Two topics about the theme of the “German A-Bomb” were locked for good reasons, and I don’t want to start
another one. But those, who were left unsatisfied with those discussions perhaps should read the results of the
research by Manfred Popp.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bewi.201601794/abstract
Unfortunately, the detailed version is in German, so, if someone find it in English, please give us a clue.http://www.spektrum.de/news/hitlers-atombombe-warum-es-sie-nicht-gab/1423529
Until the end of the war, German nuclear scientists had no realistic idea about the way a nuclear bomb had to be built
and they weren't able to calculate the critical mass needed for a bomb, an indispensable detail. And research for a bomb
was much less intensive, than represented in several publications.
The theme of the German nuclear bomb was explored by several other scientists, but Manfred Popp had a big advantage:
He is nuclear scientist by himself, the others were historians, without deeper insight into the field of nuclear sciences.
So the probability for the alleged nuclear explosions in Thuringia at the end of WW II, or the fitting out of a special version
of the He 177 as an atom bomber has dropped considerably, I think !
Popps results may shatter several embosomed assumptions. For example, that the bomb was “around the corner” and
would just have needed more money and resources. Or that the German scientists acted as covered resistance fighters,
not wanting to give that weapon to the Nazi regime.
But it clearly shows, that for historical research a deeper insight into the field of interest is absolutely important.
What other assumptions may still be taken for granted, although they are based on similar misinterpretations ?