Nazi Atomic weapons in 1943

dowot
If what I have read is true, towards the end of WW2, the British, Americans and Russians all were desperately trying to beat each other in looking for any research that the Germans had carried out.

That suggests that the Germans knew or had information that the Allies did not have and it was valuable.

So what was this research and why was it so valuable? They obviously had something and I do not think it was a flying saucer craft or invisibility cloaks.

The Allies didn't know specifically, that's the point. Prior to instigating the catastrophe, Germany had the most sophisticated science & engineering capability in the world. Allies wanted to take the opportunity to get whatever they could find.

As it turned out, USA and UK together were more capable than Germany expected: magnetron, codebreaking and A-bomb were capabilities the Axis didn't achieve. The last one was a matter of industrial scale admittedly, but the first two were cheap acts of extraordinary brilliance. Obviously Germany was ahead in rocketry but as it turned out the UK (Freeman Dyson in particular) did the computation that strategically the rocket program was a huge waste of resources for the Axis war effort, relative to opportunity cost, and the more money & labor they devoted to it instead of something else (anti-aircraft or U-boats perhaps?) the better for the Allies. [On the other hand, if you had a 12 year war, and Germany developed a ballistic missile and nuclear warhead first, then it was Game Over as Moscow and London were obliterated, and possibly NYC if they could capture and launch from Iceland.]

In the end both Germany and Japan lost because they ran out of oil, and USA was pumping massive oil from invulnerable domestic fields. Geography wins---USA could produce oil and A-bomb without molestation.

mbkennel

The Allies didn't know specifically, that's the point. Prior to instigating the catastrophe, Germany had the most sophisticated science & engineering capability in the world. Allies wanted to take the opportunity to get whatever they could find.

As it turned out, USA and UK together were more capable than Germany expected: magnetron, codebreaking and A-bomb were capabilities the Axis didn't achieve. The last one was a matter of industrial scale admittedly, but the first two were cheap acts of extraordinary brilliance. Obviously Germany was ahead in rocketry but as it turned out the UK (Freeman Dyson in particular) did the computation that strategically the rocket program was a huge waste of resources for the Axis war effort, relative to opportunity cost, and the more money & labor they devoted to it instead of something else (anti-aircraft or U-boats perhaps?) the better for the Allies. [On the other hand, if you had a 12 year war, and Germany developed a ballistic missile and nuclear warhead first, then it was Game Over as Moscow and London were obliterated, and possibly NYC if they could capture and launch from Iceland.]

Germany developing an atomic bomb before the US / UK did is really, really pushing the boundaries of reality. Germany had major issues with the physics of the devices, the resources to produce them, and, on top of all that, no practical way to deliver a device if they could build it. German combat doctrine had steered them away from developing any practical strategic bomber aircraft, never mind something that could match the capability of a Silverplate B-29. The ballistic missile option isn't available either...the A-4/V-2 was about the biggest rocket Germany could produce in any numbers, and its payload was about 1/4 that needed to carry a first generation nuclear warhead.

As for capturing Iceland...with what? The Nazi's 'world conquering' military machine was completely unable to support any sizable amphibious operation at any distance (I won't mention the Unmentionable Sea Creature). An invasion of Iceland isn't going to happen without some serious Divine (or Infernal) intervention...they had enough trouble with Crete.

In the end both Germany and Japan lost because they ran out of oil, and USA was pumping massive oil from invulnerable domestic fields. Geography wins---USA could produce oil and A-bomb without molestation.

edit on 11-12-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

It wasn't just oil, and by focusing on oil alone, you'll get a very distorted view of what's plausible. It was every single aspect of industrial production. I think my favorite statistic on this is aircraft production. The Germans and Japanese built 170,942 aircraft between 1939 and 1945 (94,622 German, 76,320 Japanese). The US built 85,898 in 1943, and 96,318 in 1944. The numbers for steel production, tank production, and yes, oil production are all similarly grim for the axis. They lost because they were fighting four major powers at once....two that could simply bury them in men and material (the US and USSR) and two more that could probably fight them to a draw (the UK & France).

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer



The ballistic missile option isn't available either...the A-4/V-2 was about the biggest rocket Germany could produce in any numbers, and its payload was about 1/4 that needed to carry a first generation nuclear warhead.


Not if the alleged-to-exist German bombs were of an altogether different, and smaller, design. I take it you have not looked at the schematic I posted of the Schumann-Trinks boosted fission / U233 bomb? This weapon would have been dramatically smaller and lighter than the US bombs produced by the Manhattan Project (also a lot smaller in terms of their explosive yield, though exactly how much smaller, I don't know). Another possibility is that the Germans could have mounted any number of "dirty bombs" on V-2s. So no, I do not believe that the idea of nuclear-armed V-2s can be dismissed out of hand, particularly not by referencing WWII American atomic bomb sizes and weights, as you are doing here.


Of course, it's one thing to have a design idea or schematic on paper, and it's another thing entirely to bring that design to completion and to have a practical means of delivering it on target. I have seen a couple of cryptic references to attempts by German scientists to detonate some kind of atomic bomb that utilized "light nuclei"---almost certainly some sort of boosted fission idea that included trititum and/or hydrogen and/or lithium deuteride---but I know of no airtight proof that they ever succeeded. It is clear that some kind of weapons tests were carried out at Bug Isthmus and at Ohrdurf and that these involved some kind of effort at producing a nuclear blast, but whether any of these tests were the Schumann-Trinks design, I don't know. In short, I don't know if the S-T weapon would actually have worked had it been loaded with sufficient fissile material. I suspect that it would have, but I am not a physicist and I can't say for sure just by eyeballing and reading about it---although boosted fission is most definitely a valid and far more efficient approach to a bomb than the practical-but-larger-and-bulkier US method, which utilized a "nominal" or "natural" critical mass of uranium or plutonium. (Boosted fission significantly reduces the amount of fissile material needed to create a critical mass because it adds large numbers of neutrons from other substances in addition to the neutrons that are fissioning from the "bomb fuel" itself.) And to be sure, as you say, the Germans did not have anything analagous to the specially modified "Silverplate" B-29s used by the 509th Composite Group against Japan. Unless you believe, as Simon does, that more Ju-390s were produced than the three that most historians argue actually came off the assembly lines. He thinks a handful of additional units were completed. The Ju-390 was certainly nowhere near as robust an airplane as the Superfortress, but it had an entirely different mission and it did have ultra-long range. With a small weapon of some kind, it could conceivably have hit an American East Coast city such as Boston or New York, though this was at the very outermost limits of any conceivable mission profile and so is unlikely. But again, a smaller and lighter weapon could certainly have been delivered by V-2s.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou



Just a quick clarification for HattoriHanzou, who has mentioned Japan's WWII a-bomb efforts and who has managed to keep a consistently civil tone to his posts despite very poor behavior from others in this thread: the Riken Institute was in charge of one of Japan's WWII atomic bomb projects. This was the Army's Project NI, with Professor Yoshio Nishina at the helm. It was at Riken where the "Kuroda Papers" were produced---probably a series of detailed notes regarding the theoretical and industrial process necessary to create a U-235 bomb. Sources I used for my article "The Japanese Bomb and Why It Matters" indicated that the Kuroda Papers contained a bomb design, but it may be more accurate to say that they discussed bomb design concepts in some detail rather than a bomb design or schematic as such. I am still hoping to acquire a complete English language translation of the Kuroda documents so I can speak to this issue more definitively.


There were at least two other Japanese atomic bomb efforts that we know of. One of these was the Navy's Project F-Go, under the direction of Professor Bunsaku Arakatsu, previously a student of Einstein himself. Most researchers believe, and I concur, that it was F-Go and not NI that came closest to producing an actual, working bomb, after F-Go absorbed the remnants of NI following Riken's destruction in the Tokyo firebombing raid on 13 April 1945. The third wartime Japanese atomic bomb project may also have been amalgamated into the Navy's effort, but I am not able to discuss it in detail at this time because research is ongoing and might become part of a book. If research dead ends or if the book falls through I will post what I have learned of this third project.


To summarize: the Riken project did advanced work and got at least as far as a design concept that included information on how quickly subcritical pieces of U-235 would have to be rammed together to create a detonation, but the Navy's project (or the end of war joint project) almost certainly did the most advanced R&D. When, where, how, and to what extent German work influenced, added to, or otherwise impacted the Japanese projects is still unknown.

Brother Stormhammer

Germany developing an atomic bomb before the US / UK did is really, really pushing the boundaries of reality. Germany had major issues with the physics of the devices, the resources to produce them, and, on top of all that, no practical way to deliver a device if they could build it. German combat doctrine had steered them away from developing any practical strategic bomber aircraft, never mind something that could match the capability of a Silverplate B-29. The ballistic missile option isn't available either...the A-4/V-2 was about the biggest rocket Germany could produce in any numbers, and its payload was about 1/4 that needed to carry a first generation nuclear warhead.

As for capturing Iceland...with what? The Nazi's 'world conquering' military machine was completely unable to support any sizable amphibious operation at any distance (I won't mention the Unmentionable Sea Creature). An invasion of Iceland isn't going to happen without some serious Divine (or Infernal) intervention...they had enough trouble with Crete.

Unmentionable Sea Creature - you mean the Unmentionable Sea Mammal don't you? Are you on the Alternatehistory.com website?

Okay, a few questions for Mr. Gunson after reading through most of this thread.


First, you say definitively that the Schumann-Trinks boosted fission U233-lithium deuteride bomb was successfully tested once or twice. I think you wrote that this was at either or both of the 1944 detonations (Bug Island), and not the 1945 event (Ohrdurf). Karlsch and his American research associate, Professor Mark Walker of Union College, say that the 1945 test was of another design, a "hybrid" fusion-fission bomb designed by the Diebner group. The rough schematic included in their co-authored article "New Light on Hitler's Bomb", which appeared in the online magazine Physics World on 1 June 2005, definitely does not appear to my eyes to be the Schumann-Trinks bomb.


Question: do you have documentation that proves that either or both of the 1944 tests were successful detonations of the S-T boosted fission bomb design? If either or both of these tests were not the S-T bomb, what were they, and can you document what they were?


Here is a link to the Physics World webpage that leads to the "New Light on Hitler's Bomb" article. You have to create a username to view the article but that is easily done.


physicsworld.com...


Second, I have not previously heard of the Oslo Report or of the debrief by the Norwegian in which he mentioned the Japanese atomic bomb project(s) and German assistance to them. Is the debrief the same thing as the Oslo Report or are these separate documents? And can you post them or tell me where you found them?


Third, and most important, can you document how and where the Germans produced enough fissile material, whether U233 or U235, for one or more atomic bombs of whatever design or configuration? You have mentioned Paul Harteck's centrifuges and we know that some were built, but what I am told to this point by sources I consider to be reliable is that this was essentially a pilot program and that fewer than 50 and probably more like 25 or 30 of Harteck's machines were built---far too few to have produced enough U235, at any rate, though U233 is another matter and can be produced by other means. But again: absent a working breeder reactor, or one that worked well enough long enough to enable the Germans to pursue a P239 or "element 94" route to a bomb, that leaves U235 and/or U233. How and where and how much U235 and/or U233 was produced by the Germans? You have mentioned I G Farben and I have no doubt that that corporation was up to its eyeballs in all of this, but I am asking for specific information about production, if you have it. Obviously the Germans had considerable resources in terms of uranium in some form, otherwise they would never have tried repeatedly to send it to Japan. At least some German uranium did get through to Japan, per the testimony of a WWII Japanese Army officer in, I think, 1985. (His name escapes me at the moment.) I think he said 2000KG of uranium 238 oxide arrived in Japan---a considerable amount, and presumably more of it was sunk in various German and Japanese submarines en route. How much? (However, the proportion of U235 in even 2000KG of U238 oxide would be very small and even when separated and highly enriched might not be enough for a bomb. Assuming from what I have read that the proportion of U235 in naturally occurring U238 is about 0.7%, if it could be separated efficiently you would end up with about 31 pounds of U235---about half of what you need for a single, "natural" critical mass but not necessarily half of what you would need for a crude gun-type bomb. The Little Boy weapon had the equivalent of nearly three (3) natural critical masses of 80-85% U235, or somewhere between 160 and 200 pounds of HEU, because the limits of American engineering meant they needed that much for the bomb to go off. If the Japanese were similarly limited, then 31 pounds of U235 would have been about a sixth or so of what they needed. Well on the way but not there. This sort of calculus and resultant production difficulty is why I wonder if they didn't switch over to Heisenberg's thorium-to-U233 idea late in the war.)


Fourth, the book Hitler und die Bombe contains claims by a WWII German official or scientist that the Germans completed 15 nuclear weapons of some kind. Do you know what kind of weapons these allegedly were? Fission bombs, boosted fission, dirty bombs, or a mixture? Do you have any documentation for this claim other than the German's say-so? Who was this German and how well-placed was he in any of the German a-bomb projects to know anything for sure? How believable / reliable is his testimony?


I think you are doing great spadework here and I am sympathetic to your thesis and would like to see how much documentation there is that demonstrates, if not proves, greater-than-expected Axis progress toward working atomic weapons, or perhaps even their successful development of those weapons. To my mind you have already done a great service.


BTW, regarding your comment that, at the outset of the war, the Allies wanted to set Germany and the USSR against one another, that is certainly true of Churchill. But there is a great deal of evidence that this was NOT true of FDR, who as a committed Keynesian socialist and anti-colonialist was very definitely sympatico with Stalin, whether he or the rest of the American left admitted this publicly or not. Our friend Robert Wilcox has been digging around in this area of US history and has found some highly incriminating information about significant penetration of the US federal government before and during WWII by Soviet moles and sympathizers. FDR would of course go on to give half the world to Stalin at Yalta, totally inexcusable to my mind even if we acknowledge Roosevelt's terrible physical condition and impending death by the time he got to Yalta.

reply to post by williamjpellas


The Oslo Report is extremely well-known and did NOT mention an Axis atomic bomb project.

AngryCymraeg
reply to post by williamjpellas

 

The Oslo Report is extremely well-known and did NOT mention an Axis atomic bomb project.

Apparently it is, and had somehow escaped my notice until now. One of the things for which I am very grateful is discussion boards like this one, because they help to fill in gaps in knowledge from one researcher to another.


Without reading the report in its entirety, I am not yet prepared to say definitively that nothing was said in the report about German atomic R&D (or about technology that had direct application to such). Since the report was written by Hans Ferdinand Mayer, head of communications at Siemens, and since---from what I have quickly read about it---the report covered the most advanced German weapons developments in almost every other area, including ballistic missiles, I think the most responsible thing I can say at the moment is, Thank you, and, I can't speak to this issue without doing more reading. Also, if there is nothing in this report that directly or indirectly applies to German nuclear weapon R&D, then this is one area in which Mr. Gunson is proven to be factually incorrect. That does not in and of itself disprove his thesis, and I would hope that the honest questions I am asking of him in this thread are an indication of my personal desire to arrive at the truth and nothing but the truth in this matter.

Well, well. This is interesting. I found an in-depth article about the Oslo Report that discusses some of the possible shadings of meaning produced by certain German words in certain contexts. This is definitely a more esoteric consideration to my eyes, but see for yourself. From the website, www.v2rocket.com, here is a paragraph from The Oslo Report 1939—Nazi Secret Weapons Forfeited
by Frithjof A.S. Sterrenburg:


" Even in the summer of 1943 (ref. 12), British rocket engineers were focused on solid fuels such as cordite—improved fireworks, in fact. They would think in diameters of typically 3 inches and a solid fuel rocket of more than ten times this diameter would have caused a credibility gap—as it in fact did when more information on this presumed monster firecracker became available to British intelligence later on....

This brings us to the word “Abbrand” used in the Oslo Report and the note I made the hypothetical 1939 translator write. Here is a fine example of the importance of linguistic overtones. At present “Abbrand” is used for a variety of concepts ranging from the fission process in nuclear reactors to co-combustion of biomass in coal-fired power plants, but its original (and still valid) meaning was related to the iron industry. I have tested this word in the Oslo Report context on several scientifically-educated native German speakers and they were puzzled, but all were content with an equivalent of “Abgas” when I suggested it. Perhaps I have made the hypothetical 1939 translator exceedingly clever, but from the context one now cannot but conclude that the Oslo Report author referred to such thrust vectoring. The V-2 did not normally incorporate radio control but such experiments were indeed carried out in its development programme (refs. 13, 14).

Although this is one of the more important revelations, it would have been extraordinarily difficult in 1939 for British experts to fully grasp its importance—they were stuck with the firecracker idea and the Germans were simply already too far ahead for them to follow easily."


Perhaps this linguistic ambiguity led Gunson and/or authors he has read to reach the conclusion that there was something in the Oslo Report about atomic weapons? It would appear from the article here--definitely the most comprehensive and scholarly one I was able to find using a conventional web search--that the Report has a lot to do with V-2s but nothing to do with nukes. I post it here for reference for any interested parties, and because most of the original text is included in it.


www.v2rocket.com...

pteridine

Originally posted by thumper76
reply to post by dereks

 

the Germans were several years ahead on the development of the jet.

Yes, but in the end it didn't matter. The Nazi's were overwhelmed by numbers and their own production limitations. The Me-262 Schwalbe was faster than the P-51's but it needed fuel to fly. Bombing the IG Farben Leuna synthetic fuel works, Ploesti oil fields, and rail lines kept them at bay.
The Tigers were better tanks, but when they were surrounded by 5 or 10 T-34's or Sherman's they would succumb even after destroying several opponents.

German technical and engineering prowess was, in general, very impressive. But it was not all-powerful, nor did it reach---generally speaking---the kind of heights with which it is sometimes credited by a kind of mythology that has arisen out of the history of WWII. Speaking to the examples cited above, yes, it is true that the Me-262 was faster than the P-51. Around 90 to 100 MPH faster if we are talking about each aircraft in its standard combat configuration. However, I have read that some P-51s were modified in the field to make them lighter; some or all of their armor plating was removed and perhaps other measures were taken so that the aircraft didn't have to haul as much weight. Supposedly this increased their maximum speed from the 450 MPH that you see in most textbooks to close to 500 MPH---not far off the Me-262's 540 MPH. Of course, getting rid of your armor plate is very risky, and in any case I have seen only one (1) reference to this sort of improvised field modification being done---and unfortunately I don't recall where I saw it. But follow me through. In addition to this sort of thing, which was going on with the equipment fielded by all the major combatants, there were other factors that definitely increased or decreased the fighting efficiency of this or that machine.


To continue with the Me-262, its jet engines were of a much more advanced design than that which was initially fielded by the British Meteor and American Shooting Star. But as with so much German engineering, the 262's engines required enormous amounts of servicing and were often good for only 25 hours of flight time or less before they had to be comprehensively serviced or even overhauled. Not so the British and US jets. I personally believe that the P-80 would have given the 262 all it wanted and then some, to say nothing of the enormous industrial production capacity that the American were still bringing online even as the war ended. (The Meteor was another matter and its performance was markedly inferior to both the 262 and the P-80.)


Regarding the late-war German tanks, yes, it was Allied numerical superiority, in general, that proved telling. But we are not talking about an apples-to-apples comparison. The Germans were building what we know today as "MBT's"---Main Battle Tanks. The Allies, until late in the war, were building medium tanks designed with infantry support in mind rather than thinking of the tank itself as the best "tank destroyer". The T-34 was something of an exception to this rule but while more of a "battle tank" was still nevertheless also a "medium tank". However the Soviet Josef Stalin and, especially, the American M-26 Pershing would unquestionably have been able to deal with the German machines on a one to one, or nearly one to one, basis. Here again, reality meets myth head on: while the Panther and Tiger tanks were undoubtedly superb machines, the Tiger in particular was (once again) difficult to service and its availability and battlefield persistence were inferior to its Allied and especially American counterparts. Also, the Pershing's 90mm main gun had a muzzle velocity that was actually greater than that of the famous "88", the Tiger's main gun. The Pershing was underpowered and so its speed was average at best, but its armor and firepower definitely put it in the same class as the best German tanks. And again, superior Allied manufacturing would also have produced a tidal wave of numbers that the Germans could never have matched.

reply to post by williamjpellas


One aspect of the axis partnership, is that the three powers shared development, the Italians did the theoretical work, the germans did the R&D engineering and the Japanese did the manufacturing development.
Infact, the engines on a 262 were an Italian design, the germans refined the basic concept, and the Japanese turned the Italian engine into a much better unit than manufactured by the Germans.

reply to post by williamjpellas


The technical ability of Nazi Germany is over blown.
They couldn't manage to invade Britain. Their air force was blown out of the sky. In his frustration Hitler turned East to Russia. That was the beginning of the end for The Nazi's

One technical achievement that is overlooked by historians is the development and construction by Britain of the floating "Mulberry Harbours"
Without those harbours the D Day landings on Normandy beaches could never have taken place. I regard the Mulberry Harbours along with the development of The A Bomb as the greatest achievements of WW II

The German technical achievements were not overblown... or did you forget that part of the surrender terms for Germany was the looting of basically every industrial secret and new technology they came up with during the war. Which the US government spent decades transcribing into digests that they'd sell to anyone who wanted to buy them. And every time a new digest would come out everyone from IBM to Mikoyan Gurevich as well as dozens of governments worldwide would show up to buy the digests! Even years and years after the war was over adding over 50 thousand technical terms to the english language.

Yeah some people overblow it but honestly they really did come up with amazing advances over pretty much every single field.

roguetechie
The German technical achievements were not overblown... or did you forget that part of the surrender terms for Germany was the looting of basically every industrial secret and new technology they came up with during the war. Which the US government spent decades transcribing into digests that they'd sell to anyone who wanted to buy them. And every time a new digest would come out everyone from IBM to Mikoyan Gurevich as well as dozens of governments worldwide would show up to buy the digests! Even years and years after the war was over adding over 50 thousand technical terms to the english language.

Yeah some people overblow it but honestly they really did come up with amazing advances over pretty much every single field.

There were no surrender terms. It was unconditional surrender or nothing.

yes dear and part of this was the entirety of Germany's industrial secrets being copied and given out in digests to anyone who could pay the price for the volume they were interested in.

Which puts the lie to Germany not having been extraordinarily advanced in a whole wealth of fields.

What it does not say one way or the other, is whether or not German's had nukes. This I do not know.

But it does very much prove that the Germans were very advanced by the end of the war.

The Germans did have the atomic bomb first.

Barnabier
The Germans did have the atomic bomb first.

No they didn't. You got that picture from Metapedia, which is hardly a reliable site.

HattoriHanzou
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

Thank you for this document. I am glad you saved me the $$$ that it would have taken to get copies from the NARA.

Have you anything to add about the Japanese nuclear program? This information is a lot less widely circulated than Nazi nuclear program information.

Sorry Hattori,

I have not had internet access for many months and only recently got back online. My friend William J Pellas has done a lot of research on the topic and he might assist you, further.

Japan was the first country in the world to propose a nuclear weapons project. From 1937, In 1934, Tohoku University professor Hikosaka Tadayoshi's paper on atomic physics theory was released. Hikosaka pointed out the huge energy contained within atomic nuclei and the possibility that both nuclear power generation and weapons could be created. As early as 1934, therefore, the Imperial Japanese Navy was intrigued enough to sponsor investigation into the feasibility of producing a "super-weapon" based on Dr Enrico Fermi's theories of atoms.

Osaka Imperial University Professor Asada Tsunesaburo gave lectures at the Naval Technical Research Institute in which he advocated development of nuclear weapons and Admiral Yamamoto attended his lectures. As I understand it the formal project began in 1941 under the code name F-Go. Dr Arakatsu Bunsaku led the naval project at Kyoto university.

The Imperial Japanese Army formed a rival project under Dr Nishina Yoshio at the Rikken near Tokyo. There were two projects associated with Dr Nishina, Ni-Go was the Army bomb project and there was a parallel project to enrich Uranium with very inefficient thermal diffusion columns.

Japan was very short of Uranium and the best sources came from Burma (Myanmar). On 7th July 1943 General Kawashima Toransouke sent a diplomatic signal to the Japanese embassy in Berlin requesting shipment of Uranium oxide by blockade running vessels. The Germans who knew nothing of the Japanese project were suspicious and asked General Kawashima to explain why Japan needed it?
General Kawashima responded in August that it was required as a catalyst for manufacture of jet fuel. The Germans asked for details of how Uranium couid be used as a catalyst and finally in November 1943 the General admitted that Japan had an Atomic bomb project. Finally the Germans agreed to help and began sending Czechoslovakian Uranium oxide. In a 1982 TV interview Kawashima revealed that only 2,000kg reached Japan during the war. U-234's cargo of uranium oxide was not the first. The exchange of signals however made the Americans very anxious.

Both Army and Navy projects struggled with little progress it appears until about October 1944 when suddenly Japan received considerable technological assistance. F-Go and Ni-Go efforts were amalgamated into a new project called F-NZ in Korea. Professor Arakatsu complained after the war about his lack of involvement. The Korean project at Konan (modern Hungnam) was conducted under the Imperial Japanese 8th Army Laboratory headed by Gen Kawashima.

Thousands of Korean peasants were sent into the hills and told to return with geological samples. This led to the sudden development of 10 Monazite mines, feeding a Thorium refinery at the port of Konan. When soviet paratroopers captured the town in August 1945 they found an advanced cyclotron inside a mine on a hill above the town (similar to the Nazi Bell project). The Soviet garison commander Maj General Shytkov wrote in correspondence with Stalin how the complex produced Uranium 233 and before a railway was built linking to Russia, soviet submarines would dock at Hungnam to collect small crates of Uranium 233.

AngryCymraeg

roguetechie
The German technical achievements were not overblown... or did you forget that part of the surrender terms for Germany was the looting of basically every industrial secret and new technology they came up with during the war. Which the US government spent decades transcribing into digests that they'd sell to anyone who wanted to buy them. And every time a new digest would come out everyone from IBM to Mikoyan Gurevich as well as dozens of governments worldwide would show up to buy the digests! Even years and years after the war was over adding over 50 thousand technical terms to the english language.

Yeah some people overblow it but honestly they really did come up with amazing advances over pretty much every single field.

There were no surrender terms. It was unconditional surrender or nothing.

That's a fallacy though it doesn't surprise me you don't understand this.

Maj General Walter Dornberger was interned at a specially prepared British camp for senior Nazi officers prior to the Nuremberg trials known as C.S.D.I.C. camp 11. The camp was carefully wired beforehand with hundreds of hidden microphones to help gather clues.

In order to conceal the intelligence gathering method reports were written to disguise the use of microphones and falsely claim various generals were overheard in conversations by camp personnel. Between 2-7 August 1945 Dornberger made numerous remarks about German development of the atomic bomb which remain censored out of the otherwise declassified document, however in the uncensored portions Dornberger noted Hitler had always intended to use the V-2 for more than just one ton of high explosive.

Then he described how he and Von Braun flew to Lisbon in December 1944 for secret surrender talks with two men from General Electric. From this point on contacts were established in Switzerland which later in February 1945 developed into Operation Sunrise, the secret surrender of northen Italy and a secret armistice on Germany's western front.

The Greatest Betrayal in the History of the World as Soviets saw it was described in Valentin Falin's book "Die Interessenskonflikte der Anti-Hitler Koalition."

Falin wrote that in January 1945 after the Soviets removed a pro-Western pro-capitalist interim Government at Praga, in Warsaw to favour a pro communist government, there occurred an exchange of seven telegrams between Keitel and Montgomery discussing collaboration by the Anglo-Americans against the Soviets.

The exchange of seven telegrams between Keitel and Montgomery was initiated by the former. He suggested that the Western Allies halt at the German western border for 100 days allowing the Wehrmacht to transfer all first-rate troops to the East "in order to inflict a devastating defeat on the Russians between the Vistula and Oder". If this was not successful, the Germans would offer only token resistance to the Western Allies crossing Germany as far as they could before meeting the Russians. The agreed plan was betrayed to the Russians, possibly by Himmler so nothing came of it. the disclosure tipped the hands of the western Allies and forced them to advance before the 100 days had expired.

The end to the war was negotiated with Hitler. The skull fragment from Berlin carefully hoarded by the Soviets in KGB archives as part of Hitler's skull has since been forensically proven to be from a woman's skull. Hitler escaped the noose with western complicity and the Allies exacted a price for his escape, including the abandonment of Germany's Atomic Bomb.

Himmler's SS still controlled a nuclear arsenal and he disagreed with Hitler wanting to use nuclear weapons decisively. That is why Himmler btrayed the secret agreement between Keitel and Montgomery.

sy.gunson
Himmler's SS still controlled a nuclear arsenal and he disagreed with Hitler wanting to use nuclear weapons decisively. That is why Himmler btrayed the secret agreement between Keitel and Montgomery.

I love how the negationists like to claim Germany had nuclear weapons but did not want to use them.... with no evidence to back their silly claims up at all!