What if the U.S., in response to Pearl Harbor, had only gone to war with Japan? (Roman, European)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We were always worried about it though. There is some evidence that German physicist Werner Heisenberg, one of the world's foremost physicists at the time, was dragging his feet and making sure that no progress was being made because he didn't want such a weapon to be placed into the hands of the Nazis. But he never admitted this, as he felt a loyalty to his country even though he despised the Nazis. The OSS (predecessor to the CIA) even placed an undercover agent in Switzerland to attend an international scientific conference that Heisenberg was also attending; this agent was to sound Heisenberg out about German progress on atomic weapons and then assasinate him if it appeared to be necessary. There is a full-length book on all this which I read a few years ago, but damned if I can remember either the title or the author.
The question of whether Heisenberg sabatoged the German atomic weapons program can be put to rest by Dr. Mark Walker's book "Nazi Science: Myth, Truth and the German atomic bomb" published in 1995. Dr. Walker views Heisenberg as a hard working, dillegent and enthusiastic supervisor of his part of the project. Much like another German weapons developer Dr. von Braun.The German atomic bomb project was under the direction of Reichsfuhrer SS Henrich Himmler who was no dummy and quite able to spot slacking and he had the organization to deal with personnel problems. Germany had plenty of good scientists and Himmler could have.disposed of Heisenberg and put someone like Otto Hahn or Joanas Stark in charge. German failure to build a working atomic bomb was due in part to the fact that a great deal of industrial might is needed to build a working bomb which at the time only the USA had. America beat Germany because we out built them and built enough to not only cover our losses but to build enough to not only equip ourselves in both the European and Pacific theaters but Britain, France, China, Australia and even the Soviets. Britain didn't have enough industrial might to build this bomb and this is why they threw in with the USA and the Canadians. With the USA devoting maximum resources and having a free hand safe from air attack it took us roughly 3 years. After the war it took the British 7 years to make their first bomb which was tested in Australia (and the British had US help). The second problem was personnel and leadership. Heisenberg was a great theorist but not so talented in the laboratory. He also was unable to quell the rivalries amongst the leading German physicists who passed Nazi muster. Oppenheimer was not a great theorist but had enough reputation to be an intellectual leader at Los Alamos and superior management and leadership skills. He had to work with the military and political figures as well as the scientists and engineers ,and pulled it off in time to be a factor in the war. Oppie also had a superior team with men who were great theorists like Hans Bethe, a young Dick Feynman, great experimenters like E.O Lewernce and people who where great in both sides of physics like Enrico Fermi. The right tools ,the right materials, a vertiable spigot in regards to funding, a work force that could move mountains or rivers and did, and the right people. America got the bomb firstest.
The question of whether Heisenberg sabatoged the German atomic weapons program can be put to rest by Dr. Mark Walker's book "Nazi Science: Myth, Truth and the German atomic bomb" published in 1995. Dr. Walker views Heisenberg as a hard working, dillegent and enthusiastic supervisor of his part of the project. Much like another German weapons developer Dr. von Braun.The German atomic bomb project was under the direction of Reichsfuhrer SS Henrich Himmler who was no dummy and quite able to spot slacking and he had the organization to deal with personnel problems. Germany had plenty of good scientists and Himmler could have.disposed of Heisenberg and put someone like Otto Hahn or Joanas Stark in charge. German failure to build a working atomic bomb was due in part to the fact that a great deal of industrial might is needed to build a working bomb which at the time only the USA had. America beat Germany because we out built them and built enough to not only cover our losses but to build enough to not only equip ourselves in both the European and Pacific theaters but Britain, France, China, Australia and even the Soviets. Britain didn't have enough industrial might to build this bomb and this is why they threw in with the USA and the Canadians. With the USA devoting maximum resources and having a free hand safe from air attack it took us roughly 3 years. After the war it took the British 7 years to make their first bomb which was tested in Australia (and the British had US help). The second problem was personnel and leadership. Heisenberg was a great theorist but not so talented in the laboratory. He also was unable to quell the rivalries amongst the leading German physicists who passed Nazi muster. Oppenheimer was not a great theorist but had enough reputation to be an intellectual leader at Los Alamos and superior management and leadership skills. He had to work with the military and political figures as well as the scientists and engineers ,and pulled it off in time to be a factor in the war. Oppie also had a superior team with men who were great theorists like Hans Bethe, a young Dick Feynman, great experimenters like E.O Lewernce and people who where great in both sides of physics like Enrico Fermi. The right tools ,the right materials, a vertiable spigot in regards to funding, a work force that could move mountains or rivers and did, and the right people. America got the bomb firstest.
The book I read presents a view different from that of Mark Walker. I remember his book (I'm pretty sure it was his) being referred to specifically in rebuttal. Personally, I don't know which view is correct. I agree about the U.S. team and situation. In that regard, let's not forget General Leslie Groves, who was actually in charge of the whole project. Oppenheimer was the scientific director, but Groves was over him. He (Groves) was a real hard-nosed son-of-a-*****, but apparently very capable and the right man for the job.
First, the American people were totally outraged by the Pear Harbor attack, and in a democracy such overwheming sentiment is impossible to ignore.
Anger and Fear are not the best starting points, for rationalizing entry into a panoramic war. But somehow, we always seem to be starting there anyway. Or even worse, from Rage and Terror, well-seasoned with Hatred and Grandeur. One keeps hoping that better heads will prevail, but there never seem to be any.
Sadly, the operative word in your analysis is "First".
[quote=ovcatto;16930658]Considering that in Zweites Buch, Hitler's expansion on Mein Kampf, Hilter spells out a starkly different scenario of not only world conquest but an an inevitable face off against the U.S. In short your argument is rather groundless.
I believe it is in the last part of Ken Burn's documentary "The War" that one of the men from one of the towns its based on said something which truely defines the depth of Hitlers plans.
The Americans were guarding German prisoners, late in 44 or early 45. One asked one of them, in perfect English, where he was from. He answered, giving the name of his small town. The German asked if it was near one of the local landmarks. The soldier, rather suprised as only someone who knew the place would know it, said no, and more questions singled out just where in the area he lived.
The soldier asked how he knew the area so well. The German said he was being trained for the eventual occupation forces of that area.
I think Hitler had a great many plans and places he was interested in which did not occur, but if men were being trained to know the topography of a little Minnesota town they were quite serious about the idea they would need occupation forces.
Didn't see it mentioned in the recent posts, but we were, in effect, already at war with Germany. With Lend-Lease, we had to protect the merchant ships which moved our supplies to England. The U-Boats did not recognize us as having neutrality in terms of shipping wargoods, and for several years before there had been an active submarine war between the US navy and the U boats.
With the declaration of war, it expanded but in essense the war started far earlier in the shipping lanes.
I am wondering, what does everyone think would have happened had the U.S., in response to being attacked at Pearl Harbor, had gone to war with Japan exclusively?
The handlers of the treasonous piece of garbage FDR would not have allowed it. The whole point of goading Japan into war was to give the U.S. a pretext for war in Europe, to further fuel the military industrial complex and fulfill a few other agendas.
Our Military Industrial complex developed in order to supply arms to our forces and to Britain. If we has accepted reparations for the Pearl Harbor attack and not gone to war with Japan our military industries would have become even richer supplying all sides of the conflict as we do today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
