Slashdot Mirror
Followup To Bohr-Heisenberg Meeting
December writes "As a follow up to this slashdot article, "The family of Niels Bohr has decided to release all documents deposited at the Niels Bohr Archive, either written or dictated by Niels Bohr, pertaining specifically to the meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in September 1941. There are in all eleven documents. The decision has been made in order to avoid possible misunderstandings regarding the contents of the documents."
See the Niels Bohr Archive at http://www.nba.nbi.dk/"
Written in the 60's, but never sent and never published. So this is new information.
Second, there has been a lot of speculation on what happened in Copenhagen in 1941. So much, in fact, that a book and play was written that speculated on the meeting.
These letters seem to cast a pretty serious shadow over the speculation that Heisenberg was secretly working against the Nazis and, for the first time, give us a clear answer to what Bohr's opinion had been.
The NY Times (evil reg, blah blah) has a lengthy article on the release of the documents.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
One very important fact to remember is that the Russians (and Germans) around this time were using an incorrect estimate of the cross section of uranium, which did seem to indicate that sustained fission was not possible. The Americans managed to get a different (and later proven more accurate) measurement, which showed that a chain reaction was possible, this is one of the major reasons the Russians ended up so far behind at first in the atomic race.
The Germans and Russians certainly had a large initial lead in the more theoretical aspects of radiation and atomic physics, however this one incorrect measurement certainly threw the Russians so far off the track that it basically stopped their work in the area for quite a few years.
The Americans for a long time refused to believe how far behind the Russians were, and managed to loose much advantage by following politically 'suitable' beliefs rather than believing their own intelligence information, whcih turned out to be quite accurate with respect to the Russian position.
On the flip side, both of these men were great scientists, I personally feel it is immaterial whos 'side' they were on in a war.
It wasn't Russian scientists that launched a dog intp space. It wasn't American scientists that landed a man on the moon. It was German scientists abducted from Germany following the war.
Actually only one of the sites had required the huge demand for electricity. There are two methods discovery in the 1940's for separating Uranium isotopes. One method uses a electric field for separation, the other uses centrifical force. The U.S. decided to do both methods in case one didn't work. Later on, on the Centrifical method was used since it was a lot cheaper and easier to use.
Most likely the Germans would have not done both. Centrifical separation would be very easy for even a small country to achieve. Today Israel, Pakastan, India all have produced Nuclear weapons with relativity small programs.
As a note: Silver was used to produce an electrical conductor for the electric field separation process. The reason the U.S used silver was because copper was in short supply. The silver was on loan from the Federal Reserve and was later returned which at the time was just storage at Fort Knox.
There is a link here of history of the atomic bomb. Oh, and it includes directions on how one is built as well.
On August 2nd 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify U-235 with which might in turn be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known only then as the Manhattan Project. Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expedient research and production that would produce a viable atomic bomb.
This and this link describe the Japanese atomic bomb program. Germany sent a submarine to Japan carrying uranium oxide, a needed element in building an a-bomb, but it surrendered after Hitler's defeat and was confiscated by the U.S. This uranium could have been used in the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Another good link is here.
There was reason to fear that Germany might win the race to produce the bomb. Fission had been discovered in Germany, and German scientists were at least as able as anyone else to assess its significance. Moreover, it seemed ominous that Germany had stopped the sale of uranium ore from the rich mines in Czechoslovakia. Up until mid-1941, concern over a German bomb had been stronger in Britain than in the United States. About that time, however, the sense of urgency began to pervade U.S. nuclear scientists.
--Metrollica
From Could Germany Have Won the Second World War?
The answer: yes.
I think that the USA, and to a lesser extent the USSR, held what might be called the decisive advantage in WW II. By which I mean that these two countries, singly or together, had the resources, manpower, and material to decide the war in favor of either the Axis or the Allies. Had neither become involved in the war in Europe, it would likely have become a stalemate; Germany and Italy would not have been able to conquer the British Empire, and the British Empire would not have been able to conquer Germany and Italy. Whichever side either of these two countries joined would have the advantage.
Once Hitler opened a second front by attacking the USSR, the Nazis were doomed. They did not have the resources in terms of people or material to defeat both the British Empire and the USSR simultaneously. The USSR probably did more than any other combatent to drain the German war machine. The Third Reich was bleeding to death in front of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad, even before it was pulverized from the air by the Western Allies.
Probably Germany's best (though slim) chance to defeat the USSR would have been to talk Japan into attacking the USSR from the east (and leaving the US strictly alone). Initally, I suspect that Hitler was too arrogant to ask his Asian ally for help, even though he needed it desperately. Later, it was too late for both Germany and Japan. Also, the Japanese did not want to fight a war in Siberia that they probably could not win, especially as their Army was heavily engaged in China. They were a naval power, and the IJN could not contribute much to a war against the USSR. Of course, the IJN could have contributed a lot to a war against the Royal Navy in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but that would have almost certainly brought the US into the war, an event that Germany was trying to avoid. Ultimately, Japan had less to contribute to a German victory than the USSR had to contribute to a British victory, so any Japanese strategy would probably have failed.
Similarly, once the US entered the war on the Allied side, Germany was doomed. Even if Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR, America simply had too many resources. Just as in the First World War, the US and the British Empire (plus most of the rest of the Western Hemisphere) would have eventually won a war of attrition.
Again, probably Germany's best hope would have involved Japan and the USSR. If Hitler had refrained from attacking the USSR (Japanese diplomats were trying to get the USSR to join the Axis when Germany attacked, thereby demonstrating that at least some in the Japanese government had a much better concept of global strategy than Hitler did), and instead convinced both Japan and the USSR to join the Axis and help Germany, Italy, and their allies against the British Empire, the US, and their allies, it would have been a long and bitter war indeed, perhaps another stalemate. The posibility of stalemate or Axis victory would have been enhanced if Hitler also forced Spain into the war on the Axis side, taking Gibralter, driving England from the Mediterranean, and protecting Italy.
In fact, of course, Hitler did open a second front by attacking the USSR, and the US and UK made the European war their first priority after Japan drew the US into the war on Dec 7, 1941. So even though Germany gained Japan as an active ally, she was doubly doomed. By which I do not mean to imply that defeating Germany (and Italy and Japan) was easy. In fact, it was a long, costly, dangerous, bloody road to victory. But, the odds favored the Allies.
Fortunately, none of the Axis heads of state had any plan or strategy for a joint war effort, so the Allies were able to defeat them piecemeal. And the Japanese, who at least had a pre-war grand strategy in the Pacific, over extended themselves after their unexpectedly easy initial victories, and hastened their own defeat.
Since I have considered the possibility of the USSR fighting on the Axis side in WW II, it is only fair to examine the scenerio of the US joining the Axis. Had Hitler not attacked the USSR (and the USSR remained neutral), and had the US unexpectedly joined the Axis, then:
A major war would have been fought in North America, as Canada was already at war with Germany.
After (if) the US defeated Canada, plus Australia, New Zealand, and the rest of the British Empire outside of the UK (maybe with the help of Japan [!] in the Pacific and Indian Oceans), the US Navy could neutralize the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, and the US and German Armies and Air Forces together could defeat the RAF, invade the UK, and win the war for the Axis. Then, Germany could have attacked the USSR with a reasonable chance of success. Of course, politically, there was zero chance of such a thing happening. I would like to make a few comments about Adolf Hitler, since he personified the Third Reich, and made all of the strategic decisions. I regard Hitler as a superb (if evil) politician with great political insight. This allowed him to gain power, re-arm Germany, and gobble-up parts of Europe with impunity.
Once the war started, however, his weaknesses became evident. He had some tactical sense, probably due to his experience in WW I as a combat infantryman. But, he was a very poor strategist. As far as I can tell, he never had a "grand strategy." By which I mean a clear set of goals for the war and a plan to reach them. Hitler was, in fact, taken by surprise when England and France declared war on Germany. He had expected to partition Poland without fighting a major war, and had no plan beyond defeating Poland. Hence the period of "Phony War" after the defeat of Poland, while the German generals planned the campaign against France. When Italy joined the war, Hitler and Mussolini made no serious attempt to devise a common strategy. In fact, Mussolini's military mis-adventures in Greece and North Africa drained away valuable German military resources. After the defeat of France, Hitler seemed to have no idea what to do next, no plan at all for defeating the British Empire. Instead, he formulated his plan to attack the USSR, against the advice of his generals and without consulting his allies, and sealed the fate of Germany. Hitler fought the whole war on an "ad-hoc" basis, a campaign at a time. This lack of any coherent strategy cost Germany dearly. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and brought America into the war, Hitler made no attempt to formulate a common strategy with Japan. Again, he was taken completely by surprise (In truth, the Japanese leaders did not consult with Hitler, either, and may not have had much respect for him. Before the war, Admiral Yamamato declined an offer to meet with Hitler when the Admiral was traveling across Germany). I have always blamed this failure to consult with his allies, at least partly, on Hitler's arrogance. Hitler generally seemed to believe himself superior to his allies, as if he knew more. In fact, in terms of overall strategy, he knew less.
--Metrollica
Looked this up on google:
"March 1933: During the election campaign massive intimidation by the SA means that only, apart from the Nazis, only the Nationalists are able to campaign. The Prussian police, now under Nazi control, employs 50,000 'auxiliaries' who are mainly SA to be used against the opposition. Many Nazi opponents are beaten up , some 50 killed. Despite this the Nazis only get 43.9% of the vote but with the Nationalists they have a majority. With the election over the communists are banned and their Riechstag deputies arrested."
"almost the entire german population"?
"Heisenberg could have been a hero or a villain, but he ended up being neither. "
Oh, he definitely was and still is (even after all these accusations) my hero. The guy had a big hand in developing QM. Cheers for his efforts.
-Shaunak.
Bohr didn't believe an atomic bomb was possible.
In this draft of a letter to Heisenberg, Bohr said that he had known about the possibility of a bomb for about three years.
Who else thought this was really sad? I makes me sick to see physics caught up in such horrible politics.
What most people don't seem to know is that Heisenberg didn't visit Bohr alone. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker was also there, and he is still alive today.
He gave an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung one or two days ago. His recollection of the meeting is rather interesting (the interview is in German, sorry).
Firstly, he says that Heisenberg started an A-bomb project in 1939, in which Weizsäcker took part, but by 1941 they came to the conclusion that they would not be able to succeed before the war was over. The problem was the tremendous effort needed to separate the isotopes. So from 1941 on they were only interested in building a reactor. Once that worked (it never did, as the heavy water production was sabotaged) there might have been the possibility to create Plutonium and build a bomb with that. But they didn't expect this to happen before the war was over by conventional means.
The reason Heisenberg went to see Bohr, according to Weizsäcker, was that they didn't want the Americans or the British to build a bomb either. If they stated publically that they're not working on a bomb, then of course nobody would have believed them. But Heisenberg thought that they might believe Bohr. So he hoped that Bohr could convince the Allies not to build the bomb either. This was not motivated by pure pacifism - he didn't want Germany to get nuked.
In 1941 the war looked pretty good for Germany, they were winning on all fronts. So basically Heisenberg believed that a German victory was inevitable, but with conventional weapons. He tried to explain this to Bohr, who was shocked. Bohr may have understood Heisenberg's "inevitable" to mean that he WAS working on a bomb, and planning to use it. But Weizsäcker suggests that Bohr may well have understood correctly, and didn't want the Germans to win (conventionally), and therefor figured that the Allies would have to build a bomb, to avoid a Nazi victory.
What we can accept as quite reliable, is the following: (a) Heisenberg did lead an A-bomb project from 1939 to 1941. (b) He came to the conclusion that he couldn't build a bomb before the war was over. (c) He continued working on a reactor from 1941 onwards (possibly with the option of producing Plutonium for later weapons use).
And what also seem quite plausible: (d) that he tried to convince Bohr that he was only working on a reactor, not a bomb. This is what he claimed afterwards, and is backed up by Weizsäcker. Many people might not believe these two, so here is another interesting piece of the puzzle:
I read some time ago, either in Physics Today or in Scientific American that when Bohr came to Los Alamos, he brought with him a sketch which Heisenberg had made during his 1941 visit. Bohr claimed it depicted a bomb which Heisenberg was building, but the people at Los Alamos recognised it as a heavy water reactor. As far as I remember, the sketch depicted a large bottle, filled with water (presumably heavy water, but only labelled "H2O"), and some stuff inside. Can anybody dig up this sketch on the net? At any rate, this strongly suggests that Bohr had misunderstood Heisenberg, and mistook Heisenberg's reactor for a bomb.
"...Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Than this.. there is more evidence than just the standard: "Bohr's word against Heisenbergs"
For instance, Gitta Serenys excellent
book "Albert Speer: His battle with truth".
(Albert Speer was the Nazi minister of armaments during the latter part of the war).
In the book Sereny notes that Speer, in a letter to a friend from Spandau prison after the war,
wrote of Heisenbergs engagement in developing an A-bomb, and how he had they had been short of funds.
According to the book, Speer remarked in the letter something to the extent of: "Now, I suppose he'll claim he didn't want the bomb built, and didn't ask for funding".
This is, in fact, what Heisenberg claimed after the war. However, Speer could not have known this, since the prisoners in Spandau were not allowed to read newspapers or have any correspondence with the outside world.
(With the exception of the contraband letters)
To me at least, this seems pretty incriminating,
especially together with the testimony of Bohr.
On the other hand, I would be careful to damn Heisenberg:
Just look at how the USA made a 'hero' out of Werner von Braun, a man who not only built missiles, he administrated the cruel and inhumane concentration camps where the missiles were manufactured.
To accommodate an earlier post by a fellow ./er, yes, most of the last century's greatest scientists were indeed German, and did indeed live in Germany while it was run by a fascist dictator. In fact, many if not most (see, *I* can use broad generalizations, too) of those same scientists were borrowed for use in developing a burgeoning post-WWII American space program. That program is called NASA now.
I find this kind of what-if Hitler postulating sickening. In a really twisted way, Americans have latched onto and sensationalized what they collectively consider to be the lowest common denominator in human action. With their bums firmly planted on their high horses, they sit back in their easy chairs and watch the steady flow of horseshit revisionism that trickles through the ether on the Hitler (oops, "History") channel.
They sit there, disgusting domestic brew in one hand, greasy remote control in the other, fantasizing about a world devoid of the hated "brown people". If given a public forum, they are lightly scolded for making statements such as "Hitler had some good ideas" (Buchanan). And then they post to Slashdot, hinting at "just how close we came" to the realization of their closet fantasy world.