WI: Sweden builds nuclear weapons

[jerry kraus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program

They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

[jerry kraus]

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

Actually, they were on the verge of exploding their first atomic bomb in the late 1950s.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

Actually, they were on the verge of exploding their first atomic bomb in the late 1950s.

Large scale nuclear proliferation.

Bottom line is that there are several countries ABLE to build bombs
that have chosen not to largely because most of them are part of the
US alliance - Germany, Japan, Sweden (well kinda), Canada, Australia,
South Korea, Netherlands just for starters.

Any of these could deploy nukes within 2 years of making a decision to
do so.

Most figure that while nuclear power is fine, weapons is something the
world could do less of.

I regularly debate my daughter (born 1987) on whether the world is a
better or worse place than when she was born. Global warming on the
international level and an economy that is increasingly against the
millenials on the local level are her two main points whereas I talk
about things like the partial stand down on nukes and conventional
forces (though admitting terrorism is a far greater concern than in
the 80s).

[Insane Ranter]

Threatened by the build up of the Sweden nuclear program and then further anger over Sweden being granted the 1958 World Cup, Norway launches a campaign to crush the Swedish Nuclear threat.... Little do they know Sweden has a couple of bombs ready.....

Someone else can take it from there..

[jerry kraus]

Post by Insane Ranter
Threatened by the build up of the Sweden nuclear program and then further anger over Sweden being granted the 1958 World Cup, Norway launches a campaign to crush the Swedish Nuclear threat.... Little do they know Sweden has a couple of bombs ready.....
Someone else can take it from there..

I like the way you think, Insane. I think we could do with a Scandinavian nuclear holocaust. Might shake things up a bit. At least it would melt the ice up there.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Insane Ranter
Threatened by the build up of the Sweden nuclear program and then
further anger over Sweden being granted the 1958 World Cup, Norway
launches a campaign to crush the Swedish Nuclear threat.... Little do
they know Sweden has a couple of bombs ready.....

Not to speak of being thoroughly pissed off at having to change from
driving on the right hand side to driving on the left, every time they
cross the border (Sweden didn't change from left to right until 1967).

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:55:52 +0000 (UTC), Pete Barrett

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by Insane Ranter
Threatened by the build up of the Sweden nuclear program and then
further anger over Sweden being granted the 1958 World Cup, Norway
launches a campaign to crush the Swedish Nuclear threat.... Little do
they know Sweden has a couple of bombs ready.....

Not to speak of being thoroughly pissed off at having to change from
driving on the right hand side to driving on the left, every time they
cross the border (Sweden didn't change from left to right until 1967).

When Nigeria switched over (also in the 1960s) they mobilized their
entire army and in addition mobilized every Boy Scout in the country
and gave them two flags and a whistle each to direct traffic.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by The Horny Goat
When Nigeria switched over (also in the 1960s) they mobilized their
entire army and in addition mobilized every Boy Scout in the country and
gave them two flags and a whistle each to direct traffic.

Nigeria in the 1960s wasn't as affluent as all that, and there can't have
been that much private traffic, so I do wonder if all that mobilisation
was actually necessary.
(Apparently (https://www.zammagazine.com/chronicle/chronicle-20/335-
nigeria-driving-on-the-right-side) the decision (a very sensible one,
given that they're surrounded by countries which drive on the right) is
now considered to have been a strike against British colonialism.)

[g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk]

Post by The Horny Goat
I regularly debate my daughter (born 1987) on whether the world is a
better or worse place than when she was born. Global warming on the
international level and an economy that is increasingly against the
millenials on the local level are her two main points whereas I talk
about things like the partial stand down on nukes and conventional
forces (though admitting terrorism is a far greater concern than in
the 80s).

I've always thought that terrorism was more prevalent in Western Europe
in the 80s - IRA, ETA, Brigate Rosse.

Admittedly, it was much less of a threat in Warsaw Pact countries than today,
though Yugoslavia and certain parts of the USSR suffered from
increasing attacks.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:06:49 +0000 (UTC),

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk

Post by The Horny Goat
I regularly debate my daughter (born 1987) on whether the world is a
better or worse place than when she was born. Global warming on the
international level and an economy that is increasingly against the
millenials on the local level are her two main points whereas I talk
about things like the partial stand down on nukes and conventional
forces (though admitting terrorism is a far greater concern than in
the 80s).

I've always thought that terrorism was more prevalent in Western Europe
in the 80s - IRA, ETA, Brigate Rosse.
Admittedly, it was much less of a threat in Warsaw Pact countries than today,
though Yugoslavia and certain parts of the USSR suffered from
increasing attacks.

True - though I was thinking primarily of post 9-11 which of course is
a completely different type of terrorism from the 1972 Olympics, IRA,
ETA etc. For what it's worth the daughter mentioned above did combined
History / Russian combined honors before law school so you can safely
assume she's more clued on historical matters than the average
millenial.

She once had her friends over and in front of them said "Lots of
things happened when I was little didn't they?" to which I said yes.
"Tell me about one that happened during my lifetime that I probably
don't know about"

I replied with 'How about when George Bush senior threw up on the
Japanese prime minister?" She laughed and said "That's definitely
significant and no I don't know about it" then walked over to her
computer to see if she could find it on Youtube and 30 seconds later
she and her friends were watching it.

I knew then we were different generations since it didn't occur to me
to try to find a video of the 1992 event.....

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:06:49 +0000 (UTC),

Post by g***@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk

Post by The Horny Goat
I regularly debate my daughter (born 1987) on whether the world is a
better or worse place than when she was born. Global warming on the
international level and an economy that is increasingly against the
millenials on the local level are her two main points whereas I talk
about things like the partial stand down on nukes and conventional
forces (though admitting terrorism is a far greater concern than in
the 80s).

I've always thought that terrorism was more prevalent in Western Europe
in the 80s - IRA, ETA, Brigate Rosse.
Admittedly, it was much less of a threat in Warsaw Pact countries than today,
though Yugoslavia and certain parts of the USSR suffered from
increasing attacks.

True - though I was thinking primarily of post 9-11 which of course is
a completely different type of terrorism from the 1972 Olympics, IRA,
ETA etc. For what it's worth the daughter mentioned above did combined
History / Russian combined honors before law school so you can safely
assume she's more clued on historical matters than the average
millenial.
She once had her friends over and in front of them said "Lots of
things happened when I was little didn't they?" to which I said yes.
"Tell me about one that happened during my lifetime that I probably
don't know about"
I replied with 'How about when George Bush senior threw up on the
Japanese prime minister?" She laughed and said "That's definitely
significant and no I don't know about it" then walked over to her
computer to see if she could find it on Youtube and 30 seconds later
she and her friends were watching it.
I knew then we were different generations since it didn't occur to me
to try to find a video of the 1992 event.....

The North American world has been deteriorating since about 1960. By 1987 it was already a serious mess, and it hasn't improved.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
I knew then we were different generations since it didn't occur to me
to try to find a video of the 1992 event.....

The North American world has been deteriorating since about 1960. By 1987 it was already a serious mess, and it hasn't improved.

I'm really not sure what that claim has to do with the president
eating 'bad sushi' and vomitting.

Even Niall Ferguson wouldn't make THAT claim!

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 11:53:22 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
I knew then we were different generations since it didn't occur to me
to try to find a video of the 1992 event.....

The North American world has been deteriorating since about 1960. By 1987 it was already a serious mess, and it hasn't improved.

I'm really not sure what that claim has to do with the president
eating 'bad sushi' and vomitting.
Even Niall Ferguson wouldn't make THAT claim!

Jerry has a problem with the EXISTENCE of civilian digital computers,
and quite possibly with any sort of computer that can do more than
output numerical data. He's only shown that a hundred thousand times.
Thinks that if science weren't solely directed towards profit, we'd all
be using typewriters at best but that very few people born after 1900
would have died of natural causes yet.

Insofar as that, kind of strange that he spends half his waking hours
decrying the existence of the thing that allows him to do so :-P

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Chrysi Cat
Jerry has a problem with the EXISTENCE of civilian digital computers,
and quite possibly with any sort of computer that can do more than
output numerical data. He's only shown that a hundred thousand times.
Thinks that if science weren't solely directed towards profit, we'd all
be using typewriters at best but that very few people born after 1900
would have died of natural causes yet.
Insofar as that, kind of strange that he spends half his waking hours
decrying the existence of the thing that allows him to do so :-P

Catch is what's a 'civilian digital computer'?

My current I7 laptop? yes

My 35 year old Apple II? yes (I cried when I left it at the scrap yard
5 years ago even though it hadn't been bootable for more than 5 years
before that)

How about my late mother's school board owned Wang Word Processor?
(roughly 1980-85 - it cost roughly $60-80k at the time)

How about the old Burroughs 1700 computer that was owned by NASA and
used to launch John Glenn into orbit? (It's on display at the
historical museum at Cape Canaveral - as a former Burroughs employee I
greatly enjoyed sitting in the commander's chair and pushing the
button that launched Glenn. If you are going to Disneyworld or
anywhere around Orlando I'd definitely make the Cape part of your
visit but wouldn't go to Cape Canaveral just for the launch site)

All of these are "civilian" in the "non-military" sense but the last
two are definitely not owned by individuals - and a modern iPhone
would have more computing power than either.......

[t***@go.com]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

Actually, they were on the verge of exploding their first atomic bomb in the late 1950s.

Large scale nuclear proliferation.
Bottom line is that there are several countries ABLE to build bombs
that have chosen not to largely because most of them are part of the
US alliance - Germany, Japan, Sweden (well kinda), Canada, Australia,
South Korea, Netherlands just for starters.

There are also a lot of non-aligned states that have
declared themselves to be 'nuclear free zones'.

In the 1950s there were a lot of above ground and above
water nuclear tests in the central Pacific and it is likely
at the time that some in New Zealand may have been occasionally
concerned about fallout drifting east and then southward due
to variations in the ocean and air currents.

Later, New Zealand was one of the first nations to declare itself
to be a 'nuclear free zone'.

A little while ago I surfed the internet on the subject of Vietnam
and nuclear weapons. Most of Southeast Asia is a 'nuclear free
zone', and Vietnam is also, much like most of the rest of southeast
Asia.

It is difficult to say if any of this may have to do with at least
a partial relative proximity of southeast Asia to New Zealand, but
'nuclear free zone' status seems to be an option taken up by many
countries that do not want to invest large amounts of money into
nuclear weapons programs anyway.

It is difficult to say how long term or genuine the position is,
but I am thinking that even the Supreme Leader of Iran has said
that he is against nuclear weapons.

After all, if guns do not kill people, only people kill people,
then nuclear weapons do not kill people, only governments do,
and the only government that has deliberately killed people
with nuclear weapons in an act of war is the United States in
WWII.

Although it could happen at any moment in the future, at least
it has not happened so far for a period of over 70 years.

This is more time than between WWI and WWII but less time than
between Napoleon and WWI. Of course if you were to start talking
about thousands of years or geologic time then there is not much
basis for comparison.

I am not necessarily sure what went into a map on the subject
on Wikipedia. It may be that the ones who put together the map
glossed over all the laws and treaties of the different Latin American
and African countries, but at least an unverified map on Wikipedia
gives the idea that most of Africa and Latin America are nuclear
weapon free zones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-weapon-free_zone

[The Horny Goat]

Post by t***@go.com
After all, if guns do not kill people, only people kill people,
then nuclear weapons do not kill people, only governments do,
and the only government that has deliberately killed people
with nuclear weapons in an act of war is the United States in
WWII.

An undeclared war started by the country who received the first atomic
bombs during that war and immeiately surrendered.

America may not have started the war that began on 7 December 1941 but
Little Boy and Fatman definitely finished it with results so horrific
that the world has worked to avoid that specific kind of war ever
since.

Does anyone seriously think that if Hitler or Stalin or Tojo had an
atomic bomb that it would have gone unused?

[t***@go.com]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by t***@go.com
After all, if guns do not kill people, only people kill people,
then nuclear weapons do not kill people, only governments do,
and the only government that has deliberately killed people
with nuclear weapons in an act of war is the United States in
WWII.

An undeclared war started by the country who received the first atomic
bombs during that war and immeiately surrendered.

It is a matter of debate as to whether it was a matter
of effective delivery of a declaration.

I have some times wondered as to what is a 'declaration
of war'. Under the Geneva and Hague conventions making
war without a declaration is a 'war crime', and the
reasoning behind that is sound. If a country attacks
every other country without warning then it is effectively
at war against everyone. Without some assurance that it
will not make war against those countries that it says it
is at peace with, then there are no neutral counties or
countries at peace when it comes to that nation.

There are also however 'declarations of war' when it comes
to the constitutions of many countries, often limiting that
power to legislatures. If there is some statement generally
issued and made public saying that the military of one country
will attack the forces of another one, it would seem to me that
it would satisfy the Conventions because it would be making known
what countries were at war and what countries were at peace.

Whether this would violate the internal constitutions of those
countries however would be another matter.

As for Japan, I am thinking that there is some debate about the
intent to deliver a declaration in a timely manner.

If you deliver a declaration a microsecond before shell or missle
hits, it might be possible to say that no effective declaration
has been made. At the same time, I am thinking that there is nothing
saying that a nation has to compromise its military movements
beforehand.

I am not sure about the exact phenomenon concerning declarations
before the start of Barbarossa.

Post by The Horny Goat
America may not have started the war that began on 7 December 1941 but
Little Boy and Fatman definitely finished it with results so horrific
that the world has worked to avoid that specific kind of war ever
since.
Does anyone seriously think that if Hitler or Stalin or Tojo had an
atomic bomb that it would have gone unused?

Governments always claim that they are promoting civilization
and the common good in all circumstances, and that they never
promote the common evil or seek to destroy civilization.

In many times in history they in reality do the exact opposite.

Hitler, Stalin, and Tojo were all either heads of state or
of government in officially recognized nations at some point in
time.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by t***@go.com
I have some times wondered as to what is a 'declaration
of war'. Under the Geneva and Hague conventions making
war without a declaration is a 'war crime', and the
reasoning behind that is sound. If a country attacks
every other country without warning then it is effectively
at war against everyone. Without some assurance that it
will not make war against those countries that it says it
is at peace with, then there are no neutral counties or
countries at peace when it comes to that nation.

In that case Canada is in trouble as the ONLY time it ever declared
war was 1939.

It entered WW1 as part of the British Empire, fought in Korea and
Afghanistan under the UN flag, not sure what the legal state of things
was in Iraq 1991 and in a gazillion UN forces since 1945.

[t***@go.com]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by t***@go.com
I have some times wondered as to what is a 'declaration
of war'. Under the Geneva and Hague conventions making
war without a declaration is a 'war crime', and the
reasoning behind that is sound. If a country attacks
every other country without warning then it is effectively
at war against everyone. Without some assurance that it
will not make war against those countries that it says it
is at peace with, then there are no neutral counties or
countries at peace when it comes to that nation.

In that case Canada is in trouble as the ONLY time it ever declared
war was 1939.
It entered WW1 as part of the British Empire, fought in Korea and
Afghanistan under the UN flag, not sure what the legal state of things
was in Iraq 1991 and in a gazillion UN forces since 1945.

I guess if you are part of a group you can always point to those
who might seem higher ups in the group.

Joining multinational organizations with specified mandates for
activity is another factor also.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by t***@go.com

Post by The Horny Goat
It entered WW1 as part of the British Empire, fought in Korea and
Afghanistan under the UN flag, not sure what the legal state of things
was in Iraq 1991 and in a gazillion UN forces since 1945.

I guess if you are part of a group you can always point to those
who might seem higher ups in the group.
Joining multinational organizations with specified mandates for
activity is another factor also

Again the relationship between Canada and the UK in 1914, 1939 and
1970 are completely different in each case. (I could analyse the
reasons but Phil McGregor has previously done it better than me)

Which is also true of the other Dominions though Canada was/is the
only Dominion which is also with the UK part of NATO.

In 1914 both Ireland and South Africa were also considered dominions
but have radically changed in the 100 years since then.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by The Horny Goat
It entered WW1 as part of the British Empire, fought in Korea and
Afghanistan under the UN flag, not sure what the legal state of things
was in Iraq 1991 and in a gazillion UN forces since 1945.

I guess if you are part of a group you can always point to those who
might seem higher ups in the group.
Joining multinational organizations with specified mandates for activity
is another factor also

Again the relationship between Canada and the UK in 1914, 1939 and 1970
are completely different in each case. (I could analyse the reasons but
Phil McGregor has previously done it better than me)
Which is also true of the other Dominions though Canada was/is the only
Dominion which is also with the UK part of NATO.
In 1914 both Ireland and South Africa were also considered dominions but
have radically changed in the 100 years since then.

Ireland wasn't a dominion in 1914 - it was directly ruled from
Westminster. It became a dominion in 1922, as the Irish Free State.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by t***@go.com
After all, if guns do not kill people, only people kill people,
then nuclear weapons do not kill people, only governments do,
and the only government that has deliberately killed people
with nuclear weapons in an act of war is the United States in
WWII.

An undeclared war started by the country who received the first atomic
bombs during that war and immeiately surrendered.

Undeclared? Well, yes and no. It was certainly deliberately provoked by the U.S.

Post by The Horny Goat
America may not have started the war that began on 7 December 1941 but
Little Boy and Fatman definitely finished it with results so horrific
that the world has worked to avoid that specific kind of war ever
since.

It was definitely over, anyway, since the Japanese were seeking mediation from the Soviet Union to negotiate a surrender.

Post by The Horny Goat
Does anyone seriously think that if Hitler or Stalin or Tojo had an
atomic bomb that it would have gone unused?

Stalin had A-bombs that he didn't use. He didn't die until 1953, and the Soviet Union had the A-bomb from 1949. Hitler actually wasn't particularly interested in the A-bomb, it was inconsistent with his notions of National Will being the deciding force in history. And, one really shouldn't underestimate Hitler's willful whimsicality. After all, he could have escaped from Berlin to continue fighting at the end of the War, he chose to die instead. Hitler might have chosen to use the A-bomb on untermenschen like the Slavs, but refrained from using it against the British, unless he felt he absolutely had to, to win. Tojo and the Japanese I think were more or less killing machines, pure Social Darwinists, so, yes, they would certainly have seen any mass extermination technique as a good thing. The Chinese still hate the Japanese, even their current Taiwanese allies.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Stalin had A-bombs that he didn't use. He didn't die until 1953, and the Soviet Union had the A-bomb from 1949. Hitler actually wasn't particularly interested in the A-bomb, it was inconsistent with his notions of National Will being the deciding force in history. And, one really shouldn't underestimate Hitler's willful whimsicality. After all, he could have escaped from Berlin to continue fighting at the end of the War, he chose to die instead. Hitler might have chosen to use the A-bomb on untermenschen like the Slavs, but refrained from using it against the British, unless he felt he absolutely had to, to win. Tojo and the Japanese I think were more or less killing machines, pure Social Darwinists, so, yes, they would certainly have seen any mass extermination technique as a good thing. The Chinese still hate the Japanese, even their current Taiwanese allies.

I don't understand that. What more vivid expression of the national
will could there be but a super-weapon that no enemy could withstand?

That required a significant portion of the national wealth to build in
the first place?

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:13:01 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by jerry kraus
Stalin had A-bombs that he didn't use. He didn't die until 1953, and the Soviet Union had the A-bomb from 1949. Hitler actually wasn't particularly interested in the A-bomb, it was inconsistent with his notions of National Will being the deciding force in history. And, one really shouldn't underestimate Hitler's willful whimsicality. After all, he could have escaped from Berlin to continue fighting at the end of the War, he chose to die instead. Hitler might have chosen to use the A-bomb on untermenschen like the Slavs, but refrained from using it against the British, unless he felt he absolutely had to, to win. Tojo and the Japanese I think were more or less killing machines, pure Social Darwinists, so, yes, they would certainly have seen any mass extermination technique as a good thing. The Chinese still hate the Japanese, even their current Taiwanese allies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat
I don't understand that. What more vivid expression of the national
will could there be but a super-weapon that no enemy could withstand?
That required a significant portion of the national wealth to build in
the first place?

Good question, Horny. Look at it this way. How much willpower does it take to drop an A-bomb and destroy a mid-sized city, versus using a army to do it? Much, much less, I would say. To some extent, I think Hitler actually longed for the Middle Ages, in particular the Crusades, when armies had to fight with raw muscle power and sheer discipline against each other. Certainly Mussolini's conception of fascism harkened back to the Roman Legions and the Roman concepts of discipline and national will. And, when we come to the H-bomb, all modern governments recognize that it effectively makes total warfare impossible, because no governments could survive significant numbers of H-bombs.

Hitler's conception of the Nazi Superman triumphing through his superior willpower and bloodlust really is quite inconsistent with simply pushing a single button to entirely exterminate the enemy, don't you think? And, the amount of wealth involved in developing the weapon system is essentially irrelevant.

That said, I'm sure Hitler would have been delighted to have this weapon available if he needed it, for military or mass extermination purposes. But, it wouldn't have particularly appealed to his imagination, I don't think. And, I think he would have been perceptive enough to see that the H-bomb would effectively make total warfare impractical, for anyone.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:16:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
That said, I'm sure Hitler would have been delighted to have this weapon available if he needed it, for military or mass extermination purposes. But, it wouldn't have particularly appealed to his imagination, I don't think. And, I think he would have been perceptive enough to see that the H-bomb would effectively make total warfare impractical, for anyone.

I am currently reading Thomas Weber's "Becoming Hitler: The Making of
a Nazi" which deals with Hitler 1918-1924 which was of course the
period where the ideas that went into Mein Kampf were being formed.

Weber makes the interesting point that Hitler never wrote (either in
his diary or publicly) anything anti-Semitic until late 1919 which was
more than half way through his life - though was very interested in
"interest slavery" well before that. It covers the evolution of the
DAP into the NSDAP and makes the very interesting point that there was
a National Socialist party in the UK before WW1 which in today's terms
would be a Labour oriented UKIP and whose platform was very much like
the German NSDAP 1920 program which was fairly socialist though
disclaiming any links to either the Second International (aka
conventional western European socialism) or to any form of Communism.

As for nuclear weapons, if he created an entire infrastructure around
the systematic gassing of untermenschen I doubt his imagination would
have dismissed the idea of London as a smouldering lake in the middle
of the Thames.

And if your ideas about a "Nazi view of man on man warfare" were true
surely a stronger push at Dunkirk would have been made!

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 06:16:51 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
That said, I'm sure Hitler would have been delighted to have this weapon available if he needed it, for military or mass extermination purposes. But, it wouldn't have particularly appealed to his imagination, I don't think. And, I think he would have been perceptive enough to see that the H-bomb would effectively make total warfare impractical, for anyone.

I am currently reading Thomas Weber's "Becoming Hitler: The Making of
a Nazi" which deals with Hitler 1918-1924 which was of course the
period where the ideas that went into Mein Kampf were being formed.
Weber makes the interesting point that Hitler never wrote (either in
his diary or publicly) anything anti-Semitic until late 1919 which was
more than half way through his life - though was very interested in
"interest slavery" well before that. It covers the evolution of the
DAP into the NSDAP and makes the very interesting point that there was
a National Socialist party in the UK before WW1 which in today's terms
would be a Labour oriented UKIP and whose platform was very much like
the German NSDAP 1920 program which was fairly socialist though
disclaiming any links to either the Second International (aka
conventional western European socialism) or to any form of Communism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat
As for nuclear weapons, if he created an entire infrastructure around
the systematic gassing of untermenschen I doubt his imagination would
have dismissed the idea of London as a smouldering lake in the middle
of the Thames.

But, he didn't consider the British to be untermenschen, that's the point. The British were kindred Aryans, he didn't want to exterminate them, unless he had to, in order to achieve his broader objectives of global domination. I'm sure atom bombs on Moscow and Leningrad would have appealed to him, however. Nevertheless, Hitler liked the blood, he liked armed combat, he didn't really want that eliminated by nuclear bombs. And, he didn't want warfare as a whole severely restricted by the likes of the H-bomb. Hitler actually enjoyed being in the infantry in the WWI, he didn't think like most people did about this kind of thing.

Post by The Horny Goat
And if your ideas about a "Nazi view of man on man warfare" were true
surely a stronger push at Dunkirk would have been made!

Hitler didn't push at Dunkirk because he knew he couldn't defeat the British without a Navy, he knew he'd have to "persuade them", one way or another, to stop fighting, and annihilating a couple of hundred thousand Brits on the beach might not have been that helpful to improving relations. The "blitz" was only initiated after the Brits proved intransigent, and the idea was simply intimidation, not total destruction.

[The Old Man]

Stalin had A-bombs that he didn't use. He didn't die until 1953, and
the Soviet Union had the A-bomb from 1949.

Remember this. He had nuclear devices, but NOT the aircraft or missiles to deliver it, so it remained a scientific item and a propaganda tool until a delivery system could be developed, which only happened after his death.

Regards,
John Braungart

[Robert Woodward]

Post by The Old Man

Stalin had A-bombs that he didn't use. He didn't die until 1953, and
the Soviet Union had the A-bomb from 1949.

Remember this. He had nuclear devices, but NOT the aircraft or missiles to
deliver it, so it remained a scientific item and a propaganda tool until a
delivery system could be developed, which only happened after his death.

The USSR had the Tu-4 (a clone of the B-29). It could carry nuclear
devices; but, while it could reach all of Western Europe, to reach
important parts of the USA required one-way missions.

[SolomonW]

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

Like the French atomic bomb little.

[a***@gmail.com]

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI

[e***@gmail.com]

Post by jerry kraus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program
They were actually working on it, in the 1960's. So, what if the Swedes have atomic and thermonuclear weapons? How does that change history?

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/soc.history.what-if/CWIic_ncdeI