Hitler Wouldn’t Risk Doomsday, But The United States Did

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Striped Horse, Nov 7, 2018.

  1. zoom_copter66

    zoom_copter66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    5,929
    Likes Received:
    1,683
    Trophy Points:
    113



    Hitler concluded the Soviets more "reliable" than the Soviets???

    Ahahahaha, stripey, that's why tons of engineers scientists and other Nazis scurried over to the Americans, civilian, and who knows what else.
    Hitler felt Soviets were subhuman, so i dunno where you get that idea.

    Yeah, Bariloche Argentina, I've been near there, also Brazil, and Paraguay.
    It's speculation whether Hitler made it there, afaic, there hasn't been 100% reliable eyewitnesses, and iveI'seen the series "Hunting Hitler" with ...."retired" CIA operative Bob Baer,v who I think is accurate, but in this case is speculative.:))

    Sure, the Sovs had an idea of the Manhattan Project, since there were traitorous swine amongst the scientists.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
    Ddyad likes this.
  2. Striped Horse

    Striped Horse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    On the enriched uranium U235 cargo of U-Boat U-234, I quote below the opening para's from Carter Hydrick's book: Critical Mass, The Real Story of the Birth of the Atomic Bomb:



    I was in extensive contact with Geoffrey Brooks, the author who translated U-234s radio operator, Funkmeister Hirchfeld, book Feindfahrten into the English language. Brooks confirmed that Hirschfeld personally told him that he watched the U235 containers loaded aboard U-234 in Kiel in February 1945, and also watched (and indeed was involved in their unloading) in the US following the U-boat having been taken into custody by US naval authorities in Portsmouth NH. Hirschfeld additionally stated that it was not the U-235 that was the most sensitive cargo. There was other cargo aboard that US authorities classified and which have never allowed to be declassified to this day.
     
  3. Striped Horse

    Striped Horse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's was a personal goodbye you daft tuppence of a man.... :laughing::laughing::laughing:
     
  4. Striped Horse

    Striped Horse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I said Hitler, not those numbers of individual Nazis who were recruited into Operation Paperclip, Zoom.

    But the vast majority of them, up to 40,000, fled to Argentina because they intended to reconstitute themselves down in Patagonia as a post war financial force rather than a military one, at least according to Hjalmar Schacht in an interview with William Stevenson in Jarkata after the war. That was also the purpose outlined by Bormann in the August 10th 1944 meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg when the capital flight, technology flight, and VIP flight plans were set in motion.

    Of those recruited by Paperclip a great many stayed loyal to the NSDP ideology. This extended to the guy the US recruited to ultimately run their Berlin CIA field office, who remained a committed Nazi till his dying day. I believe Verner von Braun did too.

    I think you can forget the speculative nature of this. I am not a big fan of the Hunting Hitler TV series myself which focused almost entirely on the use of declassified FBI files - none of which individually are outstanding imo.

    But one of those who participated in that programme was Gerard Williams and his book Grey Wolf is absolutely worth reading for the evidence he presents. He's currently working on a follow up too.

    The reality is that a great deal more information is now in the public domain about all this and the US government may never declassify all it knows about this. But why should we care that much. Governments can't really be trusted to be honnest in this matters. They have much to hide and incredible sensitivities to protect.

    It remains the case that officially the US claims about what happened to many leading Nazis must now to be treated as highly dis-informative and disingenuous at best.

    For example, Heinrich Gestapo Mueller to this day is still said by the US to have died in Berlin in 1945.

    Yet here he is being secretly interviewed by Britain's investigative Granada TV programme in 1978 as part of their investigation into SS Mengele:



    Ditto Bormann himself. The US (and Germany) continue to say he died in Berlin in 1945. But:



    And I was going to provide this link () which was an eyewitness account by General Ian Bell, a British Army Nazi hunter who tracked and watched Bormann post WWII board a ship in Italy as he fled Europe for Argentina. He reported to his superiors that he had seen Bormann and was ordered to follow but not, repeat not, apprehend him (Bormann was a wanted war criminal at the time so go figure).

    However, this clip is no longer apparently available. It's there on Youtube but the message is that it is not presently available. Mmmm.

    I guess it's just as well that I kept a full copy of it - but this forum doesn't allow an MP4 file to be uploaded. However, if anyone has a work around for that I'll happily post it. It's a corker.

    So if Bormann made it, and Gestapo Mueller made it, and Mengele made it, and Gustav Wagner made it, and Franz Stangl made it etc etc, why would anyone have any difficulty in accepting that hitler made it too? After all, the skull that was found in the Bunker in Berlin in 1945 and for decades and repeatedly was said to be him his suicide and partial burning wasn't actually him at all. It was the skull of a woman.
     
  5. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Apologists for Hitler and the Nazis are everywhere. You have been misinformed.
    Hitler and the NSDAP were dedicated to mass extermination and actively tried to develop weapons of mass destruction.
     
  6. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact, the Japanese military resisted calls to surrender even after 2 nuclear strikes. When the Emperor ordered the surrender a military coup was attempted.

    The truth is not hard to find:

    Nuclear weapons[edit]

    Main article: Japanese nuclear weapon program

    A Japanese program to develop nuclear weapons was conducted during World War II. Like the German nuclear weapons program, it suffered from an array of problems, and was ultimately unable to progress beyond the laboratory stage before the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese surrender in August 1945.

    The postwar Constitution forbids the establishment of offensive military forces, and in 1967 it adopted the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, ruling out the production, possession, or introduction of nuclear weapons. Japan signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in February 1970.[10]

    While there are currently no known plans in Japan to produce nuclear weapons, it has been argued that Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.[11] For this reason Japan is often said to be a "screwdriver's turn"[12][13] away from possessing nuclear weapons.

    During the 2016 U.S. presidential election it was proposed by GOP candidates to allow both Japan and the Republic of Korea to develop nuclear weapons to counter a North Korean missile threat.[14]”


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
     
  7. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    34,413
    Likes Received:
    13,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Ellsberg wasn't a Marxist but like most of the leadership on the counterculture movement during the 60's and 70's and the anti-war movement were unkowling "useful idiots" of the Kremlin.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  8. 22catch

    22catch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,817
    Likes Received:
    2,176
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Im not any apologist for Hitler for sure. Hitler couldnt have been dedicated to mass extermination or at key pivotal moments like for example Dday, The Russian invasion, the bombing of Britian and many other key times...He could have authorized the use of Tabun and Sarin munitions..They had them in vast abundance. The allies did not have them to retaliate with nor did we have any protections either. With the high density troop concentrations on all major fronts...the carnage would have been staggering and certainly its no stretch of the imagination that it could have changed the outcome of the war. Why didnt he? Even in Germanys darkest hours and desperate..not used. Its a huge anomaly with portraits of Hitler painted by opinions like yours and its supported by fact.

    Its very strange

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/...tler-sarin-chemical-weapons-world-war-ii.html
     
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    9,266
    Likes Received:
    2,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They did not allocate too much resources towards the project because they knew by the time it would have been developed the war would already be towards its end.
    If anyone remembers, they were too late developing jet aircraft technology also, which could have made a big difference had it been brought to use sooner in the war.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
  10. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    But none of that is what we are talking about. My original post was based on declassified information from the people involved themselves. The truth is clear from these declassified documents if you'd taken time to read instead of just throwing up a bunch of strawmen that have nothing to do with what I said. Here let me help you with some more snipets if you are too lazy to read the article for yourself:

    Most Americans assume the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed was simply to prevent a costly invasion of Japan.

    However, the newest documents have strengthened the theory that other considerations -- especially the new weapon's impact on diplomacy toward the Soviet Union -- were involved.

    The invasion of Japan -- which President Truman claimed might cost up to a million casualties -- was scheduled to begin on Nov. 1 with a landing on the island of Kyushu, with a full invasion in the spring of 1946. (Documents of the time suggest that many planners foresaw far fewer casualties.)

    But by the mid-summer of 1945 Japan was in a very bad way. How allied intelligence understood the situation at the time was detailed in a report to the American and British Combined Chiefs of Staff, made public in 1976:

    and:

    In July, Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal's diary described the latest cables as "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war . . . ."

    Forrestal was referring to a message from Togo to his ambassador in Moscow instructing him to see Molotov before he and Stalin left to meet Truman at the Potsdam Conference. The Japanese envoy was "to lay before him the emperor's strong desire to secure a termination of the war."

    Forrestal noted that "Togo said further that the unconditional surrender terms of the Allies was (sic) about the only thing in the way . . . ."

    Discussion of surrender was also underway through a channel in Switzerland. In a recently discovered memo dated May 12, William J. Donovan, director of the Office of Strategic Services, told Truman that an OSS source had "talked with Shunichi Kase, the Japanese minister to Switzerland . . . . Kase expressed a wish to help arrange for a cessation of hostilities . . . ."

    Donovan reported the same judgment as that contained in the intercepted cables -- a slight change in the surrender formula seemed the only remaining issue: "One of the few provisions . . . would be the retention of the emperor . . . ."

    Adm. William D. Leahy, who served as chief of staff to the President and presided over the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his diary in mid-June that "at the present time . . . a surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." Afterwards, Leahy would reflect that "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan . . . ."

    Likewise, Eisenhower would later state that "it wasn't necessary" to hit the Japanese "with that awful thing." On July 20, 1945, in front of Gen. Omar Bradley, he advised Truman of his objections.

    As early as September 1944, Churchill felt the Japanese might collapse when Russia entered the war. On May 21, 1945, Secretary of War Stimson advised of the "profound military effect" of Soviet entry.

    In mid-June, Marshall advised the president that "the impact of Russian entry on the already hopeless Japanese may well be the decisive action levering them into capitulation at that time or shortly thereafter if we land in Japan."

    A month later the Combined British-U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed the Russian option at Potsdam. Gen. Sir Hastings Ismay summarized the Combined Intelligence Staffs' conclusion for Churchill: "If and when Russia came into the war against Japan the Japanese would probably wish to get out on almost any terms short of the dethronement of the emperor."



    Did the president also understand the advice that the Russian declaration of war was likely to bring about capitulation?

    I also provided an interview with historian Peter Kuznick confirming the evidence that the US new Japan was close to surrender and that dropping the bombs was not necessary to end the war. That is the statement I made in my first post on this thread and I have provided two sources of reputable confirmation including declassified memos and interviews with many of the principles involved in the decision-making process.

    You have provided nothing except silly straw-men with literally no relevance to what we are talking about and some vague jargle about wanting to nuke a bunch of people - Did you even read the article?????

    Is this typical of your thought process???
     
  11. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hitler knew from personal experience that gas attacks did not work for Germany in WW I.

    Nevertheless, Hitler and his elite formations were focused on a policy of extermination and depopulation even at the expense of the war effort.
    Winning the war was actually a secondary objective for them. Even high level Nazi officials (outside the SS) were astonished at how irrational Hitler and his ruling elite SS political class really were.

    "Hans Frank showed that at some point he wanted to stabilize the movement, and his
    numerous complaints as Governor General of Poland testify to a total lack of understanding
    of the deliberately anti-utilitarian tendencies of Nazi policy. He cannot understand why the
    subjected peoples are not exploited but exterminated. Rosenberg, in the eyes of Hitler, was
    racially unreliable because he meant to establish satellite states in the conquered Eastern
    territories and did not understand that Hitler's population policy aimed at depopulating
    these territories."
    The Origins of Totalitarianism, by HANNAH ARENDT, Meridian Books, A MERIDIAN HOOK, Cleveland and New York, 1958.
    https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt
     
  12. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The 'America Bad - Hitler Good' "left". There were a lot of them until Germany invaded the USSR.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  13. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact, the Japanese military opposed surrender even after 2 atomic bombs were dropped on their cities
     
  14. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,125
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Wow, instant loss of credibility.
     
  15. DivineComedy

    DivineComedy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    6,125
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Uh, no I have not, but if I was it would be the pineapple scene.
     
  16. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Even if some in the military did oppose surrender, this is largely irrelevant to my argument that politically the Japanese were done before the bombs were dropped and were trying to negotiate terms POLITICALLY before the Russians entered the Pacific war.

    Let me try again:

    It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

    In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)


    "In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

    By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

    I don't know how many times I have to repeat my main argument but Japan's political leadership knew it was done by April and May and was trying to negotiate peace through third parties including the Russians who were set to attack from the North. Even the American military in the persons of Arnold, Nimitz, Eisenhower, Halsey and MacArthur are on record both before and after the war that the bombing was necessary:

    The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral. Most were also conservatives, not liberals. Adm. William Leahy, President Truman’s Chief of Staff, wrote in his 1950 memoir I Was There that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.… in being the first to use it, we…adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”

    Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet, stated in a public address at the Washington Monument two months after the bombings that “the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan…” Adm. William “Bull” Halsey Jr., Commander of the US Third Fleet, stated publicly in 1946 that “the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment…. It was a mistake to ever drop it…. [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it…”

    The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin.


    https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima


    I know Americans find it hard to accept the reality of their nation's history without going on a fit of denial about how everyone hates them when all they want is to bring freedom and democracy to the world. The truth of American history just like the truth of any nations history is lost in the fog of patriotic propaganda and nationalism which we are all subject to.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
    Grau and Striped Horse like this.
  17. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Her is the reality:

    1. The military dictatorship of Japan refused to surrender even after 2 a-tomb bombs were dropped.
    2. Even after the Emperor managed to engineer a meeting with the top command that allowed him to directly order a surrender the military rebelled.
    3. The Imperial palace was stormed by troops in an effort to seize the Emperor and confiscate the recorded surrender speech.
    4. Having failed to capture the Emperor and the surrender recording troops seized the radio station to prevent the broadcast.

    Conclusion: the Japanese military government was not eager to surrender.

    I do not blame you. This history is seldom taught in our schools.
     
  18. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And I don't blame you for your false conclusion. It is clear that the Japanese government was acutely aware of what Germany's collapse and Russian entry into the Pacific meant and that they were putting out feelers for terms.

    What you have posted is exactly the justification for mass murder that is taught in your schools. Not that America was alone in this but the A bomb was a whole different thing.

    However, I recognize that no amount of evidence is going to sway you.

    Any comment on any of the links or passages I posted? All left-wing lies?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
    Striped Horse likes this.
  19. Ddyad

    Ddyad Greeter Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    28,281
    Likes Received:
    9,052
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I note that you do not challenge any specific point from my post. ;-)
     
  20. EarthSky

    EarthSky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And I note you have supplied nothing in the way of links or evidence to support your claim even as I have provided at least 3 or 4 articles complete with documentation from the principles involved and 1 video from a reputable source.

    I note that you have not addressed any of the material I have supplied other than your vague opinion. Your opinion, while important to you, I'm sure, means nothing to the average reader and adds nothing to the discussion..
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2018
  21. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet we dropped one on Japan and they refused to surrender. It took a second one for them to say uncle.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  22. Striped Horse

    Striped Horse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You stated that: "the truth is not hard to find out" --- and then you quote from Wikipedia.

    Give me a break.

    Not that I even mentioned Japan in the context of an atomic bomb, so why you've gone to the trouble to dispute something I haven't even raised in the first place tells one and all what your agenda and knowledge base really are.

    Nevertheless, you might consider starting your much needed education about reality by reading some of the books I quoted earlier in this thread - although I doubt you will because you (like so many here) already assume you know everything there is to know from perusing sources like Wikipedia.

    Btw, Carter Hydrick's book Critical Mass that I referenced earlier is available for free download so it will cost you and others nothing to read. Also note that the cargo of U boat U-234 was originally destined for Japan and the vessel only changed its destination once Germany surrendered. Why do you think the Japanese needed large quantities of enriched uranium - notably the 560 kilograms of U-235 if they didn't have an active atomic bomb programme? Perhaps you think that this uranium oxide was to be used to feed the Bonsai trees in the Imperial palace?

    Meanwhile the following from the LA Times (not Wiki):

     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018
  23. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    24,898
    Likes Received:
    5,140
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Stop digging' is my advice to you, Mac-7, you're dealing with an expert here and you'll get marmalized if you carry on.
     
    Striped Horse likes this.
  24. Striped Horse

    Striped Horse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,780
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Idiots are everywhere. And what is worse is that they're usually very vocal and adopt phrases like the ones you cite above.

    When you can come up with some facts to discuss, instead of the usual empty rhetoric that so many mebers here rely on, I'll pay attention. Until that time never comes search out another member to bore.
     
    Grau likes this.
  25. Tim15856

    Tim15856 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2016
    Messages:
    5,421
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Didn't get around to Speer's book, but this is pretty much how I remember it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_weapons_program

    But, there is the question of where the U2 U-235 had on board came from.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2018

Share This Page