10 ms·
Transcript of Conversations among German Nuclear Physicists at Farm Hall (1945) [pdf]
- blackflame7000 10y agoVery cool Article! For all the political discord going on in this day and age, reading this transcript really does make me feel proud to be an American.
- to3m 10y agoI'd keep quiet about that if I were you! The tree of liberty might be looking a bit peaky...
- kmonad 10y agoWhat a strange reaction to reading this document.
- blackflame7000 10y agoIf you read the transcript, you can see that the Germans really were in awe of what was accomplished by the Americans with the time and resources available. It makes me proud to know that my nation can get pass the BS when push comes to shove and do the impossible when the impossible needs doing. As an engineer I have a profound understanding and respect for people who dare to do what others said couldn't be done. It's one of the things that motivates me to learn. For me, I think it's really cool to hear others say "Wow I didn't think you could do that!"
- matthewmorgan 10y agoExcept that: "Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.", and relied heavily on German-Jewish scientists who had fled the Nazi regime, as well as British research.
- hga 10y agoBut it was America's unique industrial prowess that made it work, especially in time to effect the end of the war. No less a figure than Neals Bohr believed it impossible on those grounds, said in 1939 "It can never be done unless you turn the United States into one huge factory", and when "Nicholas Baker" visited America, remarked that was indeed just what we'd done or were doing. "The Arsenal of Democracy" was not just a slogan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Democracy).
- davesque 10y agoI actually agree. It seems there was no other time in recent history when we were truly in the right about so many things. I believe there are some passages in this document that touch on this: "HAHN: I must honestly say that I would have sabotaged the war if I had been in a position to do so." "...They then went on to discuss the feelings of the British and American scientists who had perfected the bomb and HEISENBERG said he felt it was a different matter in their case as they considered HITLER a criminal..." "WEIZSÄCKER: Our strength is now the fact that we are 'un–Nazi'." Many of the physicists mentioned here expressed doubts about the Nazi regime. Perhaps it could be said that they didn't achieve the bomb because, in many ways, they didn't want their leaders to possess it. So there was a kernel of doubt preventing them from doing so. On the other hand, the Americans did not have that problem since they "considered Hitler a criminal" and viewed it as imperative that they win the war at any cost. Maybe this made the moral question of whether or not to achieve the bomb less of an obstacle for them. That gave a psychological benefit which facilitated the work they were doing.
- blackflame7000 10y agoYes that is an excellent point! Moral superiority and the imparitive to act are highly motivating factors. What's interesting is that when faced with the opposite senario, humans tend to default to inaction rather than be a whistleblower. Moral superiority is only motivating if the majority is on your side.
- hga 10y agoPerhaps the single most curious things in Rhode's book is what put them off the path of graphite moderated natural uranium reactors, the work of a single unreliable scientist who, as it happened, was not using pure enough graphite (too many neutron poisons, it was quite a challenge for us to get graphite pure enough). That pretty much dead ended their efforts on the science front, heavy water natural uranium reactors are quite possible (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor although I remember reading somewhere the Canadians had access to extra rich in U-235 uranium), but definitely not trivial, especially when we were zapping their supplies of heavy water from Norway.
- krenoten 10y agoAmerica today is not the America of WWII. We are not saving the world from Hitler today, we are blowing up weddings and causing Europe to be flooded by refugees running from the chaos left in the power vacuum we created. The reaction to this caused Brexit, and nationalism across Europe is again on the rise thanks in large part to our foreign policy.
- fit2rule 10y agoFor all the transcripts that make Americans happy, there are plenty that will make them miserable.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- chillacy 10y ago> HEISENBERG replied that had they produced and dropped such a bomb they would certainly have been executed as War Criminals having made the "most devilish thing imaginable" Heh. There's a little piece of truth to how war crimes are prosecuted.
- jrockway 10y agoI still don't understand why Japan gives us a pass for nuking two of their cities.
- 67726e 10y agoBecause they started it and would have killed and estimated million of our own (millions of their own!!!) invading the home islands. Why does this happen every damn time it comes up on HN. We didn't just say "hey, fuck those nips". It was the best option for everyone involved.
- Cyph0n 10y agoIt's not as clear cut as you make it out to be in my opinion. Please think twice and look at the aftermath and devastation that resulted from using nuclear bombs on a civilian population. Both sides were at fault, but to say that the U.S. was objectively right is an oversimplification.
- sandworm101 10y agoCareful. Start talking about the US defeating Germany and the Russians will have something to say. There is good reason why in the US it is called WWII and in Russia "The Great Patriotic War". The walk from Moscow to Berlin was much longer than from France.
- blackflame7000 10y agoIt's not so much the Americans defeating the Germans that makes me proud, but rather the immense technical achievement that was done in such little time out of necessity. It is a perfect example of the American ingenuitive ideal. It's shouldn't be taken as a slight to other nations but rather as admiration for the accomplishments of those who came before me
- sandworm101 10y agoBut don't forget that Manhattan was a three-country effort. Don't forget where the uranium came from, or the number of scientists brought in from all over the allied nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
- blackflame7000 10y agoAlmost all of the enrichment process was done at oak ridge in Tennessee. It even says so in the Wikipedia page you posted.
- hga 10y agoOn the other hand, we were handed on a silver platter a huge supply of hand sorted pitchblende from the Belgium Congo, with an average uranium content of 60-65% (!!!), without that we wouldn't have finished in time to finish the war. All due to one foresighted Belgium who had learned would be a very bad idea to let the Nazis get their hands on it, and arranged shipment of a lot of it to America. Where it sat in a warehouse until Grove's men showed up and were actually serious about buying the stuff, after e.g. the State Department and everyone else he'd contacted had blown him off, this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Sengier but the greater story can be found in Rhodes' and Groves' books.
- zerooneinfinity 10y agoSome of them seemed relieved the war was going to be over. It was also interesting they weren't that interested in winning. HEISENBERG: One can't say that. One could equally well say "That's the quickest way of ending the war.” HAHN: That's what consoles me WEIZSÄCKER: I believe the reason we didn't do it was because all the physicists didn't want to do it, on principle. If we had all wanted Germany to win the war we would have succeeded.
- tptacek 10y agoAnother point made repeatedly in the transcript is the worry that if they'd gotten anywhere close to a nuclear weapon, British assassins would have killed them.
- meowface 10y agoI'm skeptical that very many of them shared that view. And in fact, Hahn's immediate reply: HAHN: I don't believe that but I am thankful we didn't succeed. Hahn sounds fairly authoritative throughout this transcript, so I'm more inclined to believe him. And later: BAGGE: I think it is absurd for WEIZSÄCKER to say he did not want the thing to succeed. That may be so in his case, but not for all of us.
- whoopdedo 10y agoMight they have known or suspected that they were being recorded? Their words may have been chosen to make them sound good were they to be brought before a tribunal.
- meowface 10y agoEspecially considering they were very familiar with an oppressive regime known for its secret police and intelligence gathering from various agencies.
- KON_Air 10y ago>GERLACH: If Germany had had a weapon which would have won the war, then Germany would have been in the right and the others in the wrong, and whether conditions in Germany are better now than they would have been after a HITLER victory – >HEISENBERG: I don't think so. On the other hand, the days of small countries are over. Suppose HITLER had succeeded in producing his EUROPE and there had been no uranium in EUROPE. This is now my favourite political quote.
- Jugurtha 10y agoOr this one: >HARTECK: Who is to blame? >(?) VOICE: HAHN is to blame. >WEIZSÄCKER: I think it's dreadful of the Americans to have done it. I think it is madness on their part. >HEISENBERG: One can't say that. One could equally well say "That's the quickest way of ending the war.” >HAHN: That's what consoles me. Sharp.
- hga 10y agoHis "fault" a very direct way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12568722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12568722
- Jugurtha 10y agoI was talking about Heisenberg being sharp. You can see through his comments he can talk with detachment about issues and offer perspective as would a complete outsider. He talks casually, almost as a commentator in a documentary. >HEISENBERG: There is a great difference between discoveries and inventions. With discoveries one can always be skeptical and many surprises can take place. In the case of inventions, surprises can really only occur for people who have not had anything to do with it. It's a bit odd after we have been working on it for five years. It seems like they're talking about the issues at hand, and he's just sitting there thinking about all of this in an abstract way, like it doesn't matter.
- sesqu 10y agoHeisenberg is remembered for his theorem on quantum observation being necessarily incomplete. It's not terribly surprising to find he had a perspective-seeking approach in other matters.
- kmonad 10y ago> WEIZSÄCKER: One can say it might have been a much greater tragedy for the world if Germany had had the uranium bomb. Just imagine, if we had destroyed LONDON with uranium bombs it would not have ended the war, and when the war did end, it is still doubtful whether it would have been a good thing I believe this should be "...and if it did end the war, it is still doubtful..."?
- dragonwriter 10y agoNo, I think its exactly right. The war would have ended eventually, somehow, and its doubtful that the change to how it would have wrought by the German use of the A-bomb would have a good one.
- Animats 10y agoThe Farm Hall transcripts are well known. There's much more of this, including where they discuss how the Americans might have done it.[1] Hahn says to Heisenberg: "If the Americans have the uranium bomb you're all second-raters. Poor old Heisenberg". Heisenberg had made a big miscalculation. He thought it would take 2 tons of enriched uranium to make a bomb. In fact, it's about 52Kg for a dumb bomb, and and maybe 5Kg with a good design. Oops. [1] https://books.google.com/books?id=_qVgeP_UGqsC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Farm+Hall+transcripts+"second+raters" https://books.google.com/books?id=_qVgeP_UGqsC&pg=PA64&lpg=P...
- meowface 10y agoHahn comes across very sympathetically throughout this. >HAHN: I must honestly say that I would have sabotaged the war if I had been in a position to do so. >HAHN replied that he too loved his country and that, strange as it might appear, it was for this reason that he had hoped for her defeat.
- tptacek 10y agoOtto Hahn is well known for his opposition to Nazism and to nuclear weapons.
- hga 10y agoAnd he matched that by action, delivering the results of his radio-chemistry masterpiece (e.g. getting results from just a few thousand atoms!) first to his exiled colleague Lise Meitner, which follows a very straight line to the scientific success of the Manhattan project through her nephew, who did his Christmas vacation with her when she got them, and then in England with Peierls figured out the fast fission path to a practical device, and then on to America.
- pdm55 10y ago"The Atom Soldier" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CthmRe-IU_Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CthmRe-IU_Y This episode of the United States Army's "The Big Picture" details the tests conducted at Frenchman's Flat, Nevada, in January of 1955. The Army, based at Camp Desert Rock, utilized thousands of ground troops in an effort to establish the proper coordination between the foot soldier and the atomic blast.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- GnarfGnarf 10y agoOne of the most telling remarks: That shows at any rate that the Americans are capable of real cooperation on a tremendous scale. That would have been impossible in Germany. Each one said that the other was unimportant. Organization & management were key to winning.
- hga 10y agoIndeed, this I believe is the key insight into the stunning success of the Manhattan project. The scientists worked pretty hard as soon as uranium fission and it's details were discovered, Frisch and Peierls critically got all the fast fission concepts right in 1940, see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch%E2%80%93Peierls_memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisch%E2%80%93Peierls_memoran... And Frisch's story is particularly interesting, see Rhodes' book, doing Christmas vacation with his aunt, who just happened to be the first physicist her back in Germany colleague sent his results to right then.... Vs., for example, again from Rhodes' book, a clerical mixup ruining the saving throw for the German effort, the Nazi political types got invitations for the wrong seminar, one on very technical stuff instead of the pitch for atomic stuff (which, if they'd done everything right, they could have pulled off, I think). But it took a long time to light a fire under the American authorities, and it wasn't until the absolutely critical replacement of his name is a footnote in history with Groves that things really got rolling, on the industrial scale needed, and the scientists and engineers sufficiently focused on the design and execution of the bombs themselves (which for various reasons didn't end up being the afterthought some expected). And he of course picked Oppenheimer to lead that effort, which was opposed by most, albeit he was one of the few uncommitted physicists capable at that level. These two men organized more than 100,000 people for the industrial production of the required fissionables (90% of the work per Wikipedia), and Grove's drive got those ready in time to forestall Operation Downfall. Heck, they went from the first real test to putting metal on target in 21 and 24 days.... And the design and fabrication of "the bomb" turned out to be massively harder than they expected due to weapons grade plutonium not being suitable for a gun assembly bomb (which is also grossly wasteful of fissionable, if the Little Boy is any guide, as I recall it had 3x critical mass, and a fair amount if it wasn't as pure U-235 as they'd have wanted). Making the implosion concept work was hard, and they got it right the first time.... Read Rhode's book, especially the latter half after the nuclear physics discoveries take a back seat (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-25th-Anniversary/dp/1451677618 https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-25th-Anniversary/d...) and Grove's autobiography (https://www.amazon.com/Now-Can-Be-Told-Manhattan/dp/0306801892/ https://www.amazon.com/Now-Can-Be-Told-Manhattan/dp/03068018...) to learn the organization and management details, they're amazing. And had much wider effects on the world at large, that we could indeed do such things led to the Apollo program, and of course to too much conceit that "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we [do something very different and a lot more intractable, probably without even a clearly defined goal]?"