Followup To Bohr-Heisenberg Meeting 205
December writes "As a follow up to this slashdot article, "The family of Niels Bohr has decided to release all documents deposited at the Niels Bohr Archive, either written or dictated by Niels Bohr, pertaining specifically to the meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in September 1941. There are in all eleven documents. The decision has been made in order to avoid possible misunderstandings regarding the contents of the documents."
See the Niels Bohr Archive at http://www.nba.nbi.dk/"
Nothing new? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this such a big deal anyway? Heissenberg, one of many famous modern physisists might have been a Nazi. So was almost the entire german population for crying out loud. Most of them did not know the entire story, and later on most of them understood that they had been horribly wrong. Let it rest.
Re:Nothing new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:1)
Remember, Hitler had led them to believe that their humiliating loss in WWI and the Versaille treaty where the result of the Jews/Foreign powers.
Also, don't ever, ever forget this fact: Hitler was ELECTED chancellor.
Finally, as for the Holocaust, it is pretty hard to not notice millions of people all of a sudden disappearing from around you.
Re:Nothing new? (Score:1)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:2)
OK, so the majority may not have been "hard core" Nazis, but I imagine they were all pretty pleased about what a good job those Nazis were doing in the 1930s - and to be fair, the Nazis were responsible for remarkable economic and social achievements (which they then pissed away by getting their country reduced to rubble, which is another story). Low crime, a high standard of education and trains that ran on time - if they had stuck to that, they would have had a lot to teach modern governments. It's a pity that the good things they did pale into insignificance besides the monstrous evil that they also did.
Re:Nothing new? (Score:5, Insightful)
Failing to be of extraordinary moral courage does not make one evil. It makes one average.
People need to get a grip and realize that Titans of physics were mere mortals in any other area of human endeavor.
Wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
Hitler never polled a majority in any of the German elections. He at best only managed votes from 39-40 % of the electorate and was awarded the chancellorship unwillingly by an old and tired Hindenburg who was led to believe that this was the only to break the cycle of repeated elections with no clear winner, followed by dissolved governments.
What immediately followed of course is history: The burning of the Reichstag by agents of the Nazis, followed by Hitler's invocation of "emergency powers" to curb what would today be called "terrorism" (sound familiar anyone?). By the time the average German realized what was happening, it was too late and any who were in a position to mount any sort of opposition were either in the camps, dead, or scattered and demoralized.
Re:Nothing new? (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, there has been a lot of speculation on what happened in Copenhagen in 1941. So much, in fact, that a book and play was written that speculated on the meeting.
These letters seem to cast a pretty serious shadow over the speculation that Heisenberg was secretly working against the Nazis and, for the first time, give us a clear answer to what Bohr's opinion had been.
The NY Times (evil reg, blah blah) has a lengthy article [nytimes.com] on the release of the documents.
Re:Nothing new? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but you have to wonder what Heisenberg's opinion was. He was so hard to nail down sometimes, you know - the more you pressed him on it, the more undefined his opinions were.
;)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:2)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:1)
Re:Nothing new? (Score:1, Interesting)
"March 1933: During the election campaign massive intimidation by the SA means that only, apart from the Nazis, only the Nationalists are able to campaign. The Prussian police, now under Nazi control, employs 50,000 'auxiliaries' who are mainly SA to be used against the opposition. Many Nazi opponents are beaten up , some 50 killed. Despite this the Nazis only get 43.9% of the vote but with the Nationalists they have a majority. With the election over the communists are banned and their Riechstag deputies arrested."
"almost the entire german population"?
What about the darn cat? (Score:1)
see: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jsw/Schroedinger.html
My cousin Wassel (Score:2)
In the 1930's, back when about half of all European intellectuals were in favor of Fascism, my cousin Wassel was in a Biergarten badmouthing Hitler. The next day he came home to find that the authorities had ransacked his house, including cutting open all the pillows ostensibly searching for "subversive documents." The week after that, he was drafted into the army. Also, the best geneaological evidence indicates that this branch of my family converted from Judaism some time in the 19th century, so they would have gotten around to us eventually.
When I tell people this, they usually say, "gee, that was stupid of him."
Hindsight is 20-20, folks. It's really easy to look back on history and assign clear moral categories. It isn't so easy to do while the history is happening. A lot of people think that a Holocaust cannot happen again, but I think they're wrong. It can and probably will happen, because people are stupid. No genocide ever starts off horrible; it happens over time.
All these documents need to be put in the context of their times in order to make sense. Look at the time of the meeting, what had happened, and what was still in the future.
If you want to know where the next world-threatening Holocaust is going to come from, don't look for Nazis; look for the places that were like Germany between the wars: horrible unemployment, poverty, and inflation, hopelessness and despair, anger at treatment by their neighbors. These are invariably places that most liberal intellectuals loudly defend. There's a lot of "they're just responding to someone else's foreign policy" or "they have good reasons" or "how do you think they feel when they see..." There's a lot of rationalizing of madness. But these are the places that Holocaust-forming madness can take root, precisely because people want to view it all as rational and justifiable and will burn itself out once they get some control over their destiny. Ironically, it is this rationalization that makes it possible for madmen to get away with murder, but by then it's too late.
Holocausts.... (Score:2)
It isn't a matter of if this happens, just if anyone takes notice and does anything about it. A lot of these get written off as "internal matters" or "civil wars" (oxymoron such as that is). The day that the international community stops excusing and allowing genocide under the guise of non-interference in the politics of nations is a day I'm not holding my breath waiting for. It would make for a much more palatable world if every innocent life had the same value, but to date there seems to be little data to support such a claim.
This Is Good (Score:1)
There was a lot of uncertainty as to whether or not it would happen.
Schroedinger? (Score:5, Funny)
If they knew Seuss, it'd be the Cat in the Hat in the Box - with the Nazi weapons programme... I'm not sure where the eggs and ham fit in though, can anyone clarify?
I've had waay too much coffee...
Yes, I can (Score:3, Funny)
Yes indeedy, I surely can. Thru the slot in the side to feed the cat. Otherwise the cat would die before anyone opened the box. You wouldn't want to make a mockery of the whole physics quantum thang by letting the cat starve while the theorists dithered about with blackboards and chalk, would you?
Evidently... (Score:5, Funny)
Read it yesterday in the Post (Score:4, Informative)
Just saw it on TV (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, they said that Heisenberg travelled to his friend Bohr whom he hadn't seen for years. This was in 1941 while the Germans were still going strong. Bohr didn't believe an atomic bomb was possible. Heisenberg was furious that Bohr didn't believe his physics and replied that he had been heading a team for two years. Heisenberg wanted Bohr on the team. Germany will win; be a slave or be a Nazi.
We now know the outcome. Bohr fled to Sweden, and Heisenberg didn't make the bomb. The thing with these letters is that until now people thought Heisenberg deliberately frustrated the German war effort. Which is apparently not the case.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:1)
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:2)
Well, trust TV to get it wrong. If you read the letters, Bohr claims [www.nbi.dk] that had been obvious to him a few years earlier that a bomb was theoretically possible.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:5, Interesting)
The Germans and Russians certainly had a large initial lead in the more theoretical aspects of radiation and atomic physics, however this one incorrect measurement certainly threw the Russians so far off the track that it basically stopped their work in the area for quite a few years.
The Americans for a long time refused to believe how far behind the Russians were, and managed to loose much advantage by following politically 'suitable' beliefs rather than believing their own intelligence information, whcih turned out to be quite accurate with respect to the Russian position.
On the flip side, both of these men were great scientists, I personally feel it is immaterial whos 'side' they were on in a war.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:1)
Due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:1)
You don't think ethics matter for scientists?
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:2)
A thesis unsupported by the facts. The not only widely read the open press, they had spies in various portions of the Manhattan Engineer District almost from the beggining. Read Rhodes "Dark Sun" [amazon.com] for the full story.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:2)
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: this was some time ago, and my recollections are hazy. Plus, I'm speaking loosely here, so this isn't my considered historical opinion, just my offhand thoughts as a semi-informed person. Oh, and I don't have any of the books and documents here to refer to, so I may make factual errors. - I think that about covers it
1. I realise you're just repeating what you saw on TV, but I think that either the TV program really twisted the history hard, or you didn't quite understand it correctly. I don't think anybody's actually seriously suggested that H tried to recruit B for the German A-bomb program.
H said that he informed B of the German program in order to get his agreement that all scientists everywhere should refrain from building a bomb (knowing, of course, that B had contacts in Britain and the United States).
B said that H informed him of the German program for... well, he never quite explained it. From what he said after the war, he was just really shocked by the revelation that H was working on the program and was very upset by the idea that his friend might be working against the common interest of humanity.
2. I've read through the letters and they *don't* substantially clear up the case. Perhaps more documents to be released will tell us more, but these documents simply give us a lucid and interesting account of B's outrage. He says things like , but he doesn't specifically tell us *what those words were*. Not having read B's documents myself, I can't tell you whether he meant things like this seriously, or whether it was just a figure of speech, nor do I know how accurate his memory would have been. What we do know is that his impressions of that day were coloured deeply by his dismay at H's pro-Nazi comments prior to the private meeting between H and B. Which brings us to...
3. It is unclear as to how deeply H supported the Nazi regime, if at all. Now I am not an H biographer, and I would like to refer you to the many fascinating books written about him for actual authoritative comment. Having said that, a Coles Notes version is that H's relationship with Nazism and with German nationalism was extremely complex and ambiguous (for any historians out there, I discuss this merely because I'm sick to death of hackers telling me "just go program it yourself" and I think that telling them "just go read a bunch of history books yourself" would be just as bad). I would say that most observers believe that H saw himself as a patriotic and loyal German, but not a supporter of the Nazis per se. There were many Germans, at the time, who believed that the Nazis were, rightly or wrongly, the official government of Germany and that to go against them would be an act of treason against Germany (just to make it clear: I believe, personally, that this attitude was wrong, wrong, wrong, and that the Nazis were bad, bad, bad. ok? so nobody make like I'm defending this or anything). H seems to have held this opinion, at least in the period before the war (but more on that later).
Now it actually gets way more complicated than this because, I am told, in German culture there were different concepts for treason against the nation and treason against the government, but that doesn't change the fact that we *have* to keep this idea in mind (keep in mind that I'm not an expert on German culture in the middle of the 20th century). Many Germans, having courageously resisted the Nazis, had to face the stigma of having "betrayed their country" during the war.
If you want to read a fascinating and very readable account of the way these ambiguities played out among the German atomic scientists, there is a book called _Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall_ edited by Jeremy Bernstein.
This is where the plot thickens because, if we actually look at the historical record, there *was no* Nazi atomic bomb program. "What?" you say "no a-bomb program? Then what are we arguing about?"
It turns out, and bare with me here, because I don't remember the chronology, that the Nazis got wind of the idea of an a-bomb, and called in a bunch of atomic scientists to ask them about it. The answer they got was, you guessed it, ambiguous. They were told that, yes, it would be possible to build a bomb and, yes, it would be powerful and reasonably small. However, the scientists also hinted that such a program would consume an inordinate amount of resources, might not work. Now that was a reasonable thing to say, and doesn't necessarily cast doubt on their commitment to helping the war effort. But what comes next rings alarm bells: when asked whether they could guarantee that the chain reaction in a fission explosion would be contained - that is to say, to guarantee that it would not start a chain reaction in the rest of the matter in the world and turn the entire planet into one great nuclear fission fireball - they said that they could not. Now anybody who knows a little nuclear physics knows that this was a preposterous statement. Why would a nuclear explosion magically turn the air into fissionable material? You need constant core-of-the-sun like temperatures to do that. The best explanation is that the German scientists had *very* cold feet about running a bomb program.
Incidentally, this was not necessarily because they feared arming Hitler with an a-bomb. There were other good reasons for them to not want to run an a-bomb program I won't go into here for lack of space and time (rimshot!).
In the end, the scientists got to have their cake and eat it to. Substantial amounts of government money were put into a *reactor* program, allowing them to say in a job and keep their students away from the Eastern Front. At the same time, they weren't burdened with the huge and risky job of trying to produce an atomic bomb for the state.
So I said I'd get back to why H might have changed his views during the war... Several writers have pointed out, I think rightly, that H was "betraying" the German war effort by telling B about the possibility that the Germans might develop an a-bomb at all. H *knew* that B had contacts outside Nazi-occupied Europe. H *knew* that B was an ardent anti-Nazi. He was an intelligent man. He could not have been blind to the fact that B would certainly repeat every word he said to his contacts in Sweden and thence to Britain. So however we interpret the meeting, I cannot see a way in which it would support the idea that H was an ardent Nazi trying to strengthen the Nazi cause. It just doesn't make sense.
But that's the trouble, you see. None of it makes perfect sense. Nobody will ever know precisely what happened in that meeting or why, but if I had to guess, I would say that H was conflicted about what to do. He was mixed up. On the one hand lay, what her perceived to be, his duty to the state and his genuine patriotism. On the other hand lay his fear of the destructive power of the bomb in anybody's hands. Probably, on a third hand, lay his duty to science, and then on a fourth hand his friend and so on and so on (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that I totally mangled that metaphor).
Anyway, I apologise for how long that was, but I hope it helps clear up a few things.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:2)
I will note that it's my understanding that the United States attitude that the country is separate from the government is relatively unique: we're one of the few countries in the world where the attitude that one can love one's country but demand the overthrow of it's government is seen as patriotic, albeit misguided.
So it may hurt our brains in the US to think of loyal Germans not questioning the NAZIs (who were seen as Germany's rightful government), throughout the rest of the world, that's the way it works: love your country pretty much means supporting it's government by definition--even if you disagree with your government's behavior.
Re:Just saw it on TV (Score:2, Interesting)
In this draft of a letter [www.nbi.dk] to Heisenberg, Bohr said that he had known about the possibility of a bomb for about three years.
Who else thought this was really sad? I makes me sick to see physics caught up in such horrible politics.
the meeting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:the meeting (Score:1)
Its too bad though, all the junk gets modded up and the good stuff just gets seen by those who read early.
Uncertain Metamoderation. (Score:1)
moderation uncertainty (Score:1)
No wait... wrong physics principle/theory!
---
Get your physics straight (Score:3, Informative)
No, no, no. Remember, Planc's constant (which defines the size of uncertainty) is in Js. That means that if you know when the meeting happened you can't know how much energy was expended there. The conjugate of position is momentum, so to be uncertain where the meeting took place we'd need to know its mass and velocity.
Come on people, this is very simple physics.
Still implausible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still implausible (Score:3, Insightful)
All the small things. (Score:2)
No pure graphite, no neutrons, no bomb.
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
http://users.owt.com/chubbard/gcdam/html/histor
I forget my source, but I think it was the Hitler/History Channel.
Btw, the GCD contains enough concrete to build a 4 lane highway 3,000 miles long (from NYC to LA).
Re:Still implausible (Score:2)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Re:Still implausible (Score:2, Interesting)
Most likely the Germans would have not done both. Centrifical separation would be very easy for even a small country to achieve. Today Israel, Pakastan, India all have produced Nuclear weapons with relativity small programs.
As a note: Silver was used to produce an electrical conductor for the electric field separation process. The reason the U.S used silver was because copper was in short supply. The silver was on loan from the Federal Reserve and was later returned which at the time was just storage at Fort Knox.
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Original post [slashdot.org]
Re:Still implausible (Score:2)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Re:Still implausible (Score:1)
Maybe something like this is happening again. The power shortages all over the country, especially in the West. Enron trying to fix prices with the government, almost as if they were absolutely positive there would be a huge demand for power in that area. Is the US government building a new type of facility or researching a new type of weapon that will once again revolutionize warfare as the nuclear bomb did 55 years ago?
Terrifying to think about. Is it possible to revolutionize the art of killing the much ever again?
We still only know one side (Score:4)
What the letters make clear is that Bohr felt very threatened by Heisenburg's visit and that he assumed that Heisenburg would be working to create a Nazi A-bomb.
What will never be known is what Heisenburg's intent actually was. Clearly his post-war statements should be viewed with suspicion, but, to give him the benefit of the doubt, he claimed to have been misunderstood [physicstoday.org] by Bohr because he was afraid that the SS was spying on them, which is certainly a possibility.
Re:We still only know one side (Score:1)
Re:We still only know one side (Score:1)
Get a clue moderators.
Re:We still only know one side (Score:2, Insightful)
Appearantly, the meeting was set up by Heisenberg in an effort to make it clear to the germans in Denmark that Niels Bohr was important and should not be touched, arrested or harrassed.
There was an official event at a german "cultural" institute which Bohr as he says "of course could not attend" followed by this private meeting at the Niels Bohr institute.
Also do not forget that there were another person in the meeting, and while his "memory" is as suspect as Heisenbergs, his recollection is the same.
Niels Bohr provably had possesed the data to indicate that a bomb would be possible for at least one year at the time, but was not in any way in contact with the allied program until he escaped from Denmark via Sweden shortly after and partly because of the meeting with Heisenberg.
It is also important to remember that Hitler did not appreciate science, engineering yes, but not science. It is unconceiveable that he would have dedicated the necessary funds to create a german bomb, without some pretty hard evience and demonstrations.
The claim that the nazi program was mostly for power-generation therefore sounds very credible.
Heisenberg were fully aware of these things, in particular that even if physically possible, the bomb would be politcally out of reach.
Therefore one cannot easily dismiss the claim that Heisenberg, convinced by nazi propaganda that the nazis would win, was merely tried to protect his old friend Bohr by getting him onto the victors bandwagon.
In other words: Heisenberg probably tried to say something between the lines and Bohr missed it, and Bohr being better informed about the real standing of the war was unlikely to be swayed anyway. (Bohr could listen to BBC, Heisenberg could not for instance).
I think the fact that no evidence has been found which indicates that Heisenberg actually did anything more than think about the bomb should be credited him, as for being convinced by the nazi propaganda, he was already punished more than fair is for that.
From Denmark,
Ask a living witness... (Score:5, Interesting)
He gave an interview [sueddeutsche.de] with the Süddeutsche Zeitung one or two days ago. His recollection of the meeting is rather interesting (the interview is in German, sorry).
Firstly, he says that Heisenberg started an A-bomb project in 1939, in which Weizsäcker took part, but by 1941 they came to the conclusion that they would not be able to succeed before the war was over. The problem was the tremendous effort needed to separate the isotopes. So from 1941 on they were only interested in building a reactor. Once that worked (it never did, as the heavy water production was sabotaged) there might have been the possibility to create Plutonium and build a bomb with that. But they didn't expect this to happen before the war was over by conventional means.
The reason Heisenberg went to see Bohr, according to Weizsäcker, was that they didn't want the Americans or the British to build a bomb either. If they stated publically that they're not working on a bomb, then of course nobody would have believed them. But Heisenberg thought that they might believe Bohr. So he hoped that Bohr could convince the Allies not to build the bomb either. This was not motivated by pure pacifism - he didn't want Germany to get nuked.
In 1941 the war looked pretty good for Germany, they were winning on all fronts. So basically Heisenberg believed that a German victory was inevitable, but with conventional weapons. He tried to explain this to Bohr, who was shocked. Bohr may have understood Heisenberg's "inevitable" to mean that he WAS working on a bomb, and planning to use it. But Weizsäcker suggests that Bohr may well have understood correctly, and didn't want the Germans to win (conventionally), and therefor figured that the Allies would have to build a bomb, to avoid a Nazi victory.
What we can accept as quite reliable, is the following: (a) Heisenberg did lead an A-bomb project from 1939 to 1941. (b) He came to the conclusion that he couldn't build a bomb before the war was over. (c) He continued working on a reactor from 1941 onwards (possibly with the option of producing Plutonium for later weapons use).
And what also seem quite plausible: (d) that he tried to convince Bohr that he was only working on a reactor, not a bomb. This is what he claimed afterwards, and is backed up by Weizsäcker. Many people might not believe these two, so here is another interesting piece of the puzzle:
I read some time ago, either in Physics Today or in Scientific American that when Bohr came to Los Alamos, he brought with him a sketch which Heisenberg had made during his 1941 visit. Bohr claimed it depicted a bomb which Heisenberg was building, but the people at Los Alamos recognised it as a heavy water reactor. As far as I remember, the sketch depicted a large bottle, filled with water (presumably heavy water, but only labelled "H2O"), and some stuff inside. Can anybody dig up this sketch on the net? At any rate, this strongly suggests that Bohr had misunderstood Heisenberg, and mistook Heisenberg's reactor for a bomb.
blantant (Score:1)
An interesting Heisenberg quote (Score:5, Informative)
In 1942, a prototype reactor in Leipzig exploded when heavy water leaked into a uranium shell, shortly before it would have reached criticality. [2]
We're DAMN LUCKY that Heisenberg's efforts ultimately failed.
[1] Blood and Water: Sabotaging Hitler's Bomb (ISBN 0-8050-3206-1), by Dan Kurzman, p.35.
[2] Ibid, p. 38.
Heisenberg..... (Score:2, Informative)
Where are those papers, anyways? (Score:2, Funny)
The uncertainty of heisenburg (Score:2)
However given the intense observation of Heisenburg by the Brittish at Farm Hall, where his coversations and those of other scientists were secretly monitored, the state of Heisenburg's loyalties should condense into a single course of action, either one loyal to the Nazis or one where he deliberatly sabotaged the project.
Of course, if we knew Heisenberg's exact intentions, we would be unable to figure out just where he stood, and vice versa.
Re:The uncertainty of heisenburg (Score:1)
(mod parent up if you get it!)
Re:Uncertainty principle in action (Score:2)
End this discussion? (Score:2, Funny)
So this should die out pretty quickly, I guess.
Re:End this discussion? (Score:1)
Godwin's Law
/prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.
It's irrelevant (Score:5, Informative)
Fact #2: The Nazis never had the ability to fight and build a nuke after the astonishing raid against the heavy water plant in Norway. In 1941, they had lost the Battle of Britain, were losing the capability to launch an invasion of Britain, and were focussing a lot of effort on the Battle of the Atlantic.
<interlude >
(which they would have won until American long-range bombers(B29s) became available in large numbers - The courage and acheivements of the British Royal and Merchant navies should not be forgotten, but it was the closing of the Iceland-UK gap by airpower that won the Battle of the Atlantic. Thankyou once again America.)
</interlude >
It's all ancient history. But please give respect to the British-trained Norwegians who perpetrated the astonishing raid that ended Nazi nuclear capabilities.
More information:here [pafko.com]
Basically, they landed by parachute in Norway, infiltrated one of the most highly defended places in Nazi-controlled Europe, and set of some charges. The charges were placed next to some fat cables deep in a long tunnel. The cables were carrying enough current (many tens of thousands of amps) that the electromagnetic effects when they shorted blew a kilometer of tunnel to bits.
Another team sank a ship carrying 1000 tons of heavy water from Norway to Germany.
After those losses, the German nuke program didn't have chance.
<googlefailure>>
Google (and AltaVista) have failed to give many useful hits on these events. The people who executed these raids deserve more web presence. Please post links.
</googlefailure>>
Re:It's irrelevant (Score:1, Interesting)
The answer: yes.
I think that the USA, and to a lesser extent the USSR, held what might be called the decisive advantage in WW II. By which I mean that these two countries, singly or together, had the resources, manpower, and material to decide the war in favor of either the Axis or the Allies. Had neither become involved in the war in Europe, it would likely have become a stalemate; Germany and Italy would not have been able to conquer the British Empire, and the British Empire would not have been able to conquer Germany and Italy. Whichever side either of these two countries joined would have the advantage.
Once Hitler opened a second front by attacking the USSR, the Nazis were doomed. They did not have the resources in terms of people or material to defeat both the British Empire and the USSR simultaneously. The USSR probably did more than any other combatent to drain the German war machine. The Third Reich was bleeding to death in front of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, even before it was pulverized from the air by the Western Allies.
Probably Germany's best (though slim) chance to defeat the USSR would have been to talk Japan into attacking the USSR from the east (and leaving the US strictly alone). Initally, I suspect that Hitler was too arrogant to ask his Asian ally for help, even though he needed it desperately. Later, it was too late for both Germany and Japan. Also, the Japanese did not want to fight a war in Siberia that they probably could not win, especially as their Army was heavily engaged in China. They were a naval power, and the IJN could not contribute much to a war against the USSR. Of course, the IJN could have contributed a lot to a war against the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but that would have almost certainly brought the US into the war, an event that Germany was trying to avoid. Ultimately, Japan had less to contribute to a German victory than the USSR had to contribute to a British victory, so any Japanese strategy would probably have failed.
Similarly, once the US entered the war on the Allied side, Germany was doomed. Even if Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR, America simply had too many resources. Just as in the First World War, the US and the British Empire (plus most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere) would have eventually won a war of attrition.
Again, probably Germany's best hope would have involved Japan and the USSR. If Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR (Japanese diplomats were trying to get the USSR to join the Axis when Germany attacked, thereby demonstrating that at least some in the Japanese government had a much better concept of global strategy than Hitler did), and instead convinced both Japan and the USSR to join the Axis and help Germany, Italy, and their allies against the British Empire, the US, and their allies, it would have been a long and bitter war indeed, perhaps another stalemate. The posibility of stalemate or Axis victory would have been enhanced if Hitler also forced Spain into the war on the Axis side, taking Gibralter, driving England from the Mediterranean, and protecting Italy.
In fact, of course, Hitler did open a second front by attacking the USSR, and the US and UK made the European war their first priority after Japan drew the US into the war on Dec 7, 1941. So even though Germany gained Japan as an active ally, she was doubly doomed. By which I do not mean to imply that defeating Germany (and Italy and Japan) was easy. In fact, it was a long, costly, dangerous, bloody road to victory. But, the odds favored the Allies.
Fortunately, none of the Axis heads of state had any plan or strategy for a joint war effort, so the Allies were able to defeat them piecemeal. And the Japanese, who at least had a pre-war grand strategy in the Pacific, over extended themselves after their unexpectedly easy initial victories, and hastened their own defeat.
Since I have considered the possibility of the USSR fighting on the Axis side in WW II, it is only fair to examine the scenerio of the US joining the Axis. Had Hitler not attacked the USSR (and the USSR remained neutral), and had the US unexpectedly joined the Axis, then:
A major war would have been fought in North America, as Canada was already at war with Germany.
After (if) the US defeated Canada, plus Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the British Empire outside of the UK (maybe with the help of Japan [!] in the Pacific and Indian Oceans), the US Navy could neutralize the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, and the US and German Armies and Air Forces together could defeat the RAF, invade the UK, and win the war for the Axis. Then, Germany could have attacked the USSR with a reasonable chance of success. Of course, politically, there was zero chance of such a thing happening. I would like to make a few comments about Adolf Hitler, since he personified the Third Reich, and made all of the strategic decisions. I regard Hitler as a superb (if evil) politician with great political insight. This allowed him to gain power, re-arm Germany, and gobble-up parts of Europe with impunity.
Once the war started, however, his weaknesses became evident. He had some tactical sense, probably due to his experience in WW I as a combat infantryman. But, he was a very poor strategist. As far as I can tell, he never had a "grand strategy." By which I mean a clear set of goals for the war and a plan to reach them. Hitler was, in fact, taken by surprise when England and France declared war on Germany. He had expected to partition Poland without fighting a major war, and had no plan beyond defeating Poland. Hence the period of "Phony War" after the defeat of Poland, while the German generals planned the campaign against France. When Italy joined the war, Hitler and Mussolini made no serious attempt to devise a common strategy. In fact, Mussolini's military mis-adventures in Greece and North Africa drained away valuable German military resources. After the defeat of France, Hitler seemed to have no idea what to do next, no plan at all for defeating the British Empire. Instead, he formulated his plan to attack the USSR, against the advice of his generals and without consulting his allies, and sealed the fate of Germany. Hitler fought the whole war on an "ad-hoc" basis, a campaign at a time. This lack of any coherent strategy cost Germany dearly. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought America into the war, Hitler made no attempt to formulate a common strategy with Japan. Again, he was taken completely by surprise (In truth, the Japanese leaders did not consult with Hitler, either, and may not have had much respect for him. Before the war, Admiral Yamamato declined an offer to meet with Hitler when the Admiral was traveling across Germany). I have always blamed this failure to consult with his allies, at least partly, on Hitler's arrogance. Hitler generally seemed to believe himself superior to his allies, as if he knew more. In fact, in terms of overall strategy, he knew less.
Re:It's irrelevant (Score:2)
Interesting speculation, but probably incorrect. Germany did ask for Japanese help against the USSR and was flatly refused. The Japanese were terrified of the USSR entering into the war in East Asia- they had gotten their clocks cleaned when they tangled with the Soviets earlier- and bent over backward to avoid giving the Soviets a reason to attack. This included an absolute refusal to attack Soviet flagged ships. This allowed the U.S. to send about 50% of its Lend-Lease cargo to the USSR through Vladivostok without risk of attack just by reflagging the ships as Soviet.
Re:It's irrelevant (Score:1)
The courage and acheivements of the British Royal and Merchant navies should not be forgotten, but it was the closing of the Iceland-UK gap by airpower that won the Battle of the Atlantic. Thankyou once again America.
Don't forget Canada's contribution [vac-acc.gc.ca], either.
Canada had 373 fighting ships and over 110,000 members, all volunteers, at the end of the war. By mid-1942, the RCN, with support from the RCAF, was providing nearly half the convoy escorts, and afterwards carried out the lion's share of escort duty.
Canadian aircraft and ships, alone or in consort with other ships or aircraft, sank 50 U-boats.
The Canadian navy [www.dnd.ca] lost 24 warships and 2210 sailors. The Canadian merchant marine lost 76 Canadian-owned or Canadian-flagged vessels and more than 1700 sailors. More than 900 members of aircrews from the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force were also killed.
Re:It's irrelevant (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's irrelevant (Score:1)
In 1941, they had lost the Battle of Britain, were losing the capability to launch an invasion of Britain, and were focussing a lot of effort on the Battle of the Atlantic...which they would have won until American long-range bombers(B29s) became available in large numbers.
B-29s were never used [csd.uwo.ca] in the European Theatre.
The Norwegian heavy water plant, etc. (Score:1)
Elsewhere in this thread, I mentioned Dan Kurzman's book Blood and Water - it goes into great detail about the sabotage of the Norsk Hydro [hydro.com] heavy-water plant, and the workings of the Nazi A-bomb effort. It's a riveting read, that makes James Bond look like a piker.
Aside from the German program, there was also a British program; rivalries with the Americans hampered both the US and British efforts.
Not mentioned in Blood and Water, Japan also had an A-bomb program of its own, and circumstantial evidence suggests that the Japanese managed to explode a test weapon. This is discussed in Robert K. Wilcox's work, Japan's Secret War (ISBN 1-56924-815-X). Much of this work was carried out in what is now North Korea. A giant industrial complex near Hungnam was dismantled by the Soviets and shipped to Russia after the war ended.
Why the Germans didn't get the bomb (Score:5, Informative)
One story told by my history of science prof (he had interviewed Teller, Groves, Oppy, Szilard, etc.) was that Max Born was given the assignment of calculating the neutron cross section of graphite. This is useful for determining how much the neutrons coming out of a fission would be slowed, so they can hit another nucleus. For a reactor to work, they need to be slowed a little but not absorbed. Hence the need to know the cross-section.
He apparently goofed with the decimal points, and wound up "proving" that graphite would never work. Pretty surprising since they had a small reactor going in Paris shortly after the city fell, moderated by graphite.
That's why the Nazis kept trying to build heavy water plants - they thought that was the only possible reactor medium to use. But heavy water plants are fairly obvious targets, and Allied saboteurs took most of them out.
Re:Why the Germans didn't get the bomb (Score:2)
I'm not sure what people are trying to show (Score:5, Insightful)
That may seem like a mundane explanation, given what we now know about Nazi Germany and the power of nuclear bombs. But Heisenberg probably did not know the extent of Nazi atrocities and he also didn't know whether a real A-bomb would fizzle or bang.
It's tempting to see all of WWII in terms of villains and heroes. But most people were probably neither; they were just people trying to get on with their lives under difficult circumstances. Heisenberg could have been a hero or a villain, but he ended up being neither.
Re:I'm not sure what people are trying to show (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh, he definitely was and still is (even after all these accusations) my hero. The guy had a big hand in developing QM. Cheers for his efforts.
Re:I'm not sure what people are trying to show (Score:2)
Heroic resistance apparently just wasn't required; as long as Heisenberg didn't push hard for a bomb project, it wasn't going to happen. I suspect that's about as much "refusal" as anyone could offer in Nazi Germany and live to talk about it.
I am very impresessed by Bohr's handling of the whole affair.
It was a lot easier for Bohr to reject the Nazis than for Heisenberg. To Bohr, they were foreign invaders. To Heisenberg, they were the government of his native country.
Ask yourself: at what point would you offer "heroic resistance" to your own government? When it starts interning minorities? When it starts displacing people based on their ethnic or racial origin? When you hear rumors of government-sponsored, deadly medical experiments? When it starts getting into wars with other countries? When it starts developing doomsday machines? When it starts poisoning the environment of other countries and enslaving others for economic gain? Does your responsibility end with not working on those projects yourself, or do you have a duty to find out more and sabotage those efforts? When do appeals to patriotism and defens turn into political manipulation and power tools?
These are very relevant questions today, and it is regrettable that people view the example of Nazi Germany as some distant historical aberration apparently of little relevance to their own lives.
Atom Bomb Links (Score:3, Interesting)
On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify U-235 with which might in turn be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as the Manhattan Project. Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expedient research and production that would produce a viable atomic bomb.
This [vikingphoenix.com] and this [vikingphoenix.com] link describe the Japanese atomic bomb program. Germany sent a submarine to Japan carrying uranium oxide, a needed element in building an a-bomb, but it surrendered after Hitler's defeat and was confiscated by the U.S. This uranium could have been used in the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Another good link is here. [grolier.com]
There was reason to fear that Germany might win the race to produce the bomb. Fission had been discovered in Germany, and German scientists were at least as able as anyone else to assess its significance. Moreover, it seemed ominous that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium ore from the rich mines in Czechoslovakia. Up until mid-1941, concern over a German bomb had been stronger in Britain than in the United States. About that time, however, the sense of urgency began to pervade U.S. nuclear scientists.
the funny part.... (Score:1)
There is still the question... (Score:1)
In the period after Germany was defeated, but before japan was, Heisenberg and numerous other German scientists were taken to England and held in captivity in a cabin of sorts. It was here that they first learned that Japan had been hit with an atomic bomb. During this time, all their conversations were recorded. It was discovered through their conversations that Heisenberg either didn't know the difference between building a reactor and a bomb or was fairly certain that building a bomb was impossible. He has misquoted the needed critical mass for a bomb numerous times.
There is also the issue of the amount of funding Heisenberg asked for from the Nazi Government, which was amazingly minute considering the job of building a bomb would be so large scale.
In the end you can judge Heisenberg as either: incompetent for not being able to build the bomb, a traitor to his nation, or simply a little too apprehensive about what success would cost to put his all into the project at hand. What I will say aobut him is this: at all times he had the project under his control, and he never propagandized for the use of nuclear weapons. In Nazi Germany, there was no nuke.
(at least i didn't make a comment about bohr sounding like bore...)
translation (Score:2, Funny)
Somebody set up us the bomb!
This is obviously a plea for the scientists to develop the A-bomb.
Uncertainty Principal (Score:1)
Uncertainty Principal (Score:1)
Re:Uncertainty Principal (Score:1)
"JEW SCIENCE" Simply put..... (Score:1)
ASIDE from that and from what can be seen in the threads above few of you seem to be German Military historians. Now, for the most part , nuclear physics was SEVERLY frowned on, Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebels, ALL reffered to it as ""JEW SCIENCE"" They INTENTIONALLY and DELIBERATLEY tried to dissuade people from approaching Hitler on the subject and in some circles even talk of it was forbidden. NOW that said, one of the few that had any vision in the matter was Doenitz, it is POSSIBLE that Nuclear programs were being conducted in seceret (From Hitler and Goering, and Himmler who knows about Goebels, he REALLY played both sides of the fence) Other programs were the MP44, when Hitler found out they went ahead with it after he forbade it he went nuts, they did produce a few , but under stipulations, like the ME262 must be carring bombs on take off. Hitler was a Maniac, his way or the highway, I cannot belive he knew of or allowed a Nuclear program under Germany with his consent.
ima-usa.com [ima-usa.com] for some real high caliber fun....
Think different (Score:1)
Think different [hiris.com]
There's more to it.. (Score:3, Interesting)
For instance, Gitta Serenys excellent
book "Albert Speer: His battle with truth".
(Albert Speer was the Nazi minister of armaments during the latter part of the war).
In the book Sereny notes that Speer, in a letter to a friend from Spandau prison after the war,
wrote of Heisenbergs engagement in developing an A-bomb, and how he had they had been short of funds.
According to the book, Speer remarked in the letter something to the extent of: "Now, I suppose he'll claim he didn't want the bomb built, and didn't ask for funding".
This is, in fact, what Heisenberg claimed after the war. However, Speer could not have known this, since the prisoners in Spandau were not allowed to read newspapers or have any correspondence with the outside world.
(With the exception of the contraband letters)
To me at least, this seems pretty incriminating,
especially together with the testimony of Bohr.
On the other hand, I would be careful to damn Heisenberg:
Just look at how the USA made a 'hero' out of Werner von Braun, a man who not only built missiles, he administrated the cruel and inhumane concentration camps where the missiles were manufactured.
Werner Heisenberg Biography (Score:2, Informative)
No! No! Don't tell me... (Score:3, Funny)
...and spoil it. I'm going to see Copenhagen tommorow.
Points to ponder (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Heisenberg took a substantial risk visiting Copenhagen and discussing secret and dangerous information with Bohr. We don't know exactly what was on his mind, but he wasn't doing this lightly.
2. Heisenberg didn't like his fascist government; but he was still a patriot and wanted to do what was good for his people in the long run.
3. In 1941, it was a very reasonable conclusion that Germany would win the war. Most people feared this. It would not be unreasonable to plan accordingly.
4. Heisenberg was very, very smart.
5. Bohr was troubled by what he saw as inconsistent and inexplicable behavior. He was surprised and concerned, at the time and later, and he sought in vain to understand his friend's words and actions, which seemed clear but inexplicable to him.
6. After the war, Heisenberg felt bitter and misunderstood, and avoided discussing wartime events after having received censure from many sides.
Assume, for the moment, that in 1941 Heisenberg a) thought Germany would win the war, b) hoped Bohr was aware how serious a threat was posed by nuclear weapons, c) wanted to prepare for good humane postwar German physics, and d) deliberately but secretly focused German research efforts on avenues leading to peaceful applications. How would his behavior have been different? Who would have been aware of this lonely struggle, at the time or later? And, assuming this were all true, how bitter and frustrated would he feel after the war, being blackguarded for actions that (if all were known) should be seen as heroic?
The historical record is clearly ambiguous, and there are certainly valid interpretations of events that show him in a bad or foolish light. But this was an extraordinary man, dealing with titanic issues at an extraordinary time. I am more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. The great scientists I've known have tended to share a common trait: intellectual honesty, to the point of ruthlessness and even self-destruction if necessary. The great thinker is rarely petty of self-deceptive about important issues. So I have a hard time picturing Heisenberg conducting decades of revisionism to whitewash over bad behavior. I find it more likely that Bohr misunderstood his brief exchange with a troubled and tortured man, a man who was trying to do what he thought was right in a difficult situation. Bohr's own mystification with Heisenberg's actions is clear in the draft letters.
We won't ever have a certain resolution to this question, because letters and recordings only reveal certain kinds of information. The truth was hidden in Heisenberg's inner beliefs and motivations, but he chose to close the door on discussing such issues, after receiving what he perceived as unfair rebukes.
For me, it all comes down to a question of emotional and intellectual plausibility. Which 'plot' makes the most human sense -- Heisenberg as shallow, self-interested, incompetent, venal Nazi bureaucrat? -- or Heisenberg as an heroic, solitary, tortured visionary? Each version of history has problems, but look at the stature and reputation of this man before the war. He was larger than life. I hate to see him made so small in today's debate.
Re: Your submission was rejected... (Score:1)
Re:Okay (Score:1)
Re:OT: Fired for Forum Opinion (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:OT: Fired for Forum Opinion (Score:1)
I think you are almost eligible for a darwin award.
You can try to get a lawyer, but I doubt you would get much. Freedom in the USA means freedom of speech, it also means freedom to fire people you don't like for whatever reason you want. (Except for a few reasons, such as skin color, religion, etc).
Re:We all want to know ... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Teller is the man! (Score:1)
Re:Teller is the man! (Score:2)
Who is Borg? Who is Scheissenberg? (Score:2, Funny)