Boron contamination of graphite also slowed the Manhattan Project:
"
Fermi writes that "The results of this experiment was [sic] somewhat discouraging" presumably because of the absorption of neutrons by some unknown impurity. So, in December 1940 Fermi and Szilard met with Herbert G. MacPherson and V. C. Hamister at National Carbon to discuss the possible existence of impurities in graphite. During this conversation it became clear that minute quantities of boron impurities were the source of the problem.
"
This is why the German's used heavy water instead of graphite as a neutron moderator, which made it much harder to build a reactor. Their early reactors consisted of concentric spheres of heavy water and uranium powder. This was an unfortunate combination, as uranium powder ignites on contact with water. Leaks caused explosions on two separate occasions [0].
In contrast, the first allied nuclear reactor was a literal pile of uranium and graphite on a squash court.
[0] The Bastard Brigade (great book on all of this)
Sounds like a good time travel story: the mission is to go back in time and plant a single uranium cube, to be found ~80 years hence, to convince people that the German bomb project was doomed so that– ahh, but let's not spoil it! :)
This is where AI kinda has a role. Built on all the sci fi tropes of years past. You can give it a seed and an ending and get it to write the evening’s entertainment.
Germans had already surrendered and the Japanese were going to surrender as Russians now were able to move their force against Japan before the nuclear bombs were used. They were used to test the bombs and make sure no such war happens again specially the 2nd Bomb on Nagasaki that was used a few days after they bombed Hiroshima.
The Japanese were aware of the US atomic bomb program and had correctly deduced that the US would be able to create a bomb by summer of 1945. They believed the US could only produce one such weapon every 3 months, and decided that getting nuked at that frequency was tolerable for some period, and they could still hold out for more favorable terms as the US would not want the war to drag on too much longer, and the Japanese had hope the still neutral Soviet Union would mediate that peace. It is worth noting that while the atomic bombs were extremely powerful compared to one bomb, they had spent years suffering strategic bombing that destroyed cities; from a tactical perspective the bomb didn't make much difference, losing 5 or 6 more cities wouldn't move the needle. What they were unaware of was that the US was also producing plutonium for nuclear weapons (the Japanese nuclear program was unaware of plutonium in general). When the second bomb came in 3 days instead of 3 months, they knew the situation was very different than what they had anticipated. In a way the US was sort of bluffing - it could make bombs faster than the Japanese thought, but it could not nearly keep up with the 3 day cadence. Combined with the Soviet Union's entry into the war a few hours earlier, the Japanese government realized they had to surrender, but still were not prepared to fully accept the Potsdam Declaration. Truman gave the order to drop a third bomb as soon as it was ready (which would have been August 19th). The decision to surrender unconditionally was only made after consulting with Filed Marshal Hata, whose headquarters had been in Hiroshima, who told the Big Six that he had no confidence in defeating an invasion. Japan communicated its intent to surrender on August 14th. In his surrender speech, Hirohito specifically cited the atomic bomb and more specifically the threat of its continued use as the reason for the surrender.
It's also worth noting that forcing Japan's rapid surrender also limited the amount of territory that the Soviet Union could conquer after their entry into the war. Despite the Soviet Union continuing to fight into September, they were not in a position to occupy Hokaido as they had intended. WW2 would have certainly come to an end at some point without the atomic bombings, but there may have been a North and South Japan at the end of it.
They certainly killed less people than the bombing that had already occurred - the destruction of Tokyo alone likely killed more people than either atomic bomb.
There's no real consensus in the alternative history conjecture space, and no way to resolve the theories floated, Gar Alperovitz (for one example) made the argument that
* that Japan was already defeated at the time the decision to use the bomb was made, and that US intelligence already knew this;
* that Japan had been suing for peace and was ready to surrender without an invasion;
* that the real reason the bomb was used was so to demonstrate its power to the Soviet Union, in an attempt to exert more influence on them in the postwar;
* and that Japanese Emperor’s surrender statement invoked the bomb only as a politically-acceptable “excuse” for his people, when actually he surrendered primarily because of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
This is alternative history, not real history. Remember, there was an attempted coup even after the first bomb to prolong the war. The Japanese leadership at the time were very zealous verging on religious zeal. One of the things that got them to eventually give up was a captured US fighter pilot that (under threat of death) told the Japanese that the US had 100s of atomic bombs. This was a lie but he didn't know that and just was trying to get the insane intelligence agent to not cut his head off (literally). There were other factors too. The USSR invading Manchuria for example. Also the US was in the process of ringing the home islands with 50 fleet carriers (the big ones, 50kt displacement) which would have been able to bomb Japan at will. Even with all of this, there was a significant faction of Japanese leadership who wanted to fight on.
These claims are more about politics than anything. Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US. The Japanese had never been invaded and that was a huge point of pride. They were training the civilians for a guerrilla war. Just because you can find a person in the Japanese government who wanted to surrender at that point (and there were) doesn't mean that's the decision that would have been taken.
PS That 3rd point is especially specious...if it were true, no 2nd bomb would have been used.
PPS Stuff like this is why historians don't like nor will engage with hypotheticals or the alternative history folks. Its clearly politically motivated, not a good faith attempt to understand history.
This exactly. I don't know why people are posting "alternative history conjecture" as if it's fact.
We should remember further that after the second bomb was dropped AND the Soviet entry into the war AND the emperor specifically ordering them to surrender the militarists in the Japanese government still attempted to carry out a coup to stop the surrender and continue the war.
The second bomb is the one whose use is questionable. If Truman were to be tried for war crimes it would be for that. A surrender was in play. Truman wanted no conditions. I think another week of people dying from radiation poisoning would have brought people around anyway.
This theories all fall flat when Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb. As the other comment mentioned there was an attempted coup to keep the war going.
It took two bombs to get Japan to surrender. “A surrender is in play” means zilch.
> Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US.
An attempt to vilify ... the side that eagerly deployed nuclear weapons on civilian targets? I'm from the US and I'm not someone who is blind to pragmatism but your argument here just seems completely absurd to me. We clearly committed an atrocity with somewhere between minimal to no legitimate justification.
Then again, after seeing the adjacent comment about avoiding soviet involvement it occurs to me that perhaps we inadvertently did them a favor in a roundabout way. Japan probably would have lost a lot more than the kuril islands otherwise.
Where did you get the idea that the USA was “eager” to deploy the atomic bomb?
>Stimson wrote in his diary afterwards that after his briefing, Truman felt “the terrible responsibility that such destruction placed upon us here and himself.” [1]
[1] “Memorandum of Conference with the President, August 8, 1945 at 10:45am,” in Stimson diary (8 August 1945), Henry Lewis Stimson Papers (MS 465), Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.
For starters, how many days did it take before we dropped the second one again? I don't think it matters what any of the participants wrote or said given the events that we know to have transpired. There were clearly many other paths available to take.
Easy to say 80 years later, not having any of the personal experience, and handwaving away first person accounts.
You can certainly choose to believe that the decision makers were eager to use nukes and didn’t consider other paths, but you have to acknowledge that opinion is coming entirely from your own intuition and intentionally excludes all contrary evidence.
It's literally in Truman's diary. [1] I mean I suppose he doesn't "literally" say 'I'm anxious to nuke the Japs', but he comes pretty close:
"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
And on top of this, the Japanese had been negotiating their surrender with the ostensibly neutral USSR hoping to get more favorable conditions with their assistance. And the US had been secretly intercepting these cables and knew all about it. [2] And on top of this the US had also already created another secret agreement with the USSR such that they would declare war on Japan on August 8th, which would end any hope at all for Japan. We nuked them on August 6th, and then again on the 9th.
Not quite. The main negotiator they were using in the Soviet Union was fully aware of the reality of what was happening, long before the nukes and Soviet declaration of war. He was suggesting unconditional surrender except with the promise of the continuity of the Emperor, which is exactly what they ended up going for.
The problem is that he did not, independently, have the authority to make such an offer. And in the mainland things were also confused. The Emperor was treated as a borderline divine figure, but that also meant he was mostly hands off except as a lost resort. He was pushing for surrender behind the scenes, but the war council was the one making the decisions of what would be offered, and they were completely divided. Half wanted to fight, and half wanted peace.
This division continued even after the nukes and Soviet invasion. What changed is they chose to allow the Emperor to make the final call, and he chose to surrender as he had been angling for for quite some time already. The nukes played little role in this decision. The pro-war Japanese correctly believed that we couldn't have many such weapons and were, in any case, prepared to fight to the last Japanese because they thought it'd be glorious. The thing that did change their mind was the Soviets entering the war meaning they not only no longer had any intermediary with with which to hope for more favorable terms, but also were now facing a massive invasion from the north as well.
The diary is full of revealing quotes like "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
For some timeline the US had secretly arranged for Russia to declare war on Japan on August 8th. We nuked them first on August 6th, and then again on the 9th. The goal was to get them to surrender to the US before the Soviets made significant inroads in Japan.
Do you think what they reveal is the truth? Was the diary meant to be published and become "a source"? Was Truman informed about everything important going on in the US? About the reality (the truth) of the Manhattan Project? Did he even need to know? Wasn't it preferable for him to simply believe in order to play his role?
Just some questions to ponder as to the quality of this source and what can be deduced from it.
> the side that eagerly deployed nuclear weapons on civilian targets
No one was eager. This sort of lie destroys discussion. This site is only about discussion, so please don't keep trying to destroy the only thing the site is about.
This is so profoundly and comprehensively ignorant about pretty much everything about the pacific theater of WWII that it's hard to know where to even start. I would suggest you start reading about the conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in China, Korea, Philippines, and pretty much everywhere else they invaded and occupied, much of it before the US even started to consider entering the war.
Such a convenient narrative. "Yeah, a shit ton of civilians who weren't vaporized died slow, agonizing deaths from radiation exposure, but believe you me, it's more humane than the alternative! They should be thankful!"
There is nothing humane in bombing with conventional explosives, or bombing with napalm, thermobaric weapons or nuclear bombing. Or biological or chemical weapons.
It's convenient, yes, but it's also true. The deaths in Japan had an invasion and ground conquest been necessary would have dwarfed anything they had yet seen. Just their deaths from starvation would have been horrific.
This is the kind of thing people say when they've never seen someone die over several days from burn injuries.
Plenty of the survivors of the nuclear bombings and the fire bombings writings went on to be published. You can read them yourselves but generally speaking the fire bombings were way, way, worse.
It was more humane, whether you like it or not. What if we had waited to learn our lesson until the Korean war, when the yield of the first atomic bomb dropped on people would have been measured in hundreds of kilotons instead of tens, and with a few hundred more bombs where that one came from?
Also, people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.
“The question arose: what about the women and children? I decided to find a perfectly clear solution to this too. I did not consider myself justified in exterminating the men — that is, to kill them or have them killed — while letting avengers in the shape of their children grow up for our sons and grandchildren.”
- Heinrich Himmler
“I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are the satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.”
- Oliver Cromwell
“It was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd, but one of producing a sufficient moral effect, from a military point of view, not only on those who were present, but more especially throughout the Punjab.”
> people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.
The question remains whether in fact Japan "needed" to be nuked even once - it's unknown whether the ongoing city by city destruction would have resolved WWII.
Further, did they "need" to be nuked a second time so quickly (within three days)? That second nuke was not to force a surrender (just as the first wasn't) - the two bombings were two live tests of two separate weapon designs untested in the field of war.
Japan were not going to surrender. Some things happened that made them reconsider.
The things that happened: (a) Hiroshima bombed on Aug 6th, (b) USSR declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria on Aug 8th, and (c) as the Cabinet gathered on Aug 9th to discuss the terms of surrender, Nagasaki was bombed.
The theory that I read is this: Japanese emperor did not really realize what a "nuclear bomb" is. Today we obsess that Hiroshima was "nuked", but for the emperor, and the Japanese central command at the time, the report from Hiroshima (if they even bothered to read it) would not really stand out from dozens of similar reports of bombings they got on their desks every week.
USSR joining the war on US side, however - that is the kind of news that could tip the scales and make them surrender.
And if "the Bomb" was so overpowering and decisive, as immediately claimed by US propaganda, then why did the US attack again on Aug 14/15, using pumpkin bombs¹, in a " Grand Finale" ?
Here's Yozo Kudo, general secretary of the Japanese National Association for the Assessment of Air Raids and War Damage:
————————
INTERVIEW: Why U.S. air raids continued until day of Japan’s surrender — THE ASAHI SHIMBUN² — August 14, 2023 — Yozo Kudo, 73, secretary-general of the national association of groups recording air raids and war damage
The United States carried out air raids from Aug. 14 to early Aug. 15. More than 1,000 aircraft, including 825 B-29 bombers, attacked targets nationwide. It is believed to be the largest number of aircraft deployed for (a string of) air raids during the Pacific War.
Q: Which cities were attacked?
A: Targets included Osaka, where Osaka Arsenal and Kyobashi Station were bombed, Akita’s Tsuchizaki district, Isesaki in Gunma Prefecture, Kumagaya in Saitama Prefecture, and Iwakuni and Hikari in Yamaguchi Prefecture.
When small-scale bombings are included, about 30 locations were attacked. Many people were killed. But casualty counts vary, and the exact number is unknown.
Q: Why were air raids conducted on the day of the surrender or the day before?
A: Japan’s delay in accepting the Potsdam Declaration was in the background.
The government informed the Allied powers on Aug. 10 that it would accept the declaration on condition that the emperor’s rights of sovereignty would not be changed. But arguments within the government and military became tangled over a response from the Allied powers. Some said the emperor’s status was not guaranteed, and an agreement was not reached for some time.
The United States on Aug. 10 stopped air raids on urban areas by B-29 bombers to prevent an adverse impact on peace negotiations. The following day, air raids by B-29 bombers were suspended altogether.
The United States once waited for an end of peace negotiations, although it continued some air raids by other bombers. But Japan did not produce its conclusion for some time, and the United States decided to carry out large-scale air raids on Aug. 14-15 to urge Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
Henry Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces, had wanted the grandest possible finale, according to a history of warfare by B-29 bombers.
The U.S. military initially considered an air raid on Tokyo, which would have a strong psychological impact on the Japanese government, but eventually decided to target several areas outside Tokyo.
Japan decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration at a meeting in the presence of the emperor on Aug. 14. But it took time before U.S. military officials on the ground were informed of Japan’s decision, and air raids continued until the early hours of Aug. 15.
————————
That doesn't give a clear answer as to the motivation of these anewed US terror bombing raids against civilians. There is no military reason, as with all previous attacks on civilians. Just sadism? Or maybe the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not impressive enough?
The USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th, as part of a secret agreement with the West. The US knowing this, first nuked Japan on the 6th and then again on the 9th. It's hard not to see 'us' as trying to force a surrender before the USSR could get significantly involved. Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West. Thanks to the US getting a quick surrender from Japan, the USSR was able to be completely excluded from the following occupation of Japan.
If any documents were ever created about this debate, they've probably been destroyed, and those involved have taken it to the grave with themselves. So I suppose technically we can never know for sure. But I think the cynical view is far more well supported. Or at least I think the cynical aspects were the majority of the logic behind it. And it was not only about control of Japan but also about sending a message to the USSR as the US undoubtedly saw the outlines of a new West-East world order emerging after WW2. And all the way up until the 80s [1] our dominant political philosophy was that we could win by intimidation and demonstrations of force, nuclear in particular.
------------
Wow, loving LLMs when digging into topics now a days. GPT was able to direct me to Truman's diary entries which are public record. [2] I take back the weasel wording above. Truman himself was quite clear on his intention and desires:
"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
> Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West.
That was particularly painful for Churchill to accept at the end when he had to hand over Poland to Stalin. Poland was the reason Britain officially entered WW2 in 1939
> We and France are to-day, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe had become intolerable. And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part with calmness and courage
Some of the key technical people recruited into the Manhattan Project were already long time Soviet sympathisers and feeding updates on their work (and of others) back to the USSR.
Post Cold War declassified information states that the Russians freely acknowledged that Fuchs gave them the fission bomb.
The case could be made for Stalin being better informed for a greater period of time than Truman (who was only read in to project in 1945 aft moving from VP to POTUS).
Funny though that at "Operation Crossroads" in July 1946, the US was still trying to convince the Soviet Union, which they had invited to send a delegation, that the atomic thing was real. They apparently still didn't know that the Soviets had known all along.
The Uranium cubes don't tell you anything - they just didn't have enough, or enough heavy water, to achieve criticality for a nuclear reactor.
The real goal was to build a nuclear bomb, not a reactor, and the main reason the Germans failed at that is different - Heisenberg incorrectly calculated the critical mass of U-235, thinking that tons would be necessary, which would be impossible to produce (unlike a heavy water reactor which doesn't need refined U-235).
Of course even if Heisenberg had calculated correctly, it's not clear that Germany had the resources or mindset for a Manhatten project scale effort to actually pursue it.
One interesting stat on the Manhatten project is that is was using 10-15% of all electricity generated in the US - just to refine the 64kg of U-325 needed for the Hiroshima bomb.
Clickbait antidote: The cubes revealed only that the uranium was a bit less dense than textbook values because of tiny internal voids.
That measurement fed a computer model, but if I'm reading the article right, most of the work was actually based on wartime records on heavy water and graphite. Anyway, the model showed they would have needed twice the uranium and heavy water they actually had.
“De Haas, one of the directors of the Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory at Leiden University, quickly realized the strategic value of uranium and sprang into action. He used his close government contacts to persuade the Dutch prime minister, Hendrik Colijn, to immediately order a large amount of uranium from the Belgian firm Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, which mined deposits in the Belgian Congo.
The Dutch placed their uranium order just a few weeks before Joliot-Curie made Union Minière aware of uranium’s new potential. When 200 50-kilogram barrels of yellowcake—a form of uranium oxide—arrived at his laboratory in Leiden, De Haas initially had them stored in his laboratory. But the uranium increased radiation levels and interfered with measurements, so the barrels were moved to a locked room in a basement at the Delft University of Technology. Remarkably, they remained undisturbed in the basement during the war, undiscovered by the German occupiers.”
It should be noted that they didn't have the supplies for the design they tried. There were designs that could have worked with what they had. And its unlikely that during the war anyone knew exactly which designs the Germans tried and even less chance that someone would have known if a specific novel design would have worked. Its an interesting detail but largely irrelevant.
Its also suspected Heisenberg didn't want the design to work (its the given reason why he wasn't killed by Berg). But it was still a reasonable possibility during the war that the Germans could have made it work.
Heisenberg's humanity shines through in his written words in Reality and It's Order.
It is very upsetting that one of the most profound minds of 20th century and Germany, entirely in the tradition of Leibniz, Goethe, et al., is blackwashed because of the coincidence of existing during the Nazi regime.
IIRC, US Colonel Hogan got Luftwaffe Colonel Klink to drink a bunch of that heavy water as a cure for baldness as a truckful of it transited through Stalag 13.
Phew, that underground mission was more important than I thought!
I thought Renee convinced Colonel von Strohm to let him use it fill a bunch of empty champagne bottles to bribe General von Klinkerhoffen, but the bottles were drunk by some downed British airmen who were being hidden by the French Resistance in the same attic?
Since Norsk Hydro was mentioned in the article, I have to mention in turn one of my favorite books ever: The Winter Fortress by Neil Bascomb. It's the true story of the Norwegian commando sabotage of the heavy water plant. Short version: after a failed attempt by the English, some locals who'd fled to England and received training parachuted in, blew it up, and then skied to neutral Sweden. Legends, the lot of them: they froze their balls off and didn't have enough to eat, but they pulled it off.
Every time I re-read it, it makes me want to take up nordic skiing. It is absolutely up there on my list of greatest true stories ever told with Touching the Void, The Emerald Mile, and a select few others.
This story is also covered in The Bastard Brigade, which details many other Allied attempts to sabotage the Germany nuclear program. Fun fact: Heisenberg was close to being assassinated by a famous baseball player (Mo Berg). Very entertaining and interesting book.
There's a movie about that which focuses on Berg who was a pretty impressive person. He was a MLB player at a time when that was the biggest sport in the US but the players made next to nothing. He also spoke 10 languages fluently and spent most of the war translating intelligence intercepts. Supposedly he found Heisenberg but judged that he wasn't a threat and so didn't kill him. That's the story anyway, no idea how true that is.
The follow up operation killed a bunch of civilians for no good reason at all.
There was a bunch of heavy water being transported on a ferry. They blew it up. People died. Even with that heavy water, Germany wouldn't have had the bomb.
Little extra fun fact since Norsk Hydro was mentioned in the article and now you've mentioned it again-
Norsk Hydro was founded as a hydro power plant + nitrogen fertilizer production company (the nitrogen production needing lots of electricity, and the hydro plant to provide said energy...) but around WWII, pivoted to light metals, and built aluminum and magnesium factories with German company IG Farben, in order to support them in the war, as they were partially under Nazi occupation by then. That all went south but then after the war they kept on with the aluminum business.
The company went on to become experts in aluminum extrusions, and were then contracted not just for the base metal but also to manufacture the first bonded aluminum bare chassis for the S1 Lotus Elise in 1995, which went on to be the basis for the Tesla Roadster.
As a snowboarder I was reluctant, but got into it a few years ago. We pull our young daughter in a chariot with skis about 10km into a little cabin by a river with a wood stove.
Cheese, salami and hot chocolate and we make the return loop. Three evenings a week all winter long is a great way to spend time outside.
Anyone interested in the bomb should read 'And the Devil Reached Towards the Sky, an oral history of the atomic bomb.'
It's full of fun anecdotes and asides...like when they 'found' tuns of uranium ore in NY...or the aforementioned acquisition of silver from Treasury.
There are classic bureaucratic things...like when they issued a check for millions and specified 'no questions asked.' Then the guy called with questions. Or how Groves' people and Treasury tried to figure out how many ounces were in a ton.
Building a reactor was a step on the way to building a bomb.
Two isotopes were used for fission bombs in WWII: Uranium 235 and Plutonium. More than 99% of naturally occurring Uranium is Uranium 238, which will not sustain a chain reaction necessary for a bomb. There are only trace amounts of Plutonium in nature, but it can be produced in reactors that use U238 for fuel. So, to make a fission bomb you need to either separate U235 from U238 or build a reactor to create Plutonium.
It's worth noting that the shortage of heavy water was no accident. The Allies sabotaged the heavy water production facility in Norway that Germany relied on[1].
CANDU even less today (similar drawbacks though, larger size, bigger and more expensive containment structures). Of course you could theoretically just skip the containment structure))
It was the first step out of 1000 to make. It took both US and USSR more than 2 years from a working reactor to a working bomb, all away from bombing raids. Reactors used to make bomb plutonium were a lot larger and more powerful than these first research ones, and Germany was nowhere near the required scale.
Germans also didn't have anything resembling a workable bomb design.
In the context of the time, those US scientists that built a reactor were all in for nuclear energy and absolutely 100% did not think that a nuclear weapon was economically feasible.
"Economically feasible" meaning maybe, perhaps, theoretically possible but even if so astronomically expensive in time, money, and physical resources.
It took the UK/CA/AU Tube Alloys group to find ways to make a weapon more practical, and multiple letters, attempts, and a one on one press the flesh tour to convince the US nuclear types that a weapon was both possible and achievable.
If you go to the Los Alamos Science Museum you can see an original letter from Albert Einstein where he proposed that a nuclear bomb could be fit on a ship and sailed into harbor in 1938. A ship-sized nuclear bomb was not of interest to President Roosevelt at the time for a likely good reason. It's only when the UK realized that it wasn't a ship size. It was something that you could drop from a conventional airplane bomber of the day that the US became interested.
Seen it, read it, and aware of why it was ignored at the time - the ability to make such a weapon, as relayed by Einstein, was a hearsay tale of speculation.
Some time later Mark Oliphant visited the US in person and walked key people through a circles and arrows on chalkboard breakdown of how such a thing would be actually possible.
It was also a failure of imagination. A ship sized tsar bomba at the time would still be quite interesting - armor the ship like a Iowa class (or more), and give it an automated navigator (very doable at the time, plus or minus a mile or two), and it’s a war ender.
Wait until the wind is right, add some of the right contaminants, and you wouldn’t need to do so to poison all of Germany for at least a generation.
Also, Tokyo Bay.
For the Axis powers, it would be an even easier sell of course.
At least if any of them could believe - or even imagine - that it actually could exist or be as devastating as it was of course. And frankly, unless you saw the footage of an actual Tsar Bomba, how could anyone?
Footage of the actual Tsar Bomba has no scale, detonating as it did high up in the atmosphere - for anyone watching it might have been a really big or really small explosion.
For the first bomb ever made to immediately jump to Tsar Bomba size, or for it to utilise an understanding of fallout and contaminants that didn't exist prior to the Castle Bravo tests seems ... unlikely.
Like Castle Bravo, if the timescale is accurate the scale is obvious to anyone who has seen explosions/bombs before. That being, huge and destructive on a scale previously impossible.
I think you’re making my point though - literally no one could really comprehend or believe such a thing was even possible. Ever.
Until they saw it happening.
So of course it got dismissed until it was essentially inevitable.
Sure, there's no real challenge to lookup the test series via name in the URL for answers, but bear in mind, watching live IRL as the bubble expands the question for casual humans is how far away is that explosion? ( Fermi had distance, time, and shockwave force at distance to work with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem )
bigger than anything ever seen on the planet before, with the fireball going into the stratosphere. but then you know that.
what even is your point?
if Roosevelt (or any other leader at the time) had seen that footage, he’d be shitting his pants and funding anything and everything going in that direction ASAP. which is mine.
In general the take was that human created nuclear weapons were infeasible (regardless of design) because of what was thought to be the barrier to cross to achieve a chain reaction.
The Frisch–Peierls memorandum changed that understanding ... provided that reading of the FP-memorandum was convincingly conveyed to people that made things happen, what Einstein put to paper (and was ignored) and that Oliphant pushed through in person.
Little Boy on Hiroshima was a gun design, a grossly inefficient McGyver that used some 64 kilograms of enriched uranium to successfully convert less than half a gram to energy.
Fat Man on Nagasaki was an implosion device - a necessary design change due to simply not having enough uranium or an enrichment pipeline to sustain the needs of a gun design.
The first device detonated, at Trinity in the USofA, was an implosion device, created to test the more difficult design.
Further, there was an abandoned / discarded "Thin Man" device IIRC.
These were all alternative implementations that were pursued after the FP-memorandum was pushed about to make the case that weapons were apparently possible rather than not yet achievable - the prevailing belief in the US prior to Oliphant doing the rounds.
As I said above - and perhaps you might like to try a primary source rather than wikipedia ?
These weapons were, however, as different as their monikers imply. Little Boy was a uranium, gun-type weapon, whereas Fat Man was a plutonium, implosion-style weapon. Two types were needed because there was only enough uranium for one gun-type weapon, and the U.S. government knew it would need to make more than one weapon.
Awesome article and interesting to see Heisenberg get it wrong. It really was a perfect situation for the US because we could get all the radioactive material with little issue.
A clean reminder that logistics is everything.
Also cool that the author is married to Sean Carroll.
It mega-helped that Edgar Sengier saw the importance of uranium ore and shipped 1200 tons of it out of the Congo to New York before the U.S. government even realized it would need it.
“In September 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols met Sengier in his New York office. Nichols had been ordered to find uranium by the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves. He asked if the Union Minière could supply uranium ore, and Sengier's answer became history: "You can have the ore now. It is in New York, a thousand tons of it. I was waiting for your visit."”
Relatively recently, recordings were released of conversations between captured Nazi scientists held at a house in the UK (I think I saw it on HN). They were housed together and the house was bugged purposely to capture casual conversation for intelligence purposes.
IIRC one conclusion they/some of the scientists drew was that the culture of the Nazi regime - the paranoia, fear, and violence - made a project on that scale impossible. Enough talented, high-ego people could not work together on project that large and demanding.
Also, IIRC, when the Hiroshima bomb was announced, many couldn't believe it. They had been working on a power generation reactor as a first step - though I'm not sure the OP fits that story?
Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?
The transcripts from that bugged house were turned into a play, we saw it in Richmond, London, a few years ago. It was really well done and seemed to by enjoyed by everyone, not just those interested in the science & its history.
The sheer economic costs of the manhattan project were prohibitive to a nation like Germany, even if they'd managed to build a functional project team.
(how many nations had 14,700 tons of silver lying around)
A nation like Germany on the cusp of losing a war sure. The opposite scenario of Germany controlling all the resources of Europe and Africa is a scary proposition.
> The opposite scenario of Germany controlling all the resources of Europe and Africa is a scary proposition.
It shouldn't be. In WW2, in 1942, Germany did essentially control all of Europe, save only the UK. And at the height of its power, Germany's vast industrial machine produced roughly on par with the UK. Not the entire British Empire, just UK.
It turns out that the Nazis were complete incompetent buffoons when it came to economic management. Their grand master plan for Europe was to overrun the east, not for some vast rich treasure trove of minerals to fuel an industrial juggernaut, but to plop down more homesteads to feed their inefficient agricultural economy. And even if the Nazis had a grand plan to become an industrial juggernaut, they still faced the prospect of the industrial juggernaut par excellence, the US.
Germany required like 10 percentage points more of its labor force in agriculture in 1939 than the US did, and that still wasn't enough to make Germany self-sufficient in food; the US was of course one of the major food exporters in the world (in neither case were agriculture workers more than a third of the population, I should note). US agriculture also had largely mechanized in the 1910s, albeit many farms did switch back to draft animals during the 1920s and 1930s due to the collapse in agricultural prices, making animal feed grown on your own farm cheaper than buying fuel for the tractor. Europe agriculture largely didn't mechanize until the 1950s, after WW2.
The US was 50% of the world economy before WW2 broke out.
Ironically it was not getting bombed to bits that contributed heavily to US industrial decline in the post-war years. Countries which had their old infrastructure and manufacturing capacity destroyed replaced them with newer, more efficient versions.
Complete nonsense. The US became the largest economy in 1870 (70 years before the start of the war). And in 1875 it became the 1st country to start using crude oil. Even in 1940, the US exported 75% of the worlds oil. Most of the main directions of advance by Germany and Japan were trying to get access to the 15% of the worlds oil they could get to (Romania, Baku and Indonesia). The US economy was 3x the size of Germany's (#2 by GDP) and was the majority of the world's industrial and manufacturing.
Let's try this another way, during WWII the US built warship tonnage equivalent to all the rest of the world's navies combined...in just 1943. Then the US did that again in 1944. At one point, the US hit a Japanese fleet with 17 fleet carriers at once. Keep in mind the Japanese only built 9 fleet carriers total and that was considered the most powerful fleet in the world at the beginning of the war.
« Most of the main directions of advance by Germany and Japan were trying to get access to the 15% of the worlds oil they could get to (Romania, Baku and Indonesia). »
This is the key to understand WW2. The oil, and the iron ore (Sweden, hence Norway). But mostly the oil. All the rest about ideology etc in Western/Anglo historiography is distraction at best (but actually rather deliberately misleading). Like "Hitler sought world domination" and similar junk, this is just ludicrous, we can simply take a look at the map and take note of who had already secured world domination.
The lack of oil had already been painful for Germany during Britain's first "World War", having to rely on horses to a much larger extent than the enemy, and the importance of oil had only risen with motorization.
Lend lease was responsible for approximately 18 million tons of supplies and equipment to the USSR alone between 1941-1945, including hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
The pre-war USA and post-war USA were entirely different beasts economically.
Don’t forget, massive amounts of this were paid for by loans and debts of foreign governments, and even government bonds bought by your average Joe. A lot of which didn’t get paid off until the 70’s.
And unlike in Europe and Asia, these Capital investments didn’t get bombed to bits.
There's a categorical mistake you're making here. You're assuming that the US was an agrarian economy that suddenly became a massive industrial juggernaught because of WW2. You can't flip a switch and turn a million farmers into high-end industrial workers overnight (see, e.g., China, which did try exactly that).
The US was the world's most industrialized country by the early 1900's. In the 1920's and the 1930's, the world's highest-end, most advanced manufacturing facilities, would be located almost exclusively in the United States. Yes, the Great Depression hit the US hard--as it did the entire world--but it didn't cause the US to revert to an inefficient, agrarian society. Indeed, the agricultural recession was worse than the industrial recession, plagued with overcapacity brought about the recultivation of farmland in Europe post-WWI. So the Great Depression leaves the US with a massive amount of spare capacity that is fully eaten up by the turbocharged military buildup in 1940.
The deeper you dig into the economic policies of the various states, the more you realize just how bad the Nazis were at the economy. Even the Soviet's communist economy, for all of its problems, was more efficient than the fascist economies. The only economic advantage the Nazis had was starting their rearmament--and consequent Keynesian economic injection--a few years earlier. When the Allies warbucked their economies, the Nazis were totally screwed.
The US was in the right place at the right time, yes.
It was still mostly agrarian pre-WW2. Post-WW2 it was orders of magnitude more industrialized. Still, it wasn’t until the 60’s that the majority of the population was no longer living in rural areas and working on farms.
China’s fuckup was much deeper, as their ‘peasants to industry’ roadmap didn’t exist, and just consisted of telling every peasant to make their own forge (essentially) and start making heavy industrial goods. Which of course not only resulted in shitty or non-existent industrial goods, but also widespread famine because they stopped focused on growing crops.
They also completely cut out Capital, and they’d already targeted and destroyed most private industrial conglomerates (and anyone who knew how to build or run one) due to ideology.
The US didn’t have those issues, so when the time came they threw money and a command economy at the existing Industrial base and grew it leaps and bounds almost overnight.
The large quantity of low cost, available, and relatively mobile workers - and excess industrial capacity - due to the Great Depression and it’s after effects helped too.
This is categorically false. About 20% of the US labor force was engaged in farm labor in the 1930s. Keep in mind that, given concomitant unemployment numbers, this means there is nearly as many unemployed US people as there are farmers.
Does that sound like a "mostly agrarian" economy to you?
1 in 5 working adults literally in the fields? you bet. Guess what the ratio is now? 1.5%, or as the 70’s, about 1 to 22.
That number at the time (21.5%, btw) only counts folks directly working on the farm, not all the secondary folks - butchers, bakers, flour mill workers, etc.
Currently in the US, the 1.5% working directly on farms then leads to ~ 10.5% of additional employment going ‘farm to table’. Not counting restaurants and the like, but all the middle folks and value add folks.
Late 1800’s to pre-1930’s, direct farm labor was as high as 53% - but that was also because there wasn’t much value add. There was a lot of subsidence farming, and people often ate what was produced locally due to poor transportation infrastructure.
That started to change with automation and the railroads, with a very large multiple of the economy being about processing, transporting, etc. the food produced by farms. Think the milkman, butchers and meat processing plants, textile mills, etc. It’s what made Chicago the powerhouse it was, for instance.
then you should include actual context. but it would refute your point eh?
the Nazi’s rose to power using agricultural jobs programs starting in the 30’s, because the financial collapse caused by reparations and hyperinflation (followed by the great depression!) mostly impacted the cities and industrial centers. unemployment in some years topped 26% or more during that time period.
This also encouraged rigging the numbers, and every analysis I’ve found for german labor force types/censuses points out the data is basically all hot garbage during that time. one set of data even shows 76% (!!!) agricultural workforce participation during part of the period which is wild, and clearly impossible.
none of this has much to do with actual industrial production capability, as those factories largely sat idle while this all played out. post-WW1 treaties forbade most of the interesting heavy industrial stuff. building large capital equipment in a hyperinflationary environment is begging to go bankrupt. even building ships was heavily restricted by tonnage, arms were heavily restricted, etc.
the Nazi’s were so popular in Germany because they eventually just said ‘fuck it’, and started building them anyway - but then lied and hid they were doing so. again making the industrial numbers highly suspect.
one thing is for certain - post WW1 german industrial output had nothing to do with their physical ability to produce, and everything to do with their being completely fucked in 5 different other ways.
« the more you realize just how bad the Nazis were at the economy »
Funny thing is that Germans back then didn't realize that at all. On the contrary, they were – by and large – really happy with Hitler, and that was precisely because of the economy. "The Nazis" had brought back employment. And not just "because of armament", simply not true. There were creative things like MeFo-Wechsel and barter agreements with Latin America, thus bypassing the bloodsuckers in London and New York. So what was wrong with that?
But of course there's that particular kind of know-it-all Azi American who knows everything about all other countries, while also slurring them as a matter of routine, from his superior vantage point in the City on the Hill. I guess it's not his fault because because that's the way the system has educated him.
The British empire had committed pretty horrible atrocities with victims spanning several orders of magnitudes for about two hundred years prior to WW2, and we do not hear much about it.
History is written by the victors, and Hitler is for our day's historiography as Hannibal for Roman history. It's a cover story to justify insatiable greed and lust for control.
Hitler lacked prudence, and his rise was facilitated by the US and Britain precisely for that reason, to make Germany into an ideological antagonist to the Soviet Union, and lead into a clash.
In practice, ideology mattered little, and it was classic geopolitical reasons that led into war in 1941, viz Germany's vulnerability wrt the oil (Ploesti threatened by the Red Army), key to almost everything in the industrial age, still true today.
I disagree with the logic that sth or somebody is "a scam" because of defeat. By that logic, the victims of rape and murder would be "scams". That is not to say that everything about NS was good.
“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” — Winston Churchill (allegedly)
I don't know whether Churchill actually said that, but that is the truth of the matter. The motives were not noble: envy and greed, and nothing more.
“That isn’t much steel at all, relatively speaking.”
Really? you don’t think so? Because America was stamping out projects on that kind of scale pretty regularly through the 1920s and 30s (with a bit of a dip in productivity for the Great Depression). The George Washington bridge in New York was finished in 1931 and took over 120,000 tons of steel; same year the San Francisco Bay bridge was completed with over 160,000 tons of steel. No other country was constructing infrastructure on that scale at that time.
This steel wasn’t being grown in cornfields - it was coming out of places like the US Steel plant in Gary Indiana and the Bethlehem Steel Works which were by far the largest steel mills in the world. The Gary plant alone produced more steel than the entirety of German industry.
Before the Great Depression, global steel production was 110 million tons a year; almost half of that produced in the US.
That massive economic and production capacity which had already been built up prior to WWII was what enabled the US to pivot to churning out carriers and liberty ships and Sherman tanks.
That's for 1940, which isn't the peak of US WW2 steelmaking (that's 1944). But if you run the numbers, 1944 is about 100% of US steel capacity as of January 1, 1940.
That suggests that the US industrial capacity at the end of WW2 is like 40-50% higher than at 1929, the cusp of the Great Depression. Which is a lot, but it's not "the US economy is completely different as a result of WW2" but "the US economy is continuing the fundamental change that has already occurred". In fact, if you plot the lines starting from 1900, the production levels of WW2 are pretty bang-on as if the Great Depression had never happened.
You're underestimating the latent capacity of the US in that period. Germany was basically in a state of war mobilisation before the war and beginning to burn their long term potential. US was anything but that.
I don't believe the silver was strictly necessary. Copper windings would have worked for the calutron. Silver was used because copper was not as easily available at the time. But the point is valid. The project was originally British, moved to the US for economic reasons.
> Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?
From the Farm Hall transcripts, it seems that Heisenberg was "happy" to have been working on a reactor and not a bomb, but from context, this seems less like an objection to the principle of working on a weapon and more like gratitude that the Allies couldn't hang him for working on an atomic bomb. Recall that the conversations took place after Germany had been utterly defeated and the scientists were prisoners at the mercy of the British--prisoners in a gilded cage, but prisoners nonetheless.
« more like gratitude that the Allies couldn't hang him for working on an atomic bomb »
Why would they have done that? Hadn't they themselves been "working on an atomic bomb"?
Wernher von Braun wasn't hanged either although he'd been working on a "device" that actually ended up working. He was even "invited" to continue his work in the USA, bringing along his entire team.
> one conclusion they/some of the scientists drew was that the culture of the Nazi regime - the paranoia, fear, and violence - made a project on that scale impossible
This makes me think about the pervasive classification and paranoia in the "defense" contractors supporting the US Department of "Defense". Any information that's classified, even at the lowest "confidential" level, is only provided on a "need-to-know" basis. And unclassified projects are sort of looked down on, so there's a perverse incentive to classify more than necessary. This "secretive, isolationist approach" seems like it probably prevents a lot of groups from "sharing information or resources", in the article's words (though it concludes that wasn't the biggest problem facing the German effort).
When sharing classified information that someone might not need to know might be a crime, and might get your clearance pulled even if it's not, the incentives run strongly counter to sharing information. Consequently, I confidently claim that there are very, very few people in a position to serendipitously make significant discoveries that involve combining two or three different classified facts.
(I don't actually know this, because I don't know any classified facts.)
Maybe this is part of the sclerosis that causes the US defense-industrial complex to "basically produce useless junk", in the words of Les Earnest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ych6pvLMKCU), and which prompts Sergey Tovkach to say, "There isn’t a single Western drone that’s proven itself effective in this conflict." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2CbbM). Maybe that's why Russian propaganda in 02024 reported that Ukraine had to withdraw the USA-made M1A1 tanks far from the front (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCIN-t3VxJ0).
Not to take away from your comment, but to clarify: That's not the paranoia the Nazi scientists meant. They meant fear of the SS, being spied on, being stabbed in the back by a co-worker in a power struggle, fear for the families, etc.
Whatever the authenticity of these transcripts, in English only. And they didn't release any recordings. Plus, the German scientists knew or strongly suspected that the house was bugged, which (a) undermines the authenticity of anything they may have said, and (b) made them leave the house when they wanted to talk about any touchy subjects.
You said the scientists thought that: « Enough talented, high-ego people could not work together on project that large and demanding. » However, this is flatly and totally contradicted by the successful A4/V2 project, within the Wehrmacht, which did end up producing a working product (and not just a fictional narrative), despite the career ambitions of SS and industry people who showed up as soon as "success was in the air" (as described in the book on Peenemünde by executive Walter Dornberger).
Life and evidence aren't crystal clear or binary - all or nothing; to understand things, we need to handle nuance, multiple dimensions, and matters of degree. Obviously the Nazis could work together to a significant degree; they had functioning organizations. A project to invent nuclear weapons is on a different scale and a different kind of challenge; one thing I recall is someone saying that nobody could take the risks because failure was so personally dangerous.
And of course no evidence is perfect, including what's in your comment.
> made them leave the house when they wanted to talk about any touchy subjects.
They did talk about touchy, self-incriminating things in the house.
Wernher Von Braun knew of and saw the existence of slave labor for his V2 rockets and was brought to the US and then celebrated. In both his role in Germany and in the US it was considered "national security".
Smart people still work for trump regime. Lets put it this way - it won't be viewed kindly by history neither. Yet it keeps happening, people have various priorities and high intelligence doesn't guarantee high morals. musk keeps doing nazi gestures and behavior and clearly his values are not far neither, yet he is supposedly smart and definitely doesn't have to behave that way, its a personal choice.
Also, a lot of people are trivial to manipulate and have emotional weaknesses that are easy to abuse by skilled manipulators, smart or not.
Majorana basically disappeared in 1938. It has been suggested that he could see the feasibility of weapons using fission (Leonardo Sciascia wrote a play about this). Opinions vary and the issue is cloudy and ripe for fiction.
That was interesting read, thank you. I wonder what his stance would be after experiencing nazi extermination camps, people often flock to populists promising cleanup of some non-ideal situation but what it actually means down the line is far more sinister (or just empty words like mexican wall which could be completed for years if wanted).
Without agreeing with the stereotype that scientists are supposed to be smart¹, yeah this is something that worries me. Be it naziism, slavery, racism the way that it was considered normal and legal when my grandparents were alive: there are so many things about which I wonder how large groups (not just a few outliers) can be convinced to believe it.
How do I know what I'm doing in life is right? By what mechanism could I ensure that I believe someone who tells me that Jews aren't the cause of all evil if I lived in ~1940 Germany? What makes people increasingly vote for racist parties since covid? The average person hasn't gotten any smarter or dumber in many thousands of years; evolution is not that fast. At best, genes might be expressed differently based on environmental factors, but I'm not aware that this is a factor for the aforementioned inhumane beliefs. How "scientists" (or anyone) could believe this is a really good question, sadly
Of course, this is ignoring the group that did fight against the nazi regime and/or beliefs. This is just about the (sufficiently large) group that could be convinced to work towards inhumane treatment or even genocide
¹ we can all do amazing things when we have the right idea in the right situation with the means to execute it. Of course, good ideas occur to a smarter person more frequently, and they might be inclined to become scientists because it's an environment seemingly meant for working on new ideas, but that doesn't mean everyone there is per se smart. Lots of people are only topically smart (not to be confused with topical knowledge: I scored both top % and bottom % depending on which part of the iq test you looked at, so that's not about knowledge but about abilities. Many people think I'm smart, but I think they mainly notice the parts where I'm unusually good rather than the 'boring' parts where I perform normally or below average, or they attribute it to laziness)
IMHO these are great, essential questions - the most essential. Here are some fundamental ideas that help me:
> How do I know what I'm doing in life is right?
I start with humility, as you already have: We don't know if we're doing the right thing. (The great physicist Richard Feynman maybe said it best, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.") Notice that those doing bad things these days embrace brazen arrogance and power.
Wise, good people are hesitant to embrace power; not only do we lack the knowledge to know if we're right, power corrupts. The founders of the US purposely diffused power away from one individual; George Washington declined it, repeatedly. In the most popular fiction of the 20th century, the Lord of the Rings, what distinguished the good guys is they destroyed power and feared using it themselves.
That's one reason it's essential to sharpen our critical thinking and judgment, because doing good requires finding the best way forward as frail humans through uncertainty.
(That doesn't mean doing nothing or never using power. We need to use our best judgment.)
> I wonder how large groups (not just a few outliers) can be convinced to believe it.
Humans are group creatures; we and our primate ancestors all live in sizeable groups and not alone (compare bears or sharks, for example). We are programmed to move with the herd.
The herd is guided by social norms. It's naturally very hard to resist them because we fear most being outcast - what feels worse than shame and ridicule? - in part because we cannot survive well or for long alone. You can't get far in life without social connections; it may ruin or even kill you when you need help - and you will - and have nobody to call.
So it's very hard to be the only one at the meeting, when everyone agrees and is moving forward, to raise your hand alone and say 'stop, this is wrong'. For one thing, you may be ineffective and dismissed, lose reputation, and lose group standing. Outcast. In the HN context, this happens to innovators: what is the first response to your innovation? 'First, they laugh at you' - ridicule. Being a true innovator requires violating social norms, which is hard even when it's just technology. Nobody wants to work for years being laughed at by family, friends, and important business contacts (and you never know if you'll be successful after all, for reasons having nothing to do with your innovation).
Sophisticated communicators know this and manipulate groups and the public. Recently the Republican Party in the US as been much more sophisticated at communiation than the Democrats (IMHO), at least in this respect. You see them wield ridicule very effectively, making many left-wing ideas outcast even among centrists and relatively moderate Democrats - as a good example, climate change is factually very well-founded as the moderates and centrists know, but raising the issue is socially outre. Everyone will smirk and walk away from you.
An important part of doing the right thing is having perspective and awareness of norms, and the herd mentality, and to make the right choices regardless while still being effective and not outcast. It's not always easy and takes courage - grace under pressure, not shrillness.
To be fair, it doesn't take a genius to understand that killing Jews for being Jews is not ok. It is even written in the Bible which is 2000 years old.
Also, regarding slavery: Americans understood that it was not ok. This is why they replaced the word "slaves" with "other persons" when writing a Constitution:
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
> What makes people increasingly vote for racist parties since covid?
You should not assume that majority of people are good people (if they were good, they would not support slavery and fight for it in the Civil War).
Boron contamination of graphite also slowed the Manhattan Project:
" Fermi writes that "The results of this experiment was [sic] somewhat discouraging" presumably because of the absorption of neutrons by some unknown impurity. So, in December 1940 Fermi and Szilard met with Herbert G. MacPherson and V. C. Hamister at National Carbon to discuss the possible existence of impurities in graphite. During this conversation it became clear that minute quantities of boron impurities were the source of the problem. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_graphite
This is why the German's used heavy water instead of graphite as a neutron moderator, which made it much harder to build a reactor. Their early reactors consisted of concentric spheres of heavy water and uranium powder. This was an unfortunate combination, as uranium powder ignites on contact with water. Leaks caused explosions on two separate occasions [0].
In contrast, the first allied nuclear reactor was a literal pile of uranium and graphite on a squash court.
[0] The Bastard Brigade (great book on all of this)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1
> uranium powder. This was an unfortunate combination, as uranium powder ignites on contact with water.
Why did they use metallic uranium instead of the stable oxide?
Pure guess based on intuition: density making it easier to reach criticality.
> This is why the German's used heavy water instead of graphite as a neutron moderator
Were there other approaches discussed or used in Germany around the time?
There was one proposal to use dry ice as the moderator, in a low power experiment.
TFA points out that their heavy water production would have been too low to make single working reactor during the whole course of the war.
> This was an unfortunate combination, as uranium powder ignites on contact with water. Leaks caused explosions on two separate occasions
This was a _fortunate_ combination, the way I see it.
Sounds like a good time travel story: the mission is to go back in time and plant a single uranium cube, to be found ~80 years hence, to convince people that the German bomb project was doomed so that– ahh, but let's not spoil it! :)
This is where AI kinda has a role. Built on all the sci fi tropes of years past. You can give it a seed and an ending and get it to write the evening’s entertainment.
Never ever do I read enough about the blame Europe had in all of this due to it's procrastinating to deal with Hitler / Germany on time.
Happening again with Russia.
Blaming the victims has gone out of style, for some reason.
So that WW2 had to go on for an extra 2/3 years?
Germans had already surrendered and the Japanese were going to surrender as Russians now were able to move their force against Japan before the nuclear bombs were used. They were used to test the bombs and make sure no such war happens again specially the 2nd Bomb on Nagasaki that was used a few days after they bombed Hiroshima.
The Japanese were aware of the US atomic bomb program and had correctly deduced that the US would be able to create a bomb by summer of 1945. They believed the US could only produce one such weapon every 3 months, and decided that getting nuked at that frequency was tolerable for some period, and they could still hold out for more favorable terms as the US would not want the war to drag on too much longer, and the Japanese had hope the still neutral Soviet Union would mediate that peace. It is worth noting that while the atomic bombs were extremely powerful compared to one bomb, they had spent years suffering strategic bombing that destroyed cities; from a tactical perspective the bomb didn't make much difference, losing 5 or 6 more cities wouldn't move the needle. What they were unaware of was that the US was also producing plutonium for nuclear weapons (the Japanese nuclear program was unaware of plutonium in general). When the second bomb came in 3 days instead of 3 months, they knew the situation was very different than what they had anticipated. In a way the US was sort of bluffing - it could make bombs faster than the Japanese thought, but it could not nearly keep up with the 3 day cadence. Combined with the Soviet Union's entry into the war a few hours earlier, the Japanese government realized they had to surrender, but still were not prepared to fully accept the Potsdam Declaration. Truman gave the order to drop a third bomb as soon as it was ready (which would have been August 19th). The decision to surrender unconditionally was only made after consulting with Filed Marshal Hata, whose headquarters had been in Hiroshima, who told the Big Six that he had no confidence in defeating an invasion. Japan communicated its intent to surrender on August 14th. In his surrender speech, Hirohito specifically cited the atomic bomb and more specifically the threat of its continued use as the reason for the surrender.
It's also worth noting that forcing Japan's rapid surrender also limited the amount of territory that the Soviet Union could conquer after their entry into the war. Despite the Soviet Union continuing to fight into September, they were not in a position to occupy Hokaido as they had intended. WW2 would have certainly come to an end at some point without the atomic bombings, but there may have been a North and South Japan at the end of it.
> They were used to test the bombs and make sure no such war happens again
The two cities were already on a "to be bombed" list and were the 73rd and 74th Japanese cities to be utterly destroyed by bombing.
So, Yes - they were literally used to test the bombs.
The "and make sure no such war happens again" is more of a post WWII retcon of the Cold War era.
In all likelihood, the two nuclear bombs killed fewer people than the bombing that otherwise would have occurred.
What, if Truman had accepted the telegram surrender instead of sending nukes in response?
Really?
They certainly killed less people than the bombing that had already occurred - the destruction of Tokyo alone likely killed more people than either atomic bomb.
There's no real consensus in the alternative history conjecture space, and no way to resolve the theories floated, Gar Alperovitz (for one example) made the argument that
( in https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004FGMR3S )This is alternative history, not real history. Remember, there was an attempted coup even after the first bomb to prolong the war. The Japanese leadership at the time were very zealous verging on religious zeal. One of the things that got them to eventually give up was a captured US fighter pilot that (under threat of death) told the Japanese that the US had 100s of atomic bombs. This was a lie but he didn't know that and just was trying to get the insane intelligence agent to not cut his head off (literally). There were other factors too. The USSR invading Manchuria for example. Also the US was in the process of ringing the home islands with 50 fleet carriers (the big ones, 50kt displacement) which would have been able to bomb Japan at will. Even with all of this, there was a significant faction of Japanese leadership who wanted to fight on.
These claims are more about politics than anything. Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US. The Japanese had never been invaded and that was a huge point of pride. They were training the civilians for a guerrilla war. Just because you can find a person in the Japanese government who wanted to surrender at that point (and there were) doesn't mean that's the decision that would have been taken.
PS That 3rd point is especially specious...if it were true, no 2nd bomb would have been used. PPS Stuff like this is why historians don't like nor will engage with hypotheticals or the alternative history folks. Its clearly politically motivated, not a good faith attempt to understand history.
This exactly. I don't know why people are posting "alternative history conjecture" as if it's fact.
We should remember further that after the second bomb was dropped AND the Soviet entry into the war AND the emperor specifically ordering them to surrender the militarists in the Japanese government still attempted to carry out a coup to stop the surrender and continue the war.
The second bomb is the one whose use is questionable. If Truman were to be tried for war crimes it would be for that. A surrender was in play. Truman wanted no conditions. I think another week of people dying from radiation poisoning would have brought people around anyway.
There was no surrender in play. We have the records of the Japanese councils at this point.
This theories all fall flat when Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb. As the other comment mentioned there was an attempted coup to keep the war going.
It took two bombs to get Japan to surrender. “A surrender is in play” means zilch.
The West insisted on unconditional surrender (implies occupation)
The Japanese would not agree to that
They might have agreed to a cease fire and reduced overseas possessions. A defeat, but not surrender
Make up your own mind of continuing the war to enforce total surrender
> Its an attempt to retcon history to vilify the US.
An attempt to vilify ... the side that eagerly deployed nuclear weapons on civilian targets? I'm from the US and I'm not someone who is blind to pragmatism but your argument here just seems completely absurd to me. We clearly committed an atrocity with somewhere between minimal to no legitimate justification.
Then again, after seeing the adjacent comment about avoiding soviet involvement it occurs to me that perhaps we inadvertently did them a favor in a roundabout way. Japan probably would have lost a lot more than the kuril islands otherwise.
Where did you get the idea that the USA was “eager” to deploy the atomic bomb?
>Stimson wrote in his diary afterwards that after his briefing, Truman felt “the terrible responsibility that such destruction placed upon us here and himself.” [1]
[1] “Memorandum of Conference with the President, August 8, 1945 at 10:45am,” in Stimson diary (8 August 1945), Henry Lewis Stimson Papers (MS 465), Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library.
For starters, how many days did it take before we dropped the second one again? I don't think it matters what any of the participants wrote or said given the events that we know to have transpired. There were clearly many other paths available to take.
Easy to say 80 years later, not having any of the personal experience, and handwaving away first person accounts.
You can certainly choose to believe that the decision makers were eager to use nukes and didn’t consider other paths, but you have to acknowledge that opinion is coming entirely from your own intuition and intentionally excludes all contrary evidence.
It's literally in Truman's diary. [1] I mean I suppose he doesn't "literally" say 'I'm anxious to nuke the Japs', but he comes pretty close:
"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
And on top of this, the Japanese had been negotiating their surrender with the ostensibly neutral USSR hoping to get more favorable conditions with their assistance. And the US had been secretly intercepting these cables and knew all about it. [2] And on top of this the US had also already created another secret agreement with the USSR such that they would declare war on Japan on August 8th, which would end any hope at all for Japan. We nuked them on August 6th, and then again on the 9th.
It was completely unnecessary.
[1] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28466-document-47-trumans...
[2] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28458-document-39b-magic-...
Their conditions included remaining in sole possession of all of the land that they had taken in China, the Dutch East Indies, and Korea.
Not quite. The main negotiator they were using in the Soviet Union was fully aware of the reality of what was happening, long before the nukes and Soviet declaration of war. He was suggesting unconditional surrender except with the promise of the continuity of the Emperor, which is exactly what they ended up going for.
The problem is that he did not, independently, have the authority to make such an offer. And in the mainland things were also confused. The Emperor was treated as a borderline divine figure, but that also meant he was mostly hands off except as a lost resort. He was pushing for surrender behind the scenes, but the war council was the one making the decisions of what would be offered, and they were completely divided. Half wanted to fight, and half wanted peace.
This division continued even after the nukes and Soviet invasion. What changed is they chose to allow the Emperor to make the final call, and he chose to surrender as he had been angling for for quite some time already. The nukes played little role in this decision. The pro-war Japanese correctly believed that we couldn't have many such weapons and were, in any case, prepared to fight to the last Japanese because they thought it'd be glorious. The thing that did change their mind was the Soviets entering the war meaning they not only no longer had any intermediary with with which to hope for more favorable terms, but also were now facing a massive invasion from the north as well.
Truman's own diary would be a pretty good source: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28466-document-47-trumans...
The diary is full of revealing quotes like "Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
For some timeline the US had secretly arranged for Russia to declare war on Japan on August 8th. We nuked them first on August 6th, and then again on the 9th. The goal was to get them to surrender to the US before the Soviets made significant inroads in Japan.
« The diary is full of revealing quotes »
Do you think what they reveal is the truth? Was the diary meant to be published and become "a source"? Was Truman informed about everything important going on in the US? About the reality (the truth) of the Manhattan Project? Did he even need to know? Wasn't it preferable for him to simply believe in order to play his role?
Just some questions to ponder as to the quality of this source and what can be deduced from it.
The bombs were an atrocity against a nation that had been committing atrocities of its own.
There are no moral winners in war.
But it remains true that if Japan or Germany had had the bomb, they'd have bombed civilians without compunction, discussion, or regret.
> the side that eagerly deployed nuclear weapons on civilian targets
No one was eager. This sort of lie destroys discussion. This site is only about discussion, so please don't keep trying to destroy the only thing the site is about.
This is so profoundly and comprehensively ignorant about pretty much everything about the pacific theater of WWII that it's hard to know where to even start. I would suggest you start reading about the conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in China, Korea, Philippines, and pretty much everywhere else they invaded and occupied, much of it before the US even started to consider entering the war.
Such a convenient narrative. "Yeah, a shit ton of civilians who weren't vaporized died slow, agonizing deaths from radiation exposure, but believe you me, it's more humane than the alternative! They should be thankful!"
There is nothing humane in bombing with conventional explosives, or bombing with napalm, thermobaric weapons or nuclear bombing. Or biological or chemical weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon
It's convenient, yes, but it's also true. The deaths in Japan had an invasion and ground conquest been necessary would have dwarfed anything they had yet seen. Just their deaths from starvation would have been horrific.
This is the kind of thing people say when they've never seen someone die over several days from burn injuries.
Plenty of the survivors of the nuclear bombings and the fire bombings writings went on to be published. You can read them yourselves but generally speaking the fire bombings were way, way, worse.
I didn’t actually say any of that.
It was more humane, whether you like it or not. What if we had waited to learn our lesson until the Korean war, when the yield of the first atomic bomb dropped on people would have been measured in hundreds of kilotons instead of tens, and with a few hundred more bombs where that one came from?
Also, people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.
“The question arose: what about the women and children? I decided to find a perfectly clear solution to this too. I did not consider myself justified in exterminating the men — that is, to kill them or have them killed — while letting avengers in the shape of their children grow up for our sons and grandchildren.”
- Heinrich Himmler
“I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are the satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret.”
- Oliver Cromwell
“It was no longer a question of merely dispersing the crowd, but one of producing a sufficient moral effect, from a military point of view, not only on those who were present, but more especially throughout the Punjab.”
- Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer
"I wasn't there."
- kstenerud
> people who are ready to surrender don't need to be nuked twice.
The question remains whether in fact Japan "needed" to be nuked even once - it's unknown whether the ongoing city by city destruction would have resolved WWII.
Further, did they "need" to be nuked a second time so quickly (within three days)? That second nuke was not to force a surrender (just as the first wasn't) - the two bombings were two live tests of two separate weapon designs untested in the field of war.
Japan had already lost 272 out of 665 sq. km of built up urban areas, with no sign of collapse.
Further, did they "need" to be nuked a second time so quickly (within three days)?
Apparently so. Most people will run up the white flag after being nuked once, you see.
It was important to make them think that we had a whole stockpile of them. Otherwise, twice might not have been enough.
If Japan were going to surrender, why did they refuse to surrender after the first bomb? And took days to surrender after the second bomb?
The theory makes no sense
Japan were not going to surrender. Some things happened that made them reconsider.
The things that happened: (a) Hiroshima bombed on Aug 6th, (b) USSR declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria on Aug 8th, and (c) as the Cabinet gathered on Aug 9th to discuss the terms of surrender, Nagasaki was bombed.
The theory that I read is this: Japanese emperor did not really realize what a "nuclear bomb" is. Today we obsess that Hiroshima was "nuked", but for the emperor, and the Japanese central command at the time, the report from Hiroshima (if they even bothered to read it) would not really stand out from dozens of similar reports of bombings they got on their desks every week.
USSR joining the war on US side, however - that is the kind of news that could tip the scales and make them surrender.
And if "the Bomb" was so overpowering and decisive, as immediately claimed by US propaganda, then why did the US attack again on Aug 14/15, using pumpkin bombs¹, in a " Grand Finale" ?
Here's Yozo Kudo, general secretary of the Japanese National Association for the Assessment of Air Raids and War Damage:
————————
INTERVIEW: Why U.S. air raids continued until day of Japan’s surrender — THE ASAHI SHIMBUN² — August 14, 2023 — Yozo Kudo, 73, secretary-general of the national association of groups recording air raids and war damage
The United States carried out air raids from Aug. 14 to early Aug. 15. More than 1,000 aircraft, including 825 B-29 bombers, attacked targets nationwide. It is believed to be the largest number of aircraft deployed for (a string of) air raids during the Pacific War.
Q: Which cities were attacked?
A: Targets included Osaka, where Osaka Arsenal and Kyobashi Station were bombed, Akita’s Tsuchizaki district, Isesaki in Gunma Prefecture, Kumagaya in Saitama Prefecture, and Iwakuni and Hikari in Yamaguchi Prefecture.
When small-scale bombings are included, about 30 locations were attacked. Many people were killed. But casualty counts vary, and the exact number is unknown.
Q: Why were air raids conducted on the day of the surrender or the day before?
A: Japan’s delay in accepting the Potsdam Declaration was in the background.
The government informed the Allied powers on Aug. 10 that it would accept the declaration on condition that the emperor’s rights of sovereignty would not be changed. But arguments within the government and military became tangled over a response from the Allied powers. Some said the emperor’s status was not guaranteed, and an agreement was not reached for some time.
The United States on Aug. 10 stopped air raids on urban areas by B-29 bombers to prevent an adverse impact on peace negotiations. The following day, air raids by B-29 bombers were suspended altogether.
The United States once waited for an end of peace negotiations, although it continued some air raids by other bombers. But Japan did not produce its conclusion for some time, and the United States decided to carry out large-scale air raids on Aug. 14-15 to urge Japan to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
Henry Arnold, commander of the U.S. Army Air Forces, had wanted the grandest possible finale, according to a history of warfare by B-29 bombers.
The U.S. military initially considered an air raid on Tokyo, which would have a strong psychological impact on the Japanese government, but eventually decided to target several areas outside Tokyo.
Japan decided to accept the Potsdam Declaration at a meeting in the presence of the emperor on Aug. 14. But it took time before U.S. military officials on the ground were informed of Japan’s decision, and air raids continued until the early hours of Aug. 15.
————————
That doesn't give a clear answer as to the motivation of these anewed US terror bombing raids against civilians. There is no military reason, as with all previous attacks on civilians. Just sadism? Or maybe the raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not impressive enough?
1 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/509th_Composite_Group
2 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14980968
The USSR declared war on Japan on August 8th, as part of a secret agreement with the West. The US knowing this, first nuked Japan on the 6th and then again on the 9th. It's hard not to see 'us' as trying to force a surrender before the USSR could get significantly involved. Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West. Thanks to the US getting a quick surrender from Japan, the USSR was able to be completely excluded from the following occupation of Japan.
If any documents were ever created about this debate, they've probably been destroyed, and those involved have taken it to the grave with themselves. So I suppose technically we can never know for sure. But I think the cynical view is far more well supported. Or at least I think the cynical aspects were the majority of the logic behind it. And it was not only about control of Japan but also about sending a message to the USSR as the US undoubtedly saw the outlines of a new West-East world order emerging after WW2. And all the way up until the 80s [1] our dominant political philosophy was that we could win by intimidation and demonstrations of force, nuclear in particular.
------------
Wow, loving LLMs when digging into topics now a days. GPT was able to direct me to Truman's diary entries which are public record. [2] I take back the weasel wording above. Truman himself was quite clear on his intention and desires:
"Discussed Manhattan (it is a success). Decided to tell Stalin about it. Stalin had told P.M. of telegram from Jap Emperor [actually from the Foreign Secretary] asking for peace. Stalin also read his answer to me. It was satisfactory. Believe Japs will fold up before Russia comes in. I am sure they will when Manhattan [A-bomb] appears over their homeland. I shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time."
- President Harry S. Truman, July 18th 1945
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Prophet#Impact
[2] - https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/28466-document-47-trumans...
> Why? Because territories in WW2 were split up in significant part based on who conquered which part. Hence East Germany going to the USSR and West Germany going the the West.
That was particularly painful for Churchill to accept at the end when he had to hand over Poland to Stalin. Poland was the reason Britain officially entered WW2 in 1939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
> We and France are to-day, in fulfillment of our obligations, going to the aid of Poland, who is so bravely resisting this wicked and unprovoked attack upon her people. We have a clear conscience. We have done all that any country could do to establish peace, but a situation in which no word given by Germany's ruler could be trusted and no people or country could feel themselves safe had become intolerable. And now that we have resolved to finish it, I know that you will all play your part with calmness and courage
(Chamberlain, Sep 3, 1939)
> shall inform Stalin about it at an opportune time
Stalin was fully aware well before Potsdam, Kurchatov was already working on it for years.
Some of the key technical people recruited into the Manhattan Project were already long time Soviet sympathisers and feeding updates on their work (and of others) back to the USSR.
eg: (one of several) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
The case could be made for Stalin being better informed for a greater period of time than Truman (who was only read in to project in 1945 aft moving from VP to POTUS).- https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/harry-truman/
Funny though that at "Operation Crossroads" in July 1946, the US was still trying to convince the Soviet Union, which they had invited to send a delegation, that the atomic thing was real. They apparently still didn't know that the Soviets had known all along.
The Uranium cubes don't tell you anything - they just didn't have enough, or enough heavy water, to achieve criticality for a nuclear reactor.
The real goal was to build a nuclear bomb, not a reactor, and the main reason the Germans failed at that is different - Heisenberg incorrectly calculated the critical mass of U-235, thinking that tons would be necessary, which would be impossible to produce (unlike a heavy water reactor which doesn't need refined U-235).
Of course even if Heisenberg had calculated correctly, it's not clear that Germany had the resources or mindset for a Manhatten project scale effort to actually pursue it.
One interesting stat on the Manhatten project is that is was using 10-15% of all electricity generated in the US - just to refine the 64kg of U-325 needed for the Hiroshima bomb.
Clickbait antidote: The cubes revealed only that the uranium was a bit less dense than textbook values because of tiny internal voids.
That measurement fed a computer model, but if I'm reading the article right, most of the work was actually based on wartime records on heavy water and graphite. Anyway, the model showed they would have needed twice the uranium and heavy water they actually had.
> Anyway, the model showed they would have needed twice the uranium and heavy water they actually had.
I don’t know whether it would have made a difference (it isn’t trivial to determine that from this article or the paper), but they had more uranium than they knew they had. https://pure.rug.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/735593238/36_1_onl...:
“De Haas, one of the directors of the Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory at Leiden University, quickly realized the strategic value of uranium and sprang into action. He used his close government contacts to persuade the Dutch prime minister, Hendrik Colijn, to immediately order a large amount of uranium from the Belgian firm Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, which mined deposits in the Belgian Congo.
The Dutch placed their uranium order just a few weeks before Joliot-Curie made Union Minière aware of uranium’s new potential. When 200 50-kilogram barrels of yellowcake—a form of uranium oxide—arrived at his laboratory in Leiden, De Haas initially had them stored in his laboratory. But the uranium increased radiation levels and interfered with measurements, so the barrels were moved to a locked room in a basement at the Delft University of Technology. Remarkably, they remained undisturbed in the basement during the war, undiscovered by the German occupiers.”
It should be noted that they didn't have the supplies for the design they tried. There were designs that could have worked with what they had. And its unlikely that during the war anyone knew exactly which designs the Germans tried and even less chance that someone would have known if a specific novel design would have worked. Its an interesting detail but largely irrelevant.
Its also suspected Heisenberg didn't want the design to work (its the given reason why he wasn't killed by Berg). But it was still a reasonable possibility during the war that the Germans could have made it work.
Heisenberg's humanity shines through in his written words in Reality and It's Order.
It is very upsetting that one of the most profound minds of 20th century and Germany, entirely in the tradition of Leibniz, Goethe, et al., is blackwashed because of the coincidence of existing during the Nazi regime.
(https://northtownbooks.com/book/9783030256951 << Recommended)
IIRC, US Colonel Hogan got Luftwaffe Colonel Klink to drink a bunch of that heavy water as a cure for baldness as a truckful of it transited through Stalag 13.
Phew, that underground mission was more important than I thought!
I thought Renee convinced Colonel von Strohm to let him use it fill a bunch of empty champagne bottles to bribe General von Klinkerhoffen, but the bottles were drunk by some downed British airmen who were being hidden by the French Resistance in the same attic?
I know nothing, nothing...
This is central to the plot of D: Heavy Water, Neal Stephenson's second installment of the Bomb Light Trilogy.
Can it be read standalone or it needs the first book?
I'd recommend reading the first book before D.
Holy shit this is out? I went to the book tour for Polostan. Ordered; ty!
Aye, I ran across it at Powells last week. It's fantastic, enjoy!
Enjoy, it’s riveting!
Since Norsk Hydro was mentioned in the article, I have to mention in turn one of my favorite books ever: The Winter Fortress by Neil Bascomb. It's the true story of the Norwegian commando sabotage of the heavy water plant. Short version: after a failed attempt by the English, some locals who'd fled to England and received training parachuted in, blew it up, and then skied to neutral Sweden. Legends, the lot of them: they froze their balls off and didn't have enough to eat, but they pulled it off.
Every time I re-read it, it makes me want to take up nordic skiing. It is absolutely up there on my list of greatest true stories ever told with Touching the Void, The Emerald Mile, and a select few others.
https://www.abebooks.com/Winter-Fortress-Epic-Mission-Sabota...
One of the Operation Gunnerside members was later part of the Kon-Tiki Expedition [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition
Also the 1965 film "The Heroes of Telemark", the documentary "The Real Heroes of Telemark" by Ray Mears, and his book of the same name.
That looks good; thanks. Growing up, I loved the firsthand account published in the 80s. Probably mentioned as a source in this newer book. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/100634.Skis_Against_the_...
I am so excited to read this; thank you! I've reread The Winter Fortress every year or two since the first time.
This story is also covered in The Bastard Brigade, which details many other Allied attempts to sabotage the Germany nuclear program. Fun fact: Heisenberg was close to being assassinated by a famous baseball player (Mo Berg). Very entertaining and interesting book.
There's a movie about that which focuses on Berg who was a pretty impressive person. He was a MLB player at a time when that was the biggest sport in the US but the players made next to nothing. He also spoke 10 languages fluently and spent most of the war translating intelligence intercepts. Supposedly he found Heisenberg but judged that he wasn't a threat and so didn't kill him. That's the story anyway, no idea how true that is.
The follow up operation killed a bunch of civilians for no good reason at all.
There was a bunch of heavy water being transported on a ferry. They blew it up. People died. Even with that heavy water, Germany wouldn't have had the bomb.
Little extra fun fact since Norsk Hydro was mentioned in the article and now you've mentioned it again-
Norsk Hydro was founded as a hydro power plant + nitrogen fertilizer production company (the nitrogen production needing lots of electricity, and the hydro plant to provide said energy...) but around WWII, pivoted to light metals, and built aluminum and magnesium factories with German company IG Farben, in order to support them in the war, as they were partially under Nazi occupation by then. That all went south but then after the war they kept on with the aluminum business.
The company went on to become experts in aluminum extrusions, and were then contracted not just for the base metal but also to manufacture the first bonded aluminum bare chassis for the S1 Lotus Elise in 1995, which went on to be the basis for the Tesla Roadster.
Nordic skiing is great.
As a snowboarder I was reluctant, but got into it a few years ago. We pull our young daughter in a chariot with skis about 10km into a little cabin by a river with a wood stove.
Cheese, salami and hot chocolate and we make the return loop. Three evenings a week all winter long is a great way to spend time outside.
The obvious question to me is whether Heisenberg got it wrong on purpose.
An intermediate possibility is he got a wrong answer and, for subconscious reasons, didn't press himself to confirm it was correct.
Anyone interested in the bomb should read 'And the Devil Reached Towards the Sky, an oral history of the atomic bomb.'
It's full of fun anecdotes and asides...like when they 'found' tuns of uranium ore in NY...or the aforementioned acquisition of silver from Treasury.
There are classic bureaucratic things...like when they issued a check for millions and specified 'no questions asked.' Then the guy called with questions. Or how Groves' people and Treasury tried to figure out how many ounces were in a ton.
Also very good reading on this subject is "The Making of the Atomic Bomb", by "Richard Rhodes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_Atomic_Bomb
"As the German scientists were racing against time,"
The Germans tried to build a reactor, not a bomb, or am I wrong?
Building a reactor was a step on the way to building a bomb.
Two isotopes were used for fission bombs in WWII: Uranium 235 and Plutonium. More than 99% of naturally occurring Uranium is Uranium 238, which will not sustain a chain reaction necessary for a bomb. There are only trace amounts of Plutonium in nature, but it can be produced in reactors that use U238 for fuel. So, to make a fission bomb you need to either separate U235 from U238 or build a reactor to create Plutonium.
It's worth noting that the shortage of heavy water was no accident. The Allies sabotaged the heavy water production facility in Norway that Germany relied on[1].
________________________
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage
Nitpick. You can't power a reactor with U-238. You breed U-238 into Pu-239 and that can power a reactor.
RBMK used only 2% enriched though.
CANDU even less today (similar drawbacks though, larger size, bigger and more expensive containment structures). Of course you could theoretically just skip the containment structure))
It was the first step out of 1000 to make. It took both US and USSR more than 2 years from a working reactor to a working bomb, all away from bombing raids. Reactors used to make bomb plutonium were a lot larger and more powerful than these first research ones, and Germany was nowhere near the required scale.
Germans also didn't have anything resembling a workable bomb design.
There was a NOVA program that I watched... it was long ago. Hitler's Sunken Secret https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976861/ (the trailer)
It was about a team of archeologists that were recovering the barrels that the heavy water was shipped in from a sunken ferry.
Hunting down a video - https://youtu.be/jXznxZjT300
The US built a reactor first too [1], followed by others [2] as part of the Manhattan Project.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
In the context of the time, those US scientists that built a reactor were all in for nuclear energy and absolutely 100% did not think that a nuclear weapon was economically feasible.
"Economically feasible" meaning maybe, perhaps, theoretically possible but even if so astronomically expensive in time, money, and physical resources.
It took the UK/CA/AU Tube Alloys group to find ways to make a weapon more practical, and multiple letters, attempts, and a one on one press the flesh tour to convince the US nuclear types that a weapon was both possible and achievable.
If you go to the Los Alamos Science Museum you can see an original letter from Albert Einstein where he proposed that a nuclear bomb could be fit on a ship and sailed into harbor in 1938. A ship-sized nuclear bomb was not of interest to President Roosevelt at the time for a likely good reason. It's only when the UK realized that it wasn't a ship size. It was something that you could drop from a conventional airplane bomber of the day that the US became interested.
Seen it, read it, and aware of why it was ignored at the time - the ability to make such a weapon, as relayed by Einstein, was a hearsay tale of speculation.
Some time later Mark Oliphant visited the US in person and walked key people through a circles and arrows on chalkboard breakdown of how such a thing would be actually possible.
It was also a failure of imagination. A ship sized tsar bomba at the time would still be quite interesting - armor the ship like a Iowa class (or more), and give it an automated navigator (very doable at the time, plus or minus a mile or two), and it’s a war ender.
And sail the ship into Berlin?
Wait until the wind is right, add some of the right contaminants, and you wouldn’t need to do so to poison all of Germany for at least a generation.
Also, Tokyo Bay.
For the Axis powers, it would be an even easier sell of course.
At least if any of them could believe - or even imagine - that it actually could exist or be as devastating as it was of course. And frankly, unless you saw the footage of an actual Tsar Bomba, how could anyone?
Footage of the actual Tsar Bomba has no scale, detonating as it did high up in the atmosphere - for anyone watching it might have been a really big or really small explosion.
For the first bomb ever made to immediately jump to Tsar Bomba size, or for it to utilise an understanding of fallout and contaminants that didn't exist prior to the Castle Bravo tests seems ... unlikely.
Like Castle Bravo, if the timescale is accurate the scale is obvious to anyone who has seen explosions/bombs before. That being, huge and destructive on a scale previously impossible.
I think you’re making my point though - literally no one could really comprehend or believe such a thing was even possible. Ever.
Until they saw it happening.
So of course it got dismissed until it was essentially inevitable.
> Like Castle Bravo,
The Tsar Bombe footage* had warships in the frame for scale? That's certainly news to me.
> the scale is obvious to anyone who has seen explosions/bombs before.
Okay, fair point - so how big or small was this nuclear explosion then? (No banana for scale, but there is a human for reference): https://i0.wp.com/blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads...
Sure, there's no real challenge to lookup the test series via name in the URL for answers, but bear in mind, watching live IRL as the bubble expands the question for casual humans is how far away is that explosion? ( Fermi had distance, time, and shockwave force at distance to work with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_problem )
* 1961 Tsar Bomba hydrogen blast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtCTzbh4mNQ
bigger than anything ever seen on the planet before, with the fireball going into the stratosphere. but then you know that.
what even is your point?
if Roosevelt (or any other leader at the time) had seen that footage, he’d be shitting his pants and funding anything and everything going in that direction ASAP. which is mine.
The plutonium bomb was vastly more difficult to design than the uranium version.
Were both judged infeasible for different reasons? Perhaps uranium purification challenges and the implosion required for plutonium?
In general the take was that human created nuclear weapons were infeasible (regardless of design) because of what was thought to be the barrier to cross to achieve a chain reaction.
The Frisch–Peierls memorandum changed that understanding ... provided that reading of the FP-memorandum was convincingly conveyed to people that made things happen, what Einstein put to paper (and was ignored) and that Oliphant pushed through in person.
Little Boy on Hiroshima was a gun design, a grossly inefficient McGyver that used some 64 kilograms of enriched uranium to successfully convert less than half a gram to energy.
Fat Man on Nagasaki was an implosion device - a necessary design change due to simply not having enough uranium or an enrichment pipeline to sustain the needs of a gun design.
The first device detonated, at Trinity in the USofA, was an implosion device, created to test the more difficult design.
Further, there was an abandoned / discarded "Thin Man" device IIRC.
These were all alternative implementations that were pursued after the FP-memorandum was pushed about to make the case that weapons were apparently possible rather than not yet achievable - the prevailing belief in the US prior to Oliphant doing the rounds.
Trinity and Fat Man were plutonium bombs, they needed to be implosion designs because it was realized that a gun wouldn't work using plutonium [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_Man_(nuclear_bomb)
As I said above - and perhaps you might like to try a primary source rather than wikipedia ?
~ Los Alamos Nuclear Lab https://www.lanl.gov/media/publications/the-vault/1023-a-tal...Awesome article and interesting to see Heisenberg get it wrong. It really was a perfect situation for the US because we could get all the radioactive material with little issue.
A clean reminder that logistics is everything.
Also cool that the author is married to Sean Carroll.
It mega-helped that Edgar Sengier saw the importance of uranium ore and shipped 1200 tons of it out of the Congo to New York before the U.S. government even realized it would need it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier:
“In September 1942, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols met Sengier in his New York office. Nichols had been ordered to find uranium by the head of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves. He asked if the Union Minière could supply uranium ore, and Sengier's answer became history: "You can have the ore now. It is in New York, a thousand tons of it. I was waiting for your visit."”
Wow that is wild.
We always knew they weren't close because Moe Berg was going to shoot Heisenberg during his lectures in Zurich if he suspected they were.
Relatively recently, recordings were released of conversations between captured Nazi scientists held at a house in the UK (I think I saw it on HN). They were housed together and the house was bugged purposely to capture casual conversation for intelligence purposes.
IIRC one conclusion they/some of the scientists drew was that the culture of the Nazi regime - the paranoia, fear, and violence - made a project on that scale impossible. Enough talented, high-ego people could not work together on project that large and demanding.
Also, IIRC, when the Hiroshima bomb was announced, many couldn't believe it. They had been working on a power generation reactor as a first step - though I'm not sure the OP fits that story?
Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?
The transcripts from that bugged house were turned into a play, we saw it in Richmond, London, a few years ago. It was really well done and seemed to by enjoyed by everyone, not just those interested in the science & its history.
https://www.whatsonstage.com/shows/outer-london-theatre/farm...
The sheer economic costs of the manhattan project were prohibitive to a nation like Germany, even if they'd managed to build a functional project team.
(how many nations had 14,700 tons of silver lying around)
A nation like Germany on the cusp of losing a war sure. The opposite scenario of Germany controlling all the resources of Europe and Africa is a scary proposition.
> The opposite scenario of Germany controlling all the resources of Europe and Africa is a scary proposition.
It shouldn't be. In WW2, in 1942, Germany did essentially control all of Europe, save only the UK. And at the height of its power, Germany's vast industrial machine produced roughly on par with the UK. Not the entire British Empire, just UK.
It turns out that the Nazis were complete incompetent buffoons when it came to economic management. Their grand master plan for Europe was to overrun the east, not for some vast rich treasure trove of minerals to fuel an industrial juggernaut, but to plop down more homesteads to feed their inefficient agricultural economy. And even if the Nazis had a grand plan to become an industrial juggernaut, they still faced the prospect of the industrial juggernaut par excellence, the US.
The US at the start of WW2 was primarily an inefficient agrarian economy.
The war machine is what changed that - that and not being reachable by enemy bombers, and hence not bombed to bits.
Germany started middling and ended destroyed.
No, that's categorically not true!
Germany required like 10 percentage points more of its labor force in agriculture in 1939 than the US did, and that still wasn't enough to make Germany self-sufficient in food; the US was of course one of the major food exporters in the world (in neither case were agriculture workers more than a third of the population, I should note). US agriculture also had largely mechanized in the 1910s, albeit many farms did switch back to draft animals during the 1920s and 1930s due to the collapse in agricultural prices, making animal feed grown on your own farm cheaper than buying fuel for the tractor. Europe agriculture largely didn't mechanize until the 1950s, after WW2.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937%E2%80%931938]
The US was 50% of the world economy before WW2 broke out.
Ironically it was not getting bombed to bits that contributed heavily to US industrial decline in the post-war years. Countries which had their old infrastructure and manufacturing capacity destroyed replaced them with newer, more efficient versions.
Complete nonsense. The US became the largest economy in 1870 (70 years before the start of the war). And in 1875 it became the 1st country to start using crude oil. Even in 1940, the US exported 75% of the worlds oil. Most of the main directions of advance by Germany and Japan were trying to get access to the 15% of the worlds oil they could get to (Romania, Baku and Indonesia). The US economy was 3x the size of Germany's (#2 by GDP) and was the majority of the world's industrial and manufacturing.
Let's try this another way, during WWII the US built warship tonnage equivalent to all the rest of the world's navies combined...in just 1943. Then the US did that again in 1944. At one point, the US hit a Japanese fleet with 17 fleet carriers at once. Keep in mind the Japanese only built 9 fleet carriers total and that was considered the most powerful fleet in the world at the beginning of the war.
« Most of the main directions of advance by Germany and Japan were trying to get access to the 15% of the worlds oil they could get to (Romania, Baku and Indonesia). »
This is the key to understand WW2. The oil, and the iron ore (Sweden, hence Norway). But mostly the oil. All the rest about ideology etc in Western/Anglo historiography is distraction at best (but actually rather deliberately misleading). Like "Hitler sought world domination" and similar junk, this is just ludicrous, we can simply take a look at the map and take note of who had already secured world domination.
The lack of oil had already been painful for Germany during Britain's first "World War", having to rely on horses to a much larger extent than the enemy, and the importance of oil had only risen with motorization.
not even close [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1076289/gdp-continent-18...]]
telling that your example of actual concrete economic output was many years into the war, eh?
Could an inefficient agrarian economy put 88,000 tons of steel into the Golden Gate Bridge between 1933 and 1937?
Definitely. That isn’t much steel at all, relatively speaking.
A single WW2 aircraft carrier is about 2/3 of that amount, or a single WW2 battleship is about half.
In the 3 years after Midway, the US made 17 aircraft carriers, and 8 battleships in roughly that same amount of time.
Not to mention literally thousands of cargo ships, destroyers, etc.
Also, thousands of bombers and 10’s of thousands of smaller aircraft.
Plus tanks, heavy trucks, etc. in the hundreds of thousands.
Hell, in the 3 years between 1942 and 1945 alone, the US made over 50,000 Sherman tanks. And that is just that one model of tank!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease]
Lend lease was responsible for approximately 18 million tons of supplies and equipment to the USSR alone between 1941-1945, including hundreds of thousands of vehicles.
The pre-war USA and post-war USA were entirely different beasts economically.
Don’t forget, massive amounts of this were paid for by loans and debts of foreign governments, and even government bonds bought by your average Joe. A lot of which didn’t get paid off until the 70’s.
And unlike in Europe and Asia, these Capital investments didn’t get bombed to bits.
There's a categorical mistake you're making here. You're assuming that the US was an agrarian economy that suddenly became a massive industrial juggernaught because of WW2. You can't flip a switch and turn a million farmers into high-end industrial workers overnight (see, e.g., China, which did try exactly that).
The US was the world's most industrialized country by the early 1900's. In the 1920's and the 1930's, the world's highest-end, most advanced manufacturing facilities, would be located almost exclusively in the United States. Yes, the Great Depression hit the US hard--as it did the entire world--but it didn't cause the US to revert to an inefficient, agrarian society. Indeed, the agricultural recession was worse than the industrial recession, plagued with overcapacity brought about the recultivation of farmland in Europe post-WWI. So the Great Depression leaves the US with a massive amount of spare capacity that is fully eaten up by the turbocharged military buildup in 1940.
The deeper you dig into the economic policies of the various states, the more you realize just how bad the Nazis were at the economy. Even the Soviet's communist economy, for all of its problems, was more efficient than the fascist economies. The only economic advantage the Nazis had was starting their rearmament--and consequent Keynesian economic injection--a few years earlier. When the Allies warbucked their economies, the Nazis were totally screwed.
The US was in the right place at the right time, yes.
It was still mostly agrarian pre-WW2. Post-WW2 it was orders of magnitude more industrialized. Still, it wasn’t until the 60’s that the majority of the population was no longer living in rural areas and working on farms.
China’s fuckup was much deeper, as their ‘peasants to industry’ roadmap didn’t exist, and just consisted of telling every peasant to make their own forge (essentially) and start making heavy industrial goods. Which of course not only resulted in shitty or non-existent industrial goods, but also widespread famine because they stopped focused on growing crops.
They also completely cut out Capital, and they’d already targeted and destroyed most private industrial conglomerates (and anyone who knew how to build or run one) due to ideology.
The US didn’t have those issues, so when the time came they threw money and a command economy at the existing Industrial base and grew it leaps and bounds almost overnight.
The large quantity of low cost, available, and relatively mobile workers - and excess industrial capacity - due to the Great Depression and it’s after effects helped too.
> It was still mostly agrarian pre-WW2.
This is categorically false. About 20% of the US labor force was engaged in farm labor in the 1930s. Keep in mind that, given concomitant unemployment numbers, this means there is nearly as many unemployed US people as there are farmers.
Does that sound like a "mostly agrarian" economy to you?
1 in 5 working adults literally in the fields? you bet. Guess what the ratio is now? 1.5%, or as the 70’s, about 1 to 22.
That number at the time (21.5%, btw) only counts folks directly working on the farm, not all the secondary folks - butchers, bakers, flour mill workers, etc.
Currently in the US, the 1.5% working directly on farms then leads to ~ 10.5% of additional employment going ‘farm to table’. Not counting restaurants and the like, but all the middle folks and value add folks.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1316855/us-farm-nonfarm-...]
Late 1800’s to pre-1930’s, direct farm labor was as high as 53% - but that was also because there wasn’t much value add. There was a lot of subsidence farming, and people often ate what was produced locally due to poor transportation infrastructure.
That started to change with automation and the railroads, with a very large multiple of the economy being about processing, transporting, etc. the food produced by farms. Think the milkman, butchers and meat processing plants, textile mills, etc. It’s what made Chicago the powerhouse it was, for instance.
that is still part of the agrarian economy.
US might have been 20% agrarian prior to WWII; but Germany still had 30% of their workforce employed in agriculture.
and that changes what I said how?
By adding valuable global context for how much more industrialized the US was than its contemporaries prior to WWII.
then you should include actual context. but it would refute your point eh?
the Nazi’s rose to power using agricultural jobs programs starting in the 30’s, because the financial collapse caused by reparations and hyperinflation (followed by the great depression!) mostly impacted the cities and industrial centers. unemployment in some years topped 26% or more during that time period.
This also encouraged rigging the numbers, and every analysis I’ve found for german labor force types/censuses points out the data is basically all hot garbage during that time. one set of data even shows 76% (!!!) agricultural workforce participation during part of the period which is wild, and clearly impossible.
none of this has much to do with actual industrial production capability, as those factories largely sat idle while this all played out. post-WW1 treaties forbade most of the interesting heavy industrial stuff. building large capital equipment in a hyperinflationary environment is begging to go bankrupt. even building ships was heavily restricted by tonnage, arms were heavily restricted, etc.
the Nazi’s were so popular in Germany because they eventually just said ‘fuck it’, and started building them anyway - but then lied and hid they were doing so. again making the industrial numbers highly suspect.
one thing is for certain - post WW1 german industrial output had nothing to do with their physical ability to produce, and everything to do with their being completely fucked in 5 different other ways.
« the more you realize just how bad the Nazis were at the economy »
Funny thing is that Germans back then didn't realize that at all. On the contrary, they were – by and large – really happy with Hitler, and that was precisely because of the economy. "The Nazis" had brought back employment. And not just "because of armament", simply not true. There were creative things like MeFo-Wechsel and barter agreements with Latin America, thus bypassing the bloodsuckers in London and New York. So what was wrong with that?
But of course there's that particular kind of know-it-all Azi American who knows everything about all other countries, while also slurring them as a matter of routine, from his superior vantage point in the City on the Hill. I guess it's not his fault because because that's the way the system has educated him.
One could argue that the difference between a scam and an amazing deal, is the end result eh?
Germany lost the war and was in ruins, so Nazi-ism was clearly a scam.
If Germany has won, it would be talked about pretty differently eh?
Ghenghis Khan certainly gets a very different treatment than Hitler, and near as I can tell, was at least as bad, if not worse.
For sure, history is written by the winners.
The British empire had committed pretty horrible atrocities with victims spanning several orders of magnitudes for about two hundred years prior to WW2, and we do not hear much about it.
Churchil's genocide killed about 3 million people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
There was so much that they had to hold document burning sessions to get rid of evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Legacy
History is written by the victors, and Hitler is for our day's historiography as Hannibal for Roman history. It's a cover story to justify insatiable greed and lust for control.
Hitler lacked prudence, and his rise was facilitated by the US and Britain precisely for that reason, to make Germany into an ideological antagonist to the Soviet Union, and lead into a clash.
In practice, ideology mattered little, and it was classic geopolitical reasons that led into war in 1941, viz Germany's vulnerability wrt the oil (Ploesti threatened by the Red Army), key to almost everything in the industrial age, still true today.
I disagree with the logic that sth or somebody is "a scam" because of defeat. By that logic, the victims of rape and murder would be "scams". That is not to say that everything about NS was good.
“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” — Winston Churchill (allegedly)
I don't know whether Churchill actually said that, but that is the truth of the matter. The motives were not noble: envy and greed, and nothing more.
“That isn’t much steel at all, relatively speaking.”
Really? you don’t think so? Because America was stamping out projects on that kind of scale pretty regularly through the 1920s and 30s (with a bit of a dip in productivity for the Great Depression). The George Washington bridge in New York was finished in 1931 and took over 120,000 tons of steel; same year the San Francisco Bay bridge was completed with over 160,000 tons of steel. No other country was constructing infrastructure on that scale at that time.
This steel wasn’t being grown in cornfields - it was coming out of places like the US Steel plant in Gary Indiana and the Bethlehem Steel Works which were by far the largest steel mills in the world. The Gary plant alone produced more steel than the entirety of German industry.
Before the Great Depression, global steel production was 110 million tons a year; almost half of that produced in the US.
That massive economic and production capacity which had already been built up prior to WWII was what enabled the US to pivot to churning out carriers and liberty ships and Sherman tanks.
compared to WW2 and post-WW2? which was my point.
[https://pressbooks.nvcc.edu/nolgeo210/chapter/13-5-industria...]
Consider this article: https://www.nytimes.com/1941/01/02/archives/record-steel-pro...
That's for 1940, which isn't the peak of US WW2 steelmaking (that's 1944). But if you run the numbers, 1944 is about 100% of US steel capacity as of January 1, 1940.
That suggests that the US industrial capacity at the end of WW2 is like 40-50% higher than at 1929, the cusp of the Great Depression. Which is a lot, but it's not "the US economy is completely different as a result of WW2" but "the US economy is continuing the fundamental change that has already occurred". In fact, if you plot the lines starting from 1900, the production levels of WW2 are pretty bang-on as if the Great Depression had never happened.
I’m not sure you’re making the point you think you’re making. It’s coming across more like a ‘except for that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?’
You're underestimating the latent capacity of the US in that period. Germany was basically in a state of war mobilisation before the war and beginning to burn their long term potential. US was anything but that.
They spent more on V-2.
I don't believe the silver was strictly necessary. Copper windings would have worked for the calutron. Silver was used because copper was not as easily available at the time. But the point is valid. The project was originally British, moved to the US for economic reasons.
The silver bus bars in the magnetic separators were kind of a stunt, if that's what you're thinking of.
> Also, maybe Heisenberg didn't want to succeed? Has that ever been resolved to some degree?
From the Farm Hall transcripts, it seems that Heisenberg was "happy" to have been working on a reactor and not a bomb, but from context, this seems less like an objection to the principle of working on a weapon and more like gratitude that the Allies couldn't hang him for working on an atomic bomb. Recall that the conversations took place after Germany had been utterly defeated and the scientists were prisoners at the mercy of the British--prisoners in a gilded cage, but prisoners nonetheless.
« more like gratitude that the Allies couldn't hang him for working on an atomic bomb »
Why would they have done that? Hadn't they themselves been "working on an atomic bomb"?
Wernher von Braun wasn't hanged either although he'd been working on a "device" that actually ended up working. He was even "invited" to continue his work in the USA, bringing along his entire team.
> one conclusion they/some of the scientists drew was that the culture of the Nazi regime - the paranoia, fear, and violence - made a project on that scale impossible
This makes me think about the pervasive classification and paranoia in the "defense" contractors supporting the US Department of "Defense". Any information that's classified, even at the lowest "confidential" level, is only provided on a "need-to-know" basis. And unclassified projects are sort of looked down on, so there's a perverse incentive to classify more than necessary. This "secretive, isolationist approach" seems like it probably prevents a lot of groups from "sharing information or resources", in the article's words (though it concludes that wasn't the biggest problem facing the German effort).
When sharing classified information that someone might not need to know might be a crime, and might get your clearance pulled even if it's not, the incentives run strongly counter to sharing information. Consequently, I confidently claim that there are very, very few people in a position to serendipitously make significant discoveries that involve combining two or three different classified facts.
(I don't actually know this, because I don't know any classified facts.)
Maybe this is part of the sclerosis that causes the US defense-industrial complex to "basically produce useless junk", in the words of Les Earnest (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ych6pvLMKCU), and which prompts Sergey Tovkach to say, "There isn’t a single Western drone that’s proven itself effective in this conflict." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfNUM2CbbM). Maybe that's why Russian propaganda in 02024 reported that Ukraine had to withdraw the USA-made M1A1 tanks far from the front (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCIN-t3VxJ0).
Not to take away from your comment, but to clarify: That's not the paranoia the Nazi scientists meant. They meant fear of the SS, being spied on, being stabbed in the back by a co-worker in a power struggle, fear for the families, etc.
Whatever the authenticity of these transcripts, in English only. And they didn't release any recordings. Plus, the German scientists knew or strongly suspected that the house was bugged, which (a) undermines the authenticity of anything they may have said, and (b) made them leave the house when they wanted to talk about any touchy subjects.
You said the scientists thought that: « Enough talented, high-ego people could not work together on project that large and demanding. » However, this is flatly and totally contradicted by the successful A4/V2 project, within the Wehrmacht, which did end up producing a working product (and not just a fictional narrative), despite the career ambitions of SS and industry people who showed up as soon as "success was in the air" (as described in the book on Peenemünde by executive Walter Dornberger).
> totally
Life and evidence aren't crystal clear or binary - all or nothing; to understand things, we need to handle nuance, multiple dimensions, and matters of degree. Obviously the Nazis could work together to a significant degree; they had functioning organizations. A project to invent nuclear weapons is on a different scale and a different kind of challenge; one thing I recall is someone saying that nobody could take the risks because failure was so personally dangerous.
And of course no evidence is perfect, including what's in your comment.
> made them leave the house when they wanted to talk about any touchy subjects.
They did talk about touchy, self-incriminating things in the house.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the paranoia was similar in the two cases. I appreciate the clarification.
I'm sorry - no apology needed. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong.
Or look at it the other way: having seen what assembled scientists can do, we separated them, gave them an Orwellian environment, and slept easy.
See Anathem for more on this.
A double Stephenson comments section :)
Why famous scientists supported Nazi regime? Aren't scientists supposed to be smart?
Wernher Von Braun knew of and saw the existence of slave labor for his V2 rockets and was brought to the US and then celebrated. In both his role in Germany and in the US it was considered "national security".
The Vintage Space has an excellent video that does talk a fair bit about individually scientists feelings toward the Nazi regime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGvS4T-r_fk
Smart people still work for trump regime. Lets put it this way - it won't be viewed kindly by history neither. Yet it keeps happening, people have various priorities and high intelligence doesn't guarantee high morals. musk keeps doing nazi gestures and behavior and clearly his values are not far neither, yet he is supposedly smart and definitely doesn't have to behave that way, its a personal choice.
Also, a lot of people are trivial to manipulate and have emotional weaknesses that are easy to abuse by skilled manipulators, smart or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana
Majorana basically disappeared in 1938. It has been suggested that he could see the feasibility of weapons using fission (Leonardo Sciascia wrote a play about this). Opinions vary and the issue is cloudy and ripe for fiction.
That was interesting read, thank you. I wonder what his stance would be after experiencing nazi extermination camps, people often flock to populists promising cleanup of some non-ideal situation but what it actually means down the line is far more sinister (or just empty words like mexican wall which could be completed for years if wanted).
Without agreeing with the stereotype that scientists are supposed to be smart¹, yeah this is something that worries me. Be it naziism, slavery, racism the way that it was considered normal and legal when my grandparents were alive: there are so many things about which I wonder how large groups (not just a few outliers) can be convinced to believe it.
How do I know what I'm doing in life is right? By what mechanism could I ensure that I believe someone who tells me that Jews aren't the cause of all evil if I lived in ~1940 Germany? What makes people increasingly vote for racist parties since covid? The average person hasn't gotten any smarter or dumber in many thousands of years; evolution is not that fast. At best, genes might be expressed differently based on environmental factors, but I'm not aware that this is a factor for the aforementioned inhumane beliefs. How "scientists" (or anyone) could believe this is a really good question, sadly
Of course, this is ignoring the group that did fight against the nazi regime and/or beliefs. This is just about the (sufficiently large) group that could be convinced to work towards inhumane treatment or even genocide
¹ we can all do amazing things when we have the right idea in the right situation with the means to execute it. Of course, good ideas occur to a smarter person more frequently, and they might be inclined to become scientists because it's an environment seemingly meant for working on new ideas, but that doesn't mean everyone there is per se smart. Lots of people are only topically smart (not to be confused with topical knowledge: I scored both top % and bottom % depending on which part of the iq test you looked at, so that's not about knowledge but about abilities. Many people think I'm smart, but I think they mainly notice the parts where I'm unusually good rather than the 'boring' parts where I perform normally or below average, or they attribute it to laziness)
IMHO these are great, essential questions - the most essential. Here are some fundamental ideas that help me:
> How do I know what I'm doing in life is right?
I start with humility, as you already have: We don't know if we're doing the right thing. (The great physicist Richard Feynman maybe said it best, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.") Notice that those doing bad things these days embrace brazen arrogance and power.
Wise, good people are hesitant to embrace power; not only do we lack the knowledge to know if we're right, power corrupts. The founders of the US purposely diffused power away from one individual; George Washington declined it, repeatedly. In the most popular fiction of the 20th century, the Lord of the Rings, what distinguished the good guys is they destroyed power and feared using it themselves.
That's one reason it's essential to sharpen our critical thinking and judgment, because doing good requires finding the best way forward as frail humans through uncertainty.
(That doesn't mean doing nothing or never using power. We need to use our best judgment.)
> I wonder how large groups (not just a few outliers) can be convinced to believe it.
Humans are group creatures; we and our primate ancestors all live in sizeable groups and not alone (compare bears or sharks, for example). We are programmed to move with the herd.
The herd is guided by social norms. It's naturally very hard to resist them because we fear most being outcast - what feels worse than shame and ridicule? - in part because we cannot survive well or for long alone. You can't get far in life without social connections; it may ruin or even kill you when you need help - and you will - and have nobody to call.
So it's very hard to be the only one at the meeting, when everyone agrees and is moving forward, to raise your hand alone and say 'stop, this is wrong'. For one thing, you may be ineffective and dismissed, lose reputation, and lose group standing. Outcast. In the HN context, this happens to innovators: what is the first response to your innovation? 'First, they laugh at you' - ridicule. Being a true innovator requires violating social norms, which is hard even when it's just technology. Nobody wants to work for years being laughed at by family, friends, and important business contacts (and you never know if you'll be successful after all, for reasons having nothing to do with your innovation).
Sophisticated communicators know this and manipulate groups and the public. Recently the Republican Party in the US as been much more sophisticated at communiation than the Democrats (IMHO), at least in this respect. You see them wield ridicule very effectively, making many left-wing ideas outcast even among centrists and relatively moderate Democrats - as a good example, climate change is factually very well-founded as the moderates and centrists know, but raising the issue is socially outre. Everyone will smirk and walk away from you.
An important part of doing the right thing is having perspective and awareness of norms, and the herd mentality, and to make the right choices regardless while still being effective and not outcast. It's not always easy and takes courage - grace under pressure, not shrillness.
To be fair, it doesn't take a genius to understand that killing Jews for being Jews is not ok. It is even written in the Bible which is 2000 years old.
Also, regarding slavery: Americans understood that it was not ok. This is why they replaced the word "slaves" with "other persons" when writing a Constitution:
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
> What makes people increasingly vote for racist parties since covid?
You should not assume that majority of people are good people (if they were good, they would not support slavery and fight for it in the Civil War).