Nazi Atomic weapons in 1943

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Please stop cherry-picking quotes and using sources of dubious authenticity. Can I point out that no credible historian believes that the Nazis had any kind of viable nuclear weapon?

The authenticity of any of these listed sources is best determined by each individual. By making the claim that they are not authentic, without having even read them, you hurt your own credibility.

A convenient list of the evidence cited so far in this thread:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your judgement of the usefulness of these records is noted, but I hope you have not mistaken your doubt of their veracity for proof that they do not exist at all, which was your claim a bit earlier.

You're repeating yourself now. It's not useful to the discussion.

You are the one hurting your own credibility by insisting that there is a viable historical truth that has somehow been concealed here. I will state this again - not one credible historian has backed this theory. Not one. There's a reason for this - there isn't any evidence apart from baseless speculation.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Please stop cherry-picking quotes and using sources of dubious authenticity. Can I point out that no credible historian believes that the Nazis had any kind of viable nuclear weapon?

The authenticity of any of these listed sources is best determined by each individual. By making the claim that they are not authentic, without having even read them, you hurt your own credibility.

A convenient list of the evidence cited so far in this thread:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your judgement of the usefulness of these records is noted, but I hope you have not mistaken your doubt of their veracity for proof that they do not exist at all, which was your claim a bit earlier.

You're repeating yourself now. It's not useful to the discussion.

You are the one hurting your own credibility by insisting that there is a viable historical truth that has somehow been concealed here. I will state this again - not one credible historian has backed this theory. Not one. There's a reason for this - there isn't any evidence apart from baseless speculation.

It's not helpful for you to assert that I said things which I never said. My assertion is that evidence has been presented in this thread. Your opinion on this evidence is your own, but you're the guy who has been stating over and over that no evidence has been presented, and when confronted with the untruth of your statement you shifted gears and said the evidence is not credible.

The credibility of the evidence is up for each interested party to determine for themselves. The sources range from History Channel documentaries and Harpers magazine - mainstream media sources - to Science magazine (hardly credible eh?) to official records in the National Records archives of the United States. By attempting to lump them all together as non-credible you are hurting your own credibility, as I have said.

Additionally, by claiming that a record becomes invalid because it is cited by Joseph Farrell who advances more esoteric theories you are committing a logical fallacy. If this is your opinion, you must also admit that calculus is fake because Newton was an alchemist and a historical revisionist. Please try to keep a logical consistency in your posts.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I don't find you to be credible any more. You don't know all the experiments at "CERN" because it is a huge organization with thousands of experiments and programs going on at any time.

a) there are no "thousands" of experiments at CERN. You have not a clue, not in the slightest, of what you are talking about, which does sound silly. Plenty silly.

b) It's indeed a big organization and I know plenty of people there, that covers a lot of ground. It's not so big that it's unfathomable.

c) somehow, you don't have a problem asserting that CERN is a weapons lab, all the while demonstrating ignorance of that organization

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


I think that perhaps you need to state what historical standards you regard as "evidence".

Winston Churchill was, at one point of the war, thinking of using Anthrax and possibly other poisons, the use of which would have been catastrophic to a large part of Europe.

For him to consider this course, must have come as an answer to some equally devastating threat from Hitlers Germany.

Of course that threat may just have been bluster, the threats of a slightly deranged megalomaniac and have had no basis in fact. Or maybe there was?

Maybe, like the CIA/FBI (Not sure which one, sure someone will tell me.) in the cold war time, exaggerated the USSRs abilities in an effort to gain funding from the US government?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Refuting your ridiculous statements in order:

contra-a: The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which employs just under 2,400 full-time employees, 1,500 part-time employees, and hosts some 10,000 visiting scientists and engineers, representing 608 universities and research facilities and 113 nationalities.

contra-b: Covered above.

contra-c: Dual use technologies, as I have said, always masquerade as civilian in nature.

You have stated that you know "all the experiments at CERN" which is really hard to believe. You can keep track of what almost 15 thousand scientists are up to?

I think you have also confused CERN as an umbrella organization, with CERN's LHC project, which is still enormous in scope, and it's hard to believe you have a handle on all the current projects just at the LHC (which was recently deactivated) let alone across all of CERN.

Please, tell me another one. This is really starting to become amusing.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

I think that perhaps you need to state what historical standards you regard as "evidence".

I think you're conflating the terms evidence and proof, as I eluded to above.

It's up to each person interested in this thread to determine what evidence is credible, ideally after actually looking at it.

Originally posted by dowot
Winston Churchill was, at one point of the war, thinking of using Anthrax and possibly other poisons, the use of which would have been catastrophic to a large part of Europe.

For him to consider this course, must have come as an answer to some equally devastating threat from Hitlers Germany.

Of course that threat may just have been bluster, the threats of a slightly deranged megalomaniac and have had no basis in fact. Or maybe there was?

Maybe, like the CIA/FBI (Not sure which one, sure someone will tell me.) in the cold war time, exaggerated the USSRs abilities in an effort to gain funding from the US government?

This is one thing that sy.gunderson eluded to above.

sy.gunderson has provided a large amount of evidence in this thread. The idea that both the Nazis and the Japanese were pursuing nuclear weapons is not controversial at this point, but his evidence has been in support of successful German tests, and there is recent evidence that the Japanese working at Riken also tested a weapon.

The main thrust of the people attempting to derail the discussion is that the Germans didn't follow the same technological pathway that the USA did, but the Nazis pursued their own unique technological developments in many fields, and nuclear weapons surely could be included in that statement.

By the way, if you'd like to review any of the evidence presented thus far in this thread I have collected it into one post above: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
A convenient list of the evidence cited so far in this thread

Which shows you never even bothered to look at that "evidence", nor did the person posting it, as some of it is a link to a webpage that does not even exist.... but apparently according to you that must mean that is is still evidence!

edit on 26-2-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)

The one dead link to Berkeley did not format correctly, but you can easily cut and paste it into archive.org and pull the original PDF.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
The one dead link to Berkeley did not format correctly, but you can easily cut and paste it into archive.org and pull the original PDF.

www.3dshort.com/nazibomb2/CRITICALMASS.txt does not exist.... eferenced in the first link.....

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Refuting your ridiculous statements in order:

contra-a: The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which employs just under 2,400 full-time employees, 1,500 part-time employees, and hosts some 10,000 visiting scientists and engineers, representing 608 universities and research facilities and 113 nationalities.

You have a tendency to shoot yourself in the foot. If CERN is so open to the external world, how can it possibly be a weapons development facility? Don't you know that it's impossible to keep secrets in an environment like this unless you lock people up?

You have stated that you know "all the experiments at CERN" which is really hard to believe. You can keep track of what almost 15 thousand scientists are up to?

I actually can. There was like 3.5k people on the original ATLAS author list, they trimmed it a little but that gives you the scale. I can imagine that there are 1-3k people on the CMS author list. That is already a large fraction of the people at CERN. There are many others who help in various support roles and of course, personnel to operate power equipment, cryogenic facilities and all the way down to sweeping floors. There is no secret department at CERN.

I think you have also confused CERN as an umbrella organization, with CERN's LHC project, which is still enormous in scope, and it's hard to believe you have a handle on all the current projects just at the LHC (which was recently deactivated) let alone across all of CERN.

It was not "deactivated", it was the end of the run, and it will resume in due time. I do have a handle on what major experiments do, for many reasons, one of which I work for one of them. It's about time you stop being ridiculous claiming knowledge of things you really have no idea about. It's like you are debating linguistic nuances of medieval Chinese poetry without knowing a single word of Chinese.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
The one dead link to Berkeley did not format correctly, but you can easily cut and paste it into archive.org and pull the original PDF.

www.3dshort.com/nazibomb2/CRITICALMASS.txt does not exist.... eferenced in the first link.....

It exists in the internet archive. Please go to archive.org and paste the link in there.

Are you implying that the entire body of evidence presented so far is invalidated by one dead web link, a link that has been saved at archive.org and can be referenced easily to boot?

I sure hope not.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Refuting your ridiculous statements in order:

contra-a: The term CERN is also used to refer to the laboratory, which employs just under 2,400 full-time employees, 1,500 part-time employees, and hosts some 10,000 visiting scientists and engineers, representing 608 universities and research facilities and 113 nationalities.

contra-b: Covered above.

contra-c: Dual use technologies, as I have said, always masquerade as civilian in nature.

You have stated that you know "all the experiments at CERN" which is really hard to believe. You can keep track of what almost 15 thousand scientists are up to?

I think you have also confused CERN as an umbrella organization, with CERN's LHC project, which is still enormous in scope, and it's hard to believe you have a handle on all the current projects just at the LHC (which was recently deactivated) let alone across all of CERN.

Please, tell me another one. This is really starting to become amusing.

Originally posted by dowot
Maybe, like the CIA/FBI (Not sure which one, sure someone will tell me.) in the cold war time, exaggerated the USSRs abilities in an effort to gain funding from the US government?

It is almost certain that this was done on several occasions. The missile gap debacle comes to mind.

It is also easy to see why court historians have detoured around Axis nuclear weapons programs. Perhaps they didn't want to publish information that would allow adversaries to develop nuclear weapons more easily than was done in the Manhattan project?

Anyway it is interesting to note that, as mentioned above, the North Koreans recently successfully detonated a nuclear weapon that had a mere .4 KG (1 pound) of fissile material. This is a pretty substantial technological achievement and our estimates of how many bombs they are capable of producing needs to be revised dramatically upward, because those estimates were based upon faulty data.

Perhaps the North Koreans have been following this thread!

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


Thanks HH, Expect I made some comments earlier in the life of this thread. Always find Sy's ideas are intriguing and thought provoking.

And yes I was aware of the different approach Germany was taking,

Yes, I read about the (possible) Japanese tests at the end of WW2. Things take a long time to seep out, which is why I said we would probably never know all the facts. The victor tells the tale that suits it's aims.

Originally posted by dowot
reply to post by HattoriHanzou

 

Thanks HH, Expect I made some comments earlier in the life of this thread. Always find Sy's ideas are intriguing and thought provoking.

And yes I was aware of the different approach Germany was taking,

Yes, I read about the (possible) Japanese tests at the end of WW2. Things take a long time to seep out, which is why I said we would probably never know all the facts. The victor tells the tale that suits it's aims.

The more one looks into WWII, the less one knows. One question I have been struggling with: Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland, yet the allies only declared war on Germany. Why?

If you are interested in seeing a lot of good evidence regarding the technological progress Germany made, along alternate lines, in addition to many documents that are difficult or impossible to access elsewhere, please visit the excellent web site cdvandt.org which is the site for a Dutch museum focusing on German radio developments. While their focus is on radio technology, there is a lot there about all aspects of the interesting German technological developments in WWII.

Originally posted by dowot
Winston Churchill was, at one point of the war, thinking of using Anthrax and possibly other poisons, the use of which would have been catastrophic to a large part of Europe.

For him to consider this course, must have come as an answer to some equally devastating threat from Hitlers Germany.

The Wehrmacht's success through 1942 was substantial enough.

Of course that threat may just have been bluster, the threats of a slightly deranged megalomaniac and have had no basis in fact. Or maybe there was?

It's doubtful Churchill even knew of the concept of a nuclear weapon until 1945.

Originally posted by mbkennel
It's doubtful Churchill even knew of the concept of a nuclear weapon until 1945.

While you may be correct there, the fact that the Nazis had been cooking up and deploying lots of very highly advanced weapons which, while perhaps not staggeringly successful in terms of damage dealt, were very damaging to morale may have influenced Churchill and FDR.

The breaking of Enigma may have allowed the Allies to obtain intelligence that worried them tremendously. If this is true, it may not have been reported in the court histories of WWII which many people rely upon in their own researches and scholarship.

I'm not entirely convinced that Churchill was ignorant of atomic weapons, even if history does not record this. Too much has been left out or tampered with at this juncture to be totally certain.

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
The more one looks into WWII, the less one knows. One question I have been struggling with: Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland, yet the allies only declared war on Germany. Why?

There are actually very few people who don't understand this, since the answer is so simple. I hope your desperate struggle to understand this fact of history will be over after you read the next line:

The Allies at this point were hoping to play USSR and Germany against each other. That's pretty much what happened later, in 1941.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
The more one looks into WWII, the less one knows. One question I have been struggling with: Germany and the USSR both invaded Poland, yet the allies only declared war on Germany. Why?

There are actually very few people who don't understand this, since the answer is so simple. I hope your desperate struggle to understand this fact of history will be over after you read the next line:

The Allies at this point were hoping to play USSR and Germany against each other. That's pretty much what happened later, in 1941.

There's a lot more to it than that, though.

It's just one more inconsistency that the court historians and their lackeys have explained away with unconvincing handwaving. If you look behind their fairy stories, you'll discover that these types of facts can reveal more about the war and its principle players than you can with a casual dismissal.

This is one of the keys to truly understanding any historical event - you have to actually look beyond the mere surface of the issue.