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

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

germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

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

#91

Post by hga »

tptacek wrote: post #39
meowface wrote: post #32

Hahn comes across very sympathetically throughout this. >HAHN: I must honestly say that I would have sabotaged the war if I had been in a position to do so. >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.

Otto Hahn is well known for his opposition to Nazism and to nuclear weapons.

And he matched that by action, delivering the results of his radio-chemistry masterpiece (e.g. getting results from just a few thousand atoms!) first to his exiled colleague Lise Meitner, which follows a very straight line to the scientific success of the Manhattan project through her nephew, who did his Christmas vacation with her when she got them, and then in England with Peierls figured out the fast fission path to a practical device, and then on to America.

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

#92

Post by hga »

Jugurtha wrote: post #80
KON_Air wrote: post #16

>GERLACH: If Germany had had a weapon which would have won the war, then Germany would have been in the right and the others in the wrong, and whether conditions in Germany are better now than they would have been after a HITLER victory – >HEISENBERG: I don't think so. On the other hand, the days of small countries are over. Suppose HITLER had succeeded in producing his EUROPE and there had been no uranium in EUROPE.…

Or this one: > HARTECK: Who is to blame? > (?) VOICE: HAHN is to blame. > 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.” > HAHN: That's what consoles me. Sharp.

His "fault" a very direct way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12568722

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

#93

Post by hga »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #60
davesque wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree. It seems there was no other time in recent history when we were truly in the right about so many things. I believe there are some passages in this document that touch on this: "HAHN: I must honestly say that I would have sabotaged the war if I had been in a position to do so." "...They then went on to discuss the feelings of the British and American scientists who had perfected the bomb and HEISENBE…

Yes that is an excellent point! Moral superiority and the imparitive to act are highly motivating factors. What's interesting is that when faced with the opposite senario, humans tend to default to inaction rather than be a whistleblower. Moral superiority is only motivating if the majority is on your side.

Perhaps the single most curious things in Rhode's book is what put them off the path of graphite moderated natural uranium reactors, the work of a single unreliable scientist who, as it happened, was not using pure enough graphite (too many neutron poisons, it was quite a challenge for us to get graphite pure enough). That pretty much dead ended their efforts on the science front, heavy water natural uranium reactors are quite possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor although I remember reading somewhere the Canadians had access to extra rich in U-235 uranium), but definitely not trivial, especially when we were zapping their supplies of heavy water from Norway.

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

#94

Post by hga »

matthewmorgan wrote: post #78
blackflame7000 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the transcript, you can see that the Germans really were in awe of what was accomplished by the Americans with the time and resources available. It makes me proud to know that my nation can get pass the BS when push comes to shove and do the impossible when the impossible needs doing. As an engineer I have a profound understanding and respect for people who dare to do what others said couldn't be done. It…

Except that: "Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.", and relied heavily on German-Jewish scientists who had fled the Nazi regime, as well as British research.

But it was America's unique industrial prowess that made it work, especially in time to effect the end of the war.

No less a figure than Neals Bohr believed it impossible on those grounds, said in 1939 "It can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory", and when "Nicholas Baker" visited America, remarked that was indeed just what we'd done or were doing.

"The Arsenal of Democracy" was not just a slogan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Democracy).

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

#95

Post by Synaesthesia »

RandomOpinion wrote: post #87
jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand why Japan gives us a pass for nuking two of their cities.

Does it really matter whether one dies from a nuclear bomb, an incendiary bomb, a conventional explosive bomb? The latter two have killed far, far more than nuclear weapons ever have.

I don't know, survivors of the nuclear blast were in such pain that they begged the nurses to kill them. Also the nuking of the cities was really unnecessary- it could have been demonstrated without the loss of life.

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

#96

Post by hga »

Noseshine wrote: post #69
gumby wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Spooky23 meant the entry of the Soviet Union into the pacific war on August 9 1945. Stalin had promised (At Potsdam or Tehran I don't remember) to enter the war but had hung back -- don't blame him; the war in Europe was massive enough, with the Soviets already doing the majority of the Allied fighting. Just as the western Allies figured why not let the Soviets take the hit, Stalin had nothing to lose by lett…

> But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in? Or: Once the war in the West was over, which required all available Russian resources, Stalin immediately redeployed to the Far East. Within just a few weeks of ending the war in Europe Russians managed to go on the offensive in the East. That is an impressive feat, given the vast distances.

Indeed an impressive feat, but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war, since their ability to more than morally effect the home islands of Japan was all but nil.

The moral effect of running through the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria "like crap through a goose" might have been decisive in allowing the surrender to proceed, in suppressing the IJA leadership. Heck, their predictions about how they'd stop or even bleed us in Kyushuu, where they had a massive superiority in numbers and stopping was very much in the cards, looked very different in the light of the 2nd bombing, which showed the first wasn't a one off, and how they were being owned by the Red Army (not that that should have been a surprise after 1939).

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

#97

Post by hga »

douche wrote: post #50
mirekrusin wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently what was shocking with nuking "TWO cities" was that it was _just_ two bombs and not more. They were bombed 3 days apart. Nagasaki was unfortunate. It was suppose to be Kokura. But the weather was shit, so they picked 2nd best from the list - Nagasaki.

There were only two bombs ready, and they were just barely beyond prototypes, if I recall correctly.

But they worked, were sufficiently weaponized, and we were already assembling the 3rd, although we were starting to hold back at that point, to give them time to decide to surrender, and giving us time to debate the proposition of using 5 or more in Operation Olympic, the invasion of southern Kyushuu scheduled in slightly less than 3 months.

(November 1st, although as it turns out a typhoon that hit Okinawa would have required delaying it, which in turn would have totally screwed the timetable of Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Honshuu Kantou plain where Tokyo etc. were, due to weather.)

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

#98

Post by blackflame7000 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #65
blackflame7000 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the Americans defeating the Germans that makes me proud, but rather the immense technical achievement that was done in such little time out of necessity. It is a perfect example of the American ingenuitive ideal. It's shouldn't be taken as a slight to other nations but rather as admiration for the accomplishments of those who came before me

But don't forget that Manhattan was a three-country effort. Don't forget where the uranium came from, or the number of scientists brought in from all over the allied nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

Almost all of the enrichment process was done at oak ridge in Tennessee. It even says so in the Wikipedia page you posted.

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

#99

Post by hga »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #98
sandworm101 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But don't forget that Manhattan was a three-country effort. Don't forget where the uranium came from, or the number of scientists brought in from all over the allied nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project

Almost all of the enrichment process was done at oak ridge in Tennessee. It even says so in the Wikipedia page you posted.

On the other hand, we were handed on a silver platter a huge supply of hand sorted pitchblende from the Belgium Congo, with an average uranium content of 60-65% (!!!), without that we wouldn't have finished in time to finish the war.

All due to one foresighted Belgium who had learned would be a very bad idea to let the Nazis get their hands on it, and arranged shipment of a lot of it to America. Where it sat in a warehouse until Grove's men showed up and were actually serious about buying the stuff, after e.g. the State Department and everyone else he'd contacted had blown him off, this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier but the greater story can be found in Rhodes' and Groves' books.

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

#100

Post by Noseshine »

hga wrote: post #96
Noseshine wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But once it was clear how the wind was blowing, why not jump in? Or: Once the war in the West was over, which required all available Russian resources, Stalin immediately redeployed to the Far East. Within just a few weeks of ending the war in Europe Russians managed to go on the offensive in the East. That is an impressive feat, given the vast distances.

Indeed an impressive feat, but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war, since their ability to more than morally effect the home islands of Japan was all but nil. The moral effect of running through the Imperial Japanese Army in Manchuria "like crap through a goose" might have been decisive in allowing the surrender to proceed, in suppressing the IJA leadership. Heck, their predictions about h…

  > but in physical terms utterly irrelevant to actually ending the war
This thread had a specific topic. That is what I replied to. There was the claim/suspicion the Russians waited until the victor was known, and I pointed out that there is a perfectly valid explanation without the cynicism. Not because the latter isn't too often appropriate when looking at international (or business, or human) affairs, but because sometimes the attempt to see history in a certain view goes a little too far.

It was also mentioned, by the way, and now in response to what you said, that Russia acted according to agreements they had with the USA. So seeing some of the arguments here, no matter what they would have done, somebody would always paint their actions negatively. I'm only talking about this entry into the war in the Far East.

Post reply on HN