Established Member
Even if they *had* gotten nukes, would it have won them the war? Japan surrendered after being nuked, but they had lost anyway; the US was defeating Germany. A nuke or two wouldn't have destroyed the US's war capacity; the country's too big, and unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our cities were a lot less flammable. I've heard that without the firestorm of Hiroshima, a bomb that size would have a kill radius of 'only' a mile or two.
Established Member
I used the word murder because I concider it so, it was't accidental, as they knew there would be civillians there, it wasn't self-defense or defense or someone in imidiate danger. Hmmm... I guess one could say it was causing death during the commission of a violent crime too...Originally Posted by BigDon
Anyway, the Allied did a lot of terrible things too, they just didn't put themselves before the courts for it.
Hmmm... Sticks is probably thinking of the so called Amerika Bomber project. It might have worked, but the things could probably not have carried much, so without nuclear weapons or some other very destructive weapon, it wouldn't have done much good.
Of course, if something like the V2 started dropping on US cities, that might have reduced the morale of the people there some, even if they were just conventional or small scale chemical weapons. That they were near impossible to destroy once launched and the first you knew of them was when they blew up must have been frightning...
The germans did make a lot of progress in some technologies, but I hardly think they would have some guidance system accurate enough for unpiloted strikes against the US, and it would be rather expensive to keep up such a strike, it's not like they didn't have enough to do.
If they had gotten a couple of working atomic bombs together, they might have done it, but it seems more likely they would choose a closer target. After all, an atomic bomb is quite an investment, and they might not have wanted to risk loosing it if they could find some closer target to use as an example.
Order of Kilopi
First off, love, peace, happiness. No flame war here, let's dicuss this.
Doesn't matter what you consider it. Think of all the woo's who use that same argument to prove we didn't go to the Moon.
And you are confusing soldiers (in the broad term) with police. Totally different functions. And they did try Allied personnal for doing terrible things and hung a bunch of them. Because you didn't bother to look for them doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Wasn't self defense? What part of Hilter/Atomic Bomb looks harmless to you? Remember all the evidence showing they couldn't do it was gathered after the war. We saw they were trying to make an atom bomb and that more than justified the attack.
Are you Australian? I've been catching a lot of crap from Australians with no sense of history lately. Long story, I'll tell you about it later if you care to hear it.
Established Member
Had the Nazis created an operable nuke, its more likely they would have put it in the belly of a U-Boat, rather then a rocket or bomber. If they could sneak up to the American East Coast (assuming this was before RADAR and SONAR advances hamstrung U-Boat operations), they could set it off in a harbor, or just off shore.
Fleets of ships, and coastal cities and installations could be devastated.
Order of Kilopi
Murder and crime have specific definitions, and you used them incorrectly. They're also emotionally-loaded, and have often been used incorrectly (in an attempt) to bypass cognition in a debate. Not liking something doesn't mean it's correct to call it whatever you want. You can still do so, of course, but you lose credibility for doing so (particularly on a board like BAUT filled with intelligent and well-educated people who spot these things easily). Better to be a straight shooter--it's not murder, and it's not crime; it's war.
Established Member
In a pleasant tone here, I ask you to please refrain from spelling the name of my nation with a 'k'. I find it politically motivated and offensive in the extreme. This country is not without its faults, but it does to a large extent represent our collective will and sometimes our greatest aspirations.
Vulcan Administrator
I don't believe any offense was intended. The usage in question is the proper name of a German military program that was in fact spelled with a "k":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber
ToSeek
(Googling, as always)
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Order of Kilopi
It's just the way we spell it here (Belgium, Germany) and hence how the Germans wrote the name of the bomber. That's not more offensive than you writing Belgium with "um" (we locals say "België"). It's just the name of your country in a different language, that's all.
Established Member
The Nazi's nuclear physics leader was Heisenberg. After the war, when interrogated, he painted himself as a selfless scientist, who COULD have developed a bomb but instead frittered away his time trying to build reactors, from humanitarian motives and to divert his Nazi masters. In fact he had made some major theoretical miscalculations that lead him down that pathway and could never have let him move his theories into practice and make a bomb. Would he have succeeded if his theory had been better? Who knows?
"Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project, 1939-1945" by Paul Lawrence Rose is a study of how that happened. A big book, but very readable.
In contrast, the theory of rocketry, including multiple stages to allow transatlantic flights was well worked out before the war, and only needed time and development to make it real. The planned A9/A10 was a two-stage development of the infamous V2 (or A4) that could have bombed America, but the Nazis ran out of time and resources.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_series
John
Established Member
They have subjects with the word "history" in their name, but they have negligible content and are instead intended to instil politically correct attitudes. For example, I doubt 10% of Australian high school graduates could name the major combatants in WW2 and state which side they were on.
Established Member
There seems to be a good deal of fantasy in that page (eg, Nazis launching astronauts), but even taking it at face value the A9 was insufficiently accurate to hit New York, needed to be launched from western Spain to make the distance (an area the Germans never controlled, and had a planned payload of 1000kg, about one quarter the weight of the the first generation nuclear weapons.
Established Member
This is hardly a scientific subject, it is a discussion following my use of the word "murdered" in the sentence "To bad that the deaths of the innocent civillians murdered during conflicts are not as temporary as some of the goals that justified them in the eyes of the people involved in bringing it about.", so it is basicaly a discussion about my view on international laws gouverning the killing of civillians during war.
If this was a discussion about something in science, I may suffer loss of credibility or get a negative reputation if I present some alternate view without substantiating the claims, providing proofs and referances and so on, I might even get banned if I keept doing these things.
But laws are hardly scientific, they are not rigid, natural, unchangable truths, they are, basicaly, a set of rules and regulations a community have created for the protection of its members, and those members agree to follow it in exchange for that protection. Of course, choosing not to accept them isn't that easy these days, but that is another topic.
Anyway, international laws are just agreements, they could be changed if the countries decided to do so, in fact there have been quite a few attempts at increasing the protection of civillians in war, but I do not think we are there yet.
No, I am not Australian, I am from Norway. I do not know about having a sense of history, it is hard to avoid history, seing as there is quite a bit of it around here.
I have been sitting here for quite some time, trying to respond to the points made against my posts by you two(BigDon and tdvance), but i am not really happy with the way it turns out... I am not very good at phrasing things, even in my own language, it can be rather annoying, to make a mess in a discussion just because I can't find the right way to phrase things... Anyway, I never intended to give you any crap, and I guess that the BAUT is not the place for discussions about ones opinions on this sort of thing, it is almost political, I guess, so I'll just appologize for the crappy stuff and try to avoid voicing my opinions on the subject in future threads...
Established Member
Hmmm, I was intending to link to the article that ToSeek linked to, but got distracted and forgot about it... That is the title of the article.
In my native language it is writen "Amerika", by the way, so it could have been just a mistake. It can happen when one uses other languages where a word is homophonous with ones native language, but the spelling is different.
You shouldn't be so quick to assume malice when it can easily be a mistake(or, as in this case, a quote)
Established Member
Some people who consider the US to be a racist country will spell it 'Amerikkka', which is supposed to allude to the Ku Klux Klan, and probably to the Nazis spelling of the name as well.
I think that's probably what's confusing TheHalcyonYear, as I've seen other people take offense when there was none meant for the same reason.
Established Member
Oh come on, timbo, "it needed development" I said.
That's criticism as pettifogging.
Would you care to address the point that Von Braun's rocketry was theoretically sound, whereas Heisenberg's physics was not?
JOhn
Order of Kilopi
The so-called "nazi spelling" is what is generally known as "other languages". In Belgium, Norway, Germany (that includes the sometimes forgotten non-nazi aspect of Germany, ie a country like all others these days) and likely many, many other countries, it's spelled "Amerika".
Just like you all spell "Deutschland" as "Germany". That has only 2 letters the same, how offended should they feel...
I agree that if someone had written "Amerikkka", it would have been quite offensive indeed, but that's a whole other thing.
Established Member
Yep, I understand that. But many people don't...hence the confusion.
Order of Kilopi
Oh well, I'm going to Russia next week. I won't even be able to read how they spell the names.
Yes, I'm already packing my winter coat, gloves and the like.
Order of Kilopi
In Queensland we had history in school. We had a really cool textbook with pictures of people with cut off heads and stuff.
Established Member
And, of course, if it hadn't been for an unfortunate typo, it would have been "Ameriga"
John
Banned
I find your considerations highly inflammatory.
Military law isn't restricted to the United States. Most countries, including Norway, are active participants in this distinct legal system to which members of the armed forces are subject. Most countries have additional restrictions applicable to their own members, but international law contains the framework in which military law is based. It has evolved over thousands of years into various Codes of Conduct which govern the actions and restrictions of action of our military members. Thus, a soldier is not authorized to indiscriminantly kill civilians just because he's ordered to do so, even if that order comes from his commander in chief, which, for US military members, is the President of the United States.
Military law also governs (forbids) the use of "human shields," needlessly placing the citizens of one's own country in harms way by locating key military activities in heavily populated areas. No international body of law expects a combatant to not strike a key military target simply because the enemy has elected to place their citizenry in harms way. The burden does rest, however, on the combatant, to minimize "collateral damage," of which the deaths of citizens who's lives have been jeapordized by the enemy, may be a result.
It is this very need to minimize damage which has driven the requirement for more accurate weapons. Before "smart weapons," it might have taken three B-52's dropping perhaps a hundred 500-lb weapons to take out a hardened military command post. The collateral damage would have been huge, and anyone caught in the open within half a mile would have been killed. These days, a single laser-guided bunker-buster can achieve the same (if not better) effect while leaving others in the immediate vicinity unharmed.
The loss of civilian life when that life has been jeapordized by an enemy combatant's decision to co-locate key military operations in or near populated areas is the responsibility of both sides. First, for the enemy jeapordizing the lives of their civilians, and second, for the responsibility to minimize any loss of life to the maximum extent possible.
It does not forbid, however, engaging the enemy, provided such precautions to minimize the loss of lives jeapordized by the enemy have been taken.
In the case of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the decision to drop the first weapon was made only after a careful analysis of the course of the war if they'd fought a conventional war, instead. The findings were that many hundreds of thousands of both soldiers and civilians would have been killed, on both sides, than by dropping the weapon. The second weapon was dropped only after allowing enough time for a demand for surrender to reach the Japanese government, be given careful consideration, and for the answer to be returned. When no answer was received, only then was the go-ahead given for the release of the second weapon.
This is absolutely false, as all war crimes are taken very seriously, and those found guilty have been punished appropriately. Many US servicemembers are in jail today, some with life terms, for having committed crimes since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Indeed, for all wars, including WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, as well as other military actions.Anyway, the Allied did a lot of terrible things too, they just didn't put themselves before the courts for it.
I agree.If they had gotten a couple of working atomic bombs together, they might have done it, but it seems more likely they would choose a closer target. After all, an atomic bomb is quite an investment, and they might not have wanted to risk loosing it if they could find some closer target to use as an example.
Moderator
If we can get back to the OP, which I did, I have found the link to that other forum here
I believe it may have been to poster Red Moon who put forward the idea of the US being beaten by Nazi Germany
Last edited by Sticks; 2008-Nov-15 at 01:33 PM. Reason: correct Red Moon's name
Established Member
Well, as I recall it, the WW2 war crimes comitted by Allied forces, that was put to trial, was for mistreatment or killing prisoners of war not civillians. Of course, I may be wrong.
But, anyway, I admit my stance may have been poorly worded and may insult or inflame people, so I appologize for bringing up my opinion on this subject, my views on what counts as justifiable killing of civillians and what is murder is also of topic for this thread, so I appologize for that too.
I will try to get back on topic.I agree.
My view is that the Reich was moribound long before the time they could have fielded atomic weapons, and even then they could not possibly have made enough of them, to do much good for their cause. They would have to have been very careful with the deployment, they couldn't afford to loose a single weapon before it reached is target.
The US used their atomic weapons on an already weak enemy, with depleted defences, it was basicaly a terror bombing, that is, it was meant to scare the enemy into unconditional surrender, I am not saying it was equal to a terrorist attack, it was(if the way history has represented it is true) at least as justifiable as the conventional bombings that followed the same philosophy.
The Reich faced a totaly different situation, their enemies were strong, the use of atomics might have just increased their resolve, their enemies had a good air defence, so the delivery metod and target would have to be chosen carefuly. But the most problematic thing is that the Reich had made too many enemies too quickly, it is hard to find two or three targets big enough and important enough to do any real damage. Of course, a few atomic weapons might have made the Allieds pause, but it would soon be obvious that the Reich didn't have the resources to field many of them.
To the US, in particular, it should have been obvious, seeing as they had an atomic weapons program of their own, so they should have an indication of the work and resources needed, but the information may have been too classified to make use of, and it is always easier to look back than forward.
Taking over the world is not a simple goal, Hitler may have started strong, but he didn't have the resources and edge to keep it up, he didn't take the time to secure the areas he took. If he had found some way to inspire the people in his occupied areas to rally around him, it might have gone better for him. To work the "attack everyone" strategy you need some serious edge, I doubt any country could take over the world, even today.
Established Member
I'm somewhat familiar with the topic and have scrolled/read through the thread. But this last (bolded) throws me. Please explain?My understanding of history is that Germany never developed the atomic bomb as they did not think they would need it, plus Adolf Hitler was not a fan of this branch of physics due to anti-semitic dogma.
I know Oppenheimer and Geller were on "our side." But I'm presuming the explanation might be more involved than that...
Bad Post-Doc
My sister had a Russian friend in high school who literally did not care how you spelled her name, because you weren't using Cyrillic letters, so it didn't really matter.
As to antisemitic science--remember that Einstein was a Jew. Ergo, all of his science was wrong, and a lot of nuclear physics, so far as I understand it, is based on Relativity. Another prominent nuclear physicist was Jew and woman Lise Meitner. Obviously, she was wrong. And so forth.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
Ah, yes; that'd explain Hitler's attitude all right.Thanks!
Established Member
AFAIK Von Braun's rocketry was sound whereas Heisenberg's physics was, well, he had missed some necessary hurdles. The thread was about how close Germany was to nuking the US, so pointing out that even their purely theoretical rockets wouldn't have been capable of delivering the nukes they weren't close to having is not pettifogging.
Moderator
Plus dropping a nuke on the USA wouldn't have made any difference to the Russians. Dropping a nuke on the Russians wouldn't have made any difference to the Russians.
Germany had lost the war by the end of 1941, they just hadn't noticed (well Hitler hadn't)
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Established Member
So we can agree that while a transatlantic rocket was theoretical, a trans-Channel one was very real, because the theory was so sound that rapid development to that level was possible. That it could have led to an ICBM is shown by the way that the Allies used both hard and soft Nazi-ware to kick start their own ICBM projects.
Whereas the theory behind Nazi nuclear research was flawed. If it had led to a nuclear bomb, it could only have done so after the delay of backtracking from a dead end. Heisenberg had not acheived controlled or uncontrolled fission by the time Germany no longer had the resources to pursue his research. Rose's book shows how the debriefing of Heisenberg and his colleagues gave the Allies' nuclear physicists little to learn.
This ballistic achievement demonstrates the technical and material capabilities of the Nazis in the early stages of the WW2. If nuclear theory had been sound as early the Nazis would have, most likely, have developed bomb technology as much and achieved tactical use.
But even if they had one, the Nazi generals, who were excellent tacticians, unlike their master, would not have used it against the US first. A deliverable weapon would have been directed at the UK where the effort of all the Allies was coming from. Or more likely, given the military situation, it would have been used in Europe against the Allied armies.
The Alamagordo bomb was assembled on site and weighed four and a half tons. The first air-dropped atomic bombs had the same weight. A first Nazi bomb would most likely have been of a similar size and complexity, so that delivery by rocket would have been out of the question. Delivery by aircraft was impossible as by that stage of the war the Allies had total air superiority. A naval sortie, on the lines of the St.Nazaire raid, would have been possible but one on land using massive armoured support for a lorry bomb, would have been more likely.
But that is speculation. The historical fact is that no such weapon was used by the Nazis, and the evidence is that they were nowhere near having one. More interesting than mere fact is the reason why, which is the flawed theorising of Heisenberg and his colleagues.
So, the Nazis were not near using an atomic bomb against the US. How 'not near'? By some theoretical mistakes and by the Atlantic Ocean.
John
Order of Kilopi
Order of Kilopi
Having an overbooked historical record of getting everyone's military mess on our heads (which is indeed the very reason our country came to be between France and Germany), I can guess where that nuke would have come down...Or more likely, given the military situation, it would have been used in Europe against the Allied armies.
Were those theoretical mistakes by Heisenberg on purpose (to work against the nazi's) or honest mistakes?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote