It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Nexus
To put it simply, they're not allowed to have nukes, period. All because they started WW2 and we don't want it to happen again. Meh, less nukes in the world is better anyway...
Source
Germany - While Germany is a signatory of the NPT, it has the means to easily equip itself rapidly with nuclear weapons. It has an advanced nuclear industry capable of manufacturing reactors, enriching uranium, fuel fabrication, and fuel reprocessing and it operates 19 power reactors producing one third of its total electrical needs. On the other hand, Germany has since 1945 made no serious attempts of acquiring or developing its own strategic delivery systems. Considerable numbers of nuclear weapons have been stationed both in East and West Germany during the Cold War, starting as early as 1955. Under the nuclear sharing scheme, West German soldiers would in theory have been authorized to use nuclear weapons provided by the US in event of a massive Warsaw Pact attack. Several dozen such weapons reputedly remain on bases in western Germany. Since 1998, Germany has adopted a policy of eliminating nuclear power, although slow progress had been made.[36] On January 26, 2006, the former defence minister, Rupert Scholz, said that Germany may need to build its own nuclear weapons to counter terrorist threats.[37]
Originally posted by stumason
Thats a very simplistic view of the origins of the war. yes, the war began by the invasion of Poland, but there were many reasons that led to this eventuality.
Originally posted by stumason
Germany did have legitimate claims to some of the territories of Poland and Czechoslovakia, as it lost them due to the Versailles Treaty.
Originally posted by stumason
This treaty could be argued that it was unduely harsh on the Germans, blaming them for a war in which everyone of the Old Powers shared blame. Had the Treaty or the end of WW1 been less harsh on the Germans and been much like any other war prior to WW1, then WW2 would not have happened.
Originally posted by stumason
[Thats a very simplistic view of the origins of the war. yes, the war began by the invasion of Poland, but there were many reasons that led to this eventuality.
Originally posted by stumason
The actual causes of WW1, what happened at the end of the war, what Germany was forced to give up as "punishment" (well, the Victors had to get something out of Germany after 4 years of war) what led to the massive economic woes, the rise of the Nazi's.
Originally posted by stumason
Because it was German territory before it was forced to hand it over at the end of WW1.
I would have to agree. To simply sum up the second world war as German agression is not on point.
You have to take the 20 and 30's in context and what was done or more importantly not done that lead to the rise of the nazi party in Germany.
Yes Germany is responable for actions, but many other nations had a helping hand in the march to war.
posted by Zibi
That doesn't justify the German invasion of Poland.
posted by Zibi
If we're talking about Poland, then I guess you mean Silesia. If so, then I'd like to point out that Silesians didn't want to be under German rule, they wanted to be under Polish rule, and that's why they started the three Silesian insurections.
After the defeat of the German Empire and Austria-Hungary in World War I the German and Austrian parts of Silesia were divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia. In the Treaty of Versailles, it was decided that the population of the German Upper Silesia should hold a plebiscite in order to determine the future of the province, with the exception of a 333 km² area around Hlučín (Hultschiner Ländchen), which was granted to Czechoslovakia in 1920 despite having a German majority. The plebiscite, organised by the League of Nations, was held in 1921. The outcome was 706,000 votes for Germany and 479,000 for Poland, according to Polish estimates. German sources, and those of the League of Nations, give a wholly other impression. Even Slavic Upper Silesians voted to remain within the German Empire by a large majority, up to 80-95 %. Only some rural areas around Katowice were Polish enough to have a small majority in favour of annexation by Poland.
-------
However that deal wasn't approved by young Czechoslovakia government in Prague. In 23 January 1919 Czechoslovakia attacked lands of Cieszyn Silesia and were stopped in 30 January on Vistula River line, under Skoczów. Planned plebiscite was not eventually organised and division of Cieszyn Silesia was decided in 28 July 1920 by Ambassadors' Council at the Treaty of Versailles which instituted nowadays border.
Source
After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections, instigated by Polish nationalists, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the most eastern Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany, should become an autonomous area within Poland, organised as the Silesian Voivodship (Wojewodztwo Śląskie). One of the central political figures that drive for these changes was Wojciech Korfanty.
The major part of Silesia, remaining in Germany, was then reorganised into the two provinces of Upper Silesia and Lower Silesia. In October 1938, Cieszyn Silesia (the disputed area west of the Olza river, also called Zaolzie - 906 km² with 258,000 inhabitants), was retaken by Poland from Czechoslovakia, in accord with the Munich Agreement that surrendered Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany re-took possession of these parts of Silesia in 1939, when the attack on Poland marked the beginning of World War II
posted by Zibi
If we're talking about Czechoslovakia, then I'd like to point out that Bohemia was an independent country already in the Middle Ages until it was conquered by Germany, and Slovakia was an independent country already in the Middle Ages until it was conquered by Hungary.
After the referendum, there were three Silesian Insurrections, as a result of which the League of Nations decided that the province should be split again and that the most eastern Upper Silesian areas, even though a majority there had voted to remain inside Germany, should become an autonomous area within Poland, organised as the Silesian Voivodship (Wojewodztwo Śląskie).
May I suggest you brush up on your history if you want to debate this.
Originally posted by Zibi
Incorrect. Only the third Silesian Insurrection occured after the referendum. The first two occured before the referendum. The first Silesian Insurrection occured in 1919 and the second Silesian Insurrection occured in 1920.
I am a Silesian myself, so dont dare to tell me the history of Silesia.
Originally posted by stumason
Regardless, the referendum clearly showed that the majority of people who lived there were German. The uprising's were the minority that were unhappy with the democratic outcome of the referendum.
Originally posted by stumason
you clearly do not know anything about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars.
Originally posted by stumason
You're stating nonsense about the causes of WW1 and WW2
Originally posted by stumason
you do not listen to sound analysis of the causes for the two wars.
Originally posted by stumason
Your views are clearly biased against Germany
You are the one who knows nothing about European history in general nor the causes of the two Wars. You are the one who said that German invasion of Poland was justified.
I wasn't talking about the causes of WWI, I was only talking about the causes of WWII.
You are stating nonsense.
I dont hate Germany. I just dont tolerate people who justify Germany for starting WWII.
Originally posted by stumason
Germany did have legitimate claims to some of the territories of Poland, Czechslovakia and Austria, as it lost them due to the Versailles Treaty.
This treaty could be argued that it was unduely harsh on the Germans,
blaming them for a war in which everyone of the Old Powers shared blame.
Had the Treaty or the end of WW1 been less harsh on the Germans and been much like any other war prior to WW1, then WW2 would not have happened.
posted by Nygdan
posted by stumason: “Perhaps, if the Versailles Treaty had not been so harsh, the Germans would have had a stronger economy and would have developed the A bomb before anyone even thought of it. Imagine that, the Kaiser with nukes!?
And as far as nukes, the Nazis simply couldn't develop them. They tried, but didn't get very far at all. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
No other country had that much excess electric capacity available in that time period. That is why neither Germany nor Japan (nor the USSR then) could have produced an A bomb.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Originally posted by donwhite
No other country had that much excess electric capacity available in that time period. That is why neither Germany nor Japan (nor the USSR then) could have produced an A bomb.
Thats intersting, I hadnt' realized that it required that much electricity!
posted by ignorant_ape: “ . . the USA went for the "brute force" approach - using the first technique that showed ANY promise of producing useable uranium. There are more efficient and elegant ways to produce WG uranium. At the time the method was the one they were confident in. They also used the federal silver reserves [15,000 tons] as electrical windings. The US road to enriched uranium was quite brutal and inefficient but it was obvious from the start it was likely to work and with the resources to spare [and more besides] the US felt safe throwing money and materials at it , confident that it would produce results.” [Edited by Don W]
posted by Mudshark: “Germany might not have nukes; they are technologically advanced, have a nuclear industry and large stockpiles of plutonium. Other nations are Switzerland and Japan. They might not have bombs but it wouldn't take them long to make 'em if they chose to do so. [Edited by Don W]
1. So why are those nations willing to remain “unarmed” with nuclear bombs, where others are not willing to do so?
2. I hear power plant uranium is 3.5% “pure” whereas bomb grade uranium is 70% pure. That by running low purity uranium through enough centrifuges the impurities can be removed and the stuff remaining gains in purity.
3. Plutonium I don’t know about.