Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 124 posts

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#41

Post by ufmace »

porpoisely wrote: post #7

What an interesting read. Also, is it just me or are there a surprising number of german related topics on the frontpage right now? "We only had one man working on it and they may have had ten thousand" This is why I always chuckle at the ww2 "documentaries" positing the possibility of german or japanese bomb. Nevermind that both parties were preoccupied fighting far stronger and larger opponents ( US, British Empire…

> We had a much larger economy and resource potential than germany and japan.

Yes, I once thought that it should have been surprising that Germany didn't get the bomb first. Upon more reading, the effort that the US threw at the project was simply staggering - nobody knew which was the best technique for how to do a bunch of different things, so the Americans tried all of them at the same time. No other participant in the war could have duplicated that level of effort. And despite all of that effort, the bomb was only ready to be dropped after Germany had already been defeated by conventional arms.

I have also read that the German scientists' point of view is that a nuclear bomb as a practical military weapon was an interesting idea, but that nobody would be able to build one in time for the current war. And they were right - for themselves.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#42

Post by bilbo0s »

lqet wrote: post #37
newsgremlin wrote: post #35

>HEISENBERG: I am still convinced that our objective was really the right one and that the fact that we concentrated on uranium may give us the chance of collaboration. I believe this uranium business will give the Anglo–Saxons such tremendous power that EUROPE will become a bloc under Anglo–Saxon domination. If that is the case it will be a very good thing. I wonder whether STALIN will be able to stand up to the oth…

Not sure if you are being sarcastic - but isn't he in 1945 correctly predicting the development of the western world over the next 30-40 years, in which the US were clearly the dominating NATO power? I don't think Heisenberg meant that the US will threaten European nations with annihilation.

I don't know man?

Right now it's looking like Germany is clearly the power in Europe. With American military still there, and still largely based in Germany. I could be totally off, but it really does seem like Europe is dominated, in most meaningful ways, by Germany.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#43

Post by detaro »

bilbo0s wrote: post #42
lqet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic - but isn't he in 1945 correctly predicting the development of the western world over the next 30-40 years, in which the US were clearly the dominating NATO power? I don't think Heisenberg meant that the US will threaten European nations with annihilation.

I don't know man? Right now it's looking like Germany is clearly the power in Europe. With American military still there, and still largely based in Germany. I could be totally off, but it really does seem like Europe is dominated, in most meaningful ways, by Germany.

Next 30-40 years from 1945 on.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#44

Post by iguy »

dekhn wrote: post #39
lqet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic - but isn't he in 1945 correctly predicting the development of the western world over the next 30-40 years, in which the US were clearly the dominating NATO power? I don't think Heisenberg meant that the US will threaten European nations with annihilation.

I'm having trouble parsing the quote, I think by 'Anglo-Saxon' he really means 'England and the US', and it's not really clear that England the US have true "power and control" over Europe. Instead what we see is a Europe dominated by England and Germany with large military influence by US.

It sounds like Heisenberg is predicting that the USSR would not be a major power in postwar Europe. And this didn't turn out to be the case.

Whether this was a good thing or not, I think newsgremlin should ask some Poles.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#45

Post by biesnecker »

dekhn wrote: post #39
lqet wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic - but isn't he in 1945 correctly predicting the development of the western world over the next 30-40 years, in which the US were clearly the dominating NATO power? I don't think Heisenberg meant that the US will threaten European nations with annihilation.

I'm having trouble parsing the quote, I think by 'Anglo-Saxon' he really means 'England and the US', and it's not really clear that England the US have true "power and control" over Europe. Instead what we see is a Europe dominated by England and Germany with large military influence by US.

If you look at the period from 1945 to, say, 1975, though, which is the speaker's perspective, American political and economic influence were both extremely strong compared to today, in addition to the obvious military influence.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#46

Post by PavlovsCat »

mikeash wrote: post #19

> WEIZSÄCKER: I think it's dreadful of the Americans to have done it. I think it is madness on their part. > HEISENBERG: One can't say that. One could equally well say "That's the quickest way of ending the war.” And there’s seven decades’ worth of debate summed up in an instant on the day of the first bombing. Something to keep in mind next time I feel tempted to argue about it.

Capitulation could have ended the war even quicker, at the speed of a telegram. Clearly, that cannot be the only criterion.

(not seeking to argue with you, I'm replying to Heisenberg so to speak)

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#47

Post by iguy »

ufmace wrote: post #41
porpoisely wrote: post #7

What an interesting read. Also, is it just me or are there a surprising number of german related topics on the frontpage right now? "We only had one man working on it and they may have had ten thousand" This is why I always chuckle at the ww2 "documentaries" positing the possibility of german or japanese bomb. Nevermind that both parties were preoccupied fighting far stronger and larger opponents ( US, British Empire…

> We had a much larger economy and resource potential than germany and japan. Yes, I once thought that it should have been surprising that Germany didn't get the bomb first. Upon more reading, the effort that the US threw at the project was simply staggering - nobody knew which was the best technique for how to do a bunch of different things, so the Americans tried all of them at the same time. No other participant i…

The effort was indeed huge, but it's not so obvious that the Germans could not have done it. IIRC the V2 missile program may actually have been more expensive? Different technology but also hard... hard enough that in 1969 the same guys were still leading the world.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#48

Post by biesnecker »

iguy wrote: post #44
dekhn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble parsing the quote, I think by 'Anglo-Saxon' he really means 'England and the US', and it's not really clear that England the US have true "power and control" over Europe. Instead what we see is a Europe dominated by England and Germany with large military influence by US.

It sounds like Heisenberg is predicting that the USSR would not be a major power in postwar Europe. And this didn't turn out to be the case. Whether this was a good thing or not, I think newsgremlin should ask some Poles.

Nobody thought the USSR would develop nuclear weapons as quickly as they did. Had it taken them an extra decade or so I think there's a very possible future where the United States strikes, with nuclear weapons if necessary, any site where another state was developing their own nukes, in order to maintain sole possession of the weapons.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#49

Post by skh »

porpoisely wrote: post #17
skh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the Germans surrendered my dad's division was scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. At least that is what they were told. He was happy to hear of the bombings on Nagasaki and Hiroshima since from his perspective it caused the Japanese to surrender. Of course it's debatable on whether or not those bombings did indeed cause the surrender of Japan. Politically the U.S. has not been…

It isn't debatable because we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. If the nukes were the cause of japan's surrender, hiroshima would have been enough and nagasaki wouldn't have happened. Also, there is no ambiguity to the morality of hiroshima or nagasaki. No more than there is any ambiguity to the morality of nazi death camps. They were both racially driven war crimes and…

It’s debatable because we just don’t know when the surrender would have taken place in the absense of the bombings. We can look at statements by leaders on what they would have done under the hypothetical of them not occurring but we still wouldn’t know what would have happened if they didn’t occur. Perhaps one nuke was not enough to induce surrender. When the second occurs maybe it’s enough to induce. Maybe they were arguing amongst themselves on how to surrender with honor or some other nitpick but then the nukes quickly ended any internal discussions. Post facto the leaders can say this or that but we’ll never really know what they would have done if bombings didn’t occur.

There is moral ambiguity on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For one, you view the actions with the benefit of hindsight and with the moral views of a different era. So in your mind you can say they were definitely moral crimes but you can’t objectively demonstrate this in the sense of convincing most people that you are right.

Was the bombing of Dresden racially motivated? I’ve never thought it so. There were certain racial views against the Japanese but that doesn’t make the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima racially motivated. Was the Tokyo fire raid racially motivated? What about the invasions of Okinawa and Iwo Jima? We could have blockaded Japan and possibly forced their surrender. Of course that wouldn’t have stopped the 2 million or so Japanese soldiers in China from doing their fighting.

Yes, McNamara said that. Was he right? I don’t think so. The Germans and the Japanese had no need for trials of conquered leaders. They just killed them. It’s interesting to think about the what ifs and claim this action was unnecessary or that action was morally criminal. We’ll disagree on the efficacy of the nuclear attacks. My previous post was mostly to point out that the bombings weren’t meant to serve tactical military considerations. That the bombings were political and hence it’s perfectly reasonable that the military leaders would consider them militarily useless even if they weren’t useless in the broader political context. Military leaders don’t always get it right. McArthur famously wanted to nuke China like 50 times during the Korean War.

Re: Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]

#50

Post by iguy »

avn2109 wrote: post #29
gandhium wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's debatable on whether or not those bombings did indeed cause the surrender of Japan They were specifically mentioned in emperor's address. Yes, they caused the surrender. > Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not military targets They were military targets. There was army HQ, troops stationed there, factories which were producing military goods.

>> "Yes, they caused the surrender." Broadly speaking, this is widely regarded amongst historians as not true at all, though most American schoolchildren are still taught it. Mostly this is because American conventional airpower was so overwhelming in Japan that its effects were substantially interchangeable with the bomb. Before the atomic bombings, Secretary of War Henry Stimson (who chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki as…

"its effects were substantially interchangeable with the bomb"

Yes, its military effects. (And humanitarian effects.)

But no, in political effect. If "war is politics carried on by other means" and the goal was to defeat Japanese Fascism, then you had to make sure it couldn't come back from the dead after a grudging surrender. That was IMHO the main lesson of Versailles. And it worked.

Post reply on HN