Richard Hubbard wrote:

On a similar note, I have seen as a hypothetical presented in a
publication (I think it was 'The Race', but I'm not sure), that von
Braun was concentrating on liquid fueled missiles (undisputable). But
wouldn't it have been much more militarily effective had he
concentrated on something that could be launched quicker, like solid
fuels. (open to question).

In other words, was he trying to stall, in a non obvious fashion, the
military use of his missles? In order to answer this properly, one
needs to have knowledge of solid rocket fuel development at the time
(which I don't) and could a V-2 sized solid rocket fueled missile have
been constructed and flown by vB and his team in the same time frame
as the V-2 was.

Basically the author was insinuating that von Braun _was_ really
concerned with space flight as opposed to a militarily useful missile.

There is a old story about one of the Peenemunde team (I forget which
one) at a party with some of the U.S. Army's solid-fuel advocates where
he held up a martini, and told them that liquids, not solids, were the
answer; and that they were fools for not realizing that fact. Later he
returned to apologize, stating that once he was completely liquid fueled
by the martinis, the solids didn't seem so bad after all.
From what I've read, the Peenemunde team didn't like solids on
principle; they weren't technologically "sweet", they tended to have
lower ISPs, weren't throttleable, and frankly- just weren't as much fun
to design- this parallels the situation in Germany during the war, where
a long range solid-fueled rocket- the Rhinebote- had to pretty much be
snuck into production when nobody was looking.
von Braun wasn't adverse to weaponizing space- that space station of his
was going to be armed with both nuclear weapons...and cannons! (Sander
should stick those on it...one would hope they were recoilless, but on
the other hand there's a whole new way to change its orbit.)

Pat