Book says Nazis tested crude nuclear device

[emad]

Associated Press

BERLIN - Nazi Germany tested a crude nuclear device in March 1945, killing hundreds of people in a massive explosion south of Berlin, a German researcher claims in a new book published today.

That the Nazis conducted nuclear experiments has been known for decades, but "Hitler's Bomb," by Berlin academic Rainer Karlsch, suggests they may have been closer to building an atomic weapon for military use than previously believed.

No independent corroboration of the claims was immediately available.

"German physicians did not lag behind their colleagues in the United States and Britain in their understanding of theory," Karlsch told a news conference. "They knew what a plutonium bomb was and what a uranium-235 bomb was."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3083885

[emad]

1. Those who criticised the Truman administration for Hiroshima

and Nagasaki may now have to revise their stance.

[morgan2]

2. why?

Hitler was already defeated when the bombs were dropped on Japan. Doesn't seem the least but relevant to me.

[emad]

3. Because it finished off Japanese fascism and ended WWII.

Truman said: "Ultimately, the only thing an enemy respects is superior force".

[MadHound]

4. Did the Japanese have the bomb?

We're they even remotely close to having it? No, to both questions. And Germany, before we dropped the bomb, was defeated and no threat. Sorry friend, but your logic is faulty, that we were justified in dropping the bomb now because Germany was testing it:wtf:

There was no need for the bomb to be dropped. Japan had already sent out numerous peaces missions, all with only one condition, the one we ultimately wound up giving them, that their emperor remain on the throne. Sorry, but there was no good reason to drop the bomb. But the US went ahead and did it for all the wrong reasons.

[emad]

5. Truman administration considered the threat so grave that it

warranted the action.

Ultimately they were proved right because it ended all WWII hostilities.

History has showed that Truman's decision was vindicated.

[MadHound]

7. And yet every general in the theatre was against it

And only days before Japan offered up conditions for surrendering that were essentially the same terms we agreed to after we nuked them, ie unconditional surrender with the one condition that Hirohito remain in power. So why didn't we take the very same offer before we dropped the bomb? Because we wanted to demonstrate that we were the biggest baddest kid on the block(especially to the Russians, whom we were already manuvering against), and we wanted to test this spiffy new weapon out on a real life target. Also, it helped that the country was in a government aided xenophobic frenzy when it came to the Japanese.

Gee, let's see here, take the offer proffered by the Japanes only days before we dropped the bomb, or drop the bomb and then impose the very same scenario. Which position is the most logical one? The one that promotes peace at the lowest cost of lives. Of course, we're not a logical people.

[emad]

8. It was a World War. Ultimately Truman administration's actions

killed it stone dead.
The Japanese threat was considered grave enough for this unprecedented display of military superiority.

It has kept the peace for 60 years.
QED.

[MadHound]

9. It was genocide

It killed three hundred thousand plus innocents stone dead.

And life in this world doesn't seem very damn peaceful now, does it? Or have you not been paying attention? And is the sort of peace you are referring to really worth the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents, especially considering that very same could have been achieved without the loss of life?

Again, I ask, why do you think we accepted the very same peace offer the Japanese made before we dropped the bomb, only we waited until after we dropped the bomb to accept it? Why did Truman go against the advice of all the generals in the Pacific theatre?

[emad]

10. War = dog eats dog. Your analsys of Truman's war advice is skewed.

Einstein did much to distance himself with his ultimate war toy and many of his admirers then campaigned to smear the Truman administration for their actions in Japan.

Truman did not go against the advice of all the Pacific theater generals.
If he had, the bomb would not have been dropped.
The action WAS brutal.
But it killed WWII stone dead.

Calculating the number of lives that this might have saved if the war had been prolonged beyond Hiroshima is debatable.

The Allies ended up winning. We still owe them everything today for those decisions they took 60 years ago.

[MadHound]

11. Well, first of all, it wasn't Einstein's "war toy"

It was built using knowledge that Einstein had discovered, but other than that, Einstein had little connection to it. But it is nice to see your callousness showing through in your phrasing.

Second, the most important military leaders of the time, Marshall, Eisenhower, Admiral William Leahy, and McAuthur, among many others, concluded that the bomb didn't need to be dropped, that in fact, it would be best to go ahead and invade. The Joint War Plan Committee reported their estimate that there would be a mere 40,000 deaths if the US invaded Japan, not the millions of deaths, as spun by Truman and atomic apologists ever since then. We had complete control of the air, and like I said earlier, Japan was suing for piece, with that one condition that they retain their emperor. Truman rebuffed this oveture, and went ahead and dropped the bomb, not once, but twice. And even though he stated plainly that he wanted "unconditional surrender" from Japan, what ended up happening is that Hirohito retained his throne, and the war ended, minus three hundred thousand plus civilians, and counting.

I would suggest you read the book "Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb" by Robert Takaki. It is very insightful, and uses many sources that were previously unavailable.

[emad]

14. Nothing callous apart from your polemic. Truman administration's

actions stopped all the fascist regimes that had joined in the Nazi murderfest.

Truman's decision was not unilateralist.

I suggest you read the actual documents at the Truman Library & museum:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/

for the unadulterated facts.

[mdguss]

15. Truman was right to drop the bomb:

Hiroshima's bombing was justified. Tragic result yes, but the Japanese were not about to surrender prior to Hiroshima. They were willing to fight on. Millions of Japanese were starving/dying because of a lack of supplies. The faster the war ended, the less people would die. Truman demanded immediate surrender after the first bomb; he announced that we would drop another bomb; he gave Japan time to surrender. They didn't; he carried through on his threat. He dropped the bomb on Nagasaki...you could argue that the second bomb could've been dropped off the coast, and forced the Japanese to surrender. But that is in hindsight.

Stalin had just decided to enter the pacific war. Russian involvement in China and Japan would've been a total mess, and would've destablized the world. A Russian occupation of northern Japan might well have killed hundreds of thousands more.

Truman knew this. He saw through Stalin, and knew he was dealing with a mass murderer. He had a weapon that would kill tens of thousands of innocent people, but would end the war and protect hundreds of thousands of people from a tyranical Stalin. It had to be one of the most gut wrentching decisions every made by an American President. Truman made the right choice. Fascism, and fascio-communism are largely gone (with outposts in Cuba and China) from the world. We still have problems. Ultimately, the bombs probably save millions of people from gulags, firing squads, and political oppression.

[Selatius]

13. The Japanese were on their last legs

I would assert that if we had not dropped the bomb, the Japanese would've surrendered anyway. Why? About a week earlier, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan after helping to finish off Germany. The Japanese were stubborn, but even they were not stupid enough to try and take on two superpowers alone.

[Bridget Burke]

6. And those who criticize the Bush administration ....

For opposing Iranian nuclear power are also supposed to shut up. Yes, we get the message.

Curtis LeMay, the force behind our incendiary attacks on Japanese cities, thought the atomic bombings were unnecessary. He was quite sure the Japanese were ready to surrender. He was generally not considered one of the Doves of the 20th century...

Besides, Germany is not Japan....

[Tace]

12. In The Military-Industrial Complex -- You've Got To Use The Bombs...

so you can make more!