First Nuclear attack on USA 17-18 September 1944

Originally posted by Koffee

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee
If the Nazis had the atomic bomb, they would of used them to destroy the rampaging Soviet armies that was pushing them out of Eastern Europe, or you know drop it on Stalin or hell London then some vain attempt to hit the US in half cocked manner that this conspiracy theory suggests.

Amazingly they did use nuclear weapons against Soviet forces...

Sorry, but your evidence in my post is some uncited Tokyo guy, reporting on rumors (feel free to give me the source). Nor does any else links seem to have something other then some guy's claim on Coast to Coast. Or in other words if you want to convince me of your position, please throw some sources my way.

Nope not some uncited Tokyo guy...

Actually I don't listen to radio talk back or otherwise and I have already mentioned that this was a MAGIC decrypt, in other words an intercepted, enciphered message between the Japanese embassy in Stockholm and the government in Tokyo dated 12 December 1944.

Then you have the problem to account for the fact that Nazi Germany lost the war while supposedly having these superweapons. The question then remains, why didn't they use it on Moscow or Saint Petersburg or actually you know have it change the course of history instead of being wasted away?

Actually I don't have a problem with that at all

USA took all of 1942 to 1945 to produce two nuclear weapons.

Germany apparently had a nuclear weapon they wanted to deliver to Wall Street in September 1944, but now the plane carrying it lies on the seabed south of Owl's Head, Maine...

...No problem at all

This plane crash explains perfectly why they did not win WW2 even though they had a nuclear weapon, but I can see you don't get it.

Originally posted by RizeorDie
The germans were ahead of their time in many fields, I would not be surprised if they managed to drop bombs on the US in late 1944.

But I highly doubt that the Germans had nukes, not that they couldnt build them, but they simply chose not to as it went against hitlers policy of lebensraum in the east (you cant reuse wasted land)

In fact radiation levels drop dramatically after a nuclear blast. When the Americans reached Hiroshima after VJ day they were hard pressed to detect radiation. A survey in 1983 could not detect Uranium above the levels found naturally in granite rock.

Nuclear weapons do not create wastelands for generations to come. Hiroshima today is a thriving metropolis.

The Germans did use poison gas on the Eastern front, had they had nukes they would also have used them as last resort.

Maybe you nee to do a web search for Tabun-B or Dhyrenfurth. Germany was stockpiling tons of artillery shells and aircraft bombs filled with nerve gas.

They did begin a nuclear program but it was too little too late.

The atomic weapons project was created by Heereswaffenamt under Kurt Diebner in September 1939, three years before the Manhattan project.

The German civil nuclear program under Heisenberg was not begun until July 1942. Heisenberg's project was not aimed at creating nuclear weapons at all.



Prof Paul Harteck developed Uranium ultracentrifuges which were in the order of 50 times more efficient than the K-25 porous barrier plant at Oak Ridge

It appears you never heard of the Zinsser affidavit from a german pilot questioned by the US IX Air force intelligence section?

If the germans had nukes by September 1944, they would have FIRST, nuked the allied troops in Normandy, In Italy, on the Eastern Front, most importantly they would have nuked the living hell out of London until the allies sued for peace.

My father was at Normandy.

Point # 1

In all his time there he saw two Ju-88s screaming across the water so low their props were lifting spray off the sea. They had no air superiority there.

Point # 2

You presume they had dozens of nukes when probably they had one or two. Knocking out a batallion or two on the beaches would have been a token effort.

Point # 3

Hitler famously would not get out of bed on 6 June 1944 to give orders for a counter attack. One armoured counter attack near Caen actually made it all the way to the British beaches and then was recalled to Caen. Hitler would not commit his reserves and especially the SS 2nd Panzers because for a month at least he still believed the real attack was coming at Pas de Calais

Point # 4

With what would they have bombed the hell out of London please?
No German bomber was capable of surviving in UK air space by July 1944, so great was Allied air superiority over Britain. There were some nuisance night raids over the UK in early 1944 by He-177s however the only way they could evade night fighters was to climb to maximum altitude over Europe and make fast diving nuisance raids. Against this backdrop Hitler had no reason to expect stiff air defences over USA. U-boat experiences off the US east coast in 1942 (where my father was torpedoed) suggested that the Americans were quite complacent.

It would have been much more accurate and sufficient to just nuke the nearby UK than go the whole way and try and get US with valuable nuke bomb and so little time.

Nazi Germany lacked aircraft capable of bombing the UK. The V-2 was not configured in 1944 for nuclear warheads though a project did exist to adapt them at Breslau according to an OSS report in November 1944. You presume they had dozens of nukes when USA only had two excluding the trinity test bomb.
it just doesn't add up

Originally posted by 3n19m470

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by sy.gunson

 

Ju 290 is 4 engine aircraft with BMW engines. To tell you the truth, after your post i searched few sites and Germans did have several types of experimental 6 engine aircrafts that in theory could have reached US.
From what i found:
Ju 390 had 6 engines (but also BMW)
And there was a flying boat with 6 engines and pretty long range, i forgot its name. Its engines were Junkers ones.
However the main point is - US military would not leave new model bomber wreck lying around right next to US shore, while knowing its exact location.
As for nuke aboard - this is even more improbable. Even disragarding total lack of evidence of German nuke, in 1944 Germans took serious beating in the East. Nuking Soviet forces made so much more sense.

Ah... The man who knows what "makes sense" to Adolf Hitler and Co... The arrogance of some of you never ceases to astound me. What if... Now bear with me... Just what if Hitler had an intelligence report with evidence that the US was the nation closest to perfecting the atomic bomb, ie, The Manhattan Project (I know this is quite a gamble on my part, but maybe you've heard of it...). Then wouldn't the number one priority be to destroy the place where the atomic bomb was being perfected?

Actually Hitler had transcripts of telephone conversations between General Groves and FDR which ALSOS found at the offices of Celastiq in Paris. He had spies at Los Alamos as early as 1943, but Los Alamos was just the field laboratory. Hitler did not know the location of Oak Ridge or Hanniford where Plutonium was produced. All production plants were referred to by codewords, like K-25 plant for example.

Moreover Hanniford and Oak Ridge were another two thousand and one thousand miles further to fly respectively even if they had known the locations. Los Alamos was certainly way beyond the return range of even the Ju-390

So no your idea does not make sense...

That's just one example. I could think of several other. But if you can't then I truly feel sorry for you, and I surely will not waste my time going through each possibility here.

Well keep thinking... I am sure it can't hurt.

Please keep coming, it would be lonely without you.

@ you knowing what makes sense to the Nazis...

Sometimes at moments like this I am ready to accept that we are truly doomed as a society... Then I remember that the continuation of our civilization often depends on the truth being hidden from those as dense as yourself, and then I'm quite thankful that it so often is.

edit on 8-4-2012 by 3n19m470 because: I have a dry sense of humor. In case you can't tell, I'm just giving you a hard time when I jab at you. I most definitely welcome the same in return. Can you play the game without losing your cool?

Well I see from the above comment that you are running out of ideas and just here to trade insults.

There is also significant evidence that the Japanese test detonated an atomic bomb at a remote site in what is now North Korea around mid August, 1945, AFTER the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It seems as though the scientists who had been working on the project for several years throughout the war wanted to show that it worked.

To this day, the site that they used is closed for public access for miles around, according to reports.

As far as the German bomb goes, the Allies took out the heavy water production facility in Norway, supposedly to stop research and development on a Nazi bomb. What if the Nazi's had actually successfully developed a bomb before then ?

The Germans certainly had the most advanced scientists of the age. Most of the leaders of the US atomic bomb project were actually German scientists who had left Nazi Germany's persecution, such as Einstein. If Hitler hadn't of alienated most of his Jewish scientists, he probably would have had a working atom bomb by the late 30's or early 40's.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee
If the Nazis had the atomic bomb, they would of used them to destroy the rampaging Soviet armies that was pushing them out of Eastern Europe, or you know drop it on Stalin or hell London then some vain attempt to hit the US in half cocked manner that this conspiracy theory suggests.

Amazingly they did use nuclear weapons against Soviet forces...

Sorry, but your evidence in my post is some uncited Tokyo guy, reporting on rumors (feel free to give me the source). Nor does any else links seem to have something other then some guy's claim on Coast to Coast. Or in other words if you want to convince me of your position, please throw some sources my way.

Nope not some uncited Tokyo guy...

Actually I don't listen to radio talk back or otherwise and I have already mentioned that this was a MAGIC decrypt, in other words an intercepted, enciphered message between the Japanese embassy in Stockholm and the government in Tokyo dated 12 December 1944.

Then you have the problem to account for the fact that Nazi Germany lost the war while supposedly having these superweapons. The question then remains, why didn't they use it on Moscow or Saint Petersburg or actually you know have it change the course of history instead of being wasted away?

Actually I don't have a problem with that at all

USA took all of 1942 to 1945 to produce two nuclear weapons.

Germany apparently had a nuclear weapon they wanted to deliver to Wall Street in September 1944, but now the plane carrying it lies on the seabed south of Owl's Head, Maine...

...No problem at all

This plane crash explains perfectly why they did not win WW2 even though they had a nuclear weapon, but I can see you don't get it.

Again you fail to address the problem that the Germans main efforts and threat was the Soviet Union. If the had a nuclear bomb they would of used it effectively on a Soviet army or on Moscow or something and then made a big deal about how they had a wonder weapon.

And again just because some dude in an embassy says something, doesn't actually mean it occurred when there is a large amount of evidence including known historical records says that it didn't.

In the post below the one you quoted you make a fair number of assumptions about air defense over the US and posit the theory that because the Nazis couldn't hit London with bombers, they were going to use their wonder-weapon not on the Eastern Front where they could at least have some chance of dropping a nuclear bomb on the incoming Soviet armies and making a big propaganda value, but were going to do some hail Mary attack on United States of which they couldn't follow up on anything.

Your evidence thus far presented I seem to be seeing in this thread in embassy reporting rumors from war, a single German pilot, and what your dad said about the war vs/ the fact its a pretty nonsensical scenario (sorry it doesn't make much sense to me so many better targets to hit than US on a single hail Mary)y ou're presenting and abutment historical record that suggests otherwise. But if you have more sources feel free to throw it out to me, a historical revisions of this magnitude if I did it academically would be more then a ph.d paper :p

Originally posted by babybunnies
There is also significant evidence that the Japanese test detonated an atomic bomb at a remote site in what is now North Korea around mid August, 1945, AFTER the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It seems as though the scientists who had been working on the project for several years throughout the war wanted to show that it worked.

To this day, the site that they used is closed for public access for miles around, according to reports.

The Japanese nuclear weapons test site from 1945 is not closed off due to excessive radiation. It is part of north Korea now. During WW2 Korea was a Japanese "protectorate" though in reality just a colonial conquest. In those days it was called Choesul. The Japanese atomic bomb laboratory was operated by the 8th Imperial Army at Konan now called Hungnam. The bomb according to an article in the Atlanta Constitution



The blast took place at an island in Yonghung Man Gulf near Wonson.

As far as the German bomb goes, the Allies took out the heavy water production facility in Norway, supposedly to stop research and development on a Nazi bomb. What if the Nazi's had actually successfully developed a bomb before then ?

The Germans certainly had the most advanced scientists of the age. Most of the leaders of the US atomic bomb project were actually German scientists who had left Nazi Germany's persecution, such as Einstein. If Hitler hadn't of alienated most of his Jewish scientists, he probably would have had a working atom bomb by the late 30's or early 40's.

A lack of heavy water is only relevant if the Nazi bomb was dependent on a nuclear reactor to harvest Plutonium (which they called "Eka-Osmium") The Nazi atomic weapon designed by Schumann and Trinks used U233 harvested from Protactinium.

Well actually the Norsk Hydro plant at Vermork was only ever put out of action for a few weeks by the "Heroes of Telemark" British trained Norwegian commandoes.

Later the ferry Hydro was sunk on Lake Tinso, but Dr Kurt Deibner was tipped off in advance and had a dummy shipment sent on the ferry whilst the real shipment went back to Germany by road.

During WW2 Nazi Germany had 7 sources of Heavy Water and it's shortage is just a myth:

# 1) Leuna plant south of Mersberg near Berlin (Harteck/Suess process - codename Stalin Organ)

# 2) Kiel Plant 4 km outside Kiel, wooded area (Dr K Geib’s hydrogen sulphide exchange process)

# 3) Hamburg Plant (possibly near Zeven, Harteck low pressure distilation process)

# 4) Munich Plant (Clusius-Linde, Nernst Distribution Process)

# 5) Vemork (Haber-Bosch process) Norway

# 6) Saheim (Haber-Bosch process) Norway

# 7) Montecantini plant at Merano, Italy (near Bolzano)

Nazi Heavy Water in WW2

Originally posted by Koffee

Again you fail to address the problem that the Germans main efforts and threat was the Soviet Union. If the had a nuclear bomb they would of used it effectively on a Soviet army or on Moscow or something and then made a big deal about how they had a wonder weapon.

Nope, I addressed it. You just failed to read it or more likely failed to even understand. I can lead you to water but i can't make you drink.

As I said previously from 1942 to 1945 the Allies managed to produce two deliverable atomic bombs.

If Germany by 1944 had only one or two deliverable bombs and UK airspace was impenetrable, then the strike most likely to alter the war and perhaps affect public support for the war at home in USA would have been a strike on New York.

It is a well noted historical fact that Hitler believed this.

It is well known this was Hitler's obsession. I am not going to repeat myself to someone who wont listen because it is just a giant waste of time.

reply to post by pikestaff


im sorry but they did and was brought back via operation paper clip with the scientists that worked on it, just google

Wee mad

Sy, another great post.

I wonder just what was going on in Hitlers mind in the later days of the war.

He must have had advisers telling him how dire things were, the Eastern front faltering, no air supremacy over the UK or even Germany, Italy, North Africa all problematic, thoughts of invasion, problems with supply and food. Reports of US experiments in a mega bomb.

Wow that must have been a painful place to be, maybe enough of a turmoil to take irrational action and one where I could see him wanting to return to a better period, when the world was in his grasp.

Is that a reason to consider a strike against the US, especially as it was an early dream.

Of course the advisers would have tried to direct him, in paths that they wanted?

I stress I am not trying to put Hitler in a better light, but he was a human and as such had some of the same thoughts, weaknesses and dreams we all have.

Of course the answer to the OP's idea, is a dive and investigation of the plane, something not that difficult, or is it? If it is, then maybe there is more truth and as I have thought in a previous post, a reason NOT to want to know of another way to provide atomic power, (I believe that the German method was very efficient and simple).

I write this as it becomes obvious that the UK was involved in US rendition flights, thus making UK government statements to the contrary, as possible porkies?



.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee

Again you fail to address the problem that the Germans main efforts and threat was the Soviet Union. If the had a nuclear bomb they would of used it effectively on a Soviet army or on Moscow or something and then made a big deal about how they had a wonder weapon.

Nope, I addressed it. You just failed to read it or more likely failed to even understand. I can lead you to water but i can't make you drink.

As I said previously from 1942 to 1945 the Allies managed to produce two deliverable atomic bombs.

If Germany by 1944 had only one or two deliverable bombs and UK airspace was impenetrable, then the strike most likely to alter the war and perhaps affect public support for the war at home in USA would have been a strike on New York.

It is a well noted historical fact that Hitler believed this.

It is well known this was Hitler's obsession. I am not going to repeat myself to someone who wont listen because it is just a giant waste of time.

edit on 9-4-2012 by sy.gunson because: adjusting quote enclosures

I'll be nice in response, the story you suggest is problematic to the extreme with source material that is pretty weak as far I can read it perhaps you're right I'm a big idiot, but its not coming across as convincing nor does it make logical sense to me the story you posit . However, its clear that you think I am not worthy of talking to any more so I'll bow out of the thread and let you continue to make your argument.

Originally posted by dowot
Sy, another great post.

I wonder just what was going on in Hitlers mind in the later days of the war.

He must have had advisers telling him how dire things were, the Eastern front faltering, no air supremacy over the UK or even Germany, Italy, North Africa all problematic, thoughts of invasion, problems with supply and food. Reports of US experiments in a mega bomb.

Wow that must have been a painful place to be, maybe enough of a turmoil to take irrational action and one where I could see him wanting to return to a better period, when the world was in his grasp.

Is that a reason to consider a strike against the US, especially as it was an early dream.

Of course the advisers would have tried to direct him, in paths that they wanted?

I stress I am not trying to put Hitler in a better light, but he was a human and as such had some of the same thoughts, weaknesses and dreams we all have.

Of course the answer to the OP's idea, is a dive and investigation of the plane, something not that difficult, or is it? If it is, then maybe there is more truth and as I have thought in a previous post, a reason NOT to want to know of another way to provide atomic power, (I believe that the German method was very efficient and simple).

I write this as it becomes obvious that the UK was involved in US rendition flights, thus making UK government statements to the contrary, as possible porkies?

t the start of July 1944 USA threatened Hitler with a nuclear strike on Dresden unless he sued for peace within 6 weeks. Churchill threatened Germany with an Anthrax attack and on 20 July 1944 he survived a bomb blast intended to assassinate him. In the wake of the Bomb plot there was an attempt to overthrow him, put down by the SS.

Hitler I suspect was fairly paranoid, depressed and far from objective.

At the Uboat.net site there is a post referring to a dive on the wreck of this aircraft which I had not pondered when i first posted here. The diver refers to recovering artifacts from the wreck of the aircraft including a RMZ constructor's plate marked Junkers. Whatever hit the sea may not have been recovered and still seems to lie there. A huge Hurricane swept Maine on 17 September 1944 so recovery was unlikely during the days immediately after it crashed.

As for Mr Koffee, I do not need to explain or justify the wreck. It is just there and perhaps he needs to do some backpeddling and explain what a six engined Junkers was doing crashing on the US east coast in 1944.

It is not my problem to justify it to him.

Originally posted by Koffee

...Your evidence thus far presented I seem to be seeing in this thread in embassy reporting rumors from war, a single German pilot, and what your dad said about the war vs/ the fact its a pretty nonsensical scenario (sorry it doesn't make much sense to me so many better targets to hit than US on a single hail Mary)y ou're presenting and abutment historical record that suggests otherwise. But if you have more sources feel free to throw it out to me, a historical revisions of this magnitude if I did it academically would be more then a ph.d paper :p

Trouble with critics is that lacking the courage of their convictions, they never post under their real names, they fling lots of mud and abuse at others, but when the facts are proved right they run away and you never hear from them again. I have some friends in the States interested in diving the site of the plane wreck. I also have a newspaper running down the story... Somehow I doubt we will ever hear an apology from you when you are proved wrong.

My father was at Normandy and witnessed with his own eyes... He at least had the balls to be there. Not like an armchair expert.

Your knowledge is just what you read from books.

The dude in the embassy was not just any dude, he was a Defence attache quoting from another identifiable person. If you don't know who Ishiwara Kenji was then it is mute testimony to how feeble your understanding of history really is and you are wasting all our time.

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee

...Your evidence thus far presented I seem to be seeing in this thread in embassy reporting rumors from war, a single German pilot, and what your dad said about the war vs/ the fact its a pretty nonsensical scenario (sorry it doesn't make much sense to me so many better targets to hit than US on a single hail Mary)y ou're presenting and abutment historical record that suggests otherwise. But if you have more sources feel free to throw it out to me, a historical revisions of this magnitude if I did it academically would be more then a ph.d paper :p

Trouble with critics is that lacking the courage of their convictions, they never post under their real names, they fling lots of mud and abuse at others, but when the facts are proved right they run away and you never hear from them again. I have some friends in the States interested in diving the site of the plane wreck. I also have a newspaper running down the story... Somehow I doubt we will ever hear an apology from you when you are proved wrong.

My father was at Normandy and witnessed with his own eyes... He at least had the balls to be there. Not like an armchair expert.

Your knowledge is just what you read from books.

The dude in the embassy was not just any dude, he was a Defence attache quoting from another identifiable person. If you don't know who Ishiwara Kenji was then it is mute testimony to how feeble your understanding of history really is and you are wasting all our time.

That's alot of insults for a guy who was trying to respectfully say you should provide more evidence. I was trying to leave the thread gracefully so you wouldn't have to feel antagonize and go to provide more evidence if you could. But I am willing to defend myself against these ad hominem.

What mud did I fling at you? Suggestions that maybe a singular eye witness testimony of somebody completely unrelated to an atomic bomb dropping is pretty weak to support one of the biggest historical revisions in the record? Or that embassy official of a foreign agency could be wrong no matter how highly place he is, seeing that there is little evidence. The strongest evidence you have is the Zinger affidavit and that by itself isn't game changing Or taking up the idea that Germans made an A-Bomb thinking that Nazis had far more high priority targets then some hail Mary attack on the US, and that this hurts the credibility of your story as well?

What type of Junkers is this plane, what type of nuclear device was it, what was the target? Was there going to be follow up attacks. Why did they use it on the Eastern Front? Who was the commander of the operation, did Hitler know? Where was the device made, and why didn't they if they could only make one or two bombs like you keep on comparing the US too use another bomb? Where are the German scientists that made the bomb located and what laboratory?

Those are the questions that need to be answer before we take the idea seriously or conversely you find a nuclear bomb there. You haven't as far I can tell even posted the link to the newspaper article saying that there is a German bomber on the seas there. Second when you quoted the intercept you provided no source from where I could double check and read more the section nor does it provide the names of those involved (actually I was wrong here, it did say the colonel's name mea culpa on that).

I will say this, looking back at the thread, you respond to any and all criticism with attack on the person. Seriously what's with the comparison between your dad and Normandy, of course I wasn't at Normandy I wasn't even born yet, however I did sign up for selective service on my 18th birthday so if the government wanted me to pick up a riffle I was there. However, that is not germain to the topic.

But hey, you find a nuclear bomb and bomber, and I'll buy you a 100 dollar steak dinner and be glad about it. It would mean that history far more changing then I am discovering it to be. And please if you could post links to your sources for the intercept and the newspaper

Edit looking at the cable transcript on google, one finds its the only source out there that suggest that happen at Kursk, in face of a large amount of history documents that doesn't show that happened.

Another edit, with regards to Ishiwara Kenji doesn't appear in Google searches, Ishiwara Kanji an Imperial Japanese General does, and he was a general at the time, not a lt colonel. So by all means tell me who Kenji was.

.

Doing a little web digging, I came upon the following.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Under the heading, "Nazi nuclear waste from Hitler's secret A-bomb programme found in mine" dated July 2011.it goes on to describe that 126,000 barrels of nuclear waste have been uncovered in a disused salt mine.

No idea if 126,000 barrels equates to 1,2,3 or more possible bombs, seems to me like a lot of waste.

I also can not understand the comments made about drilling?

Against this is an earlier report on the UK Pravda site. (Russian State News), which cast some doubt on the timing of supposed tests, carried out in 1944 and witnessed by a local, which only came to light in the 1960's.

english.pravda.ru...

If it was thought that Germany had a bomb, it would explain any rush to invade and push on in an attempt to stop Russia gaining any advantage.

I also read somewhere, that a Horton flying wing bomber, with 6 engines, was planned/made that would have had the endurance to fly to the US and return.

Interesting to speculate.

babylonstew once told me the Germans used 'fuelair' bombs against the Russians, but for some reason, stopped, perhaps worried an unexploded bomb might fall into Russian hands?

Originally posted by dowot
Against this is an earlier report on the UK Pravda site. (Russian State News), which cast some doubt on the timing of supposed tests, carried out in 1944 and witnessed by a local, which only came to light in the 1960's.

english.pravda.ru...

If it was thought that Germany had a bomb, it would explain any rush to invade and push on in an attempt to stop Russia gaining any advantage.

Argentina's Naranjero built and inspired by the Horten design immediately post war.

Personally I have many doubts about the engine reliability of German jet engines circa 1945 and suspect the claims for a Horten flying wing are grossly optimistic given the reality of engine reliability.

I just wish to address the Pravda article by Anton Evseev...

Evseev makes fundamentally wrong assumptions, or cites incorrect data and then draws an erroneous conclusion from them that a Nazi atomic bomb was not possible.

Point # 1:

Evseev states:

...As a result, Germany has commenced the so-called "Uranium Project", whose goal was to create the first nuclear reactor. That is, the theoretical basis for research was very strong. However, the practical implementation has apparently never happened.

Why not? First, because construction of a reactor requires uranium in pure form and large quantities. Germany barely has any deposits. At Czechoslovakia's Jáchymov field controlled by the Nazis since 1938, the uranium compounds are quite difficult to separate from other metals contained in the ore (according to Soviet experts who studied Jáchymov ore after the war, from 16 tons of rock one could get no more than four to six tons of uranium). This uranium was sufficient for laboratory tests, but not enough to create a reactor.

Evseev's claims are apparently based upon the postwar claims of a KGB official V. Picugin who downplayed production of the mines from 1942-1946 to avert Western intelligence from the great value of this mine to Russia.

During 1944 Jáchymov produced 55 tons of Uranium ore. Most years from 1940 it produced around 20 tons and in 1943 that stepped up to 33 tons.

Even the Russian researcher of nuclear history Pavel Oleynikov disputes Evseev's claims. In his article "German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project" the Non Proliferation Review, summer 2000, he states that the Soviet equivalent of ALSOS discovered "more than" 100 tons of refined Nazi Uranium stored in barrels at Neustadt am Glewe.

In the same article Olynikov also comments that researchers Khariton & Kikoin discovered 100 tons of fairly pure Uranium in the bombed out remains of Oranienberg along with a huge collection of nuclear technical documents and specifications.

Thus in contrast with Evseev's claims that the Nazis only had 4-6 tons of uranium available in WW2 from Jachymov mines in Czechoslovakia, they evidently refined not less than 200 tons and perhaps countless more spirited off by the American ALSOS team.

Point # 2:

Evseev states:

It was also said that after the seizure of 1,200 Belgium tons of finished ore concentrate of uranium oxide produced in the country were at the disposal of the Germans. However, it seems that the Nazis never used it. According to the reports from the U.S. and Soviet military, nearly the same amount of material was diverted to the U.S. and the USSR after the defeat of Germany, and it was the same Belgian uranium.

When Belgium was overrun Nazi Germany captured 3,500 tonnes of uranium oxide from mines in the Belgian Congo. During the war it was stored at salt mines in Strassfurt. By 1945 the Allies recovered only 1,100 tonnes of that Belgian uranium, but 2,370 tonnes remains unaccounted for to this day.

2,370 tonnes!!

Nazis also had control of the the Czechoslovakian uranium mine at Jayc-y-mov which Germany knew as Joachimsthal. Nazi production targets at Joachimsthal were 50 tonnes annually.

The primary uranium refinery was at Oranienberg, but two others also came into production during the war. Carter P Hydrick, author of Critical Mass - Real Story of the Birth of the Atomic Bomb refers to the refining of 280.6 kilograms of uranium metal by the end of 1940. Historian Margaret Gowing reveals that at least 600 tons of uranium ore was refined to metal by 1941. Dr Reihl who was responsible for German uranium refining during WW2 says the figure was much higher than Gowing’s figures.

If not for a nuclear project then why refine so much?

Especially in the grim war years when Germany was so short of all resources?

Point # 3:

Evseev misses the point entirely. Heisenberg and his Uranium project was a civil not military project. Heisenberg was not in overall charge of all German nuclear projects.

Originally posted by Koffee

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by Koffee

...Your evidence thus far presented I seem to be seeing in this thread in embassy reporting rumors from war, a single German pilot, and what your dad said about the war vs/ the fact its a pretty nonsensical scenario (sorry it doesn't make much sense to me so many better targets to hit than US on a single hail Mary)y ou're presenting and abutment historical record that suggests otherwise. But if you have more sources feel free to throw it out to me, a historical revisions of this magnitude if I did it academically would be more then a ph.d paper :p

Trouble with critics is that lacking the courage of their convictions, they never post under their real names, they fling lots of mud and abuse at others, but when the facts are proved right they run away and you never hear from them again. I have some friends in the States interested in diving the site of the plane wreck. I also have a newspaper running down the story... Somehow I doubt we will ever hear an apology from you when you are proved wrong.

My father was at Normandy and witnessed with his own eyes... He at least had the balls to be there. Not like an armchair expert.

Your knowledge is just what you read from books.

The dude in the embassy was not just any dude, he was a Defence attache quoting from another identifiable person. If you don't know who Ishiwara Kenji was then it is mute testimony to how feeble your understanding of history really is and you are wasting all our time.

That's alot of insults for a guy who was trying to respectfully say you should provide more evidence. I was trying to leave the thread gracefully so you wouldn't have to feel antagonize and go to provide more evidence if you could. But I am willing to defend myself against these ad hominem.

What mud did I fling at you?

.

edit on 10-4-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2012 by Koffee because: made a mistake

edit on 10-4-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)

You edited the previous post where you called me dense and then flung muck at my father...

I'll be nice in response, the story you suggest is problematic to the extreme with source material that is pretty weak as far I can read it perhaps you're right I'm a big idiot, but its not coming across as convincing nor does it make logical sense to me the story you posit . However, its clear that you think I am not worthy of talking to any more so I'll bow out of the thread and let you continue to make your argument.

edit on 9-4-2012 by Koffee because: (no reason given)

This bears no relation to what you said originally and you even acknowledged it by saying "I'll be nice in response"

In my opinion it's a very low dirty trick to use the edit function to conceal what you've previously said. I would call it provocative.

I don't insult people's parents, and if I edited a post to take a away an insult it means that I had a flash of anger and immediately regretted it and even then it would of been aimed at you and only at you. I can't remember if I actually had that with you but I no I didn't insult your dad because its something I don't do (aka insult people parents).

I'm sorry if you thought I insulted your dad, I don't recall doing so and if I did it inadvertently you got my apologizes and if you come to Chicago I'll buy you a beer over it.

Hi there,

Thought you guys should see this :

www.gsclan.co.uk...

SIII (Sonderbauvorhaben III) codename "Olga"
great info and photos of the complex where the alleged technology was developed, it is still a restricted military area, owned by the Bundeswehr .

snoopyuk:

Originally posted by pikestaff
babylonstew once told me the Germans used 'fuelair' bombs against the Russians, but for some reason, stopped, perhaps worried an unexploded bomb might fall into Russian hands?

The nuclear weapons which Germany used against Russia in the Crimea, according to Japanese commentators in the 12 December 1944 diplomatic signal from Stockholm, notes that the Russians threatened retaliation with poison gas. The discounted these weapons as some kind of fuel air explosives and the Nazis made no effort to correct that. Also there undoubtedly were FAE used by the Nazis too, but these were of an order of magnitude far below even a half kiloton blast. The weight of an FAE device even coming close to the yield of a small nuke restricted the aircraft capable of lifting it to an He-177 or bigger.

As aviators will know a weapon so heavy requires fuel be traded off so that would not be a weapon to carry across the Atlantic which demands a lot of fuel.