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

51–60 of 124 posts

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

#51

Post by mikeash »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #46
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)

I imagine there’s an implied “with them as the winners” on the end.

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

#52

Post by skh »

iguy wrote: post #50
avn2109 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "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.

I think this is the part that people miss when discussing the nuclear attacks. It’s purpose was not tactical or military. It was a political purpose.

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

#53

Post by bilbo0s »

biesnecker wrote: post #45
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.

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.

The thing is, from the 60's through the fall of the wall, you can say what you want, but I distinctly remember everyone MUCH preferring German Marks to any other European currency. (Probably the Swiss Franc was on par with it, you get the idea. No one wanted Lira, and, at times, even Pounds and French Francs were out of favor.) Germany, or Germany and France, were usually the driving force behind most European initiatives during that time.

Not only then, but still today. (If not even more today.) I remember the late unpleasantness with the PIIGs, and believe it or not, there was a little while there where people would try to determine where a Euro note came from...

and they wouldn't take it unless it was from Germany.

The Germans may not be vocal about dominating Europe, but they definitely dominate Europe. And they have in many ways for a long time. At least since the 60's.

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

#54

Post by gandhium »

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…

[dead]

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

#55

Post by gandhium »

jpfr wrote: post #38
skadamou wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender. I think this is an interesting idea but I would love to see a source on this. When I took a Japan at War class in college our professor seemed to be of the opinion that using the atom bomb was what finally convinced the Japanese to surrender unconditionally but that they would have agreed to a conditional surrender as long as the…

That is the justification for the bomb for the American public. Many Japanese cities (sixty-ish) were destroyed by traditional firebombing. For the Japanese, Hiroshima and Nagasaki simply meant "two more cities". Two days after Hiroshima, Russia declared war against Japan. So their strategic position in the war became hopeless. Historians believe Russia entering the war shaped the surrender much more than the atomic…

> Historians believe

Let me guess - Russian historians? Since the link you've pasted wasn't from historian.

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

#56

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

remon wrote: post #9

Such an amazing read. What positively surprised me, but perhaps shouldn't have, is that they seem almost relieved they didn't get there first. It's reassuring in a way I have trouble verbalising.

Some of them were relieved but some of them weren't. There was Gerlach's reaction described later in the document.

"7. HAHN and HEISENBERG discussed the matter alone together. HAHN explained to HEISENBERG that he was himself very upset about the whole thing. He said he could not really understand why GERLACH had taken it so badly. HEISENBERG said he could understand it because GERLACH was the only one of them who had really wanted a German victory, because although he realized the crimes of the Nazis and disapproved of them, he could not get away from the fact that he was working for GERMANY. HAHN replied that he too loved his country and that, strange as it might appear, it was for this reason that he had hoped for her defeat. ..."

Then there was also this bit:

"... BAGGE: That's not true. You were there yourself at that conference in Berlin. I think it was on 8 September that everyone was asked – GEIGER, BOTHE and you, HARTECK, were there too– and everyone said that it must be done at once. Someone said 'Of course it is an open question whether one ought to do a thing like that.' Thereupon BOTHE got up and said 'Gentlemen, it must be done.' Then GEIGER got up and said 'If there is the slightest chance that it is possible – it must be done.' That was on 8 September '39.

WEIZSÄCKER: I don't know how you can say that. 50% of the people were against it.

HARTECK: All the scientists who understood nothing about it, all spoke against it, and of those who did understand it, one third spoke against it. ..."

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

#57

Post by Mvandenbergh »

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…

"we know hiroshima and nagasaki had no bearing on the japanese decision to surrender."

That may well be the case but it is not remotely clear that the people making that decision knew it for a fact which is what actually has bearing on the morality.

Also - why focus so much on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The bombing of Tokyo, Dresden, Hamburg, London, Coventry, etc. were all attacks on civilians. We tend to judge atomic bombing as being special because of the thermonuclear age that followed but if it wasn't for that, we'd think of them as "strategic" bombing of population centres exactly the same as all the other such bombing done by all sides in WW2.

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

#58

Post by SiempreViernes »

skh wrote: post #49
porpoisely wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wer…

I find the notion that morality can be objectively demonstrated by convincing a majority that your viewpoint is correct very interesting notion...

In any case, I also think the charge of racism is a bit uncalled for, the complete disregard for human suffering exemplified by the firebombing campaigns are surely enough to qualify as very serious war crimes all on their own.

(Though to claim that an America that was interning all its japan connected citizens in camps was acting without any racial impulses do seem rather implausible)

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

#59

Post by dfgert »

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…

I don't believe that it was a unfair race so to speak. In my knowledge it were the German scientists who moved to US and helped US develop the bomb. US may have had the resources but it definitely lacked the knowledge for building bomb which German surely possessed.

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

#60

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

porpoisely wrote: post #16
JoeDaDude wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military did see a lot of utility in the atomic bomb, though they did not fully grasp the effects. Ostensibly, General MacArthur looked at using atomic bombs to clear the beach heads of Japan before sending in the Marines, which would have killed a lot of the latter.

I didn't say the military didn't see the utility of the atomic bomb, I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki. There is a difference between using the bomb to kill soldiers and to destroy/irradiate and kill civilians. Just like there is a a military utility of the gun to kill enemy soldiers, but no military utility to shooting children. For example, a concentration camp to keep enemy sold…

> I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki

How do you reconcile that with the commonly held historical view? Or is that merely your own personal opinion?

"Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army 第2総軍 (日本軍) with responsibility for most of western Japan including Kyushu as well as a depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It was a good radar target and it was such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills that were likely to produce a focusing effect that would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers, it was not a good incendiary target. It was classified as an AA(Prime)Target. It had a military garrison of about 40,000 men. Hiroshima was the primary target for the August 6 attack, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternatives. Far from being an innocent city full of civilians, the garrison of 40,000 soldiers were doing calisthenics when the bomb exploded and were in fact the largest single group of casualties in the city.

Nagasaki was a major industrial city making torpedoes and ammunition. Mitsubishi Steel, Orikami Ordinance Works and a large engine works dominated the production in the city in addition of a large garrison. There were also a major dockyard used for the transport of men and materials to the north. It, too, was a high priority target but was a secondary target that was only hit if the primary target was too cloud covered for a visual drop on the primary."

https://www.quora.com/Did-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-have-milita...

Post reply on HN