DOCSLIB.ORG

The Virus House      -

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Virus House      - David Irving The Virus House - F FOCAL POINT Copyright © by David Irving Electronic version copyright © by Parforce UK Ltd. All rights reserved No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. Copies may be downloaded from our website for research purposes only. No part of this publication may be commercially reproduced, copied, or transmitted save with written permission in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act (as amended). Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. To Pilar is the son of a Royal Navy commander. Imper- fectly educated at London’s Imperial College of Science & Tech- nology and at University College, he subsequently spent a year in Germany working in a steel mill and perfecting his fluency in the language. In he published The Destruction of Dresden. This became a best-seller in many countries. Among his thirty books (including three in German), the best-known include Hitler’s War; The Trail of the Fox: The Life of Field Marshal Rommel; Accident, the Death of General Sikorski; The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe; Göring: a Biography; and Nuremberg, the Last Battle. The second volume of Churchill's War appeared in and he is now completing the third. His works are available as free downloads at www.fpp.co.uk/books. Contents Author’s Introduction ............................. Solstice.......................................................... A Letter to the War Office ........................ The Plutonium Alternative....................... An Error of Consequence ......................... Item Sixteen on a Long Agenda............... Freshman................................................... Vemork Attacked...................................... An Unexpected Result ............................. The Cynic in Command ......................... The Alsos Mission Strikes........................ To the Brink of Criticality....................... The German Achievement...................... Notes and Sources ................................... Index........................................................ Illustrations Professor Otto Hahn page Professor Abraham Esau page Professor Paul Harteck page Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker page Article in Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung by Dr. Siegfried Flügge page Dr. Kurt Diebner page Dr. Erich Bagge page Professor Werner Heisenberg page The reactor pit and alloy vessel at the Virus House page Diagram of the Leipzig Pile - page Secret conference at the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute, Berlin- Dahlem page The first ultracentrifuge used to enrich uranium- page Dr. Samuel Goudsmit page Professor Walther Gerlach page The ferry Hydro on Lake Tinnsjö page Entrance to the cave at Haigerloch, in southern Germany page Advertisement for Doramad “radioactive” toothpaste page Diagram of the B- assembly used in the Germans’ final criticality project page The Haigerloch pile showing its cubes of uranium page Allied officers dismantling the Haigerloch pile in April page Author’s Introduction German atomic research program? It seems hard to believe, for twenty years have passed and there is little reference to it in the established chronicles of the Second World War. In fact, there has up to now been no history of the German atomic research effort between and , simply because of the thoroughness with which the Allied Intelligence mission under Dr. Samuel A. Goudsmit divested liberated Europe of almost every vestige of evidence that such a program had ever existed. For a historian it would have been and ini- tially it was something of a nightmare to piece the story to- gether from such scraps as remained. I can now understand the French Professor Joliot’s feelings when, having insisted that the German nuclear physicists at Hechingen should produce for him every remnant of the uranium metal that they must surely have concealed, he was solemnly handed a lump of uranium the size of a sugar cube that had been used for laboratory tests. (The British and American officers had removed all the documents and uranium from the French zone of Germany even before the war ended.) In the end, I went to the United States and searched for the missing documents there; and I ran them to earth in abundance, lying unused and neglected in a warehouse of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. I am grateful to Mr. Robert L. Shannon and Mr. James M. Jacobs for their assis- tance to me there. The most important German files, particu- larly on the political history, were provided to me by Dr. Goudsmit, to whom I am indebted for his hospitality at Brook- haven National Laboratory, New York; I must also thank his as- sistant, Mrs. Peggy Homan, who took care of many arrange- ments for me during my American investigations. Too many participants in these events have assisted me in conversations, correspondence, and commenting upon various sections of the draft manuscript for me to be able to thank them all here. I have named all of them in my Notes on Sources. But three I must particularly thank: Lieutenant-Colonel Knut Haukelid, DSO, MC, who aided me during my researches in Norway into the SOE operations against heavy-water produc- tion; Professor Werner Heisenberg, who made time for several very lengthy conversations with me, and who has read the whole manuscript in draft; and Sir Patrick Linstead, FRS, who kindly permitted me to make use of the extensive facilities of the Impe- rial College physics library in South Kensington. Without their help it would have been exceedingly difficult to present in detail the story that follows. London, August Solstice of the German nuclear research program during the war can best be begun at the end, for it was a program which lacking strong military direction like that in America was beset by the personalities of its main scientists and nowhere do the characters of the ten leading German atomic scientists come more closely to the surface than in the records relating to the events of August , . During the evening the BBC Home Service broadcast the first news that an atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima some hours before. The : .. bulletin announced that the bomb had contained as much explosive power as two thousand of the RAF’s ten-ton bombs, and that President Truman had disclosed that the Germans had worked feverishly to “find a way to use atomic energy,” but had failed. In Farm Hall, a country house near Huntingdon, languished the man who had made the atomic bomb possible, with nine of his fellow countrymen: he was the German chemist Professor Otto Hahn, the man who had discovered the fission of the uranium nucleus. Some minutes after the first news was broadcast, Major T. H. Rittner, the British officer in charge, asked for Hahn to be brought to his office and broke the news to him. The elderly German was horrified: he felt personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. He told Rittner that he had had the worst forebodings when he had first seen the potentialities of his discovery, six years before; but he had never thought it would come to this. Rittner fortified him with a strong drink and tried to calm him. Together they waited for the bulletin to be repeated at seven o’clock. The other captives all of whom had worked on Ger- many’s nuclear project during the war* had already sat down to supper when Hahn’s absence was noted. Dr. Karl Wirtz went to Rittner’s office to fetch him. Wirtz came in just as the : .. was beginning; he listened with Hahn and Rittner, then returned to the dining room and shocked the others into silence with the announcement. Uproar broke out. British Intelligence officers listening through concealed microphones heard with satisfaction that even the most eminent of the Germans were sure that such a bomb had not been made. Professor Werner Heisenberg one of the most famous names in theoretical physics and a Nobel Prize winner of long standing suggested that it was a bluff. Professor Gerlach, Göring’s last Plenipotentiary for Nuclear * The ten German scientists detained at Farm Hall were: Dr. Erich Bagge, Dr. Kurt Diebner, Prof. Walther Gerlach, Prof. Otto Hahn, Prof. Paul Harteck, Prof. Werner Heisenberg, Dr. Horst Korsching, Prof. Max von Laue, Prof. Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Dr. Karl Wirtz. Physics, wrote in his diary afterward: “Heisenberg energetically disputes the possibility that the Americans have this bomb.” The Americans were no better than the Nazis, said Heisen- berg; they had just developed some new explosive and had given it this fancy name. The possibility that the Americans had even had a uranium project seemed remote. Heisenberg had himself asked Dr. Goudsmit, the head of the American Intelligence mission which had taken him prisoner in May, whether the Americans had been working on the same lines as he had in Germany, and Goudsmit, a fellow physicist who was not likely to mislead a col- league, had assured him that they had not. Professor Heisenberg had begun to drop hints about being ready to advise the Ameri- cans should they wish to start a uranium project of their own and Goudsmit had not ridiculed him. Nor was that all: it seems that when the Germans’ last uranium pile laboratory was cap- tured in April by the American mission, the German scientists there and von Weizsäcker and Wirtz in particular had been tricked into revealing the location of their uranium and heavy- water stocks, with a promise that these would be needed when the Germans resumed their research elsewhere; so how could the Americans have an atomic bomb? In fact, the Americans’ object was to insure that the materials did not fall into the hands of Professor Joliot and the French, in whose zone the pile labo- ratory lay. Heisenberg still could not believe that a fellow scientist like Goudsmit with whom he had stayed in America in would have misled him. So this talk of “atomic bombs” must be bluff.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNIVERZA V MARIBORU FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA Oddelek Za Zgodovino
    UNIVERZA V MARIBORU FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA Oddelek za zgodovino DIPLOMSKO DELO Vid Zakrajšek Maribor, 2012 UNIVERZA V MARIBORU FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA Oddelek za zgodovino Diplomsko delo BRITANSKA TAJNA SLUŽBA SOE (SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE) V EVROPI 1940–1946 Graduation thesis BRITISH SECRET SERVICE SOE (SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE) IN EUROPE 1940–1946 Mentor: Kandidat: red. prof. dr. Jerca Vodušek Stari č Vid Zakrajšek Maribor, 2012 Lektorica: Ksenija Pe čnik, prof. slov. jezika Prevajalka: Polona Zakrajšek, univ. dipl. prav., zunanja sodelavka Sodiš ča Evropske unije 2004-2010 ZAHVALA Iskreno se zahvaljujem mentorici, red. prof. dr. Jerci Vodušek Stari č, za strokovne nasvete, pomo č, potrpežljivost in čas. Posebej se zahvaljujem svoji družini, o četu in mami, za brezpogojno podporo in spodbudo v času študija ter nastajanja tega diplomskega dela. IZJAVA Podpisani Vid ZAKRAJŠEK, rojen 15. 8. 1980, študent Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Mariboru, smer enopredmetna nepedagoška zgodovina, izjavljam, da je diplomsko delo z naslovom Britanska tajna služba SOE (Special Operations Executive) v Evropi 1940–1946 pri mentorici red. prof. dr. Jerci Vodušek Stari č avtorsko delo. V diplomskem delu so uporabljeni viri in literatura korektno navedeni; besedila niso prepisana brez navedbe avtorjev. __________________________________ (podpis študenta) Maribor, 14. 01. 2013 POVZETEK 1. septembra 1939, manj kot 23 let po koncu 1. svetovne vojne, je tretji rajh z napadom na Poljsko za čel 2. svetovno vojno. Z odgovornostjo za za četek sovražnosti in ponaredbo legitimnega izgovora za napad so tajne službe in posebne enote dale tej novi vojni zna čaj, ki jo je spremljal ves čas njenega poteka. Ta ni imel samo velikega vpliva na razvoj taktike bojevanja in orožja, ampak tudi na druga podro čja življenja v prihodnosti, od znanosti do industrije itd.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction the Waldegrave Initiative Is the Name Given to a Policy Introduced in 1992 by Lord Waldegrave, an English Conservat
    Introduction The Waldegrave Initiative is the name given to a policy introduced in 1992 by Lord Waldegrave, an English Conservative politician who served in the British Cabinet from 1990 – 1997. Under this policy, all government departments were encouraged to re-examine what had been previously regarded as particularly sensitive records, with the objective of declassifying a greater quantity of information. This initiative is widely regarded as the precursor to the UK’s Freedom of Information Act 2000, and it set a precedent of declassification across Western democracies. The Special Operations Executive (SOE) was a secret British organisation formed 22 July 1940 by Winston Churchill to conduct espionage, sabotage, and reconnaissance in occupied Europe against the Axis powers as well as to aid local resistance movements. As Mark Seaman put it, the SOE was formed to “foster occupied Europe’s resistance groups” and ensure that “Nazi occupation wasn’t an easy thing”.1 It operated in all countries or former countries occupied by or attacked by the Axis forces, except where demarcation lines were agreed with Britain's principal allies – namely the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Initially it was also involved in the formation of the Auxiliary Units, a top secret "stay-behind" resistance organisation, which would have been activated in the event of a German invasion of mainland Britain.2 To those who were part of the SOE or liaised with it, it was sometimes referred to as "the Baker Street Irregulars" (after the location of its London headquarters). It was also known as "Churchill's Secret Army" or the "Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare".
    [Show full text]
  • Ble Kampen Om Atombomben Avgjort I Telemark? Av Roar Løken
    Ble kampen om atombomben avgjort i Telemark? av Roar Løken I tiden som er gått etter 2. verdenskrig, har det vært flere, kanskje særlig krigsbokforfattere og filmfolk, som har gitt uttrykk for de samme tankene: aksjonene i Telemark avgjorde «kappløpet om atombomben». Dersom det er riktig, må det som skjedde her i så fall ha vært blant de viktigste tyske nederlagene under krigen. Dersom tyskerne hadde kunnet skaffe seg atombomber før de allierte, ville utfallet av 2.verdenskrig sannsynligvis ha blitt et annet – et utfall verden heldigvis ble skånet for. Tysk atomforskning Tyskernes interesse for tungt vann (D20)(se s.20!) i tiden rett før og etter krigsutbruddet er åpenbar. Kravene om sterk produksjonsøkning bekrefter inntrykket.1) Men hvor viktig var det – og dermed, hva skulle det brukes til? Aage Bohr, sønn av den danske kjernefysikeren Niels Bohr, kan fortelle at faren høsten 1941 fikk besøk av to tyske kolleger, professorene Werner Heisenberg og C.F. von Weizsäcker. Disse gav uttrykk for at tyske myndigheter tilla atomenergien stor militær betydning. Heisenberg mente at «de nye muligheder kunne komme til at afgøre krigen, hvis denne trak ud».2) Werner Heisenberg, som var en av lederne for den kjernefysiske forskningen i Tyskland, forteller selv i en artikkel i tidsskriftet «Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist»3) at tyske fysikere sommeren 1942 i prinsippet kjente til hvordan en atombombe kunne konstrueres. Det eksplosive stoffet plutonium kunne produseres i reaktorer med tungt vann som moderator. – I praksis var det imidlertid en helt annen sak. Det kunne nok gjøres, men det ville ta lang tid. Frykt blant de allierte De meldingene som kom til London via den britiske etterretningstjenesten de første krigsårene, virket skremmende.
    [Show full text]
  • Skis Against the Atom Knut Haukelid
    Skis Against the Atom, 1989, 244 pages, Knut Haukelid, 0942323076, 9780942323078, North American Heritage Press, 1989 DOWNLOAD http://bit.ly/1cV829O http://goo.gl/ROTgz http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Skis+Against+the+Atom DOWNLOAD http://ow.ly/uQj1R http://www.2shared.com/document/ektKuOxZ/Skis-Against-the-Atom.html http://bit.ly/1kow0pw Utrolig men sant , P. Harsem, 1948, World War, 1939-1945, 235 pages. Et annet syn , HГҐkon Meyer, 1952, Norway, 236 pages. The Real Heroes of Telemark , Raymond Mears, 2003, Atomic bomb, 274 pages. Published to tie in with the 3-part BBC TV series, Ray Mears shows how the success of a vital World War II mission depended on survival skills.. Det demrer en dag , Knut Anders Haukelid, 1950, World War, 1939-1945, 247 pages. Prompt and Utter Destruction Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan, J. Samuel Walker, 2009, History, 296 pages. In this concise account of why America used atomic bombs against Japan in 1945, Walker analyzes the reasons behind President Truman's most controversial decision and evaluates. Report From #24, Issue 24 , Gunnar Sonsteby, Jan 1, 1999, Biography & Autobiography, 192 pages. Sonsteby tells his courageous story of espionage and sabotage against the Naziz and of eluding capture through daring, intuition, and a constant slew of changing identities.. Northern Wilderness , Ray Mears, 2010, Nature, 298 pages. In a stunning celebration of one of earth's great wildernesses, Ray Mears journeys on foot, by canoe, and by snowshoe through mountains, forests, tundra, and ice in this. Behind the Lines The Oral History of Special Operations in World War II, Russell Miller, Nov 4, 2002, History, 287 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing out the Dead Alison Abbott Reviews the Story of How a DNA Forensics Team Cracked a Grisly Puzzle
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT DADO RUVIC/REUTERS/CORBIS DADO A forensics specialist from the International Commission on Missing Persons examines human remains from a mass grave in Tomašica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. FORENSIC SCIENCE Bringing out the dead Alison Abbott reviews the story of how a DNA forensics team cracked a grisly puzzle. uring nine sweltering days in July Bosnia’s Million Bones tells the story of how locating, storing, pre- 1995, Bosnian Serb soldiers slaugh- innovative DNA forensic science solved the paring and analysing tered about 7,000 Muslim men and grisly conundrum of identifying each bone the million or more Dboys from Srebrenica in Bosnia. They took so that grieving families might find some bones. It was in large them to several different locations and shot closure. part possible because them, or blew them up with hand grenades. This is an important book: it illustrates the during those fate- They then scooped up the bodies with bull- unspeakable horrors of a complex war whose ful days in July 1995, dozers and heavy earth-moving equipment, causes have always been hard for outsiders to aerial reconnais- and dumped them into mass graves. comprehend. The author, a British journalist, sance missions by the Bosnia’s Million It was the single most inhuman massacre has the advantage of on-the-ground knowl- Bones: Solving the United States and the of the Bosnian war, which erupted after the edge of the war and of the International World’s Greatest North Atlantic Treaty break-up of Yugoslavia and lasted from 1992 Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), an Forensic Puzzle Organization had to 1995, leaving some 100,000 dead.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Cincinnati
    ! "# $ % & % ' % !" #$ !% !' &$ &""! '() ' #$ *+ ' "# ' '% $$(' ,) * !$- .*./- 0 #!1- 2 *,*- Atomic Apocalypse – ‘Nuclear Fiction’ in German Literature and Culture A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of German Studies of the College of Arts and Sciences 2010 by Wolfgang Lueckel B.A. (equivalent) in German Literature, Universität Mainz, 2003 M.A. in German Studies, University of Cincinnati, 2005 Committee Chair: Sara Friedrichsmeyer, Ph.D. Committee Members: Todd Herzog, Ph.D. (second reader) Katharina Gerstenberger, Ph.D. Richard E. Schade, Ph.D. ii Abstract In my dissertation “Atomic Apocalypse – ‘Nuclear Fiction’ in German Literature and Culture,” I investigate the portrayal of the nuclear age and its most dreaded fantasy, the nuclear apocalypse, in German fictionalizations and cultural writings. My selection contains texts of disparate natures and provenance: about fifty plays, novels, audio plays, treatises, narratives, films from 1946 to 2009. I regard these texts as a genre of their own and attempt a description of the various elements that tie them together. The fascination with the end of the world that high and popular culture have developed after 9/11 partially originated from the tradition of nuclear fiction since 1945. The Cold War has produced strong and lasting apocalyptic images in German culture that reject the traditional biblical apocalypse and that draw up a new worldview. In particular, German nuclear fiction sees the atomic apocalypse as another step towards the technical facilitation of genocide, preceded by the Jewish Holocaust with its gas chambers and ovens.
    [Show full text]
  • Prof. Leif Tronstad, O.B.E
    74 NATURE July 21, 1945 Vol. 156 OBITUARIES elements on the corrosion of aluminium and· iron. His published scientific papers number about sixty. Prof. Leif Tronstad, O.B.E. Tronstad was greatly attached to Great Britain, where he had many friends. His modesty, sincerity THE death of L. H. L. Tronstad on active and cheerful good-humour were appreciated by all service in Norway, while leading a daring operation who met him. He had numerous interests outside in March 1945, has deprived his country of one of its science ; for example, he was a fine athlete, being in most outstanding men of science, and his collaborators his student days a member of the relay team which in all parts of the world of a valued friend. set up a Norwegian record for the 4 x 400 metres Leif Hans Larsen Tronstad was born in 1903 at distance ; he was also a lover of natural beauty, and Baerum, near Oslo; his father, a farmer, died the took pride in Norwegian country folk and customs. same year. He studied chemistry in the Oslo Tech­ During the War, Tronstad was engaged in daring nical School and the Norwegian Technical University and dangerous work for his country, which led, on the at Trondheim, obtaining brilliant successes despite the eve of victory, to his death in action. Details of his fact that he was at the same time working as a teacher many-sided war activities must not be given ; but and in support of his widowed mother and siEter. it may perhaps be stated that the results achieved, His first important research was carried out at which demanded the highest courage, organizing Berlin, during 1928-29, in Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction
    Notes 1 Introduction 1. Donald Macintyre, Narvik (London: Evans, 1959), p. 15. 2. See Olav Riste, The Neutral Ally: Norway’s Relations with Belligerent Powers in the First World War (London: Allen and Unwin, 1965). 3. Reflections of the C-in-C Navy on the Outbreak of War, 3 September 1939, The Fuehrer Conferences on Naval Affairs, 1939–45 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1990), pp. 37–38. 4. Report of the C-in-C Navy to the Fuehrer, 10 October 1939, in ibid. p. 47. 5. Report of the C-in-C Navy to the Fuehrer, 8 December 1939, Minutes of a Conference with Herr Hauglin and Herr Quisling on 11 December 1939 and Report of the C-in-C Navy, 12 December 1939 in ibid. pp. 63–67. 6. MGFA, Nichols Bohemia, n 172/14, H. W. Schmidt to Admiral Bohemia, 31 January 1955 cited by Francois Kersaudy, Norway, 1940 (London: Arrow, 1990), p. 42. 7. See Andrew Lambert, ‘Seapower 1939–40: Churchill and the Strategic Origins of the Battle of the Atlantic, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (1994), pp. 86–108. 8. For the importance of Swedish iron ore see Thomas Munch-Petersen, The Strategy of Phoney War (Stockholm: Militärhistoriska Förlaget, 1981). 9. Churchill, The Second World War, I, p. 463. 10. See Richard Wiggan, Hunt the Altmark (London: Hale, 1982). 11. TMI, Tome XV, Déposition de l’amiral Raeder, 17 May 1946 cited by Kersaudy, p. 44. 12. Kersaudy, p. 81. 13. Johannes Andenæs, Olav Riste and Magne Skodvin, Norway and the Second World War (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1966), p.
    [Show full text]
  • Der Mythos Der Deutschen Atombombe
    Langsame oder schnelle Neutronen? Der Mythos der deutschen Atombombe Prof. Dr. Manfred Popp Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Ringvorlesung zum Gedächtnis an Lise Meitner Freie Universität Berlin 29. Oktober 2018 In diesem Beitrag geht es zwar um Arbeiten zur Kernphysik in Deutschland während des 2.Weltkrieges, an denen Lise Meitner wegen ihrer Emigration 1938 nicht teilnahm. Es geht aber um das Thema Kernspaltung, zu dessen Verständnis sie wesentliches beigetragen hat, um die Arbeit vieler, gut vertrauter, ehemaliger Kollegen und letztlich um das Schicksal der deutschen Physik unter den Nationalsozialisten, die ihre geistige Heimat gewesen war. Da sie nach dem Abwurf der Bombe auf Hiroshima auch als „Mutter der Atombombe“ diffamiert wurde, ist es ihr gewiss nicht gleichgültig gewesen, wie ihr langjähriger Partner und Freund Otto Hahn und seine Kollegen während des Krieges mit dem Problem der möglichen Atombombe umgegangen sind. 1. Stand der Geschichtsschreibung Die Geschichtsschreibung über das deutsche Uranprojekt 1939-1945 ist eine Domäne amerikanischer und britischer Historiker. Für die deutschen Geschichtsforscher hatte eines der wenigen im Ergebnis harmlosen Kapitel der Geschichte des 3. Reiches keine Priorität. Unter den alliierten Historikern hat sich Mark Walker seit seiner Dissertation1 durchgesetzt. Sein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im 3. Reich beginnt mit den Worten: „The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics is best known as the place where Werner Heisenberg worked on nuclear weapons for Hitler.“2 Im Jahr 2016 habe ich zum ersten Mal belegt, dass diese Schlussfolgerung auf Fehlinterpretationen der Dokumente und auf dem Ignorieren physikalischer Fakten beruht.3 Seit Walker gilt: Nicht an fehlenden Kenntnissen sei die deutsche Atombombe gescheitert, sondern nur an den ökonomischen Engpässen der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft: „An eine Bombenentwicklung wäre [...] auch bei voller Unterstützung des Regimes nicht zu denken gewesen.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 44 No. 2 [2018]
    Editorial Board Advisor BG Chua Boon Keat Chairman COL Simon Lee Wee Chek Deputy Chairman COL(NS) Irvin Lim Members COL(NS) Tan Swee Bock COL(NS) Benedict Ang Kheng Leong COL Victor Huang COL Kevin Goh COL Goh Tiong Cheng MAJ(NS) Charles Phua Chao Rong MS Melissa Ong MS Ho Ying Ting MR Kuldip Singh MR Daryl Lee Chin Siong MS Sonya Chan CWO Ng Siak Ping Professor Pascal Vennesson Assistant Professor Daniel Chua MR Eddie Lim Editorial Team Editor MS Helen Cheng Assistant Editor MR Bille Tan Research Specialists PTE David Omar Ting PTE Koo Yi Xian PTE Jasmond Oh ß The opinions and views expressed in this journal do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Ministry of Defence. Pointer Editorial Board reserves the right to edit and publish selected articles according to its editorial requirements. All rights reserved. The articles in this journal are not to be reproduced in part or in whole without the consent of the Ministry of Defence. Copyright ©2018 Ministry of Defence. POINTER JOURNAL OF THE SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES ISSN 2017-3956 Vol. 44 No. 2 [2018] contents iii EDITORIAL FEATURES 01 At the Leading Edge: The RSAF and the Fourth Industrial Revolution by LTC Clement Wee Yong Nien, MAJ Tay Cheng Chuan & MAJ Ho Jin Peng 12 Autonomy: The Next Frontier by ME6 Tan Kwang Liang, CPT Lim Guang He & ME4 Gerald Goh Qi Wen 24 The Internet of Things: Applications and Challenges for the RSAF by ME6(DR) Reuben Lim Chi Keong, MAJ Pek Wee Kian & ME5 David Bey 35 The Emergence of Small Unmanned Aerial Systems: Opportunities and Challenges by LTC
    [Show full text]
  • Kerne, Kooperation Und Konkurrenz. Kernforschung In
    Wissenschaft, Macht und Kultur in der modernen Geschichte Herausgegeben von Mitchell G. Ash und Carola Sachse Band 3 Silke Fengler Kerne, Kooperation und Konkurrenz Kernforschung in Österreich im internationalen Kontext (1900–1950) 2014 Böhlau Verlag Wien Köln Weimar The research was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) : P 19557-G08 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Datensind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Umschlagabbildung: Zusammentreffen in Hohenholte bei Münster am 18. Mai 1932 anlässlich der 37. Hauptversammlung der deutschen Bunsengesellschaft für angewandte physikalische Chemie in Münster (16. bis 19. Mai 1932). Von links nach rechts: James Chadwick, Georg von Hevesy, Hans Geiger, Lili Geiger, Lise Meitner, Ernest Rutherford, Otto Hahn, Stefan Meyer, Karl Przibram. © Österreichische Zentralbibliothek für Physik, Wien © 2014 by Böhlau Verlag Ges.m.b.H & Co. KG, Wien Köln Weimar Wiesingerstraße 1, A-1010 Wien, www.boehlau-verlag.com Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig. Lektorat: Ina Heumann Korrektorat: Michael Supanz Umschlaggestaltung: Michael Haderer, Wien Satz: Michael Rauscher, Wien Druck und Bindung: Prime Rate kft., Budapest Gedruckt auf chlor- und säurefrei gebleichtem Papier Printed in Hungary ISBN 978-3-205-79512-4 Inhalt 1. Kernforschung in Österreich im Spannungsfeld von internationaler Kooperation und Konkurrenz ....................... 9 1.1 Internationalisierungsprozesse in der Radioaktivitäts- und Kernforschung : Eine Skizze ...................... 9 1.2 Begriffsklärung und Fragestellungen ................. 10 1.2.2 Ressourcenausstattung und Ressourcenverteilung ......... 12 1.2.3 Zentrum und Peripherie ..................... 14 1.3 Forschungsstand ........................... 16 1.4 Quellenlage .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Werner Heisenberg And
    MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science PREPRINT 203 (2002) Horst Kant Werner Heisenberg and the German Uranium Project Otto Hahn and the Declarations of Mainau and Göttingen Werner Heisenberg and the German Uranium Project* Horst Kant Werner Heisenberg’s (1901-1976) involvement in the German Uranium Project is the most con- troversial aspect of his life. The controversial discussions on it go from whether Germany at all wanted to built an atomic weapon or only an energy supplying machine (the last only for civil purposes or also for military use for instance in submarines), whether the scientists wanted to support or to thwart such efforts, whether Heisenberg and the others did really understand the mechanisms of an atomic bomb or not, and so on. Examples for both extreme positions in this controversy represent the books by Thomas Powers Heisenberg’s War. The Secret History of the German Bomb,1 who builds up him to a resistance fighter, and by Paul L. Rose Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project – A Study in German Culture,2 who characterizes him as a liar, fool and with respect to the bomb as a poor scientist; both books were published in the 1990s. In the first part of my paper I will sum up the main facts, known on the German Uranium Project, and in the second part I will discuss some aspects of the role of Heisenberg and other German scientists, involved in this project. Although there is already written a lot on the German Uranium Project – and the best overview up to now supplies Mark Walker with his book German National Socialism and the quest for nuclear power, which was published in * Paper presented on a conference in Moscow (November 13/14, 2001) at the Institute for the History of Science and Technology [àÌÒÚËÚÛÚ ËÒÚÓËË ÂÒÚÂÒÚ‚ÓÁ̇ÌËfl Ë ÚÂıÌËÍË ËÏ.
    [Show full text]