War Hero Thwarted Nazi Heavy Water Production 349
Freshly Exhumed writes "Its doubtful you know the name of Einar Skinnarland, but his sabotage over several years repeatedly thwarted Nazi plans to exploit Norway's heavy water production capabilities for their atomic bomb research plans. Skinnerland recently passed away in Canada and his daring exploits are recounted here. Details of some of the raids on the production facilities can be found on pafko and Stephen's Study Room. So many 'what if?'s and suspicions have swirled around the Nazi atomic bomb program that this man's efforts seem crystal clear for a change."
Please, no Godwin's Law jokes (Score:4, Funny)
"Hemos mentioned Nazis in the subject line. Therefore, by the Godwin's Law rule, the discussion is over almost before it's started."
Think again. The Godwin's Law FAQ [faqs.org], section II.2, discusses this.
and banned in france (Score:2, Insightful)
Good book (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please, no Godwin's Law jokes (Score:2)
Re:Please, no Godwin's Law jokes (Score:2)
dmaxwell's Parallel to Godwin's law goes something like this:
In an online discussion involving software development or licencing, the probability that someone will make a comparison to communists, Soviet Russia, or communism approaches one.
Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond that. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
It turns out, according to documents that only came to light about 10 years ago, the Japanese were probably actually much closer to building a bomb than Germany because, even though they started late and worked slowly, they were heading down the proper path to pull it off.
KFG
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:2, Interesting)
The only military justification of this effort would be if the Nazis also had atomic bomb capability since one ton of payload wouldn't otherwise justify the cost of the missile.
After the war, investigation of internal memos of the ministry of technology written in 1938, dismissed the possibility of commiting resouces into development of atomic weaponry as "Jewish Science".
Thus the undoubtable engineering excellence of the Pienemunde group was (thankfully) rendered mostly harmless by the bigotry of their leaders.
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I think there are no more Einar Skinnarlands, at least not in America. On my cynical days, I think that if another Hitler came to power, no one would even attempt to stop him.
Let's examine the evidence. Since Vietnam, our inconclusive proxy war with World Communism, we haven't exactly made a habit of fighting Good Wars. Take the last Gulf War, for example. We mobilized the troops to throw Saddam out of our Kuwaiti friends' oil fields. Bush Sr. liked to call it a battle for freedom and democracy, somehow failing to mention that Kuwaiti was the personal property of a few aristocratic Arabs and that there was no more democracy in Kuwait than in, say, General Motors. Sure Saddam is a monster, but he's a small-time monster. Mao was a bigtime monster, and his regime is still in power. They have weapons of mass destruction and it's doubtful they'd hesitate to use them if pressed. Why aren't we worried about the "Chinese threat," and their various crimes against humanity?
Other actions during this time? Panama, Grenada, Haiti? Not serious. There are still thousands of drug-corrupted generals in Central and South America, there's still no democracy in Haiti, and Grenada is a bad joke. And consider Somalia, Bush Sr.'s lovely parting gift to Clinton. There we had a clearcut (if pointless) humanitarian mission, but when we took a few casualties it was Sayonara Somalia.
Bosnia really wasn't our finest hour. We did bomb the Chinese, something we've never dared to do to them in China.
What really disturbs me are the true horrors we neglected during the dying days of the Soviet. There were genocides in Uganda and Rwanda, and we didn't do anything. Millions died. It was far worse than anything Saddam has ever done.
So I don't know. If The Ashcrofts and Poindexters have their way and we end up living in a nation where the trains run on time, will there be any Skinnermans or Schindlers among us? Or are those days, and those kinds of men gone forever?
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this allusion is lost on the majority of Slashdot readers. One of Mussolini's "accomplishments" is that he "made the trains run on time." Whether or not this is true, it doesn't matter - it was a very effective work of propaganda.
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:2, Interesting)
1) China would never do anything to us. Without the dollars made from exports to the USA they would pretty much have no money.
2) China isn't a country that will wake up tomorrow and be a democracy. The process is going on right now (albiet, slowly).... unfortunately, human rights will be the last issue to be handled.... but rest assured China's future is built on Capatilism. I have to think that they are just waiting for the last of the old school Maoists to die off (no insult meant, just a fact)
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:2, Flamebait)
If we cannot take down the small time monsters, how can we take down the big time ones? Sure Kuwait isn't a democracy, but that doesn't give anyone the right to invade it. Saddam invading Kuwait wasn't exactly a gigantic blow to our oil interests. It's not like he was going to turn off the wells. We could have just made sweetheart deals with him like the French (do a Google on Total Elf Fina). But we decided it wasn't right and did something about it.
As for Bosnia, I would disagree. I believe it was one of our finest hours. The US could have just turned the other way and let Slobodan Milosevic butcher thousands of Muslims. We could have easily said it was Europe's problem. But we stood up against genocide and were victorous. Sure it wasn't clean, but war never is.
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
The US cannot solve every genocidal conflict. We are labeled an evil imperialistic empire for the small places we try to help. Even now when we try to put military consequences behind UN resolutions we spur millions of anti-war protestors.
I would like to hear your solutions to world peace.
Brian Ellenberger
The US... (Score:2)
As far as eastern Europe is concerned, it was a mess before there WAS a US. The idea that the US could "help" there is wishful thinking. The Ottmans created that problem, just as Britain, France and Germany finished off the job for the Ottomans in the Middle East, creating the present hodge podge of borders. Even so, you can't track back through the region's (or the world's) history and point to some time when things were right. The idea is wishful thinking.
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe isn't supposed to 'stand united'. Your forgetting that Europe is comprised of several different countries each with their own language and system of values. And what, exactly, are they required to take a stand on? Simply surviving, pursuing happiness, and prospering is not enough? The common theme that I keep hearing is "Getting tough for getting tough's sake" is not logical.
"At least they've got the courage to a) say what they mean and b) act on it."
Does a dog know what its doing when it tries to hump a person's leg? It has acted on something, is it courageous? I could say I'm going to take a dump, and go take a dump. Am I courageous? Hitler could have said that he was going to exterminate all the crippled people and then he did it. Was he courageous? Your definition of courage is worthless.
The administrative branch, by your definition, is not courageous. They want to "disarm" Iraq which can be accomplished today with the air power in the region and those nice b/w photos. However, what they want to do is remove the government from power. Two different objectives. They will not come out and just say "We want to remove the government and instill our own government" They keep using the word disarm.
Re:Hitler's anti-semitism did him the most harm (Score:2)
He didn't frame the Jews; he framed the Communists instead. The supposed arsonists were a Dutchman, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was a very shady figure (rumored to have been paid by the Nazis to do his role), and a Bulgarian Communist activist, Georgi Dimitrov. Van der Lubbe was convicted; Dimitrov was acquitted after his famous defense. Later he would become the first post-war prime minister of Bulgaria, and play an instrumental role in crushing the opposition and establishing a Communist dictatorship that lasted half a century or so. But that's another story...
What matters is not who was going to get the bomb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2, Insightful)
What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary.
So the US dropping that bomb was 100% a power trip. And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war. The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc. Yadi yada. Read up on some history...
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
The direct responsibility of the destruction caused by a weapon lie with whoever uses it, no matter how much indirect responsibility other involved parties may have.
Nothing forced anyone to use the second bomb.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry. When you're at war, your primary concern is to mitigate the losses of your own people.
If the U.S. had to invade Japan to force it to capitulate, that would have been the wrong decision because tens of thousands of Americans would have died.
No. Japan had ample time and warning to surrender. It chose not to only until it realized that it by not doing so, Japan would cease to exist.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Japan had practically ceased existing at that point. Your comparison is analogous to blowing a bomb in a busy intersection, waiting 10 minutes, and then opening fire on the terrorists/civilians in the area that are still looking for severed pieces of their bodies around the place.
Your argument would have been acceptable if Japan was still bombarding San Fransisco at the time, and the US was having heavy casualties.
No, it wasn't. Like I originally said, at the time of the incident, the war was pretty much over, and the world was in a state of stupor... no major battles were being fought.
The second bomb can best be described as an act of vingilantism on the part of the US. You should also read the recent article that was posted on slashdot about the captain of the Enola Gay, and how the order came to drop the second bomb.
It's one thing to justify yourself (as a country) in current political affairs, it's another thing entirely to try and justify facts of 50 years ago when the whole world knows more or less exactly what happened: it makes you look foolish and conceited.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
San Francisco? No. But the Japanese still held on to the Asian mainland and was massacring Chinese civillians (like they'd been doing since 1932) essentially right on up until Hirohito set foot aboard the USS Missouiri.
But people who are stuck with a Eurocentric viewpoint on history tend not to know that.
"no major battles were being fought."
Cheng Kai-Shek and Mao Tse-Dong would disagree.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Really, all I can do now, is quote some big lebowsky because I'm too irrate at your mother theresa point of view. "Smokey, this is not Nam, there are rules".
For your information, I *am* european, but I like many others find both the french and the british to both be whimps, and ultimately the cause of WWII.
My only difference from you sir, is that I don't try to justify their actions.
See my last post [slashdot.org] for my final words. I don't need to expend any more energy on such a useless topic regardless of whether it's with intelligent people or not... it's not like what we're saying has any sway on anything.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
And on a side note, America didn't get even, Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and basically razed two cities. Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency.
And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost, if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so...
Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less. It was definitely much less cruel then what the US has been doing in the middle east, and far east too for the past half century.
That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)...
Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels...
Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
And if nations want to surprise attack them while engaged in diplomatic talks, then those nations will have to bear the consequences of their actions.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are acting a-la US acts when Russian hacker gets tried in US soil for un-crime commited in Russia?
You must be really naive if you think Diplomatic talks degenerate because of bad manners at the tea table.
The cards are always down, it's all about how much one is willing to bend over and grab their ankles.
And the US lately, has become the master pimp of the world... expecting anyone and everyone in their sight to bend over and grab em.
Well fuck you! It's about time you realized it doesn't work that way... You have a current world crisis going on just because of said behaviour. Just sit and watch how the US will go in like the First of the Ninth Air Cav even after the UN says "no". The world isn't your playground...
Like I said before, it's one thing to think you're right in an argument, and something else completely to try and justify glaring events of 50 years past.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
And believe it or not, I'm not a political kind of person... But like I said from post one, it's one thing to have beliefs in current arguments, it's another thing to justify HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dead over two bombs 50 years after the fact... Are you and that other [slashdot.org] wise crack telling me with straight faces that the world would have been a burning ball of fire, and that millions of lives would have been lost if those two bombs weren't dropped? - I call YOU hypocrites for saying that.
You go ahead and justify it all you want, and call me hypocrite at the same time, if you can sleep with a comfortable conscience, more power to you.
I'll just remind you people have been tried for war crimes and genocide for killing just a few hundred people.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Speaking as a historian, it is generally accepted that neither of the weapons needed to be dropped to end the war, or certainly no more than one. However, and I think other posters have mentioned this, it is generally believed that the resultant loss of life from an American invasion of the Japanese mainland and/or an all-out war between the Soviet Union and Japan would have resulted in horrendous casaulties for all involved. Bottom line, war is a shitty business, especially when there are militant fundamentalists (Japanese hard-liners, Islamic radicals, Christian right-wingers) on any side...
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
From tealover.
I rest my case.
Just to be more explicit Guppy, what you are talking about is open for argumenting, and there are many answers that can come of it. Don't call me hypocrit so quickly, because I have arguments too... and yes, I know of Nankin as well. And I've read books, not "little factoids" off of Frosted Flakes cereal boxes. And I do not condemn you for having your opinion.
But the above statement goes a loooong way in my favor I'd say...
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:5, Insightful)
"Not a single millitary outpost with it's contingency."
Off the top of my head, I can't remember the signifigance of Hiroshima, but Nagasaki was on the list of potential targets because of its port facilities.
" And don't forget, Pearl harbour was a millitary outpost,"
On US territory.
"if Uncle Sam wants to put his soldiers around the globe, he will have to face the risks of doing so..."
Uncle Sam wouldn't have had to worry if Uncle Sam would have continued exports to Japan that were fueling Japan's nine-year-old (at the time) war of aggression and expansion on the Asian mainland.
"Pearl Harbour, if anything was a major strategic win for Japan, nothing more, nothing less."
They were a major strategic loss, a minor tactical victory at best. There were no carriers at anchor at Pearl, which were Yamamoto's primary target. He played his only trump card and gained next to nothing because of it.
"That last statement is, of course, if we all play nice, and really believe the US was *completely unaware* of the impending attack (which I believe is bullshit)"
You are right only to a degree, only in the tactical sense.
Even the US public was well aware of Japanese intentions towards the US. Those on Oahu and the Philippines that day were taken by surprise by the attacks themselves, not the ones attacking them. Operation Barbarossa was far more of a surprise than 12/7/41.
"Do you *really* think the US was unaware of the actions of Bin Laden?"
The US wasn't in the middle of diplomatic negotiations with either bin Laden or Mullah Omar's government in September 2001. Afghanistan was only butchering its own civillians, and had yet to even consider invading one of its neighbors. Tojo's Japan had already slaughtered many, many more civillians for a longer period of time by 1941 than bin Laden could possibly hope to achieve, even after 2001.
Your metaphor is strenuous at best.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2, Informative)
Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."
Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.
Also you might want to realize that without using the atomic bombs the invasion of Japan was to take place on Dec 1, 1945. It was to start with the invasion of the Island of Kyushu (Operation Olympic). The invasion was projected to cost the lives of some 245,000 Americans, and 1,000,000 Japanese, far more than died in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
The Japanese had no plans on surrender and the reason no major battles were taking place is because the Japanese were consolidating their forces for 'Ketsu-Go'; the plan to defend their homeland.
As part of Ketsu-Go, the Japanese were building 20 suicide take-off strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases. On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.
The Japanese had 58 more airfields on Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks. Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.
In August 1945, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5651 army and 7074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12,725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing facility. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.
Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot. When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a four-fold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.
While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an elite force of 2000 army and navy fighters would take off to fight to the death to control the skies over Kyushu. A second force of 330 non-combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using fire support and air cover to protect the troop-carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of suicide planes was to hit the American transports.
As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.
American troops would be arriving in about 180 lightly armed transports and cargo vessels. The Japanese defenders would be the hardcore of the home army. These troops were well fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit. Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of off-shore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches.
You say in your post "Know your history, and you can see many very striking paralels..." I think before you look for any parallels you should first learn your history and find out exactly WHY things happened the way they did. If after knowing of what awaited in Operation Olympic and then Operation Coronet you still come to the same conclusion.... I say we're damn lucky you're not in any decision making capacity.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. If you knew your history, you'd know that, after being essentially blockaded and slowly starved by the US submarine force for the better part of a year, after being nuked twice, after the Soviets declared war on Japan and the sudden influx of bloodthirsty eastern-front veterans, Hideki Tojo's army was so "scared" that they staged a desparate coup to prevent the emperor from surrendering!
If the coup had been successful, it would have taken more than just two nuclear devices to convince them to surrender. Probably far more.
" What I can *guarantee* you without any ambiguity is that the second bomb was definitely *not* necessary."
I disagree, for the reasons stated above.
If you can find it, there's a flick out there named Hiroshima [amazon.com] that examines the final months of the war in the Pacific from both the US and Japanese sides. It feels a lot like Tora! Tora! Tora! You'll see just how "scared" and "willing to surrender" the Japanese military was. It airs on Showtime from time to time.
"And it achieved exactly what it had started out to do: begin the cold war."
The Cold War was "starting" after WWII no matter what happened to Japan. It's roots come from well before 1945 (even before 1938). The only thing that the use of the atomic bombs on Japan did was make sure that the Soviets weren't able to carve up Japan like they did to Germany and (eventually) Korea.
"The US dropping that bomb completely undermined Russia's crucial role in the war... etc. etc"
What role? The Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Japan until August 1945. They didn't declare war on Japan until two days after the Hiroshima bombing, the day before Nagasaki. Japan had nothing to do with the Great Patriotic War.
"Read up on some history..."
Hypocrite.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:3, Insightful)
> but the bottom ine is that the first to discover the thing was going to use it, and this world has been quite the scary & dangerous place ever since.
I agree, and it's unfortunate that that genie can't be put back in the bottle.
However, the curmudgeon in me can't help pointing out that the world was already a scary & dangerous place. Only the tiniest fraction of the ~50,000,000 people who died during WWII died as a result of atomic bombs.
And we've darn well kept our hand in at the killing since then, too.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:3, Insightful)
ostiguy
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
You have to be kidding me right? The world is no more scarry than it was before the bomb was used. In fact one could argue that its less scarry. Look at the cold war. Heres a situation that very well should of been WW3. It had everything that WWI and WW2 had except for the war. Never underestimate the power of mutal destruction. Currently (and the last 40 years or so) we invade countries that we don't fear (Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, etc), because they have no risk of hurting the homeland. However do you think the US would pick a fight with the Chinese or Russians (or even North Korea, when was the last time we invaded them, no matter how "evil" they are)? No. And why is this? Because they could nuke as as badly as we could nuke them. The atomic bomb as been used more a tool of peace (albiet a threatening peace) then it has as a tool of war.
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Clausowitz said that war had to be horible, otherwise we would not fear to engage in it.
As horifying as The Bomb is, it is for exactly this reason that it is the greatest tool for peace.
The sheer terror of what would happen if a nuclear power were to launch is unthinkable, so is agression against them...
Note this only applies to democracies, or other goverments that are remotly concerned with the loss of their citizense lives.
It's a theory... I'll bet you $1,000,000 dollars it works?!
Re:What matters is not who was going to get the bo (Score:2)
Funny, and here's me thinking all along that the reason we didn't fight WW III against the Russians is that the bomb made it unthinkable, and that it is only because of this that we have had 58 years without a world war, instead of the 21 we had between WW I and WW II.
Hitler, and the bomb (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hitler, and the bomb (Score:2)
Re:Japan had an A-bomb project of its own (Score:3, Interesting)
Todays wars are boring (Score:4, Funny)
It's a pity todays so called "wars" are more like playing starcraft with unlimited resources against an AI set on "easy". I don't think I'll watch the Iraq thing on TV when it starts. A few old star trek episodes will provide better entertainment.
skip bomb dam! coolest weapon (Score:5, Interesting)
Bombing a dam is damn hard. seen from the air they are very small targets. And they are concrete and over built. even if you hit the top you have not done much damage. to destroy the dam you have to hit is near the bottom where the water pressure is high. hence the need for a raid on the ground: to hard to hit.
Enter the skip bomb [pbs.org]. the Skip bomb is a spinning cyllindric bomb [simscience.org]dropped in the water above the dam. it skips, skips, skips and slams in to wall of the dam. but it does not explode. instead the back spin makes it claw its way down the side the dam where it detonates near the bottom.
there's lots on the web on this, including . http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_nazidams/ [simscience.org]
Be careful what you wish for... (Score:2)
You just described pretty much all the wars from 1815 right on up to the middle of the nineteenth century. Then 1861 happened.
You just described pretty much all the wars from 1865 right on up to the beginning of the twentieth century. Then 1914 happened.
"... doomed to repeat," yadda yadda yadda.
Re:Todays wars are boring (Score:2)
I don't mean to sound like a war monger who thinks of war as glorious, I just want to point out that every war that this earth has seen since WWII has paled in comparison.
Re:Todays wars are boring (Score:2)
My point was that technological prowess has mitigated human heroism. My other point was that nations no longer wage war as a whole body - rather the military forces depart for some country whose name most people can't pronounce and everyone else pitches in by paying a couple more cents at the gas pump - thus reducing the chances for heroism by citizens, politicians, and industry in the home country yet again.
Quick! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Quick! (Score:2)
heroes (Score:2)
Shackleton (Score:2)
Mentioned in "Between Silk and Cyanide" (Score:5, Interesting)
Mr. Skinnarland was mentioned several times in Leo Marks book "Between Silk and Cyanide". One of the many heroes just recently getting their due.
He trained in England with the SOE, crossing paths with Mr Marks who trained operatives in the use of codes.
Marks died in the last year or two also.
What Marks had to say about Skinnarland (Score:2)
Re:Mentioned in "Between Silk and Cyanide" (Score:2)
Marks died in the last year or two also.
According to some sources, WWII veterans in America are dying at the rate of 1000 a day. In a few years, that rate will decrease dramaticly as there will be few vets left, and it will go on for years until "the last WWII vet" appears on the news.
If you know any of these guys, don't wait too long to thank them.
Finally! (Score:2)
Makes me proud to be a 'wegian (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pafko.com/trips/norway/n10/ - about the sabotage
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm - about heavy water and it's use
http://www.lawzone.com/half-nor/haukelid.htm - about Knut Haukelid; another of the heroes from Telemark
http://www.390th.org/warstories/Rjukan.htm - about how the USAF tried and failed to knock out the heavy water plant
I know, I gotta learn proper html
Re:Makes me proud to be a 'wegian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Makes me proud to be a 'wegian (Score:2)
Gehlen Org (Score:2)
Nazi's weren't even building an atomic bomb.... (Score:2)
Re:Nazi's weren't even building an atomic bomb.... (Score:2)
Re:Nazi's weren't even building an atomic bomb.... (Score:2, Informative)
Evidence for Nazi's abandoning Nuclear Weapons.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nazi's weren't even building an atomic bomb.... (Score:5, Informative)
Not strictly true. The Nazis had a significant nuclear-weapons research program, using the intellectual powers of such notable physicists as Werner Heisenberg (of "Uncertainty Principle" fame). However, they were convinced that an exploding nuclear bomb was impractical, because Dr. Heisenberg had grossly mis-estimated the critical mass of uranium. [americanscientist.org] Because of this, the most likely form of Nazi nuclear weapon was a subcritcal reactor-bomb [sigmaxi.org] which would "detonate" through a mechanism more like the Chornobyl meltdown than a runaway complete fission reaction.
That said, the commando raids on the various plants supporting this reasearch definitely helped guarantee that Nazi Germany never attained nuclear weapons. We can be fairly grateful for that, I think.
Re:Nazi's weren't even building an atomic bomb.... (Score:2)
A war ended by a nuclear mishap before the bomb was ever created would certainly have led to a radically different history.
I've mentioned this book before... (Score:2, Informative)
Aside from an interesting quote from Werner Heisenberg [slashdot.org], it gives a lot of information about the efforts at sabotaging the heavy water processing plant. If you can find a copy, it's well worth the price.
exploits (Score:2)
He's an evil man (Score:2, Funny)
Movie Based on This (Score:3, Informative)
I can't remember what it was called, but it was on Canada's "History Television" cable channel.
Actually there was two... (Score:4, Informative)
Kjella
Re:Movie Based on This (Score:2)
Not in film (Score:2)
Intrepid (Score:3, Interesting)
The book talks about the repeated raids on the heavy water factories, the code-breaking process, the creation of the OSS, the establishment of a backup British Government in NYC in case London fell, etc. There is also the appearance of such notables as Roald Dahl, Ian Fleming and Aldous Huxley, working in British Intelligence.
Some of the stories of radio operators dropped into Europe, captured, tortured and killed, could and should be made into movies or books in their own right.
Intrepid, by the way, was the code name of the man chosen by Churchill to be a liason with Roosevelt in the early stages (before lend-lease, before Pearl Harbor, etc)
Re:Intrepid (Score:2)
Allied Spec Ops in WII (Score:2, Interesting)
Another squad put an abrasive in axle grease to effectively sabotage Nazi transportation.
And a radio operator was captured and forced to send Nazi messages. There was a fail-safe system in which all uncoerced messages contained a deliberate error, so that a perfect message would mean the sender was compromised. However, the people at base forgot about this protocol and kept on sending people to their deaths. Then the radio operator started to send "compromised" in parts at the end and beginning of messages but to no avail. When two POW escaped to friendly territory and warned them of the radio operator's fate, he was forced to send a message that they were in fact German spies. They were executed.
Really good reading.
Re:Allied Spec Ops in WII (Score:2)
For more info in the Rjukan bombings... (Score:2)
This is the guy who sank a ferry full of people. (Score:3, Informative)
This man was a terrorist. And, one could argue, a "cowardly terrorist" - he didn't go on the boat and go down with it. He'd done other things more classically heroic, but the bombing of the ferry Hydro was not an act of heroism. At best, it was militarily necessary.
Re:This is the guy who sank a ferry full of people (Score:5, Informative)
As well, Norway wasn't neutral, it was occupied by germany and as such was part of the Nazi war effort.
Re:This is the guy who sank a ferry full of people (Score:2)
A couple informational links (Score:2)
Next to Hogan, Skinnarland was small fry (Score:2, Interesting)
History Channel's Greatest Raids (Score:2)
bcl
Pretty Inconsequential (Score:4, Interesting)
First, heavy water is not the only moderator available to someone who wants to make a chain reaction (the first US pile used very pure carbon) and heavy water isn't used in an atomic weapon (although it is used in a thermonuclear weapon but you have to crawl before you can run.)
Second, the Germans didn't even have the explosive material to make a bomb. In an atomic bomb you can use either plutonium or enriched uranium. The Manhattan Project got it's plutonium from the residue of a self-sustaining chain reaction and the Germans hadn't even completed a self-sustaining chain reaction by the war's end, hell they weren't even close. Heisenberg kept insisting on creating these elaborate designs of natural uranium for the pile such as concentric spheres or huge disks which took a lot of time and labor to produce when the best configuration for a chain reaction is small cyclinders which was the only configuration the Manhattan Project ever used. Using enriched uranium was just out of the question for the overworked German war machine. America had the money and resources to build gaseous diffusion plants and centrifuges, but what with fighting two fronts Germany had better things to do with its money and Heisenberg was not really pushing for more resources since he couldn't convince himself let alone Hitler that they would be able to produce a bomb.
And then had they somehow had a chain reaction they would have to extract the plutonium (not easy), then they still have to construct the bomb (not easy), and figure out a way of delivering it (not easy.) For more information I highly recommend the Richard Rhodes book, Making of the Atomic Bomb.
Nazi heavy water artifacts are on display. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have seen the Nazi heavy water artifacts. (and other artifacts) For many years in the 1980's the University of Michigan had ampules of heavy water (double ended sealed glass vials) on display in the old chemistry building in central quad area on main floor toward the east. Lots of universities have interesting artifacts in display cases, including the worlds smallest MOVINGmotor at caltech and other exibits.
The nazi heavy water display was fascinating because the vial had pretty high quality white stickers with red swastika prominently on them. The display would not have been complete without the sticker obviously.
The german heavy water exhibit looked cool.
At that time the Univ of Michigan harbored Dr Mengeles lab book results (and luftwaffe freezing of human spine in artic temp brine, and decompression tests on humans) and was in the flack.
I noticed hundreds of rare Nazi books being stolen or defaced one by one from the MASSIVE collection (yes massive) grad student library at the Univ of Michigan . The book that I thought was the most fascinating was a german book of all uniforms for a particular year... I was shocked by the futuristic and overly high-tech look of the White winter SS officers uniform (formal version?). It looked like it hopped out of a start trek movie. It was a small book, but it too was stolen or removed many years later when I tried to take a glance at it and perhaps color photocopy it to prove to people how futuristic and out of place that uniform looked. All the books were in german , row upon row, and I did not know a word of german.
The librayy entrance of the library had a display on vigilante vandalism... jews and arabs were detroying each others books each week and leaving destoyed volumes (sometimes with graffitti) in the building itslef, but sometimes stealing them. I asked them why the religious zealots were desroying each others "indfidel books" and they told me THAT IS NOTHING COMPARED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF ATHIEST BOOKS BY CHRISTIANS. I replied "huh?"and they said, that christians steal, or check out and "lose" all the most provocative athiest books and that they REFUSE TO RESTOCK and REORDER THEM. They had so few it was an easy targert goal to work on I assume, as opposed to the muslim and jewiosh works.
I then asked a country librarian about censorship destruction of books by religious nuts, especially books in athiesm and they concurred that it is common.
Lots of closed minded people despise Germans and their Nazi era-engineering, as much as despise books on athiesm. People should learn from the past. Not celebrate acts ofsabotage for sabotage's sack. Trusted patrons in a Library, and trusted workers at a hydroelectric plant that extracts heavy water, should not be celebrated for treachery and sabotage. It is a form of dishonesty. And truly just people hate dishonesty
Reposted because the first one got modded -1 by an idiot.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:2)
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:5, Informative)
The only other alternative is to not use a breeder reactor, but instead to try and extract the U-238 directly from the uranium ore (in which it is present in VERY low concentrations). However, this approach requires enourmes complexes, noxious chemicals, and complicated pressure systems. This is a much more expensive method, but technically simpler if you haven't yet discovered how to build an effective breeder reactor. This was also the method used by the americans to build their first bombs.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:2, Informative)
The U238 can be added around a U235 core in order to increase the yeild.
Re:Could someone explain? (Score:2)
Historically, the Nazi scientists (and all others for that matter) had yet to even dream of building a hydrogen bomb at that time, the reason they were pursuing D2O was for their breeder reactors...
Re:It's a Good Thing This Guy Wasn't... (Score:2, Insightful)
He was Norwegian. As were the rest of the gang of Norwegian resistance fighters who sabotaged the heavy water plant at Rjukan.
These days more than 90% of Norwegians are against an attack on Iraq without UN security council backing. (Just as pretty much all the rest of the world except the USA.)
War is not something one should enter into lightly. All other alternatives should be tried before one resorts to war.
Re:It's a Good Thing This Guy Wasn't... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: It's a Good Thing This Guy Wasn't... (Score:3, Insightful)
> 90% of French and British citizens were against standing up to Hitler when he waltzed into the Sudetenland. Look where that got us. No one wants war, but the realists in the world realize that inaction is actually worse in some cases.
The problem is that no one has a crystal ball that lets us examine the future the way we can examine the past. I for one am not eager to have tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed on the basis dubious claims that we can detect when history is repeating itself. Far better to reason things out on the basis of what we see now than to base our decision on a weak analogy with the past.
And remember, there have been times when we intervened and things still didn't work out exactly swell, and times when we sat back and weren't afflicted with another world war as a result. Appeals to history make great rhetoric, but so far as I can tell they are actually worthless.
Re: It's a Good Thing This Guy Wasn't... (Score:2)
There are times when you have to look beyond the poll numbers and do what is right. Unfortunately, in Old Europe, there are no Churchills. There sure are a lot of Chamberlains though.
That's quite sad.
Re:Good thing the allies won (Score:2)
Yes, the difference is several million people, in that aspect at least.
Sure, you can make the case that the US is going downhill and turning more fascist every day, but it's nowhere near as bad as nazi Germany and will hopefully never reach that point either.
Re:Why in Norway? (Score:3, Informative)
abundance of energy in Norway?"
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head there. Norway has tons of hydroelectric energy potential, and making heavy water requires lots of energy: first you have to separate H20 into H2 + O2 by electrolysis, and then you have to cool the H2 to a liquid and distill out the D2. Then you recombine to form the heavy water. In all this makes the process so energy-intensive that you basically need an entire power plant to provide for a heavy water plant.
After the german's realized the insecurity of the facility in Norway, they tried to move the facility parts back to germany, but were again failed when this same guy sank the ferry that was transporting the components.
Re:Why in Norway? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowadays a different process is used, based on the shift with temperature of the equilibrium of the reaction H2O + HDS transforming to/from HDO + H2S. But this wasn't invented until after the war.
If the 'hydrogen economy' based on electrolytic production of hydrogen ever takes off, then anyone will be able to make heavy water at low marginal cost, which means nuclear proliferation will become much easier -- anyone will be able to build compact reactors using natural (unenriched) uranium as fuel.
What part of it didn't you understand.. (Score:2)
In 1965 he left US and moved to Toronto.
Kjella