73 years ago today, WWII was brought to an end

Rich2018 · Oct 25, 2018

Fledermaus said:
Yes. The Red Army BY THEIR OWN WORDS suffered irrecoverable losses.

Do you not understand the concept?

Nope...since the Red Army DID recover.

Not only did it recover, it went on the beat the Germans and took Berlin.

It ended up with 500 active divisions - what part of "irrecoverable" do you not understand ?

Perhaps you have a different meaning to to word...?

...Is there a point to your incredulity?

Your challenge was : "Start by listing the Red Army's immense losses after the battle of Moscow."

Done.

Why yes

The Red Army suffered huge losses in 1941 and 1942...but it RECOVERED to form the biggest EVER army in the history of the world.

QED: You are wrong

Next goal post.

USViking · Nov 25, 2018

Re: We had observers, not advisors. That came later

southwest88 said:
The US had military observers with both camps. The evaluations from the field favored the US backing Mao's forces - but that was unpalatable to Chiang Kai-shek's organization, their political/media backers in the US, & a rising hysteria about Communism in general (actually, a leftover from the Red Scare in the US in the 1920s). The Nationalists under Chiang were pretty well spent by the end of WWII - both sides were stockpiling weapons for the final push to victory & domination of the Chinese mainland, once the US was safely out of the way.

No US military observers ever favored supporting the Communists at the expense of the Nationalists, and you are not going to find a decent citation that says otherwise.

USViking · Nov 25, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

joko104 said:
Germany could have had A bombs if they had focused on them,

No it could not have.

Even with its titanically greater resources it took the US 2 years and 8 months to get from controlled fission (11/16/42) to nuclear detonation (7/16/45). That timeline should be doubled for Germany, and consider that everything put into a nuclear weapon program would have taken away from all other military efforts.

joko104 said:
but Hitler was all over the board...

The entire military establishment would have been opposed to diverting resources from conventional weapon production. This would have been as true in the early years after test tube uncontrolled fission was observed (12/17/38) as at any other time.

No need to comment on the rest of your post since your point of departure is falsified.

southwest88 · Nov 25, 2018

We were soldiers, once

USViking said:
No US military observers ever favored supporting the Communists at the expense of the Nationalists, and you are not going to find a decent citation that says otherwise.

Sure. Here you are:

"The United States Army Observation Group, commonly known as the Dixie Mission, was the first U.S. effort to establish official relations with the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army, then headquartered in the mountainous city of Yan'an. This mission was launched on 22 July 1944 during World War II, and lasted until 11 March 1947.

"In addition to establishing relations, the goal was to investigate the Communist Party politically and militarily, and determine if the U.S. would benefit from establishing liaison. John S. Service, of the United States Department of State, was responsible for political analysis, and Colonel David D. Barrett of the United States Army performed the military analysis. Initially, they reported that the Chinese Communists might be useful a wartime and post-war ally, and that the atmosphere in Yan'an was more energetic and less corrupt than in Nationalist areas. After the war, the Dixie Mission's reports, and Service and Barrett, were condemned by pro-Chinese Nationalist factions in the American government and fell victim to McCarthyism. Service was fired from his position at the State Department, and Barrett was denied a promotion to brigadier general."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Mission)

On the military side, the mission favored allying with the Chinese Communists, although not to the point of abandoning the KMT.

There's a list of notable members, commanding officers, notes, primary & secondary sources @ the URL.

USViking · Nov 26, 2018

Re: We were soldiers, once

southwest88 said:
Sure. Here you are:

"The United States Army Observation Group, commonly known as the Dixie Mission, was the first U.S. effort to establish official relations with the Communist Party of China and the People's Liberation Army, then headquartered in the mountainous city of Yan'an. This mission was launched on 22 July 1944 during World War II, and lasted until 11 March 1947.

"In addition to establishing relations, the goal was to investigate the Communist Party politically and militarily, and determine if the U.S. would benefit from establishing liaison. John S. Service, of the United States Department of State, was responsible for political analysis, and Colonel David D. Barrett of the United States Army performed the military analysis. Initially, they reported that the Chinese Communists might be useful a wartime and post-war ally, and that the atmosphere in Yan'an was more energetic and less corrupt than in Nationalist areas. After the war, the Dixie Mission's reports, and Service and Barrett, were condemned by pro-Chinese Nationalist factions in the American government and fell victim to McCarthyism. Service was fired from his position at the State Department, and Barrett was denied a promotion to brigadier general."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Mission)

On the military side, the mission favored allying with the Chinese Communists, although not to the point of abandoning the KMT.

There's a list of notable members, commanding officers, notes, primary & secondary sources @ the URL.

All that above and you wind up agreeing with me.

But thanks for the interesting information. I had heard of Service but knew nothing of ther details of his activity.

southwest88 · Nov 26, 2018

FDR tried to shoehorn KMT into the WWII Allies' table

USViking said:
All that above and you wind up agreeing with me.

But thanks for the interesting information. I had heard of Service but knew nothing of ther details of his activity.

Nah, that's what the source said, & that the Dixie Mission reported. Gen. Stilwell couldn't abide Chiang Kai-shek, & thought Chinese troops could be trained to be an effective military force, given proper training & indoctrination (he managed it, too). As Wiki notes, Stillwell was shuffled off, so as not to disturb the Gmo. in his search for nirvana & Gelt.

The Gmo. also wanted Army Air Corp/FDR to post B-29s (I think it was) to mainland China, apparently to serve as personal air limos for the KMT & their chosen cronies & hangers-on. KMT couldn't even protect airfields for the US tactical aircraft & crews & techs that were on loan. Personally, I think he just wanted all that cargo space to airlift his ill-gotten goods (the KMT treasury? cars? furniture? his personal brothel?) out when the time came. Don't know that a B-29 could have even landed on Taiwan, though.

Oozlefinch · Nov 28, 2018

Re: We had observers, not advisors. That came later

USViking said:
No US military observers ever favored supporting the Communists at the expense of the Nationalists, and you are not going to find a decent citation that says otherwise.

That is the danger of stating absolutes.

I present to you Sidney Rittenberg, formerly of the US Army. He joined in 1942 and was assigned as a linguist, specializing in Chinese.

He was stationed in China in 1944, translating for the advisors to both groups the US was helping, the Nationalists and CCP both. And after his discharge he remained in China, working for the UN Famine Relief program.

Doing so, he came to the attention of the CCP, and by 1947 he was a full blown member and translating for the Chinese officials. He was soon the official government translator.

He worked closely with Mao, he survived the multiple purges and revolutions during the Maoist era.

He was really a fascinating character, and was one of those you asked about. An advisor who favored the Communists. Not only favored them, he tried to influence his superiors in his translations to support his beliefs.

About 20 years ago I read his autobiography ("The Man Who Stayed Behind"), and even got it on audiotape. It was quite fascinating to hear and read his story, especially the way he threaded himself through the various cultural revolutions. Being imprisoned twice, yet not getting the bullet in the back of the head like most Chinese would have.

Fledermaus · Dec 3, 2018

Rich2018 said:
Nope...since the Red Army DID recover.

Not only did it recover, it went on the beat the Germans and took Berlin.

It ended up with 500 active divisions - what part of "irrecoverable" do you not understand ?

Perhaps you have a different meaning to to word...?

Why yes

The Red Army suffered huge losses in 1941 and 1942...but it RECOVERED to form the biggest EVER army in the history of the world.

QED: You are wrong

Next goal post.

Irrecoverable = Dead/Maimed/POW soldiers, destroyed vehicles and aircraft.

Those are the SOVIET records.

They did not, to my recollection, utilize Zombie soldiers nor did they ressurect the destroyed weapons or munitions....

The fight for Berlin was primarily done with replacement tanks, replacement aircraft and replacement soldiers.

QED: It was you that did not understand the term "Irrecoverable".

Rich2018 · Dec 4, 2018

Fledermaus said:
Irrecoverable = Dead/Maimed/POW soldiers, destroyed vehicles and aircraft.

Those are the SOVIET records.

They did not, to my recollection, utilize Zombie soldiers nor did they ressurect the destroyed weapons or munitions....

The fight for Berlin was primarily done with replacement tanks, replacement aircraft and replacement soldiers.

QED: It was you that did not understand the term "Irrecoverable".

???

Soldiers and tanks are expendable.

The USSR built T-34 tanks in the knowledge that they wouldn't last very long in combat.

Every army lost soldiers in action. So no, the Red Army didn't bring dead soldiers back to life or re-build destroyed tanks (though obviously many would have been repaired in the field).

The USSR recruited replacement soldiers and built replacement tanks

So the Red Army did recover from its losses...and became the biggest army in world history.

How else does an army recover from losses ?

Fledermaus · Dec 4, 2018

Rich2018 said:
???

Soldiers and tanks are expendable.

The USSR built T-34 tanks in the knowledge that they wouldn't last very long in combat.

Every army lost soldiers in action. So no, the Red Army didn't bring dead soldiers back to life or re-build destroyed tanks (though obviously many would have been repaired in the field).

The USSR recruited replacement soldiers and built replacement tanks

So the Red Army did recover from its losses...and became the biggest army in world history.

How else does an army recover from losses ?

Irrecoverable loses are loses that will not be recovered. Dead. Destroyed. Joined the Choir Eternal. Ex soldiers and tanks. Not recovered. Gone. Kaput. Muerte. Todt.

They were REPLACED which allowed the ARMY to recover.

It is as if you are trying to not understand...

Irrecoverable losses were listed as irrecoverable loses because they were irrecoverable loses...

Why the ????

Oozlefinch · Dec 4, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

USViking said:
No it could not have.

Even with its titanically greater resources it took the US 2 years and 8 months to get from controlled fission (11/16/42) to nuclear detonation (7/16/45). That timeline should be doubled for Germany, and consider that everything put into a nuclear weapon program would have taken away from all other military efforts.

It could not have for even more critical reasons.

During the 1930's into the mid 1940's, a fission weapon was purely theoretical. It was known that nuclear fusion was real, you only had to look at the sun to see that it worked. But fission? There was no real-world way to see it in action, even though it had been achieved in the lab. And the applications for anything other than dirty alchemy (such as weaponization) was theoretical, and there were many conflicting theories on what forms were needed, and how much material would be required. If it could even be weaponized in the first place.

Hitler was strongly opposed to any research into fission weapons, calling the theory "Jewish Physics". And the theoretical research into a fission weapon knew that there would be highly radioactive particles left over, which would contaminate the area such a device was detonated in. This horrified Hitler, who thought it was just another form of chemical weapon, a class of weapons he forbid the Germany Army to use. Pretty much any research into fission weapons was forbidden, so this left the scientists researching ways to make a pure fusion weapon.

In the research centers studied after the war, there was ample evidence of this research. Using explosive lenses to attempt to implode spheres filled with heavy water were among the most common. But these all failed, because as we now know you need the heat and pressure of a fission weapon to set off the fusion reaction.

There was some theoretical research done into fission weapons in Germany, but they were never actually attempted to be made. Werner Heisenberg was the head of the German project, and the leading theoretician for fission devices in Germany.

And in his calculations, he predicted that it would take a ton of highly purified U-235 to make a fission bomb. He thought this was impossible to obtain, which was another reason Germany concentrated in pure fusion.

Germany had many of the brightest minds in nuclear physics in the world during WWII, but their research was going in the wrong way. Not unlike what was seen 40 years later in the competing US-USSR missile defense systems. The Soviets spent huge amounts of time and money on researching laser weapons, which never really worked as expected. Ultimately they ended up with nothing useable.

The US on the other hand concentrated on kinetic kill weapons (even though the "propaganda videos" seemed to make it look like the weapons used lasers), and ended up with generations of useable defense weapons that have been used for over 2 decades now. The last several generations of PATRIOT missiles, SM-2 and SM-3 missiles, the Mid-course systems based in Alaska and California, THAAD, all are literally based on SDI "Star Wars" research from the 1980's.

USViking · Dec 4, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

Oozlefinch said:
It could not have for even more critical reasons. During the 1930's into the mid 1940's, a fission weapon was purely theoretical. It was known that nuclear fusion was real, you only had to look at the sun to see that it worked. But fission? There was no real-world way to see it in action, even though it had been achieved in the lab. And the applications for anything other than dirty alchemy (such as weaponization) was theoretical, and there were many conflicting theories on what forms were needed, and how much material would be required. If it could even be weaponized in the first place...

My point was that Germany could not have obtained nuclear weapons before us even if its leadership had embraced embraced their development as enthusiastically as our leadership did.

I do not feel energetic enough to treat the rest of your so-so post except to say that while Germany had some bright minds of the field it certainly did not have a preponderance of the brightest. Also consider that Otto Hahn, in whose lab fission was first observed, was vehemently opposed to nuclear weapon production, and took no part in NW R&D.

Oozlefinch · Dec 4, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

USViking said:
My point was that Germany could not have obtained nuclear weapons before us even if its leadership had embraced embraced their development as enthusiastically as our leadership did.

That is largely hindsight. Remember, what was known of fission weapons and refining the material needed was entirely theoretical at the time.

And Germany would indeed have achieved a fission weapon if they had really tried. However, it would not have been a successful fission weapon as we know of them today.

If they had gone all-out in researching a fission weapon, they could have achieved one. But because of their lack of refining and purification methods, it likely would have resulted in what we know of as a "fizzle weapon". In other words, an actual atomic bomb that failed to achieve critical mass and create a self-sustaining atomic blast. But it still would have resulted in a fission reaction.

But make no mistake, such a weapon would still have been devastating. Just read or watch "The Sum of All Fears", that is based on a fizzle of a plutonium weapon.

The Upshot Ruth test by the US in 1953 was supposed to create a 2kt blast, but resulted in a .2kt blast because it was a fizzle. The fission reaction started, but the impurities and design flaws prevented it from becoming self-sustaining. The bomb essentially burned itself out before all of the fissile material was expended. That is still equal to 440 thousand pounds of tnt, and would have left the area highly irradiated (an unintended "dirty bomb"). Upshot Ray 2 months later had similar results.

The 2009 North Korean test was also a fizzle, intending to result in a 10kt blast. But it only resulted in a 1kt blast, still equal to a thousand tons (or 2.2 million pounds) of TNT.

Just because an atomic or nuclear weapon fails to achieve criticality, that does not mean it is harmless or worthless. And Germany unquestionably had the capability to achieve this level of success.

USViking · Dec 4, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

Oozlefinch said:
That is largely hindsight.

No it is not hindsight, but even if it was, history is, among other things, the art of inspired hindsight.

The truth is it was obvious to the world that the US had access to vastly greater resources of every kind, including, especially, the energy sources needed to run the NW program in addition to massive conventional weapon production and deployment.

And as for the human resources, recall that the Nazis deprived themselves of thousands of Jewish STEM experts who contributed to the Allied war effort, including NW.

Oozlefinch said:
Remember, what was known of fission weapons and refining the material needed was entirely theoretical at the time.

It was enough of a sure thing to get the STEM people behind it, including Einstein, who personally intervened with FDR with decisive results.

Oozlefinch said:
And Germany would indeed have achieved a fission weapon if they had really tried. However, it would not have been a successful fission weapon as we know of them today. If they had gone all-out in researching a fission weapon, they could have achieved one.

No it could not have, for reasons I have previously addressed, but will repeat once more: If the US needed 2 years and 8 months to produce a NW, then Germany, with its much fewer resources, would have needed twice that time.

And remember that weapon production is a zero-sum game: what goes into one program always deprives other programs. NW R&D would have meant less tanks, aircraft and submarines, all of which Germany had to have in increasing numbers from 9/1/39 onward.

Oozlefinch said:
But because of their lack of refining and purification methods, it likely would have resulted in what we know of as a "fizzle weapon". In other words, an actual atomic bomb that failed to achieve critical mass and create a self-sustaining atomic blast. But it still would have resulted in a fission reaction.

But make no mistake, such a weapon would still have been devastating. Just read or watch "The Sum of All Fears", that is based on a fizzle of a plutonium weapon.

Irrelevant.

The argument is not whether a small-scale fission NW would have been destructive. The argument is whether Germany could have produced any NW 1938-1945.

Oozlefinch said:
The Upshot Ruth test by the US in 1953...

The 2009 North Korean test...

Post WW2 developments are irrelevant.

Oozlefinch said:
Just because an atomic or nuclear weapon fails to achieve criticality, that does not mean it is harmless or worthless. And Germany unquestionably had the capability to achieve this level of success.

Previously addressed.

Now one thing I need to correct you on: the “Jewish physics” issue was resolved pre-war in discussions between Heisenberg and Himmler. The result was that Relativity was accepted as a fully accurate description of nature, only that the name of “Einstein” and other Jews was never to be mentioned in connection with it.

I am tired of this discussion and may not reply further.

USViking · Dec 4, 2018

Re: We had observers, not advisors. That came later

Oozlefinch said:
That is the danger of stating absolutes.

I present to you Sidney Rittenberg, formerly of the US Army...

I specified "supporting the Communists at the expense of the Nationalists". If Rittenberg did so you do not mention it.

southwest88 · Dec 5, 2018

A letter kick-started the Manhattan Project

USViking said:
…

It was enough of a sure thing to get the STEM people behind it, including Einstein, who personally intervened with FDR with decisive results.

…

If you mean the Einstein–Szilárd letter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letter), Einstein TMK never met FDR. & it was Szilárd's letter, he convinced Einstein to sign it. Although Einstein did send more letters to FDR - see the URL for details & a copy of the first letter.

Einstein was turned down for work on nuclear projects for security reasons, his pacifist learnings. So he never worked on the Manhattan Project.

USViking · Dec 5, 2018

Re: A letter kick-started the Manhattan Project

southwest88 said:
If you mean the Einstein–Szilárd letter (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein–Szilárd_letter), Einstein TMK never met FDR. & it was Szilárd's letter, he convinced Einstein to sign it. Although Einstein did send more letters to FDR - see the URL for details & a copy of the first letter.

Einstein was turned down for work on nuclear projects for security reasons, his pacifist learnings. So he never worked on the Manhattan Project.

"Personally intervened with" does not mean "Met face to face".

Oozlefinch · Dec 6, 2018

Re: Buckets o' sunshine

USViking said:
The truth is it was obvious to the world that the US had access to vastly greater resources of every kind, including, especially, the energy sources needed to run the NW program in addition to massive conventional weapon production and deployment.

No it could not have, for reasons I have previously addressed, but will repeat once more: If the US needed 2 years and 8 months to produce a NW, then Germany, with its much fewer resources, would have needed twice that time.

Funny, you dismiss entirely out of hand, even when I show what the power of a failed atomic warhead would have done.

Yes, I agree that Germany lacked the capability to produce a truly successful fission warhead. One thing that the US had in abundance was power, something which is critical to producing such a weapon. That is why the US efforts to refine uranium was concentrated in Washington State where it could use the power from the Columbia River to refine uranium. And the Japanese efforts to produce such a weapon was concentrated in what is now North Korea, at the large power plant at Chosin.

Yea, Japan was also working on a bomb, and at one time was even ahead of the US in that effort.

But the point is, Germany could still have made a working atomic bomb, but one that resulted in a devastating fizzle and not achieving critical mass. Because the hardest part of making such a weapon was never making it, it was obtaining enough refined nuclear material to make it. Use not enough material or that of insufficient purity and you still end up with an atomic warhead. Simply one that performs poorly.

Germany could have achieved a much less efficient weapon in the same amount of time, with the resources it had at the time. And as I keep stating (and you keep ignoring), it would not be a "successful atomic warhead" as we know it, it would have been a devastating failure. But a failure that still produced an explosion that was the most powerful on the planet at the time outside of a fully functioning fission or fusion explosion. Even in failure, such a weapon would have leveled a big part of say downtown Warsaw, and left most of the rest of the city a radioactive mess along the lines of Chernobyl.

Which is different than say a successful weapon leveling a big part of Warsaw and being only a short term nuisance to clean up the radioactivity afterwards. That is because a fizzle is absolutely filthy with radioactivity, with the huge amounts of unspent fuel only adding to the issue of fallout.

You keep gloating that they could not have done it, ignoring what I am actually saying.