Talk:German nuclear program during World War II

message: Article (... for creating plutonium, needed for nuclear weapons)
Removed by Fastfission "However plutonium step was not necessary, as it is only a cost saving measure, since an nuclear weapon can be made from highly enrichted uranium, as in U.S. "Little Boy". Why was this reverted, is this false, A-Bomb, can't be made from uranium only ? AlV 11:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that atomic weapons can be made from enriched uranium, in the context of where it was put in article, it was misleading. Putting it after the ALSOS assessment makes it sound like you are trying to say that the line implies their assessment was not correct, but it is unrelated to that particular assessment. The Germans did not have any infrastructure for enriching uranium, but they did have the very beginnings of an infrastructure to develop plutonium. Additionally, the line implies that plutonium is just a "cost saving measure" which is not true. In the context of the German program, the development of plutonium was a "necessary step". --Fastfission 11:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plutonium step may be skipped 

message: Can anyone confirm the veracity of these links?:
Luft-46 Article on German A-bomb
Luft-46 Article on German Nuclear Reactor
I have never heard any mention of what is on these pages, and was a little surprised to read about it. I know that there are many loony-bin websites when it comes to the Nazis and WWII, but Luft-46 is in general a reputable source. If the information does indeed hold some merit, it would certainly be candidate for inclusion in the article. mhunter 01:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In short: looks like a lot of nonsense mixed in with a poor understanding of a few secondhand facts. The Germans did have a reactor, a "Uranium Machine" even, and at least one of the groups produced a patent for a bomb design. However the author of that article seems to reach far beyond any facts, has a poor set of sources (the fact that he uses a Reader's Digest article as one of his primary insights is troubling enough), and a poor sense of the science involved. However to his credit he makes it pretty clear that he is just making things up for the most part. I would be loathe to use it as a source when there are so many reliable ones out there (i.e. the Walker book). --Fastfission 01:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Can Anyone?

message: I thought for awhile before naming this page. I wanted it to be "nuclear energy project" primarily because there is some debate over the purpose of the project (i.e. I didn't want it to be "atomic bomb project" any more than "nuclear reactor project"). As for the pick between "German" and "Nazi".. I just picked the geographical one (in part because many of those on it were not members of the Party) in an attempt to avoid too much sensationalism. If anyone has any objections or arguments for something else (there is no easy name for it that I know of, unlike Manhattan Project or Force de frappe), I'm game for discussing it. --Fastfission 01:34, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: I removed the putative "German atomic bomb" image (:Image:Bomgermnzi454.jpg) from the article for three reasons:
#I don't think it is likely "free" and I'm not sure it counts as fair use at all (no criteria was given).
#I don't think it adds anything to the article. The article does not discuss it.
#The research is a bit too new to be realiable. I have it on pretty good authority that it is going to be discovered to be historically worthless eventually anyway. 
--Fastfission 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed image

message: This article tells NOTHING about the actual project. 80% of the text is on why it failed and the discussion on the extent of their success. Nothing about what they did, where the project was based, that sort of thing. I came here looking for where the project was based, and couldn't find a THING about the most basic things people would want to know about this. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The go to source for the most recent---and by far the most revealing---archival research on the WWII German nuclear weapons program is Forgotten Creators, an online book first released in 2019.  The author is Dr. Todd Rider, a longtime senior staff scientist at MIT who also worked on fusion energy for the US Navy.  Forgotten Creators contains many hundreds of original, primary source documents (many of them OSS and British intelligence reports) that have never before been seen in any public source since the end of the conflict. Williamjpellas (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work! 

message: I think the paragraph with this heading has several instances of incorrect information. 
1) The Manhattan project was not under Oppenheimer, but Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves. Openheimer was important because he was head of the Los Alamos Laboratory, the place were the final phase of the project was completed (and the first plutonium bomb tested).
2) Hahn and Strassman discovered barium products in Uranium bombarded by neutrons, but did not realize fully the implications, until the work of Meitner and Frisch. Hahn received a well deserved Nobel Prize for this. Meitner was nominated, but the Nobel Comitee did not give her a prize (in a decision that is seen as controversial by some).
3)The german effort under Heissenberg, did not have a critical (i.e. fully functional) reactor (as Fermi did in 1942 in Chicago) when they were captured in 1945 by the Alsos mission.
I would like to correct this, but would like feedback from other contributors before doing it.
Luzu 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness and implications 

message: Can you give the reference to Walker's article in Physics Today?
I only found a Walker-Karlsh article in 
Physics World. Jclerman 13:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walker and Karlsch 

message: His book is now available online.  
*Joseph P. Farrell. Reich of the Black Sun : Nazi Secret Weapons and The Cold War Allied Legend 
Octopus-Hands 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello FF, wiki civility applies to third-parties as well as wiki-editors, no personal attacks, please be cordial.  If someone believes the Bible is full of untruths should a link to it be deleted?  The author has obviously put a lot of time and effort into his book including the use of citations qualifying it as a reliable source.  The book will stand or fall on its own merits, we should let each reader decide.  In addition, I note that you have deleted a portion of my post to the discussion page without consulting me first, in future please do not do that. My best regards.  Octopus-Hands 22:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what the page is for. In a page about the Big Bang Theory, for example, a link to the Bible explaining its theory about God making the Earth will clearly be inappropriate. However, the Bible may be put in for example the page for Creationism or the Evolution-Creationism controversy page. Furthermore, citations by themselves do not make a book reliable. A citation is but a line of text. You can make a citation that cites a non-existent source. From what I can skim, Farrell cites extensively from similarly fringe sources (such as Stevens, underground newspapers ... etc) and thus it does not increase the reliability of his statements. A better place for citing him might be in the "etheric physics" page (do we have one?) Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Farrell

message: IEEE in the late 90's (around 1998-1999 I think) ran an article peripherally related to this topic in the IEEE magazine (or it might have been the computer science organization magazine - I had a subscription to both at the time). They received a letter (and published it in a later issue) from a German scientist who was an associate involved in this research in Nazi Germany in this time frame. He gave specific reasons and examples why and how they intentionally failed certain experiments. If this issue of the magazine could be found by someone, this might add some meat to this article. 139.169.218.182 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely worth including a reference to claims by Germans (esp. Heisenberg) that they intentionally failed to develop a nuclear weapon for the Nazi regime.  That said, I think the vast majority of these claims have been debunked as post hoc justifications for (a) why the German scientists were so far behind the Americans and (b) why the scientists were "good" Germans and should not be punished for their part in the war effort.  Notably, at the end of the European war, the Americans captured the majority of major scientists involved in the German atomic program and held them in a (bugged) farmhouse in Britain.  When the scientists were told of the bombing at Hiroshima, they were all (including Heisenberg) amazed that the Americans could have been able to develop an atomic bomb when their own program had never approached that level of success.  If I recall correctly, many even doubted that the story was true, as they were convinced the US was using a trick to get their superior knowledge out of them.  I will look for the sources and try to include something in the article, but I don't think I have most of the books anymore, sadly.  --Cphoffman (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEEE Magazine Letter 

message: What do folks think about listing the authors last-name first?  The first entery, for example, would read  "Bernstein, Jeremy and Cassidy, David.  Hitler's Uranium Club: The Secret Recordings at Farm Hall. (2001)."  I ask because this seems to be the format of the reference given, but more because I *think* that this is the more common format (as the books will be indexed in a library by author's last name, so their last name is listed first).  I've also put the book title in italics, which is another change I propose. --Badger151 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading format 

message: A very important fact seems to be missing. I believe Walter Bothe determined whether a chain reaction using natural uranium and graphite as moderator would work or not, and he came to the conclusion that it would not. But the graphite that he was using was crucially impure and the Germans did not realise this. But because of this result, they decided to switch to heavy water as moderator which had extremely significant consequences for the German atomic bomb project. Needless to say, if they had realised the problem and obtained pure graphite (as Leo Szilard did in the US), the German program could perhaps have progressed substantially. --Ashujo 22.27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
So heavy water was, in effect, a detriment to nuclear arms production?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:580:1FD0:F16D:2A77:4116:6231 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a very important fact 

message: Wasn't there a major conference of German nuclear scientists at the Hotel Moulin Rouge in Strasbourg, France in 1942 or 1943? I don't see any reference to the event in this article. There are several references to a meeting on 6 July 1942, but not to its location or not a very complete explanation. Could sombody expand on the meeting and if -- it was the major conference with major decisions made -- that I seem to remember reading about, could it be more emphasized and included in the article. --TGC55 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strasbourg Hotel Moulin Rouge conference? 

message: Please answer the following questions.
A. Why did the German scientific community left NOT believe an atomic bomb was feasible?
B. Did any of them believe it was feasible and keep working?
C. What progress did such groups make?
D. To what degree were the Germans working on atomic power reactors instead of a bomb, to reduce their dependency on oil/petrol?
E. If the Germans did accept an atomic bomb as feasible, are there any estimates to how soon they might have developed and succesfully tested one?
F. We're not here to sell someone else's books, so why don't you mention what were the findings/results of the recent experts/authors books/research mentioned investigating rumours of some sort of atomic tests?
TheBalderdasher (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Didn't the Germans believe an A-bomb was Feasible? 

message: Why was the fact removed that Karlsch asserts the device tested in Ohrdruf probably was a thermo-nuclear fusion (not fission!) hybrid bomb based upon the shaped charge experiments performed for the sake of fusion by the Heereswaffenamt for years prior to that (which is very different from a primitive "dirty bomb" being Karlsch's second guess), that this device, though its design was more advanced, was not comparable to a large-scale Hiroshima-style (fission!) bomb, that Albert Speer was questioned at the Nuremberg trials about the Ohrdruf blast that had killed hundreds, maybe thousands of slave workers, that Soviet secret service measured a highly increased radiation level in the area immediately following the blast, and that Soviet archives still contain the classified film that the Germans made of the Ohrdruf blast? What about the number of 1940-1942 publications and (12!) patents on plutonium bombs by Weizsäcker and Fritz Houtermans classified after their publications by the Nazi government and that didn't surface until after the war, and the various fusion and hydrogen bomb publications by German scientists such as Prof. Schumann during the 1940s and 1950s as soon as the Allied military government regulations regarding military publications were lifted, yh were those deleted as well? Also, Karlsch called the modern soil sample taking a farce afterwards because what had taken place was only a preliminary test to determine whether the area had been contaminated by Chernobyl or post-war nuclear tests, but when the official report on this preliminary test read in one single sentence, "We didn't find proof of the 1945 contamination or proof of no such contamination yet, the question remains open for now until further tests will be made", the press widely publicized this finding even though it had been clear in advance that this test couldn't find it even in theory, and all the funding was cut so the actual soil samples weren't even taken or tested. --77.185.54.249 (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed called controversy, which currently this page lacks, or perhaps because it is connected to Nazis, not needed? Shaahin (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear fusion 

message: Joseph P. Farrell's story about the German atomic bomb is in fact based on some declassified documents and known sources, nothing strange. What seems strange, is the efforts to avoid any links to his book or even mentioning his research. What's wrong with that? Is this a free encyclopedia or another front? A section called controversy is absolutely needed, like many other wikipedia pages, because there is "Controversy" about the fact, that Nazis had some atomic test somewhere in the Baltic sea. Shaahin (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Farrell is a fantasist and UFO nut, just one of many such who've leaped aboard the "Super-Sekrit Nazi Superweapons" bandwagon. His so-called "sources" include Nick Cook of all people, which should tell anyone all they need to know about his reliability. And as for the supposed Baltic A-bomb test, check out the article Hitlers Bombe. 213.123.11.75 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: thumb|The nuclear reactor at Haigerloch museum
The article is getting far too long with too much politics and too little physics. I propose some kind of split. We could start by creating an article on the Haigerloch nuclear pile. Or is there a better name for this? I found some interesting details here (in Finnish), including an isotope analysis of the last surviving uranium cube, but found no place to add them to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear pile at Haigerloch 

message: It seems odd to me that this subsection does not mention the word "Jew" or "Jewish" until the very end of its penultimate paragraph.
How many of those mentioned earlier in the paragraph were not Jewish? The Law that is referred to at the start of the section could be summarised in a few words, without leaving the reader to need to click through. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If I remember correctly, not all of the physicists who emigrated were Jewish.  Something that could be expanded on here is that the Nazi government basically took a hostile view of all modern physics, as they associated it with Jewish physicists (nevermind the actual origins of major German physicists like Heisenberg).  This basically encouraged *anyone* working in modern physics to leave Germany so that they could continue their research elsewhere, though a few like Heisenberg soldiered on in Germany (though he faced severe problems, as laid out in the article). --Cphoffman (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emigrations subsection 

message: In this NatGeo documentary it is alleged that Germany needed a long range bomber to deliver a nuclear bomb to the US. That Goering specifically asked the Horten Brothers to create this plane to deliver that bomb.
It is alleged in the documentary by  xxx who interviewed the Horten Brothers in the 1990's that Goering was planning to have nuclear bomb ready by 1946/47 and the Horten brothers were tasked with designing a long rather bomber to deliver this to the US; this was the Horten 18. "Ho 18 intercontinental bomber, a larger version of their Ho 229 flying wing, powered by six turbojet engines and designed to race across the Atlantic at supersonic speeds." (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview26#tab-nazi-secret-weapons-2)
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview26#tab-nazi-secret-weapons-2#ixzz0fZtftzzm
In is worth noting that by the end of the War Germany has a working stealth fighter, jet engines and rockets. 
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/hitler-s-stealth-fighter-3942/Overview26  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhawk (talk • contribs) 05:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Geographic documentary on the Horten 229 and Horten 18  

message: Why are there no references to books by authors such as 
Friedrich Georg or
Igor Witkowski & Marek Kosmala or
Edgar Mayer & Thomas Mehner 
Most of which have been published since 2004/2006 
Which might shed some new light on this discussion and the extent of German Nuclear research and associated technology? Most of these books are laboriously referenced, and include archive photos and other.
:WP:RS is why. QuipQuotch (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New works on the German atomic programme 

message: There is an error in the "Emigrations" section of this article.  Robert Oppenheimer is listed as one of eight emigres from Germany who worked on the Manhattan project.  However, he was born in New York. (See article in Wikipedia on Oppenheimer.)  We can remove his name, but that leaves seven emigres.  Was the total eight, in which case someone was left out, or were there only seven?  If eight, who was the eighth? 
PeterVMason (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Nuclear Energy Project.   

message: If my suggestion about the lack of Uranium available in WW2 Germany seems tenable, then it would make the plan to 'dirty bomb" New York highly unlikely. 
As nobody else seems to have even heard of a "dirty bomb" in WW2 perhaps this is one fantasy more worthy of Indiana Jones.AT Kunene (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If any German A-Bomb had existed it was likely to have been used against London, not New York, for the same reason that the V-1 and V2 were.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Hitler wanted peace with Britain because he knew they had the resources to fuck up his plans and they weren't going to go along with them. You're really bending over backwards to defend nazis for no reason here. 2601:401:180:E1E0:84B2:3FC1:4A4E:9BD7 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bombing New York 

message: Hi - this is an important topic, and I appreciate the "non-Western" perspective.
Sadly, I find it reads in English like a shoe-box full of short clippings spliced together in a hurry.
I will try and take a run at this, but it would be helpful if someone could unify the style and get these sentences coherent.
Is this a translated article?
Sorry if I'm laying the poetic licence on a bit thick
cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Needs a Re-Write 

message: Very dismissive POV in this article = Bias. 
Enrico Fermi made his nuclear pile with documented impure UO2 (unenriched) using commercial grade graphite bricks (not uncommon). Although Oxygen can absorb neutrons, so does the Carbon in Graphite and Oxygen in Water, and don't forget about Nitrogen in the Air. Fermi's experimental reactor using unenriched Uranium used only a few 1000 pounds of UO2 but yes several tons of Graphite Bricks. Depending on design, 10-25% of a reactor's power comes from other than U-235. At a few pounds a pop, the Plutonium from that one ton of Uranium yields a few bombs. Note Chernobyl: a graphite reactor can go supercritical. And it isn't that unenriched Uranium can't be made to explode; but the critical mass makes it too big for a missile or plane, but it could be delivered by submarine or disguised "merchant ship" (something we could see from today's terrorists). Note that the U238 "tamper" used in some bombs has been responsible for a large part of the energy generated. Although U-235 has a high cross-section to slow neutrons, a bomb doesn't carry a large efficient moderator: 99.9% of fissions in a bomb are by fast neutrons and U-238 fissions as well as U-235 does (its neutron cross section shrinks rapidly with increasing neutron energy) with fast neutrons. Uranium with "light metals" was the quote from the documentary/book; Deuterium and Lithium can multiply neutrons in a nuclear reaction overcoming a lower enrichment. I sincerely doubt that the Germans were so stupid as to believe that conventional explosives would initiate a nuclear reaction. Yeah, another way to overcome critical mass. A subcritical Plutonium sphere is hot to the touch because of high rate of Spontaneous fission (and subsequent chain reaction. You mention they have lots of Radium, which mixed with Deuterium or Lithium or Beryllium (Light elements) becomes a neutron emitter. A high activity neutron generator would require even unenriched Uranium to require being separated and assemled by implosion or other technique using explosives. Witnesses? Von Braun killed countless concentration camp persons in some of his "experiments" at Penemunde. Atrocities? What atrocities? Kurt Diebner set off a nuclear explosion next to a concetration camp for Russian ("inferior non-aryan people) soldiers testing radiation effects. He's not going to admit to that. No detectable (over normal background) radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nat Geo show about people skin diving at Bikini Atoll. How would you prove that we dropped a bomb in Japan; consider that witnesses to the first one didn't believe what they saw. Links: http://www.456fis.org/HITLERS_BOMB.htm
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?79919-Eyewitness-Germans-Tested-A-Bomb-In-October-1944
https://sites.google.com/site/naziabomb/
Shjacks45 (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Science good; German Science bad 

message: Hello.  I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page.  This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
* 
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: According to accusations made by prosecutor Jackson during the Nuremberg military tribunals, the evil Germans exploded an atomic bomb that vaporised 20,000 people herded into a village in Poland. You must believe everything mentioned in the Nuremberg trials, everything. Those who claim that the first nuclear weapons were used in Japan are deniers and face 5 years detention in many European countries..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.218 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you more information about that?.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackson apparently put this bizarre claim to Speer during cross-examination. He said it happened 'near Auschwitz' and that the 'new weapon' left no trace of the specially built village, the 20,000 prisoners or even the explosion itself (whereas a nuclear explosion would leave a rather considerable trace). Speer said he had never heard of any such thing and considered it completely improbable. That was the end of the matter. No one seems to know what Jackson was talking about, and he himself clearly didn't know either. He may have been paying too much attention to unfounded rumours. His performance on cross at Nuremberg is not generally reckoned to have been very good. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  German atomic bomb exploded in Poland                                                            

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on German nuclear weapon project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090123165907/http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Frisch-Fission-1939.html to http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Frisch-Fission-1939.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325042138/http://www.sachsen.de/sadra/887.htm to http://www.sachsen.de/sadra/887.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Will add quote from Heisenberg after checking it, he (and Paul Hartek, Groves etc) were interviewed by Eremenc in 1967 or so: 
:Already in the summer of 1942 the "leading people" in Germany knew that they had to win the war in the next half year if they were to won it at all. Their most serious mistake is that they didn’t give in after that time. ..... At a meeting in the summer of 1942 we hesitated to ask for too much money as we would have received orders to build factories but we knew it could not been done in the next two or three years and the war would be lost by that time anyway. And "the group" thought that the Americans would take three or four years to build a bomb, but optimistically "by the summer of 1944". So apart from resources the Allies had a longer timeframe. And if the Nazis were desperate the German scientists could have been shot if they didn’t do it in a shorter time. Hugo999 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Heisenberg 

message: This article (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/590825/Nazi-Nuclear-Weapons-Adolf-Hitler-Third-Reich-Test-Bomb-Drop-V2-Ludwigslust-Britain-Rocket), and others like it are suggesting that the Third Reich successfully tested a nuclear weapon. Can the claim be confirmed? If it is correct this article will need a serious rewrite! 人族 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  German A-Bomb Test? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on German nuclear weapon project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol07/72/72pavel.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011325/http://www.dpg-physik.de/gliederung/fv/gp/debye_en.html to http://www.dpg-physik.de/gliederung/fv/gp/debye_en.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121021120546/http://www.nba.nbi.dk/papers/introduction.htm to http://nba.nbi.dk/papers/introduction.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120526031212/http://nba.nbi.dk/release.html to http://nba.nbi.dk/release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The projects listed here are not a "German nuclear weapons program." The work was primarily on reactors, as the article describes in detail.
I understand why "German nuclear program" is ambiguous about the time period, but it's more accurate. I get that a very time-specific title is probably overly lengthy ("German nuclear program during World War II").
Suggestion: why not rename it to something that is more akin to what it was actually called? E.g. a translation of Uranprojekt, Uranverein, etc. "Uranium Society" or "Uranium Club" is much more historically specific (akin to "Manhattan Project" — imagine if that was renamed to "American nuclear weapons program.") Just an idea.
Calling it a "nuclear weapons program" presupposes its goals, which as the text explains is exactly the issue of historical contention. 
Looking at how other languages on Wikipedia do it, just as a survey:
* Uranium Project/Uranprojekt: German, Spanish
* Nazi Germany atomic project: French, Hebrew
* German nuclear project/program: Indonesian, Russian, Norwegian
* German military nuclear program: Italian
* German nuclear weapons program: Chinese, Korean, Arabic, Japanese
--98.109.149.123 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming article 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Nazi Germany had a small atomic dirty bomb, though couldn't mass produce it, one test carried out in Thuringia in March 3, 1945, killing several concentration camp prisoners. This should be in the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm AHC300 (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No serious historians believe this. No evidence in favor of this has turned up to support Karlsch's book, and plenty has turned up that further casts doubt on it. A section on the Karlsch book and its claims could definitely be part of the article but it should not just be an uncritical repeating of the claims or the sensational reporting made about them in the wake of its publication +15 years ago. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea atomic bomb testing 

message: There was a not-bad section on Deutsche Physik and also on the Nazi laws that caused Jewish scientists to emigrate, but I cut it. Why? 1) The argument that Deutsche Physik was the cause of the failure of the bomb effort is a very strained one. In part because the Deutsche Physik movement was not actually that powerful in the years that it had power, which was well before fission. (And conflating Deutsche Physik with the emigrations and so on is entirely wrong, those were due to the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service and had nothing specific to do with physics at all.) None of the people working on the Uranverein were Deutsche Physik people (obviously). The Nazis were never that enthusiastic about Deutsche Physik in any event, as Walker outlines very well. 2) As the article explains, the project was never trying to make nukes in the first place. So it's a wrong answer to a misconceived question. 3) It was just too long in any event, given how peripheral it was to the article itself.
I think the content that was there could easily have homes on the articles for Werner Heisenberg and Deutsche Physik, but it doesn't belong here. I am aware that very old scholarship (Bayerachen, for example) relies heavily on the Deutsche Physik movement as an explanation of the failure of their science, but modern scholarship has long since come up with better explanations for why the German program ended up with the results it did. The failure of the Uranverein was not because the Nazis were ideologically opposed to physics. 
Similarly, the "emigration" bit doesn't fit right here, either. The Germans certainly didn't have the talent on hand that they might have had if the Nazis hadn't taken over the country... but the Nazis did, so that's a very huge counterfactual to imagine. "What if Jewish scientists had stuck around to make nukes for Hitler?" is what this ends up implying the question is, which is entirely ahistorical. 
The article already does a pretty OK job of talking about what kinds of factors led to its failure, though more could be said on that. These particular sections though just muddy the waters. --NuclearSecrets (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutsche Physik section