light Infantry. The records however are held at the Imperial War Museum in the file for the British 8th Army Corps which is probably why you are so confused.




Strange you've never heard of this aircraft below with a 6,000kg bomb load which performed a number of successful air raids over england called the Steenbock raids, nor of the He-177B or He-277 which could bomb England from above 49,000ft?

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/He_177A7.jpg (http://s257.photobucket.com/user/727Kiwi/media/He_177A7.jpg.html)



Clearly you have not done any research or you would know that the US 8th Air Force specifically targeted Espelkamp, Minden and Hanover on the tip off from a young SS Grenadier POW called Plumeyer who revealed under interrogation by the US 9th Army the location of this secret underground plant (MUNA Lubbecke)

No Espelkamp was captured 4th April 1945 and if you wish to check i suggest you visit the IWM records.




Again I refer to Farm Hall transcripts which secretly tape recorded German nuclear scientists referring to an American threat to Hitler via Lisbon to abandon his nuclear weapons program or Dresden would be nuked. Churchill also waded in with a threat conveyed to Hitler via Romania's Marshall Antonsecu. Churchill threatened Hitler if he used the atomic bomb against Britain then the RAF would respond by delivering Anthrax all across Germany, which would lead to mass starvation within 2 weeks.

Other than derision Rising Sun you have offered no explanation why there are no design drawings for Little Boy, no records of who built it or when or how in the Manhattan project and you have not explained to us how the Americans who were struggling in crises in April 1945 to produce enough Uranium to fuel the Hanford reactors could have come up with 64kg of Uranium just five months short of bombing Hiroshima?

Odd way to fight a war, putting all that effort into firing V1 and V2 weapons towards Britain when Hitler had a really big banger just sitting there ready to stun the Allies with the devastation he could wreak by firing it in the face of their advance.

Obviously it made more sense to that charitable Nazi not to fire his great weapon in preference for drafting children and old men and anything else he could get his stunted hands on when he was desperate to use everything he could to stop the Allies.

Apart, apparently, from his atomic bomb, the capture of which according to you was originally by Ian Fleming and his AU unit but which you now attribute to "The 6th Para regiment supported by 3 Royal Tank Regiment went into Espelkamp but the underground bunker there was taken by 3RTR with 23rd Hussars (armored cars) and the 4th Shropshire Light Infantry".

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 09:50 AM
Again I refer to Farm Hall transcripts which secretly tape recorded German nuclear scientists referring to an American threat to Hitler via Lisbon to abandon his nuclear weapons program or Dresden would be nuked. Churchill also waded in with a threat conveyed to Hitler via Romania's Marshall Antonsecu. Churchill threatened Hitler if he used the atomic bomb against Britain then the RAF would respond by delivering Anthrax all across Germany, which would lead to mass starvation within 2 weeks.

Primary, or any, sources?


Other than derision Rising Sun you have offered no explanation why there are no design drawings for Little Boy, no records of who built it or when or how in the Manhattan project and you have not explained to us how the Americans who were struggling in crises in April 1945 to produce enough Uranium to fuel the Hanford reactors could have come up with 64kg of Uranium just five months short of bombing Hiroshima?

I didn't realise I had to respond to issues not raised.

I sent my crystal ball to my crystal ball repairer on this issue and, after examining it, he said "Your crystal ball has a defect in the seventh quadrant where you are expected to identify and respond to issues not raised. There is no repair for this defect, apart from avoiding contact with people who think you should be able to work out when they are going to go off on a tangent; anticipate their tangent; and respond to it. The Version 7.9 upgrade for your crystal ball, which you have not installed, gives you limited protection in these cases but may be needlessly offensive to people who go off on tangents etc."

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 09:59 AM
Other than derision Rising Sun you have offered no explanation why there are no design drawings for Little Boy, no records of who built it or when or how in the Manhattan project and you have not explained to us how the Americans who were struggling in crises in April 1945 to produce enough Uranium to fuel the Hanford reactors could have come up with 64kg of Uranium just five months short of bombing Hiroshima?

Everybody knows the Americans got their Manhattan project nuclear knowledge from the Germans, who went into the war with the sole intention of doing a dive so that America could bomb Japan with a nuclear weapon based on superior German technology. This long term plan was concealed by WWII, which allowed the Americans, and others, to destroy Germany so that the Japanese wouldn't smell a rat.

It was all part of Henry Ford's plan to dominate the globe.

Ably assisted by aliens.

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 11:27 AM
More derision from armchair experts who never research the facts themselves

It's alright Kiwi, we're enjoying your baseless, uncited and completely unscholarly rantings having no basis in truth. It's funny that after reading numerous books from like actual historians, I've never encountered any substantial reports of the super-Nazi tech wonder-weapons you seem to be so giddy to report about here. It must be such a burden to be the only with this forbidden knowledge! One would almost think the Third Reich might have won the war! The website you've even linked to looks like a high school kid designed it in 1997. I'm sure its credibility is beyond reproach!..

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 11:31 AM
....


Strange you've never heard of this aircraft below with a 6,000kg bomb load which performed a number of successful air raids over england called the Steenbock raids, nor of the He-177B or He-277 which could bomb England from above 49,000ft? ...

LOL I think the far greater danger from this aircraft was that it's engines might start on fire and the primary danger might have been to fishing trawlers in the Channel, and its unfortunate crews. :)

BTW, if you're going to use Wikipedia as your source for Nazi bombers, can you please do the same for The Manhattan Project? Because I noticed they said nothing about the American bomb projects being stolen by Patton and Flemming and Flemming's gang of heavily armed Fembots!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/44/Fembots_2_APIMOM.jpg
"Hands up Nazi! Step away from the bomb!"

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 11:32 AM
Since Nickdfresh you made the outrageously incorrect statement that the Germans had no atomic bomb project...

Um, no. I never said any such thing. Cite where I said anything close to this.

The Nazis in fact did have a bomb program, as did virtually everyone else. It just sucked...

Nickdfresh
01-25-2014, 11:34 AM
Everybody knows the Americans got their Manhattan project nuclear knowledge from the Germans, who went into the war with the sole intention of doing a dive so that America could bomb Japan with a nuclear weapon based on superior German technology. This long term plan was concealed by WWII, which allowed the Americans, and others, to destroy Germany so that the Japanese wouldn't smell a rat.

It was all part of Henry Ford's plan to dominate the globe.

Ably assisted by aliens.

How dare you sir! I'm going to send one of Hitler's flying saucers stored in an underground base in Argentina to teach you a lesson! You'll pay for your insolence!

pdf27
01-26-2014, 03:47 AM
If you bother to research even a little further you will find there was no history of Little Boy in the Manhattan project before April 1945. There was a similar project to develop a Plutonium gun device known as “Thin Man” which had to be abandoned in February 1945.
Up until the failure of “Thin Man” there was absolutely no project for the Little Boy Uranium bomb.
You seriously believe that? For a long time the only Allied bomb project was based around Uranium-235, indeed the Frisch–Peierls memorandum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch–Peierls_memorandum) which kicked off the MAUD committee was all based around calculating the critical mass of U-235 needed for a bomb. The existence of this is all very well documented and so far as I'm aware undisputed. Are you trying to tell me that despite several years of thinking that the only way to build a nuclear weapon was using enriched Uranium, the Americans and British suddenly decided it was impossible and only changed their minds again when they captured an untested German device, at which point the first time they used it was dropping it on a Japanese city to see if it worked? You've taken a highly implausible suggestion (that the Germans produced a nuclear bomb and didn't use it) and added details to take it into the realm of fantasy.


If you do some genuine research you will also find that the huge Oak Ridge gaseous diffusion plant K-25 did not even begin production until March 1945 and when that came online was only able to enrich Uranium to 2% U235, so where did all the 64kg of HEU for Little Boy come from?
The ten Caultrons of the Y-12 plant by February 1944 were only producing 200grams (ie 0.2kg) of 12% enriched U235 per month so perhaps you need to do some math and tell me how they arrived at 64 kilograms of HEU for HIROSHIMA, plus the Uranium for at least two Plutonium bombs (ie TRINITY and NAGASAKI) by August 1945?
Several things here:
1) Calutrons are much more efficient at enrichment if the feedstock is itself partially enriched. When K-25 came online, the efficiency of the Calutrons improved radically.
2) More Calutrons were built later - those of the Beta track started between March and November 1944.
3) Hanaford probably didn't need enriched Uranium, it was designed to run off natural Uranium. So the total requirement was for Little Boy only. I've read arguments that Hanford was later fuelled with enriched Uranium, but the evidence of later graphite-moderated reactors is that only low-enriched Uranium would be required - such as the output from the K-25 or S-50 plants, which was available in relative plenitude. The bottleneck appears to have been with the Calutrons enriching to high levels, which would certainly not have been required by Hanford.


During April 1945 Oppenheimer finally decided to serial link all three Oak Ridge processes using the results from one plant as feed stock for the next process and only by that method could they produce reasonably enriched Uranium for Hanford.
Didn't need it - graphite moderated reactors don't need enriched feedstock, it's only if you're using water as a moderator that it's required. That's why the UK went to the MAGNOX style design - it'll happily run with natural uranium. See comments above about enrichment levels as well - it would certainly not have needed the HEU which was in short supply.


More nonsense, you clearly have never heard of Jozef Schintlemeister in Vienna who was a huge proponent of the Plutonium bomb. Prof Fritz Houtermanns calculated the critical mass for Plutonium 239 and published this in a report (G-94) from October 1941. The Nazis called it Eka Osmium.
There are several issues here between the calculation and a working nuclear weapon:
1) Convincing people to build it. The Americans had the MAUD committee report which said "this is how to build an atomic bomb" and it wasn't until Marcus Oliphant flew over and started pounding on desks that they paid any attention to it.
2) I've never seen any evidence that he was a "huge proponent" of such a bomb, merely that he had done work on Plutonium. Big difference - the French in 1940 had been doing a lot of similar work but so far as I can tell they never thought of it as of value for blowing things up.
3) Even had they realised it could be used for military purposes, the sheer amount of engineering involved in a bomb programme would need a major effort. Which so far as I can tell never happened.


Actually Heisenberg was quizzing Bohr about his pre-war experiments transmuting Thorium 232 into Protactinium 233 to obtain Uranium 233 for nuclear weapons. His speech notes for the June 1942 Harnack Haus conference found in KGB archives in Russia reveal that far from being a pacifist Heisenberg gave an address to fellow German scientists about the need to harvest Protactinium for an atomic bomb. During 1944 he was a consultant the Dallenbach project at Bisingen developing a Synchrotron to develop Plutonium through nuclear transmutation.
I don't think anybody really believes Heisenberg was a pacifist - that seems to have been an ex post facto excuse to explain why he failed while a bunch of Jewish refugees succeeded.


Oh really then why did Roosevelt convey a threat to Hitler through Lisbon in July 1944 that the Allies would drop the bomb on Dresden unless Hitler sued for peace within six weeks?
If he did, then why was a bomb not dropped on Dresden as a result? Most likely explanation is that at most this was garbled, and more probably invented outright.


not that he did not notice... the refining process used in Nazi Germany to obtain Carbon caused boron contamination so that his assessment was correct for the Carbon they had to work with... Had they used a different chemical process they could have obtained Carbon without Boron contamination.
So they were incompetent chemists rather than incompetent physicists? Since an atomic bomb programme needed both, you're not being very convincing.


Simply not true because the Potsdam agreement was reached in July 1945 before the Bomb was used against Japan.
Yeah, because Stalin was well known for


The Hiroshima bomb "Little Boy" weighed 8,900lbs (4,040kg). The German atomic bomb known as 76-Zentner was captured by Cmdr Ian Flemming's 30AU Royal Marine Commandos near Espelkamp on 4th April 1945 and that weapon weighed 3,800kg
Plenty of innuendo, no evidence. That's actually a classic example of what is found in made-up stories - people who will later become famous and "telling" details mixed in to make it seem like a story must be true. In reality, the only legitimate evidence for something like this would be witness testimony from people who were there, or better photographs of it. No such evidence exists - it's all of the "my father found a building in 1945, and it was near to this building that the British found a German atomic bomb" - e.g. this story (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread993532/pg1). Lots of claims about censorship to explain why this story has never come up before, but the origin of the story is always RUMINT.


Not to be confused with a small boosted fission bomb design by Dr Schumann and Dr Trinks in 1942 which the Japanese claimed in a diplomatic signal from Stockholm to Tokyo in 1944 to be a 5kg "Uranium atom smashing warhead of devastating effect." The signal was declassified by the American NSA in October 1978 from a MAGIC intercept in WWII.
Yes - and people are never mistaken when they send signals? That design of weapon is very substantially harder to build than a straight gun-type Uranium device - even allowing for the effort needed to refine the material.


Strange you've never heard of this aircraft below with a 6,000kg bomb load which performed a number of successful air raids over england called the Steenbock raids, nor of the He-177B or He-277 which could bomb England from above 49,000ft?
Plenty of aircraft out there that could get over target with a sufficient bomb load. Problem is, very few of them were fast enough to get away from the blast and survive. The B-29 was extremely marginal in it's ability to do so.
Also, don't confuse ceiling with maximum height on a bomb run - ceiling for the Germans was the maximum height a very lightly loaded aircraft could reach (typically a photo-recon type). With 6 tonnes of payload and enough fuel to make to back to Germany, ceiling is going to be much lower. That puts it well into the performance envelope of fighters like the Welkin or even the Meteor.

Rising Sun*
01-26-2014, 03:49 AM
How dare you sir! I'm going to send one of Hitler's flying saucers stored in an underground base in Argentina to teach you a lesson! You'll pay for your insolence!


I fear you not, for the flying saucers are outdated and lack GPS.

Anyway, the flying saucers aren't in Argentina. They're near Hanover, in the underground atom bomb factory and proving ground, still waiting for Hitler to give the order to use them.


They are inscribed with the launch order "Use me, Adolf, use me hard.".

Nickdfresh
01-26-2014, 09:14 AM
I don't think anybody really believes Heisenberg was a pacifist...

http://www.breakingbadgifs.com/gifs/gifs/heisenberg/breaking-bad-gif-heisenberg-984162.gif
That's for sure!