PDA

View Full Version : Germans successfully tested nuclear weapons at the ned of WWII??



Tooz_69GIAP
03-17-2005, 06:06 AM
check out this story on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4348497.stm)

Very interesting, it must be said!!

HansKnappstick
03-17-2005, 06:18 AM
Oh yes.

They also upgraded a V-2 and sent a man into space.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BSS_Goat
03-17-2005, 07:01 AM
A "dirty" bomb is not a true nuclear detonation. IMHO of course.
Keep in mind: GOAT<------steel estimator, not scientist.

Daiichidoku
03-17-2005, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
Oh yes.

They also upgraded a V-2 and sent a man into space.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



If you call lashing a Russian POW to the nose cone of a V-2 an upgrade http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Spartan_GR
03-17-2005, 07:52 AM
It is sure that the Germans never had a operational atomic bomb in their hands ... but it is sure a nightmarish thought to think what would happen if they managed to build atomic weapons. I suppose Hitler would not have any ethical problems to bomb with nuclear armed V2's London or Washington.

tjaika1910
03-17-2005, 09:31 AM
I have heard this too, that the germans experimented with effects of a dirty bomb (on people). This is not the same as an atomic bomb, just a conventionally explotion polluting with radioactive mass. Basicly add some U235 or possibly Plutonium if that was available and let it be spread in the blast of TNT.

ploughman
03-17-2005, 09:45 AM
I read that the one of the bomb designs used layers of Uranium and Polonium with reservoirs of kerosene inbetween. The bomb would be dropped from altitude and the force of impact caused the bomb to go critical. The kerosene acted to slow the neutrons to enable criticality. An inelegant and inefficent solution, apparrently, but it might have worked and whilst no where near as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb it may well have had tactical applications. Scarey stuff.

Aaron_GT
03-17-2005, 10:08 AM
From the article:
"destroyed an area of about 500 sq m"

Or an area with a radius of about 40 feet. Not actually very impressive...

Blackdog5555
03-17-2005, 10:50 AM
The plan was to use his "Amerika-Bomber" or first intercontinental bomber to bomb New York and Washington etc etc. It was well planned, intentioned and in the works. Japan was doing the same thing. Los Angeles and San Diego was its targes. Google U-234..

Panzer_JG11
03-17-2005, 11:28 AM
Ethics? What is this? Oh yes, maybe are you talking about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden. What a great demonstration of ethics....

BSS_Goat
03-17-2005, 11:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
Ethics? What is this? Oh yes, maybe are you talking about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden. What a great demonstration of ethics.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War is Hell...they dont say that because it sounds cool.

civildog
03-17-2005, 03:53 PM
I sense a fast-fission reaction coming on in this thread...better get some water-cooling on it fast!

WTE_Ibis
03-17-2005, 04:01 PM
No ethics here be sure
Someone shot me up my sh*t chute after bailing
last night. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Bo_Nidle
03-17-2005, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
Ethics? What is this? Oh yes, maybe are you talking about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden. What a great demonstration of ethics.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I belive the original message was meant to say that there has been a lot of discussion regarding the rights and wrongs of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings as well as that of Dresden, and that if the situation had been reversed it is extremely doubtful that the Japanese or German nations under their regimes at the time would have felt such misgivings.

However, that said, my personal feelings is that the atomic bombs whilst horrific were absolutely necessary and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides by avoiding an invasion and occupation. The bombing of Dresden is more of a questionable act. The bombing of any civilian target is questionable but that was the only way to strike back at an enemy bent on the Wests conquest so I understand the reasoning that lead to it. It was a horrific event but then so was the bombing of Guernecca ( spelling is probably wrong sorry) Warsaw, Rotterdam,Coventry, London et al. Its too easy to level accusations at the people of the time. We were not there. Lets not lose sight of how that all came to be in the first place. The Allies were not responsible for initiating this chain of events.

Blackdog5555
03-17-2005, 04:46 PM
I thought we were talking history, not ethics, LOL..OK how about throw in Platos Apology then. War_Ethics...kinda like Jumbo-Shrimp or military_Intellignece. That is really funny. LOL Cheers..BD.

Panzer_JG11
03-17-2005, 05:43 PM
However, that said, my personal feelings is that the atomic bombs whilst horrific were absolutely necessary and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides by avoiding an invasion and occupation. The bombing of Dresden is more of a questionable act. The bombing of any civilian target is questionable but that was the only way to strike back at an enemy bent on the Wests conquest so I understand the reasoning that lead to it. It was a horrific event but then so was the bombing of Guernecca ( spelling is probably wrong sorry) Warsaw, Rotterdam,Coventry, London et al. Its too easy to level accusations at the people of the time. We were not there. Lets not lose sight of how that all came to be in the first place. The Allies were not responsible for initiating this chain of events.[/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that?? Two atomic bombs??? To save lives??? Come on, you must know that it was nothing more than a demonstration of power, mainly to Soviet Union!!! We are talking about 300 thousands lives, or even more, burned in seconds - but were only Japs, so it's was fine.
And more than this, are you trying to compare the bombing of Coventry or Guernica with the mass destruction of Dresden???? Sorry man, but I can't accept your argumentation. We are not talking about armies, we are talking about women and children, wounded soldiers, nothing more.
And saying that the Allies were not responsible for initiating the chain of events is pretty naive. Everybody was responsible for that. Let's stop with the old story of the good guy and bad guy.
And please, dont´t think i'm trying to justify any action of Germany or Japan. Far from this. But what really piece me off is the same old history: everything or everyone from Germany or Japan was evil. Even the things that never happend, like this "german atomic bomb". Oh yes, this would be catastrophic for the human kind!!! But the TWO REAL american atomic bombs were just a matter of SAVING LIVES, the same with the phosphorus bombs over Dresden.

That's the point, after all, the winners can justify anything.

Sorry about my english.

PLAUDITE AMICI, COMOEDIA FINITA EST

BSS_Goat
03-17-2005, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
That's the point, after all, the winners can justify anything.
Sorry about my english.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, let me say your english is very good.
Second, you are correct, the winners get to write history. Thank God we can read about concentration camps and death marches.

civildog
03-17-2005, 07:08 PM
For all you dummies wanted to apply some sort of peacetime moral equivilancy to things that happen in wartime:

War sucks. People die and things get broken. That sucks. Each side tries to kill as many as possible and break more things of the other guys' before it happens to them. Anything one side can do to speed this process up, and reduce their losses, is fair in war. War is not a "gentlemanly" affair - even when it used to be fashionable to consider it to be such. The point is to win before the other guy does. Eventually one side has enough and quits. People go to war colleges for years to learn that basic lesson and here you get it for free.

Now I kept it short so even the most short-sighted, foolish, historical revisionist who swears that everything dribbled out of the mouth of his revisionist teacher (apply the same to a book) can understand it.

If you still don't get it then bugger off to your D&D game and shut up. When you grow up hopefully you'll understand more about how the real world works before you get hurt too badly. Otherwise go run off to stand in front of a bulldozer or chain yourself to tree so maybe you won't pee in the genepool anymore than you may already have.

civildog
03-17-2005, 07:09 PM
I TOLD you this thread would need water-cooling!

LStarosta
03-17-2005, 07:14 PM
I just listen to the Beach Boys like it was the 60's as the threat of nuclear war loomed ahead. It's a lot easier to digest that way, the whole innocent teenager driving his hot rod and having fun while he still can shindig.

My surfboard is a Cessna...

And my Little Deuce Coupe is my '98 Mercury Mystique...

Times never seem to change. . .

civildog
03-17-2005, 07:28 PM
You weren't even ALIVE during the 60's. I was and living in Los Angeles. I remember the duck and cover drills with air raid sirens (before they turned into earthquake drills w/ out the sirens).

I remember watching ICBM test shots at sunset from Vandenberg while in the backyard pool. I remember playing "Hunt the mutants in the ruins" with my friends - pretending to survive in the hills around LA after the Sovs nuked us.

And the Beach Boys had more to do with the 60's as remembered, as opposed to what it was really like. Still like them, though. But I liked the Stones, Who, and later the Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash......etc. By then the whole surf boy sound was getting pretty lame.

Panzer_JG11
03-17-2005, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
For all you dummies wanted to apply some sort of peacetime moral equivilancy to things that happen in wartime:

War sucks. People die and things get broken. That sucks. Each side tries to kill as many as possible and break more things of the other guys' before it happens to them. Anything one side can do to speed this process up, and reduce their losses, is fair in war. War is not a "gentlemanly" affair - even when it used to be fashionable to consider it to be such. The point is to win before the other guy does. Eventually one side has enough and quits. People go to war colleges for years to learn that basic lesson and here you get it for free.

Now I kept it short so even the most short-sighted, foolish, historical revisionist who swears that everything dribbled out of the mouth of his revisionist teacher (apply the same to a book) can understand it.

If you still don't get it then bugger off to your D&D game and shut up. When you grow up hopefully you'll understand more about how the real world works before you get hurt too badly. Otherwise go run off to stand in front of a bulldozer or chain yourself to tree so maybe you won't pee in the genepool anymore than you may already have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Profound, very profound. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Von_Rat
03-17-2005, 11:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
However, that said, my personal feelings is that the atomic bombs whilst horrific were absolutely necessary and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides by avoiding an invasion and occupation. The bombing of Dresden is more of a questionable act. The bombing of any civilian target is questionable but that was the only way to strike back at an enemy bent on the Wests conquest so I understand the reasoning that lead to it. It was a horrific event but then so was the bombing of Guernecca ( spelling is probably wrong sorry) Warsaw, Rotterdam,Coventry, London et al. Its too easy to level accusations at the people of the time. We were not there. Lets not lose sight of how that all came to be in the first place. The Allies were not responsible for initiating this chain of events. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really believe that?? Two atomic bombs??? To save lives??? Come on, you must know that it was nothing more than a demonstration of power, mainly to Soviet Union!!! We are talking about 300 thousands lives, or even more, burned in seconds - but were only Japs, so it's was fine.
And more than this, are you trying to compare the bombing of Coventry or Guernica with the mass destruction of Dresden???? Sorry man, but I can't accept your argumentation. We are not talking about armies, we are talking about women and children, wounded soldiers, nothing more.
And saying that the Allies were not responsible for initiating the chain of events is pretty naive. Everybody was responsible for that. Let's stop with the old story of the good guy and bad guy.
And please, dont´t think i'm trying to justify any action of Germany or Japan. Far from this. But what really piece me off is the same old history: everything or everyone from Germany or Japan was evil. Even the things that never happend, like this "german atomic bomb". Oh yes, this would be catastrophic for the human kind!!! But the TWO REAL american atomic bombs were just a matter of SAVING LIVES, the same with the phosphorus bombs over Dresden.

That's the point, after all, the winners can justify anything.

Sorry about my english.

PLAUDITE AMICI, COMOEDIA FINITA EST[/QUOTE]
_______________________________________________-

i beleive he was refering to the fact that if the u.s invaded japan, the resulting deaths on both sides would most likely have far exceeded the numbers that died at hiroshima and nagasaki.

i beleieve up to a 100,000 u.s deaths and over a million japanese deaths were forcasted if the invasion was launched.

a blockaid was another possiability, but how many would have died from starvation before japan gave in. probaly more than the A bombs killed.

Blackdog5555
03-17-2005, 11:53 PM
Well, if you talk to the Chineses who lived through the "Rape of Nanking" they will tell you that they are pissed that we (USA) stopped at only two atomic bombs. (actually one was a plutonium bomb) Really is a matter of perspective, isn't it? LOL...Cheers BD.

Fehler
03-18-2005, 02:18 AM
My dad always said, if you dont want to get punched in the eye, dont pick a fight.

The great thing about being a "Monday Morning Quarterback" is that you don't have to play the game, take the hits, or make the split-second decisions. But you can sit on your comfy recliner and criticize the people that do.

Decisions were made during the war, and for good or bad, the outcome was as it was. Nothing to debate there, really, unless a person is ignorant enough to believe that the wrong side won.

"What-if" scenarios are great for games or comic books, but they are nothing more than pure speculation, and hold no relevant weight in today's outlook on history.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2005, 04:40 AM
Hmmm... Coventry was actually a bit of a **** up on the part of the LW as the intention wasn't actually to raze the centre of the city and the cathedral but to bomb vehicle and aircraft plants (some of which were centrally located). Instead they managed to level large parts of the centre of Coventry without doing much to the plants they intended to hit. In any case a lot of the medieval buildings the Germans often get blamed for destroying had actually been demolished in the 1930s. I'm from that part of the world and used to work in Coventry and I can see why people get depressed about the way the centre of the the town was in the 1960s-90s (maybe is has changed in the last 10 years) and felt the need to blame someone for the mess of concrete that resulted during rebuilding...

Slickun
03-18-2005, 08:11 AM
My Dad was awaiting shipping in San Diego when the war ended.

He was to fly P-47N's from Ie Shima. Probably a bunch of looong over-water flights to Japan, escorting B-29's or doing ground attack, then a looong overwater flight back.

Decent chance he wouldn't have come back, and then there would have been no Slickun born in '51, huh? Withoput the war ending when it did, I mean.

Truman doesn't drop those bombs, and the holocaust of a couple of invasions took place, with the resulting loss of tens of thousands of US lives, it would have been the greatest act of treason in the world's history.

What leader of what country wouldn't have done the same? Fail to destroy the enemy when given the chance, and watch thousands more of your own people die as a result? Madness to suggest another course of action.

darkhorizon11
03-18-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
However, that said, my personal feelings is that the atomic bombs whilst horrific were absolutely necessary and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides by avoiding an invasion and occupation. The bombing of Dresden is more of a questionable act. The bombing of any civilian target is questionable but that was the only way to strike back at an enemy bent on the Wests conquest so I understand the reasoning that lead to it. It was a horrific event but then so was the bombing of Guernecca ( spelling is probably wrong sorry) Warsaw, Rotterdam,Coventry, London et al. Its too easy to level accusations at the people of the time. We were not there. Lets not lose sight of how that all came to be in the first place. The Allies were not responsible for initiating this chain of events. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you really believe that?? Two atomic bombs??? To save lives??? Come on, you must know that it was nothing more than a demonstration of power, mainly to Soviet Union!!! We are talking about 300 thousands lives, or even more, burned in seconds - but were only Japs, so it's was fine.
And more than this, are you trying to compare the bombing of Coventry or Guernica with the mass destruction of Dresden???? Sorry man, but I can't accept your argumentation. We are not talking about armies, we are talking about women and children, wounded soldiers, nothing more.
And saying that the Allies were not responsible for initiating the chain of events is pretty naive. Everybody was responsible for that. Let's stop with the old story of the good guy and bad guy.
And please, dont´t think i'm trying to justify any action of Germany or Japan. Far from this. But what really piece me off is the same old history: everything or everyone from Germany or Japan was evil. Even the things that never happend, like this "german atomic bomb". Oh yes, this would be catastrophic for the human kind!!! But the TWO REAL american atomic bombs were just a matter of SAVING LIVES, the same with the phosphorus bombs over Dresden.

That's the point, after all, the winners can justify anything.

Sorry about my english.

PLAUDITE AMICI, COMOEDIA FINITA EST <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
_______________________________________________-

i beleive he was refering to the fact that if the u.s invaded japan, the resulting deaths on both sides would most likely have far exceeded the numbers that died at hiroshima and nagasaki.

i beleieve up to a 100,000 u.s deaths and over a million japanese deaths were forcasted if the invasion was launched.

a blockaid was another possiability, but how many would have died from starvation before japan gave in. probaly more than the A bombs killed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the numbers would have been staggering. Although there was a social push amoung the Japanese people the military was hell-bent on taking things to the bitter end. Detailed plans were drawn up to invade with Kyushu and mainland being invaded simultaneoulsly. If you look on google you can probably find more info. I know the 2nd or 3rd Marine Division was to spearhead the attack and it was believe that it would be almost competely annhilated by DDAY +6. This is just with what the Allies knew the Japanese had. Little did we know they had carved out the insides of many mountains of the mainland where they had stores that would allow them to fight on for months maybe years. There were also 100s of jet and rocket planes and suicide bombs waiting to be dispatched at whim. Also the Russians probably would've attempted some kind of invasion on the northern islands and well, they weren't exactly worried about civilian casualties or their own losses. The invasion of Japan no doubt would have been the single bloodiest battle in history.

darkhorizon11
03-18-2005, 08:59 AM
Also the other thing about the Atomic bomb is that two raids in August of 1945 were not even the two most devastating raids that the USAAF flew against the Japanese mainland. Both bombs completely wiped out somewhere around 12 square miles of each respective city it hit.

In March (I think) of 1945 a low level raid was run against Tokyo. Hundreds of B-29s stripped of all their defensive armament but their tail guns bomb Tokyo from something like 5000 feet at night. First a pathfinder group flew to the center of the city and bombed an X shape in the downtown Tokyo. The hundreds more came soon after all aiming for that spot. The result was 16 sq. miles completely annhilated and more people died in that raid than those that did initially after the A-bombs. (Many more died months and years later from the A-bombs due to radiation poisoning).

To reiterate my point the Atomic bombs were not the most devastating raids on Japan. The only reason why they were a big deal was that it only took one bomb and one plane to do the damage and the fact that it released massive amounts of radiation.

TAGERT.
03-18-2005, 09:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
You weren't even ALIVE during the 60's. I was and living in Los Angeles. I remember the duck and cover drills with air raid sirens (before they turned into earthquake drills w/ out the sirens).

I remember watching ICBM test shots at sunset from Vandenberg while in the backyard pool. I remember playing "Hunt the mutants in the ruins" with my friends - pretending to survive in the hills around LA after the Sovs nuked us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Did the same thing here.. Grew up in TORRANCE next to Redondo Beach.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
And the Beach Boys had more to do with the 60's as remembered, as opposed to what it was really like. Still like them, though. But I liked the Stones, Who, and later the Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash......etc. By then the whole surf boy sound was getting pretty lame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I went through all that and ended up listing to country western! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Did I forget to mention we moved to Riverside (NORCO) when I was ten and bought horses on a farm? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bo_Nidle
03-18-2005, 10:49 AM
Do you really believe that?? Two atomic bombs??? To save lives??? Come on, you must know that it was nothing more than a demonstration of power, mainly to Soviet Union!!! We are talking about 300 thousands lives, or even more, burned in seconds - but were only Japs, so it's was fine.
And more than this, are you trying to compare the bombing of Coventry or Guernica with the mass destruction of Dresden???? Sorry man, but I can't accept your argumentation. We are not talking about armies, we are talking about women and children, wounded soldiers, nothing more.
And saying that the Allies were not responsible for initiating the chain of events is pretty naive. Everybody was responsible for that. Let's stop with the old story of the good guy and bad guy.
And please, dont´t think i'm trying to justify any action of Germany or Japan. Far from this. But what really piece me off is the same old history: everything or everyone from Germany or Japan was evil. Even the things that never happend, like this "german atomic bomb". Oh yes, this would be catastrophic for the human kind!!! But the TWO REAL american atomic bombs were just a matter of SAVING LIVES, the same with the phosphorus bombs over Dresden.

That's the point, after all, the winners can justify anything.

Sorry about my english.

PLAUDITE AMICI, COMOEDIA FINITA EST[/QUOTE]

What armies were in Coventry and London? This was terror bombing pure and simple! Guernica was the first example of bombing to terrify the civilian population and who did it? The Luftwaffe.

I deplore any indiscriminate bombing of civilians but my point is that if Germany had been victorious I sincerely doubt that there would be the moral handwringing and soul searching that the Allied nations were, and apparantly are, expected to do.

If a sophisticated and cultured paople had not blindly followed a maniac it could have all been avoided.

As for the atomic bombs.I disagree that there primary use was to display American power. The reaction of the Japanese civilian population to the invasion of Saipan showed what the Americans could expect if the mainland was invaded. The military had showed that they would stop at nothing on many occassions. After Hiroshima the Japanese government still refused to surrender hence the bombing of Nagasaki. I do believe the casualty rates if Japan had been invaded would have been utterly catastrophic!

However you keep coming back to Dresden. How many civilian deaths does it take to make the bombing of civilians for terror purposes wrong?
1? 100? 100,000? 1000,000?

Terror bombing for its own sake is unacceptable by todays standards. But when you are trying to hit back at an enemy and there was no other way? I don't condone it but I can understand it.

Aaron_GT
03-18-2005, 12:47 PM
Bo Nidle wrote:
"What armies were in Coventry and London? This was terror bombing pure and simple!"

As I pointed out before the target of the Coventry raids was war industry. Prior to WW2 a number of vehicle factories were scattered throughout Coventry, including the centre, and during the war these were converted to military production. A friend of mine has one of the Luftwaffe maps with targets marked. He lives in France so getting a copy might be tricky, but I can ask if you like. There is a persistent myth that Coventry was an example of terror bombing. As I mentioned before, I think it is partly due to anger about how ugly the centre of Coventry was when rebuilt in the 1960s.

Guernia on the other hand: terror bombing.

" The reaction of the Japanese civilian population to the invasion of Saipan showed what the Americans could expect if the mainland was invaded"

On the other hand the USSR rolled through the Kuril islands (also considered to be part of the home islands by the Japanese at the time) with little difficulty, so it's not sure what the opposition would have been.

civildog
03-18-2005, 12:53 PM
TAGERT....

I grew up in northern Glendale next to Pasedena. Most of the people in my area worked in the aerospace industry over in JPL, Lockheed, IBM, Raytheon, and the rest. Our dads used to make us kids banner posters with the big rolls of computer paper to take to school functions...the green/white banded kind with the letter of each word dot-matrixed onto it with thousands of the same letter. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Those were the golden days of the space race all right, I even got to watch the moon landings with some friends on the big screens at JPL.

Later we moved to Oregon, then I moved back to Riverside in 86-88, now back in Boregon. Now I'll be taking the whole brood down to Disneyland and the usual haunts in LA in May. With all the weather they've been having it sounds pretty green now, not the burnt brown and gray of previous years.

Maybe I can still find the cave my friends and I found in the Verdugo hills with the spring in it. That was going to be our "bunker" when the Bomb hit LA. Oh to be a kid again!

LStarosta
03-18-2005, 03:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
You weren't even ALIVE during the 60's. I was and living in Los Angeles. I remember the duck and cover drills with air raid sirens (before they turned into earthquake drills w/ out the sirens).

I remember watching ICBM test shots at sunset from Vandenberg while in the backyard pool. I remember playing "Hunt the mutants in the ruins" with my friends - pretending to survive in the hills around LA after the Sovs nuked us.

And the Beach Boys had more to do with the 60's as remembered, as opposed to what it was really like. Still like them, though. But I liked the Stones, Who, and later the Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, Sex Pistols, Clash......etc. By then the whole surf boy sound was getting pretty lame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't I alive in the 60's now?

Duck and cover drills replaced by anti-terrorism drills. Vietnam replaced with Iraq. Commie-hunts replaced by terrorist hunts... I don't want to catch any political flak here, I'm just pointing out my perceptions...

I agree that the Beach Boys weren't representative of what the 60's were really like, but that's the point. Who wants to listen about how depressing and God-awful the world is? I'm not saying the 60's were all fun and games, CivilDog. I'm saying it was certainly a lot easier for some people to BELIEVE they were, and to try to live that lie if at all possible. I can't imagine myself wanting to live my life in misery thinking that another catastrophic event could happen... And that's why I want to just have a good time, and why people loved the Beach Boys.

And besides, the Beach Boys really hit a nostalgic nerve for me. I used grew up on Long Island, NY (Riverhead), and I'd spend my summer's at a summer house in South Hampton. I'll admit the surfing scene wasn't very big there, but skateboarding was! I was a shaggy blonde haired, sandal wearing, board riding beach kid. Songs about summer, and the beach really take me back. I still clearly remember watching the sunset over the rock quarry by the corn fields, or over on the beach after a whole long day of skating, biking, or whatever else. In retrospect, those were the happiest days of my life.

I don't want to be intruding on "your times" or pretend like I know what was going on back then. I'm just saying that from what little I do know, there certainly are some similarities between the times in which we grew up.

Von_Rat
03-18-2005, 05:20 PM
Aren't I alive in the 60's now?

Duck and cover drills replaced by anti-terrorism drills. Vietnam replaced with Iraq. Commie-hunts replaced by terrorist hunts... I don't want to catch any political flak here, I'm just pointing out my perceptions..-_______________________________________________-

i was just thinking about that same thing, i was listening to a speach on terrorism, and i swore ive heard it before. all they did was replace the word communist, with the word terrorist.

ginger_cat
03-18-2005, 09:04 PM
To Aaron_GT

Coventry has changed massively in the last ten years and the city centre, to a great degree, resembles a building site. Too much to describe here, but the place is hardly recognisable from when I moved here in 1984. (Some may say that I exagerate). Imho, public response to developments in Coventry is not enthusiastic.

ginger_cat
03-18-2005, 09:14 PM
For Aaron_GT:

http://www.coventryweb.co.uk/haunts/hauntsindex.html

civildog
03-18-2005, 09:40 PM
LStarosta:

I'm not jumping down your throat about it, I just always find it humorous that the people who talk the most nostalgically about the 60's and 70's weren't even alive then. Mostly they are living in some Summer of Love fantasy world which in reality was just like today, except for dirty hippies, worrying if the Sovs would nukes us, and the space program in it's golden time.

You said it yourself: it was a lot like today. Yup, it was was. There wasn't a Haight/Ashbury on every corner, the Summer of Love lasted barely a month, and the reality of Woodstock and the Pig Farm was that thousands of filthy hippies splashed around in the mud until everyone was out of drugs and music.

The entire Sixties, as seen on TV and popular memory, was a shuck. The student protests? Overexposed and overblown...the protests to the Pershing deployments in Germany were far bigger and more influential. The Vietnam war wasn't lost because of the protests or the "lack of support" on the homefront...it was the idiot politicians that did it. The Johnson administration meddled in it instead of listening to the experts, and just when the Nixon administration bombings were bringing Uncle Ho to the table and ready to talk peace, the idiots in Washington messed that up, too.

The Cold War was in full swing, but people weren't as manic and scared about it as they were in the 50's and 80's. In fact when I was in the service it was conventional wisdom that we would be fighting Ivan in Germany as he poured through the Fulda Gap by 1985.

The hysteria was so intense that you have those awful movies like "The Day After." "Threads" was better, but the friends I would have it to practically wet themselves watching "The Day After" so I didn't want to see that. But during the Sixties and Seventies people were mainly just trying to get through a tough economic time, or enjoy what they could...just like today.

The Baby Boomers love to crow about themselves and all they did to change the world in those days, but they messed things up so badly we will be paying for it for decades to come. They were the most irresponsible, self-centered generation known to man and they still won't shut up about how great things were in thier misspent youth. It was 40 years ago! Get with the real world, it's time to grow up now!

Th Sixties (and the execreble Seventies, I couldn't wait for them to end when I was living in them!) are a decade of the mind. Depending on where your head is at: there you are.

The Beach Boys and the surf sound don't remind me of anything more than that it's time to get out the motorcycle and ride in the summer sun.

So you're right in that way, the more things change the more they stay the same. God help me, though, I'm already starting to here morons wax nostalgically for the 80's..morons about 25 years old or so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Blackdog5555
03-19-2005, 12:31 AM
Dude, I had a blast in the fifties, sixties and seventies and eighties. I not going to waste time or typing arguing about the phoney "Gulf of Tonkin" and Johnson's war. and that piece of sh*t Nixon. The Idiot's of Eisenhower cabinet got us in there (Vietnam) and the...shoot i wasnt goint to start. Do you remember "4 dead in Ohio" or Chicago 68..I do. No HIV and lots of Pus*y. I remember 1972 and $0.28 a gallon gas. AND NO CRA@P RAP MUSIC! LOL> You just didnt get out enough. CHEERS BD.. BTW I was born in Portland. (I mentioned it to you once) CHEERS again

woofiedog
03-19-2005, 01:44 AM
http://users.belgacom.net/airimg1/avion1/19456.jpe
One of the prototype of the Ju-390 in flight, recognizable thanks to its six engines.

Type: heavy bomber Prototype or limited production Nationality: Germany
This plane could have carried the German atomic bombs up to New York, had they existed. Early in the developement of the Ju 290, the idea of a six-engined version had emerged and resulted in this massive plane with an exceptional range (it could fly up to 32 hours in a row, almost one and half day !). The prototypes also demonstrated that it could come very close to the US East coast, 12 miles away exactly during one of the exerimental flights. Fortunately for the New Yorkers, only two prototypes had been completed when the war ended

Various
Span: 50.30 meters
Length: 34.20 meters
Height: 6.89 meters
Weight empty: 36 900 kg
Weight loaded: 75 500 kg
Propulsion
Engine: 6 x BMW 801 E
Power (total): 11 820 HP
Specific power: 157 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 505 kph
Range: 9 700 km
Production
Quantity: 2 examples
First flight: August of 1943
Armament
8 20 mm MG 151/20 guns
8 MG 131 machine guns
1 800 kg of bombs

http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-1.jpg
Me 264 V1.
http://www.luft46.com/prototyp/264-11.jpg

The Me 264 was the candidate of Messerschmitt as a bomber able to reach the US Eastern coast. The program started in 1940 on private funds but it did not go much further than the first prototype: while the Ju 390 was preferred as the long-range bomber, the two other prototypes, ordered as maritime pratrol, could not be completed because of the allied air raids

Various
Crew: 6
Span: 43.00 meters
Length: 20.90 meters
Height: 4.30 meters
Weight empty: 21 150 kg
Weight loaded: 56 000 kg
Propulsion
Engine: 4 x BMW 801 D
Power (total): 6 800 HP
Specific power: 121 HP / ton
Maximum speed: 565 kph
Range: 15 000 km
Production
Quantity: 1 examples
First flight: December of 1942
Armament
2 20 mm MG 151/20 guns
4 MG 131 machine guns
1 800 kg of bombs

Blackdog5555
03-19-2005, 07:36 AM
Yep..Hitler called it his "Amerika-Bomber". Good Post.

Very few here know about the Norsk Hydro Electric plant just how close Hitler was in developing a Nuke for Amerika well; Norwegian agents partially destroyed the heavy water plant at Norsk then sunk it while the remainder was being transported.

"In Norway 1943 - SOE agents destroyed the heavy water plant at Vemork, ending the Nazi atomic bomb programme."

Japan was building (trying)dirty bombs for San Diego.. google U234...Its funny how some foriegn history is taught. not really laughing BD

Panzer_JG11
03-19-2005, 09:35 AM
"What armies were in Coventry and London? This was terror bombing pure and simple! Guernica was the first example of bombing to terrify the civilian population and who did it? The Luftwaffe."

Wrong. Earlier in 1932 in Cuba, General Gerardo Machado's planes bombed the town of Gibara to crush a local uprising.

"If a sophisticated and cultured paople had not blindly followed a maniac it could have all been avoided."

Are you talking about Germans or Americans? Ask the "dangerous" civilians of "dangerous" Iraq (due to their INVISIBLE mass destruction weapons), please.

"As for the atomic bombs.I disagree that there primary use was to display American power. The reaction of the Japanese civilian population to the invasion of Saipan showed what the Americans could expect if the mainland was invaded. The military had showed that they would stop at nothing on many occassions. After Hiroshima the Japanese government still refused to surrender hence the bombing of Nagasaki. I do believe the casualty rates if Japan had been invaded would have been utterly catastrophic!"

You keep coming back to this...Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki. Rather than wait to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender, the atomic bombing order to the Army Air Force stated, "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." (Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). Word of the second nuclear attack was relayed that day to the Japanese government (Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 240).


"However you keep coming back to Dresden. How many civilian deaths does it take to make the bombing of civilians for terror purposes wrong?
1? 100? 100,000? 1000,000?"

Are you triyng to convince anyone that Dresden was an isolated case? Let's see:
The raids on Dresden and the following cities:
Kiel, Neumünster, Stralsund, Bremerhaven, Emden, Wilhelmshaven, Hamburg, Neubrandenburg, Neustrelitz, Prenzlau, Bremen, Hannover, Rheine, Osnabrück, Hildesheim, Braunschweig, Magdeburg, Berling, Potsdam, Frankfurt/Oder, Bocholt, Münster, Kleve, Wesel, Dortmund, Hamm, Soest, Krefeld, M¶nchengladbach, Düsseldorf, Aachen, Düren, Bonn, K¶ln, Siegen, Koblenz, Trier, Bingen, Bad Kreuznach, Mainz, Worms, Kaiserslautern, Pirmasens, Karlsruhe, Pforzheim, Stuttgart, Freiburg, Friedrichshafen, Ulm, München, Augsburg, Straubing, Heilbronn, Nürnberg, Ingolstadt, Bayreuth, Mannheim, Ludwigshafen, Darmstadt, Offenbach, Hanau, Frankfurt, Gießen, Schweinfurt, Würzburg, Gießen, Kassel, Nordhausen, Merseburg, Leipzig, Chemnitz, Eilenburg, Halberstadt, Magdeburg, Gelsenkirchen, Oberhausen, Witten, Duisburg, Hagen, Wuppertal, Solingen, Neuß, Remscheid, Brilon and Aschaffenburg

were said to only target industrial sites, but in reality the allied command targeted the civilians with the goal, to break their will and demoralize the population to trigger a revolt against the Nazi regime.

Still today, ignorant historians conveniently lie about the death toll
by the hundred thousands.
Those people like to mention roughly 35,000 to 60,000 perished.
35,000 can only be used to reference the dead in Dresden that could be identified - but considering the fact that the surface temperature during the firestorm reached up to 1,600 centigrade; everyone should realize that most people burned to ashes or unidentifiable chunks of flesh.

As a fact, it's widely accepted that more than 12,000 houses burned to rubble during the raids. During this time there were more than 1,2 Million people in Dresden. 600,000 Dresden citizens, plus 600,000 refugees from Breslau.

Based on this idea, the death toll would lie between 360,000 to 600,000,
but the ignorant shamelessly speak of only 35,000



"Terror bombing for its own sake is unacceptable by todays standards. But when you are trying to hit back at an enemy and there was no other way? I don't condone it but I can understand it."

Unacceptable by standards today????????????? Please!!!!! Probably I'm living in another planet. FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!
But:

The United States bombed Hanoi with conventional weapons during the Vietnam War.

During the Kosovo War, the NATO bombed the Serbian capital Belgrade, and also deliberately bombed a television station killing 16 civilians.

Following the this attack the US Air Force bombed cities, military bases and Taliban soldiers and Al Qaeda militants. Approximately 5000 civilians were killed.

During the US-led invasion of Iraq and the US-led occupation of Iraq, Iraqi cities have been repeatedly bombed by the US air force and British RAF. During the occupation their stated aim is to target the Iraqi resistance, who they often refer to as terrorists. About 10,000 civilians were killed, mostly as a result of aerial bombardment of cities.

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif

Blackdog5555
03-19-2005, 01:33 PM
Jeez Panzer, there there boy. Here is a tissue. Now go stand your mother..She will comfort you.
///////I thought we were talking about WWII here. That started on Sept 1, 1939 as a result of the Moltov Ribentropp. Hmm. no americans there! LOL. ok well it really began for america in Decmber of 1937 in china, a thing called the Rape of nanking. (no america there either) Those events led to the embargo.
>>> welll we want to back in history we have to go back to the terror attacks of the Cromagnums murdering the Nethanderal in the land of Nog present day France) back in 50,234 BC. Anyway, thanks. Idiots like you make these dull forums interesting. I dont care BD.

John_Stag
03-19-2005, 02:36 PM
Let's not forget who instituted strategic bombing of civilian targets as a legitimate doctrine in the first place with the Zeppelin raids on London during the Great War. I would have far more sympathy for Germany if they hadn't been the ones to start it in the first place. Throw facts and figures around if you like pjg11, but ask yourself this question; If the Nazis had won, would there be so much chest beating going on about the casualties? Want to talk about terror? put yourself in the place of one of the inmates of Belsen; or any of the other camps Hitler created. 6,000,000 jews and 5,000,000 other "undesireables" who didn't have shelters, defensive AAA or highly motivated fighter pilots covering them.

Don't try to take the moral high ground here,because you're standing on a mountain of bullshlt.

And before you whine how the German people were not responsible, well for sure it wasn't any of the allies that voted that scumbag into power. They can't even claim ignorance; he wrote a bloody book stating his intentions for all.

Edit: My apologies to the moderators and to the less airheaded German citizens on this board but I really think this needed to be said. If I get a ban, so be it, but I stand by these words.

ploughman
03-19-2005, 02:51 PM
Panzer_JG11, take it somewhere else. There are plenty of anti-Iraq War sites where you can ply your trade. If you want to talk about 1939-45, stick around. Otherwise, see you elsewhere.

Jasko76
03-19-2005, 03:00 PM
IBTL!

You just can't discuss things without mudslinging, can you? (Aimed at no one specifically!)

Capt.England
03-19-2005, 03:10 PM
Threads, Now that was a scary T.V. program. I would just love to get a copy/buy that program again!

Mind you, if Sheffield did get Nuked, as in the program, nobody would notice the difference. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LStarosta
03-19-2005, 03:48 PM
Well, Stag, there were some British nobles who simply adored Hitler before the war...

ploughman
03-19-2005, 04:13 PM
Not enough thankfully. You don't have to thank us for stopping the world sliding into the abyss, but you might stop trying to blame us for it.

LStarosta
03-19-2005, 04:16 PM
Who said I was?

Since you're being so negative, why don't I come right off the bat and just thank you for Yalta?

darkhorizon11
03-19-2005, 04:33 PM
I won't pretend like I was there in the 60s or 70s cause I wasn't. I do envy the free poon-tang with free STDs, in my senior year of college now I'll tell you that I practically want to ask for medical records with some of these girls...

Back to the topic at hand, yes the heavy water plant was destroyed in 1943, even if it wasn't America would probably have been first with the bomb. Remember Einstein any many other scientists had already fled to the United States before the war began to work on the bomb. I've heard arguments before that the despite all the other military mistakes Germany made later on if Einstein never left for America. Basically under the assumption that Germany would have had the bomb before the war ended, and especially with the ability to deliver it at long ranges with bombers like the Ju 290, Me 264, and the V2 rocket the Allies would have been in trouble.

Blackdog5555
03-19-2005, 04:56 PM
Carefull Lstarosta. Since you are such a historian..Why not blame the US for the Treaty of Versaille // and the WWI that gave us that thing. (Im sure in your mind the USA started WWI too)Lets see,http://...............www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versailles.html....Ok thats no good, for there wouldnt be a Poland if it wasnt for The Treaty (and USA involvement in WWI), and we wouldnt want to give the USA credit. OK, then in Yalta, I guess the US shold have declared war on Russia instead of going along with its "Allies". Yalta dealing with Poland was a disgrace but put the blame were it belongs. Stalin...Ill say it again in case you still blame the USA for Stalins folly. STALIN. You wanna talk about Molotov-Ribentropp.. No USA there..Ok well the USA spent about One Trillion (yes Trillion) dollars in the cold war so that the Soviet Union would lose control/free Eastern Europe. It worked. oh ya ,, your welcome. LOL.

BTW when the Japanese first invaded Manchuria in 1931 it was hope that they would bring some civillizatin to that backward tribal, war lord country called China.. Wrong. Japan wasnt the benevolant colonist were they. so first impression are not always accurate. Anyway.. who cares. BD..

Aaron_GT
03-19-2005, 05:11 PM
"Wrong. Earlier in 1932 in Cuba, General Gerardo Machado's planes bombed the town of Gibara to crush a local uprising."

Or the British (or specifically Arthur Harris) in the 1920s in the British middle east dominions of the period. But then civilians were bombed in WW1, hence the Hague Convention (on the use of airpower) was based on both the projected dangers of bombing, plus actual experience of the targeting of civilians. Throughout history civilians have been targetted in war. WW2 was only special in the scale of civilian death due to advances in technology.

However it is wrong to say that it is ok to bomb a particular population of civilians just because its unelected leaders decided to use similar terror. It might be all that it is possible to do, and you might have to do it, but it still isn't particularly acceptable.

Von_Rat
03-19-2005, 07:01 PM
panzer jg11 wrote

You keep coming back to this...Late on the morning of August 9th, the U.S. dropped a second atomic bomb without a second thought, this time on the people of Nagasaki. Rather than wait to see if the Hiroshima bomb would bring surrender, the atomic bombing order to the Army Air Force stated, "Additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff." (Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). Word of the second nuclear attack was relayed that day to the Japanese government (Leon Sigal, Fighting To a Finish, pg. 240).
__________________________________________________---

the second bomb was dropped in order to keep japans leaders off balance, if only one was dropped and to much time was allowed to pass, the japanese leaders could of recovered from the shock. its a good phycological move.

the whole point was to shock them into surrender, dropping one and waiting would of been counter produtive.

Panzer_JG11
03-19-2005, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Jeez Panzer, there there boy. Here is a tissue. Now go stand your mother..She will comfort you.
///////I thought we were talking about WWII here. That started on Sept 1, 1939 as a result of the Moltov Ribentropp. Hmm. no americans there! LOL. ok well it really began for america in Decmber of 1937 in china, a thing called the Rape of nanking. (no america there either) Those events led to the embargo.
>>> welll we want to back in history we have to go back to the terror attacks of the Cromagnums murdering the Nethanderal in the land of Nog present day France) back in 50,234 BC. Anyway, thanks. Idiots like you make these dull forums interesting. I dont care BD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity
- Martin Luther King

Panzer_JG11
03-19-2005, 08:31 PM
Idiots like you make these dull forums interesting. I dont care BD.[/QUOTE]

"You even called me stupid in your verse, and I€m almost agreeing, for where stupidity is involved, you are quite an expert, friend."
-Franz Grillparzer

SkyChimp
03-19-2005, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer_JG11:
"What armies were in Coventry and London? This was terror bombing pure and simple! Guernica was the first example of bombing to terrify the civilian population and who did it? The Luftwaffe."

Wrong. Earlier in 1932 in Cuba, General Gerardo Machado's planes bombed the town of Gibara to crush a local uprising...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been tried here before, Panzer, in much more compelling manners than you've yet to muster. No amount of your history revisionism will make the Nazis the victims.

John_Stag
03-19-2005, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LStarosta:
Well, Stag, there were some British nobles who simply adored Hitler before the war... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep; one got his neck streched for it as well. Maybe there should have been more. What point are you trying to make?

LStarosta
03-20-2005, 08:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Carefull Lstarosta. Since you are such a historian..Why not blame the US for the Treaty of Versaille // and the WWI that gave us that thing. (Im sure in your mind the USA started WWI too)Lets see,http://...............www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versailles.html....Ok thats no good, for there wouldnt be a Poland if it wasnt for The Treaty (and USA involvement in WWI), and we wouldnt want to give the USA credit. OK, then in Yalta, I guess the US shold have declared war on Russia instead of going along with its "Allies". Yalta dealing with Poland was a disgrace but put the blame were it belongs. Stalin...Ill say it again in case you still blame the USA for Stalins folly. STALIN. You wanna talk about Molotov-Ribentropp.. No USA there..Ok well the USA spent about One Trillion (yes Trillion) dollars in the cold war so that the Soviet Union would lose control/free Eastern Europe. It worked. oh ya ,, your welcome. LOL.

BTW when the Japanese first invaded Manchuria in 1931 it was hope that they would bring some civillizatin to that backward tribal, war lord country called China.. Wrong. Japan wasnt the benevolant colonist were they. so first impression are not always accurate. Anyway.. who cares. BD.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am extremely greatful for the United States' resurrection of a free Polish state. It shows how strong the relationship between the two countries really is. Polish generals and engineers, as I'm sure you know, helped win U.S. independence, and 1918 was a very symbolic gift on behalf of the U.S.

But I disagree with you about placing sole blame on Stalin. While it is true that he was the reason that Poland became a communist state after the war, I find it unacceptable that two world powers (U.S. and U.K.) had to adopt a Chamberlainesque policy of appeasement towards Stalin. The U.S. especially had huge industrial and strategic leverage that I'm sure could be used to maintain freedom and democracy in Poland's case. I don't like saying this, but Roosevelt and Churchill were simply poor leaders towards the end of the war. Both were not in their physical and mental prime, to the point of their ineffectiveness against Stalin. As a fellow American, I find such treatment of a fellow ally to be disgraceful and hypocritical. I'm sure many of you wish to downplay Poland's contribution towards the war, but I'm sure if you research Poland's contributions to the war, in famous battles like the Battle of Britain or Monte Cassino, or more infamous fiascos like Dieppe or Market Garden, I'm sure you could begin to understand the pain and disbelief felt by Polish servicemen upon seeing Anti-Polish slogans plastered all over the streets of London or U.S. newspapers condemning Poland's "outrageous post-war demands", instead glorifying Uncle Joe and his caring and compassionate Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.

Blackdog, I didn't come here to mock people, so please do not mock me for my beliefs. I am ready to respect you, so I ask that you do the same to me.



Stag- I was just pointing out that some people beyond Germany's borders were swept away with Hitler's charisma, so it isn't exactly fair to blame the German people for believing the idiot son of a b!tch.

Blackdog5555
03-20-2005, 01:52 PM
LStarosta..well im probably too heavy handed in my defense. Apologies. I agree that Roosevelt didnt do a very good job at Yalta. But, Russia was bearing the brunt of the war. You couldnt leave them out but couldnt declare war on them either. If Gen. Patton was President im sure there would have been different negotiation stategies there. Im not going to be an apologist. Look at the Berlin air lift. **** near went to war with Stalin in 1948 because we wanted to feed starving Germans. The irony of the war was that it started on 9/3/39 because Germany invaded Poland (Russia invade Poland too as you know). To save Poland from Hitler just to give it to Stalin was a bizzare episode in history. The West was warned of the possibility of the "Iron Curtain" but didnt trully realize Stalin's actual intent. Can also go back and blame Woodrow Wilson for allowing the Versaille Treaty to be excessive in its punitive treatment of Germany which left a simmering hatered. He wanted the insipid League of Nations which our Senate voted down (the Treaty) anyway. Japan would not listen to the League anyway when they were told to get out of China. But yes, Poland is a good friend and ally of the United States. I think most modern historians, including US historains agree with you that the post war treatment of Poland by the allies was tragic. Anyway , enough history. Cheers. BD.

BaldieJr
03-20-2005, 03:20 PM
You can't hug children with nuclear arms.

darkhorizon11
03-20-2005, 04:00 PM
Its funny nowadays the world gets mad at the United States for getting involved in everything.

Back then it was the opposite everyone blamed us for waiting to get involved, both in WWI and WWII.

IIRC though we did try to stop the Bolsheviks from running amok in Europe. The US GB and France all sent troops into the Murmansk and other eastern regions of Europe to stop the revolution. I believed they were called the "white armies" their goals being to restore a monarchy in Russia. To sum it all up, the allies failed. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won, and when Stalin took over he used fear as his weapon purging millions. Although the Polish were successful in pushing back the Soviets in 1919-1920 from the gates of Warsaw by the mid to late 20s it was too late. Communism had taken over.

Even if France, GB, and the USA tried to save Poland in the long run we would have lost. Just look at Germany when they invaded. Ultimately the climate and terrain and the sheer numbers of Russians prevailed. We wouldn't have fared any better in the 30s than the Germans did in the 40s.

Of course no one wanted to go to war anyways at that point.

Wow, this thread has gone off topic!

Bo_Nidle
03-20-2005, 05:02 PM
Panzer_JG11 wrote
"Wrong. Earlier in 1932 in Cuba, General Gerardo Machado's planes bombed the town of Gibara to crush a local uprising."

I did not know that and I stand corrected. However it would appear the lesson was not lost on the Luftwaffe who turned it into an art.

The point I keep trying to make is this: The bombing of German cities was, for several years, the only way that the Allies could hit back at an enemy that was truly evil in its intent. I don't think even you can dispute that can you?

In retrospect the bombing of Dresden is questionable. But as I said the bombing of any civilian target to create terror for terrors sake is questionable to say the least and the Luftwaffe started something that the Allies finished.And hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The two atomic bombs were, in my opinion, a horrific but nonetheless necessary method of preventing an invasion which would have resulted in massive Allied casualties and I have to admit, callous as it may sound, I understand the lack of compassion shown for the casualties they would inflict on the populations of two cities of an enemy nation.If that invasion had gone ahead I believe there would have been casualties far in excess of those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I would also point out that Germany had its own nuclear weapon programme underway but suffered a severe blow with the destruction of the Telemark heavy water plant. Luckily for the Allies this never progressed into a workabale weapon.Had it done so there is no doubt it would have been used without hesitation and, as I said, I doubt there would have been any moral handwringing or soulsearching done.Luckily for the Allies we got it first.

The German and Japanese military were responsible for the most heinous of crimes against civilians in occupied nations so its a little ironic that the former allied nations should be held up as examples of barbaric acts.

Comparing Hitler to Bush is a little strong. I have no affection for Bush but I would strongly dispute trying to put him in the same pigeonhole as Herr Schikelgruber (spelling is probably wrong-sorry).

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am an American. I am not. I am British. I have no affection for Mr Blair either and believe my country was drawn into the current conflict in Iraq on a massive lie for which the politicians should be bought to book. That said my support is with our armed Forces and want them back alive as soon as possible. I am myself a former serviceman.

The basic argument is this. There was no more justification for the Luftwaffe to bomb London et al in the name of conquest than there was for the Allies to bomb Dresden et al in the name of defence and retaliation. In fact I would put it to you there was less justification. And you seem to lose sight of the fact that it was the formers thirst for conquest that lead to the retaliation in the first place.

One last thing before I end my participation in what is ultimately a fruitless discussion as I have my opinions and you have yours; To my knowledge Hitler did not personally take any lives in the instigation of his insane attempt at world conquest. No matter how evil or deluded his policies were they were carried out by normal, decent and civilised German citizens and that is truly frightening indeed.

I certainly do not believe that my nations Government should appologise for the actions taken against Germany in WW2, as was suggested in the media recently. To do this would be to dishonour the memory of brave men who fought and died fighting the greatest organised evil this planet has encountered to date.

I believe it is a chapter of history that we can learn from and thus not repeat and it should be treated as such.

civildog
03-20-2005, 05:14 PM
Those of us across The Pond do greatly appreciate your government's much belated apology for burning down our White House. Gives us no end of closure and all.

Monty_Thrud
03-20-2005, 05:17 PM
Very well said Bo_Nidle

Bo_Nidle
03-20-2005, 05:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
Those of us across The Pond do greatly appreciate your government's much belated apology for burning down our White House. Gives us no end of closure and all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I do admit THAT was bit naughty!

P.s. Other than George W I really do like the USA and will hopefully be visiting for the first time later this year. Just wanted to get that straight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

SeaNorris
03-20-2005, 05:23 PM
Hey Bo_Nidle you on MSN?

HellToupee
03-20-2005, 06:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Its funny nowadays the world gets mad at the United States for getting involved in everything.

Back then it was the opposite everyone blamed us for waiting to get involved, both in WWI and WWII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally because in ww1 and ww2 allies of the US were under attack and they just sat and watched for a good deal of time in ww1, and until they were forced into it in ww2, germany declared war on the US before us declared war on them. Where as things like iraqi have been agression.

It would be like russia invading the US and all the US's allies saying woa not our fight.

ImpStarDuece
03-20-2005, 07:11 PM
This thread has been a wonderful example of spurious reasoning and illogical counter arguments so I feel dirty trying to bring some reality in it.

However, the German nuclear program was pretty much a non-entity especially compared to the Manhattan Project. Despite its well known status and famous physicists Germany was never really close to making a workable nuclear weapon. It was only at the end of 1941 that Albert Speer gave the program priority.

The Germans never reacjed several crucial milestones in their atomic program;

1. Probably the most important point is that the German nuclear program never created a self sustaining atomic pile. They never fully understood the actual physical requirements for a functioning nuclear reactor. The small paraffin and uranium pile they initailly built in Leipzig actually ended up destroying itself in a conflagration when powered uranium reacted with the air. The B8 experiments of March 1944 revealed that all German reactors previously had been too small on the order of AT LEAST 50%. Expansion was impossible because of inadequate supplies of uranium and Heavy Water.

2. Heisenburg had a flawed understanding of the requirements for fissile material for a nuclear weapon. His estimates for the amount of uranium required for a bomb which were presented to German Army Weapons Development Department in late 1939 were based on an imperfect model. He believed that it would require up to a hundred metric tons of U 235 to produce critical mass. German physicists did however understand that using plutonium could bring the required fissile mass down to tens (or less) of kilos.

3. German 'Heavy Water' supply would of been inadequate even without the heroic destrucion of Tellemark. Simply put German production of Heavy Water would of been inadequate to supply a single small reactor, let alone a weapons program hoping to produce sufficient fissile material.

4. Similarly Heavy Water was a far less efficient route than the American use of graphite. Its physical requirements (production) were a significant disadvantage and the Germans had use impure graphite in earier test, leading them to believe that Heavy Water was the more, not less, effective route.

So the was very, very little chance of Germany developing an fissile weapon during the war. Vacilation in upper heiarchy (read Hilter), the perception of nuclear reasearch as 'Jewish Science (and female Jewish science at theat) didn't endear it to NSDAP policy and Hilter (probably correctly) believed that the project was far to long term to have an impact on the war.

blakduk
03-20-2005, 08:45 PM
Well stated ImpstarDeuce- misinformation and alarmist propoganda has clouded the reality of the experimental weapons programs the Nazis had been working on. One of the other reason they didnt get their weapons in sufficient numbers or in reasonable working order was their entire economic structure was a shambles- they divided their 'empire' into discrete zones that had incompatible infrastructure. Each zone (i think there were 8 in Germany/Austria alone)manufactured their own calibre weapons etc so they couldnt share each others ammunition. There were over TWENTY completely seperate guided bomb projects underway at end of 1945. Had they combined their efforts they may have had a field-ready version in time to use it. That is one of the reasons there is so much argument about 'what might have been'- the western allies were more discriminating in the projects they backed and devoted more resources to each one. The USA in particular used a corporate or business model to their whole war effort, it was their strength. They could pool their huge resources much more efficiently.
As one commentator noted, 'not only did the Americans have better factories, they had better Germans'.

civildog
03-20-2005, 08:59 PM
...that's right, and during the Cold War our German rocket scientists kicked the rear out of the Soviet German rocket scientists!

blakduk
03-20-2005, 09:06 PM
CivilDog- you might want to reconsider that statement. During the 1950's the Soviet German scientists **** near kicked your a**e- i'm not sure why, but in the initial phases of the space race you guys were WAY behind (It may have had something to do with the threat of a gulag if things went wrong rather than the USA's promise of a bonus if things worked well). Remember 'Sputnik'?
Credit where its due though, you took some time to get going but eventually took the prize.

civildog
03-20-2005, 09:58 PM
It doesn't matter who is first off the blocks, the only thing that ever matters is who finishes the race.

Mind you the Space Race didn't just include going to the moon - it included developing accurate ICBMs, better aircraft technology, computer technology, radar, etc. NASA wanted the moon, but the military was more interested in practical application. All anybody ever thinks about with the Space Race was the moonshot.

We finished it. And we didn't even have to threaten anyone with gulags or a bullet in the neck to do it.

blakduk
03-20-2005, 10:32 PM
Lets not forget that the T34 tank was far superior to the american Sherman!
Unfortunately this thread deals with events of WW2 or i would be able to engage in a discussion about who had the first operational ICBM's, better radar technology etc during the cold war.
B*****er it, the Soviets had better rocket engines, very robust airframes/superstructures, and some would argue their reliance on more crude but proven technology initially allowed more tolerance in their equipment. As electronics matured however the USA was able to prevail- leading to the more recent example of the Su-27 being the best fighter in the world but the avionics are obsolete.
If we could retrofit the FA18's avionics....

Von_Rat
03-20-2005, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
Its funny nowadays the world gets mad at the United States for getting involved in everything.

Back then it was the opposite everyone blamed us for waiting to get involved, both in WWI and WWII.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally because in ww1 and ww2 allies of the US were under attack and they just sat and watched for a good deal of time in ww1, and until they were forced into it in ww2, germany declared war on the US before us declared war on them. Where as things like iraqi have been agression.

It would be like russia invading the US and all the US's allies saying woa not our fight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is news to me, i wasn;t aware of the u.s. being in any defensive alliances with european powers before 1914. could you please list your source.

every history book ive read makes a point of the u.s not having any entangling defensive alliances with european powers before 1917, excepting the revolution of course. in fact less than 50 years prior to ww1 the u.s. and france came close to war over frances backing of maximillian in mexico. the u.s. also came close to war with britain during our civil war.

as for ww2 , after europe defaulted on war debts, cant blame them they were broke, the u.s. was very reluctant to spend money and blood on what was seen as europes problem to solve, which they could of if britain, france and ussr had gotten their act together. also im not aware of any defensive alliances beteewn u.s. and any europeam powers that continued past the armistice in 1918 or ended soon after peace conferance.

so who were these allies of the u.s. that were let down.

people seem to think, that because the u.s. and france and britain are close allies today, that it has always been that way. that's hardly the case.

civildog
03-20-2005, 11:30 PM
Personally I think we ought to buy some of those SU-27's or 33's. With the current exchange rate we could save some big bucks on some pretty remarkable planes.

T-34/76 - 85..yada, yada..the only reason they were able to beat the panzers with those (the losses of both the 76 and 85 were horrific, like with so much Soviet weapons of WW2) was for the same reason the US did it with the Sherman. Sheer weight of numbers. So you're only comparing apples and oranges. By the end of the war the Pershinag was the most advanced main battle tank on Earth. The Sovs had the monster IS series, but still relied on the 34/85 as the primary MBT. The Pershing ventilated those well beyond the Sov tank's capabilities on a regular basis in Korea.

The Israelis used Super Shermans to kill even the T-10M and IS tanks without too much difficulty. The Soviets always relied on numbers over quality. Even their platoon level armor tactics show this.

But back to WW2...the myth that the Panther and Tiger were developed in response to the T34/76 way outside the reality. The Tiger was in development before Barbarossa and first saw action in North Africa. The Panther was in nearly concurrent development, but continously delayed by internicene squabbling by Porsche and Henschel for contracts. Hitler contributed to the delays in his usual way by putting his stamp of approval on the Tiger, personally delaying their introduction on the East Front by critical months because he wanted more and more of the beasts. And they definitely proved their worth at Kursk when used according to doctrine.

But the biggest reason you can't argue that te T34 family was better than the Russian or American designs was because of the design doctrines of each of these tanks. By the time the T 34/85 was introduced (arguably as a response to the Tiger and Panther, since the 76 was having a hard time in one-to-one fights with even late Mk IV's with the long 75mm) the Germans were in retreat and the emphasis in German armor design was on longer, heavier guns and armor rather than on speed and maneuverability. AA machineguns started showing up on more and more armor that previously didn't even have mounts for them. So you can see from this evolution, culminating in the E-100 and Maus, that the Germans were more interested in tanks that could be used more like mobile pillboxes for defense rather than something usable in a fast, mobile assault.

The Soviets and Americans were building tanks that were fast, relatively lightly armored, and relied on fire and movement (in the US doctrine) or mass assault at speed (in the Soviet armor doctrine. In those cases heavy armor was sacrificed (though the T34 sloping armor was a fine way to work around this) for speed. The guns on both were woefully inadequate because the German tanks were carrying long 75mm and 88mm guns that could kill Shermans and any T-34 well before they could close to the panzer to even break a track.

But, by this time the US countered this by achieving air superiority, or just by having more Shermans than the Germans had panzers. And those Shermans could be repaired, fueled, and armed faster than any panzers could be. The Soviets kept on the move and often merely stripped the damaged T34's in the field to repair others with. Often T34's went into the field with spare transmissions strapped to the back deck when they first came out.

The Sovs were more interested in fast assault leading to breakthrough and encirclment rather than going toe-to-toe with heavy panzers. Heck, that wide rear deck with all the grab rails for tankodesanti to hang on to should show you that.

So you must see, you can't compare Shermans against T34's against Tigers and Panthers unless you also take into account the very different doctrines and uses that led to their designs.

And as I said earlier, it doesn't really matter who starts first, it's who wins that counts. Everything else is idle speculation or merely envy and sour grapes.

Aaron_GT
03-21-2005, 08:18 AM
"Yep; one got his neck streched for it as well."

Who was that?

Aaron_GT
03-21-2005, 08:30 AM
Bo Nidle wrote:
"I would also point out that Germany had its own nuclear weapon programme underway but suffered a severe blow with the destruction of the Telemark heavy water plant."

Luckily Heisenberg was also stalling the programme to the extent that it was virtually cancelled anyway well before the end of the war. (The only funding it received from mid 1944 AFAIK was from the Culture Ministry).

" and until they were forced into it in ww2,"

Roosevelt was keen to be involved, and there was a sliding process with Lend Lease, orders to fire on German shipping, etc., before Roosevelt could bring everyone else on board after Pearl Harbour.

With regard to the far east, the war had effectively been going on since 1932 and no Western nation managed to go onto a full war footing against the Japanese and its war of aggression in the area, although the USA was getting closest prior to Pearl Harbour.

" Heisenburg had a flawed understanding of the requirements for fissile material for a nuclear weapon."

It's not clear how flawed his understanding was. After the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki he and his compatriots interned in the UK managed to indicate how it could be done within a day or so.

Heisenberg contended that he deliberately held back the development of the bomb. Bohr said that he had had a row with Heisenberg before fleeing to the west to warn of the programme, but some notes from Bohr and Heisenberg from the time, recently discovered, indicate a series of cordial meetings, including Heisenberg stopping at Bohr's house, them playing chess together, etc. It's hard to know exactly what Heisenberg knew, of course: another uncertainty principle :-)

" By the end of the war the Pershinag was the most advanced main battle tank on Earth. "

Some of the German designs would give it a run for its money, especially those fitted with the SchmallTurm, the optical equipment of which found its way into the M48 (a descendant of the M26 Pershing). Also the Centurion just clipped the end of WW2 (although did not see service) and was another excellent design.

John_Stag
03-21-2005, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Yep; one got his neck streched for it as well."

Who was that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oswald Moseley AkA "Lord Haw Haw". A British Facist who skipped over to Germany when the war started, Then spent his time broadcasting propaganda.

Tried him for treason, then hung the bastard.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
Those of us across The Pond do greatly appreciate your government's much belated apology for burning down our White House. Gives us no end of closure and all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was an insurance job.

Ah, Civildog, your words a like a breath of fresh air. Why have reasonless prejudice, when if you loook hard enough, you can find so many real reasons to hate us? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Blutarski2004
03-21-2005, 09:29 AM
Anyone wondering to what degree the appearance of the T34 series influenced German tank design and development ought to take a look at the Henschel (IIRC) entry for what ultimately emerged as the Mk V Panther. It bears a remarkable exterior resemblance to the T34 in terms of armor layout and hull configuration. IMO, the Mk V Panther must be considered one of the best tank designs to emerge from WW2. Had it enjoyed the back-up of the huge US wartime industrial base, there would have been no question.

Comparisons between the T34 and the M4 Sherman are complex, as they were designed with very different goals in mind. The T34 was sensibly designed as a battlefield tank; the M4 was designed as an armored exploitation vehicle, theoretically not intended to fight against tanks In addition, the later model T34, with three man turret was a much superior battlefield tank than its predecessor. And the M4 benefitted greatly from the introduction of wet-storage for ammunition. My take on the subject -

Armor - T34 (M4 armor protection was criminally inadequate)
Gun - toss-up (75 versus 76.2/40)
Off-road mobility - T34
On-road mobility - M4
Reliability - M4
Communications - M4
Habitability - M4
Optics - ?

M26 Pershing was not the world beater some like to think it was. It was a finicky first generation US tank design. Its original 90mm main gun, altough much better then the 76mm, was still inadequate to reliably defeat heavy German frontal armor at ETO combat ranges. In fairness, the lessons learned with the M26 were put to very good use in development of the excellent US M47/M48 series of medium tank.

Aaron_GT
03-21-2005, 09:34 AM
"Oswald Moseley AkA "Lord Haw Haw". A British Facist who skipped over to Germany when the war started, Then spent his time broadcasting propaganda."

Oswald Moseley was not "Load Haw Haw" and was not executed (he died in the 1970s AFAIK). You are referring to William Joyce, who was not an aristocrat, and wasn't even British (he was American).

John_Stag
03-21-2005, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Anyone wondering to what degree the appearance of the T34 series influenced German tank design and development ought to take a look at the Henschel (IIRC) entry for what ultimately emerged as the Mk V Panther. It bears a remarkable exterior resemblance to the T34 in terms of armor layout and hull configuration. IMO, the Mk V Panther must be considered one of the best tank designs to emerge from WW2. Had it enjoyed the back-up of the huge US wartime industrial base, there would have been no question.

Comparisons between the T34 and the M4 Sherman are complex, as they were designed with very different goals in mind. The T34 was sensibly designed as a battlefield tank; the M4 was designed as an armored exploitation vehicle, theoretically not intended to fight against tanks In addition, the later model T34, with three man turret was a much superior battlefield tank than its predecessor. And the M4 benefitted greatly from the introduction of wet-storage for ammunition. My take on the subject -

Armor - T34 (M4 armor protection was criminally inadequate)
Gun - toss-up (75 versus 76.2/40)
Off-road mobility - T34
On-road mobility - M4
Reliability - M4
Communications - M4
Habitability - M4
Optics - ?

M26 Pershing was not the world beater some like to think it was. It was a finicky first generation US tank design. Its original 90mm main gun, altough much better then the 76mm, was still inadequate to reliably defeat heavy German frontal armor at ETO combat ranges. In fairness, the lessons learned with the M26 were put to very good use in development of the excellent US M47/M48 series of medium tank. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Originally, and very quietly, it was the German staff's intention just to re-produce the T34, but they figured that Hitler wouldn't tolerate the copying of a design created by "sub-humans", http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif so they went and over-engineered it to produce the panther.

Do you need any further proof that the definition of bigot is "bloody idiot"?

John_Stag
03-21-2005, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Oswald Moseley AkA "Lord Haw Haw". A British Facist who skipped over to Germany when the war started, Then spent his time broadcasting propaganda."

Oswald Moseley was not "Load Haw Haw" and was not executed (he died in the 1970s AFAIK). You are referring to William Joyce, who was not an aristocrat, and wasn't even British (he was American). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? I stand corrected.

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 12:08 PM
BTW; Someone (Von_Rat) seems to be interested in Americas foreign relations. But it also seem your reading a history/polysci book with a few chapters missing. Maybe your reading Mein Kampf as your history source. I hear its sellling well in Turkey now. http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ If your going to pretend to be an expert in American foreign policy or an Expert in US or world polical Science from 1770-2005 you should do better than "what have you done for me lately" or " i haven't heard so it must not have existed".

Humorously (this is sarcsm) Lets see..as an American in 1914, whos side should i send my child to die for. Those tribal idiots in feathers and shiney leather boots colonizing Eastern Europe (Austro-Hungarians) or those emotionally disturbed and violent miscreants in Serbia and their inbred allies. Ok lets go to war over a feather capped tard being shot by a syphlitic maniac. Good excuse to set the world on fire. etc etc bla bla. Oh boy lets get involved!!! Ya, and blame the US for the world problems. Not funny really.



BTW , well said Civildog and Blutarski2004.



anyway.

Blutarski2004
03-21-2005, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW; Someone (Von_Rat) seems to be interested in Americas foreign relations. But it also seem your reading a history/polysci book with a few chapters missing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Yup, I've read some perfectly astounding things on this thread.

BTW, as far as aerial bombing goes, IIRC, the first occasion was in the Italian campaign against Ethiopia around 1911.

The godfather of strategic bombing theory, including arguments in support of targeting civilian populations, was an Italian, Douhet, who wrote in the early 20's. His theory was that aerial bombing of enemy cities would terrorize the civilian populations, cause them to compel their government to end the war, and thus make impossible any repeat of the grisly carnage that had been WW1. WW2 ultimately proved him to have been wrong in his assumptions.

So we can blame it all on the Italians .....

Jasko76
03-21-2005, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
...those emotionally disturbed and violent miscreants in Serbia and their inbred allies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey, that's the best descripction of Serbs I've read lately! First, they shot Franz Ferdinand in city I was born in (Sarajevo). Second, they tried to burn it in WWII and 50 years later they tried to do it again, killing 300 000 of my countrymen in the process - crazy, sick, filthy bastards!

Von_Rat
03-21-2005, 04:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
BTW; Someone (Von_Rat) seems to be interested in Americas foreign relations. But it also seem your reading a history/polysci book with a few chapters missing. Maybe your reading Mein Kampf as your history source. I hear its sellling well in Turkey now. http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ If your going to pretend to be an expert in American foreign policy or an Expert in US or world polical Science from 1770-2005 you should do better than "what have you done for me lately" or " i haven't heard so it must not have existed".

Humorously (this is sarcsm) Lets see..as an American in 1914, whos side should i send my child to die for. Those tribal idiots in feathers and shiney leather boots colonizing Eastern Europe (Austro-Hungarians) or those emotionally disturbed and violent miscreants in Serbia and their inbred allies. Ok lets go to war over a feather capped tard being shot by a syphlitic maniac. Good excuse to set the world on fire. etc etc bla bla. Oh boy lets get involved!!! Ya, and blame the US for the world problems. Not funny really.



BTW , well said Civildog and Blutarski2004.



anyway. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

all very nice, but i still fail to see where you point out that my understanding of who was a allie of the u.s. at the time, and who wasn't is wrong.

also please point out what agruments i use that have the slightest resembalance to whats in mien kampf. and where do i even imply, "what have you done for me lately".

as for 'i haven't heard so it must not have existed". i said i haven't heard of it, i was wondering if poster could enlighten me to treaties i wasn't aware of. maybe you can, but by your attitude i highly doubt it.

the claim was made that the u.s. let down u.s. allies in 1914 and 1939. im still waiting for someone to point out what allies these were and by what treaties they were made allies.

to imply that the u.s. should of automatically join allies in 1914 is silly. of course we had more in common with them than a militaristic kasier. but the u.s. also had far more friction in relations in the preceding 50 years with britain and france, rather than prussia / germany.


or is it that you have no argument and just like to insult people.

blakduk
03-21-2005, 05:03 PM
We cant really blame the USA for delaying entry to either ww1 or ww2-
WW1 was a catastrophe that was inevitable given the European thirst for 'Empire' and the fetid corruption of the feudal system. Lets not forget that working democracies were not integral in the political systems of Europe at the time- they mainly involved royal dynasties that retained real constitutional power. The USA was still very proud of the way they had disposed of their ties to a monarchy, as were the French. WW1 was the final death of the aristocratic system in most European countries, and the ones that retained it placed real consitutional power in elected parliaments (this failed miserably in Germany in the 1920's, but other factors intervened).
WW2 was very much viewed as a European problem for the Europeans to sort out- enlightened people argued strongly for armed resistance to facism but facism had yet to be discredited. In fact, some leading intellectuals argued very strongly that capitalism was discredited thanks to the 'great depression'. The isolationist movement in the USA remained a powerful force until the Japanese attacked- once they had done so the USA could no longer argue that the whole thing didnt involve them.
In retrospect it seems incredible to us that such evil could nearly have triumphed but we must remember that we have the advantage of hindsight.
We also live in democracies with unprecedented access to knowledge so we can view history through a much clearer lens. We are not omniscient, but we can ask questions which the facists would never have allowed. The irony we have is that we can examine all the grisly horror that we (western allies) inflicted as well as the other side.

blakduk
03-21-2005, 05:10 PM
As for the original discussion about nuclear weapons- thank fortune they were used at the end of WW2!
If they hadnt been, their potential would merely have remained theoretical and their dire impact would not have been realised by the popular imagination. Over time we have become a bit blase regarding their destructive force- but for a war weary world population seeing that ONE bomb could now flatten a major city forced everyone to consider just how important it was that war was never entered into again between advanced states. Nukes are the only thing that kept the cold war cold.

bolillo_loco
03-21-2005, 05:16 PM
not only did the germans test nuclear weapons, manned version of v2 landed a man on the moon, 1st stealth bomber (horten bros), they also broke the sound barrier with the me 262 just to name a few hi lites

Von_Rat
03-21-2005, 05:39 PM
very good post blakduk

civildog
03-21-2005, 07:37 PM
I seem to recall, having lived through it, that the Cold War was still pretty hot a lot of the time. Close to boiling fairly often, in fact.

Vietnam, Korea, Middle East, assorted weekend governments in South America, Rhodesia, .... the list of war-by-proxy goes on and on. The repercussions of a lot of them are still going on today.

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 07:45 PM
Well Von_Rat. I am not going to give a history lesson. What Blakduk stated is close. America is not an Isolationist country though. Not in 1914 and not in 1939 and not now. defined: Isolationist A proponent of a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. far from it. The American population is anti-war. not isolationist. The United States is also a democracy. Wilson and Roosevelt were elected on the promise that they would stay out of the Europen and Japanese colonial conflicts (aka war). We hold our politicians to their promises. really. that is why America did not have "war treaties" with Europeans.
ok, Let me expain it like this. The English are like Bulldogs, the French are like Poodles, Germans are like Dobermans and the Americans are a bit like Golden Retrievers or Labradors. We like to work and we like to play. We dont like violence but if you kick a Retiever he will eat your leg. (Ive seen one chew the leg off a 150lb German Sheperd). LOL. So much to the dismay of our allies we stayed out of the war (I and II) as long as possible. We provided massive ecconomic and material help. Our teasure but not our blood. But with the exception of the AVG and pilot to England etc. and bla bla. Dam, Im giving a lesson, lol. Shoots. You cant tell the whole story in a forum post. Not even in a book. My point is Von_Rat before you come to forum and make allegations about US foriegn policy you better do your research or expect a retort. Cheers BD

(please dont respond "if you are anti-war, Mr. America then why so many wars?)

blakduk
03-21-2005, 07:54 PM
I tried to make the point that the cold war stayed cold- not that noone got killed or that isolated wars didnt happen. It was very much a war, but outright conflict between the two major powers (USSR and USA) did not occur. The only thing that held them back was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). It still seems weird to consider all that cold war stuff as history. I remember my absolute shock when the Berlin wall came down- nobody saw that one coming!

Von_Rat
03-21-2005, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Well Von_Rat. I am not going to give a history lesson. What Blakduk stated is close. America is not an Isolationist country though. Not in 1914 and not in 1939 and not now. defined: Isolationist A proponent of a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. far from it. The American population is anti-war. not isolationist. The United States is also a democracy. Wilson and Roosevelt were elected on the promise that they would stay out of the Europen and Japanese colonial conflicts (aka war). We hold our politicians to their promises. really. that is why America did not have "war treaties" with Europeans.
ok, Let me expain it like this. The English are like Bulldogs, the French are like Poodles, Germans are like Dobermans and the Americans are a bit like Golden Retrievers or Labradors. We like to work and we like to play. We dont like violence but if you kick a Retiever he will eat your leg. (Ive seen one chew the leg off a 150lb German Sheperd). LOL. So much to the dismay of our allies we stayed out of the war (I and II) as long as possible. We provided massive ecconomic and material help. Our teasure but not our blood. But with the exception of the AVG and pilot to England etc. and bla bla. Dam, Im giving a lesson, lol. Shoots. You cant tell the whole story in a forum post. Not even in a book. My point is Von_Rat before you come to forum and make allegations about US foriegn policy you better do your research or expect a retort. Cheers BD

(please dont respond "if you are anti-war, Mr. America then why so many wars?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

reserch, what research have you posted, ive posted examples from history and you post about dogs.

what allegations are you talking about, i just stated the u.s. had no formal alliances with european powers, that would require the u.s. to go to war. so that means the oringal poster was wrong in stating the u.s. let down their allies in 1914 or 1939. i still haven't seen this simple statment refuted.

you state a reason why we didn't have such treaties, a little simplistic but ok, but you also refer to "our allies", if there are no treaties, than exactly how are they our allies, especially prior to 1914. in 1939 they were former allies, but then so was ussr during cold war.

i am defending the decisions the u.s. made at the time. you seem to think im attacking them. some people critize the u.s. for not getting involved sooner, but this is 20 20 hindsight.

as for anti war, lol. i hope not considering what i do for a living. im in the defense industry. war however distastful is somtimes necessary.

you seem to have a very simplistic grasp on history, judging from your statments why we didn't have such treaties.

blakduk
03-21-2005, 08:57 PM
Blakdog- you seem to be overlooking that fact that the Republicans also ran an antiwar campaign prior to WW2. The voting public was much more concerned with bankruptcies and starvation/unemployment at home rather than with what they saw as a morass of political chaos in Europe. Roosevelt won office with his 'new deal' for the economy but was visionary enough to subtly push for rearmament. History has shown that he was fervently against the facists, whom he referred to as 'bandit nations', but understood the reality that he couldnt push the population into a war before they saw it was inescapable.
As for your story about dogs... i really think you got a bit scary there.

Von_Rat
03-21-2005, 09:01 PM
again excellant post blakduk. i wish i could expess myself as clearly as you can.

wayno7777
03-21-2005, 09:27 PM
Bumper sticker of the year:
"If you can read this, thank a teacher -and, since it's in English, thank a soldier !!" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blackdog5555
03-21-2005, 10:16 PM
Blakduk. Wrong. The new deal was 1933 to 1938. We are talking the 1940 election. War was looming and we were pretty much out of the depression. In not talking the 1932 like you. And, no im not overlooking that the republican ran on anti-war policies in 1940. Anyone who ran a pro war campaign for the 1940 election was going to lose. Get you dates straight before you post please. Unless you like to argue with me to just make Von_Rat happy. LOL. The dog thing is humor. Rather than give history lessons to people who confuse domestic economic policies of 1932 from national foriegn policies of 1940 i like to humor abit. I like the French poodle thing..

Well just and abreviated thing here; http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html

In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.

Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the "good neighbor" policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.

and

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4545/

EVE OF WORLD WAR II

Before Roosevelt's second term was well under way, his domestic program was overshadowed by a new danger little noted by average Americans: the expansionist designs of totalitarian regimes in Japan, Italy and Germany. In 1931 Japan invaded Manchuria and crushed Chinese resistance; a year later the Japanese set up the puppet state of Manchukuo. Italy, having succumbed to fascism, enlarged its boundaries in Libya and in 1935 attacked Ethiopia. Germany, where Adolf Hitler had organized the National Socialist Party and seized the reins of government in 1933, reoccupied the Rhineland and undertook large-scale rearmament.

As the real nature of totalitarianism became clear, and as Germany, Italy and Japan continued their aggression, American apprehension fueled isolationist sentiment. In 1938, after Hitler had incorporated Austria into the German Reich, his demands for the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia made war seem possible at any moment in Europe. The United States, disillusioned by the failure of the crusade for democracy in World War I, announced that in no circumstances could any country involved in the conflict look to it for aid. Neutrality legislation, enacted piecemeal from 1935 to 1937, prohibited trade with or credit to any of the warring nations. The objective was to prevent, at almost any cost, the involvement of the United States in a non-American war.

With the Nazi assault on Poland in 1939 and the outbreak of World War II, isolationist sentiment increased, even though Americans were far from neutral in their feelings about world events. Public sentiment clearly favored the victims of Hitler's aggression and supported the Allied powers that stood in opposition to German expansion. Under the circumstances, however, Roosevelt could only wait until public opinion regarding U.S. involvement was altered by events.

With the fall of France and the air war against Britain in 1940, the debate intensified between those who favored aiding the democracies and the isolationists, organized around the America First Committee, whose support ranged from Midwestern conservatives to left-leaning pacifists. In the end, the interventionist argument won a protracted public debate, aided in large measure by the work of the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.

The United States joined Canada in a Mutual Board of Defense, and aligned with the Latin American republics in extending collective protection to the nations in the Western Hemisphere. Congress, confronted with the mounting crisis, voted immense sums for rearmament, and in September 1940 passed the first peacetime conscription bill ever enacted in the United States -- albeit by a margin of one vote in the House of Representatives. In early 1941 Congress approved the Lend-Lease Program, which enabled President Roosevelt to transfer arms and equipment to any nation (notably Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China) deemed vital to the defense of the United States. Total Lend-Lease aid by war's end amounted to more than $50,000 million.

The 1940 presidential election campaign demonstrated that the isolationists, while vocal, commanded relatively few followers nationally. Roosevelt's Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie, lacked a compelling issue since he supported the president's foreign policy, and also agreed with a large part of Roosevelt's domestic program. Thus the November election yielded another majority for Roosevelt. For the first time in U.S. history, a president was elected to a third term.

end quote..

The word "isolationist" is misapplied as it is commonly defined. Isolationist werent true isolationist..just anti-war. Roosevelt pledged to the American voting public that america would not get involved in war unless attacked.

Von_Rat , im not sure what your asking or what your point is but ill try to answer you or explain. First, it seems you are confusing international Doctrines, policies, formal treaties, formal alliances, etc. with the coloquial ally. Basically you want a lesson on political science and international pre WWI European treaties. no time for that brother.(check 1882) here is a brief timeline (cut and paste which led to WWI

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1stimeline2.htm
quote


"Although the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 is cited as the first event leading directly to the Great War, the true build up was much longer. As well as growing public support for a confrontation - which varied but ultimately grew in the period before - the treaties and diplomatic relations so important in 1914 were all established years, often decades, before.

€ 1839: Guarantee of Belgium Neutrality
€ 1867: The Treaty of London: establishes Luxembourg's neutrality.
€ 1870: The Franco-Prussian War, in which France is beaten and Paris is besieged.
€ 1871: The German Empire is created.
€ 1879: The Austro-German Treaty.
€ 1882: The Triple Alliance established between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.
€ 1883: The Austro-Romanian Alliance.
€ 1888: Wilhelm II becomes Emperor of Germany.
€ 1889 - 1913: The Anglo-German Naval Race.
€ 1894: The Franco-Russian Alliance.
€ 1902: The Franco-Italian Agreement.
€ 1904: The Entente Cordial, agreed between France and Britain.
€ 1904-5: The Russo-Japanese War, in which Russia loses.
€ 1905-6: The First Moroccan Crisis.
€ 1907: The Anglo-Russian Agreement.
€ 1908: Austria-Hungary annexes Bosnia.
€ 1909: The Russo-Italian Agreement.
€ 1911: The Second Moroccan (Agadir) Crisis.
€ 1911 - 12: Turkish-Italian War.
€ 1912: Anglo-French Naval Agreement.
€ 1912, October 8 - May 30 1913: The First Balkan War.
€ 1913 Woodrow Wilson elected as US president.
€ 1913, April 30 - May 6: The First Albanian Crisis.
€ 1913, June 29 - July 31: The Second Balkan War.
€ 1913, September - October: The Second Albanian Crisis.
€ 1913, November - Janaury 1914: The Liman von Sanders Affair.


By 1914, the 'Great Powers' of Europe had already come close to war thanks to the Balkan, Moroccan and Albanian disputes; passions were running high and the Austro-Russo-Balkano rivalry remained deeply provocative.

end quote...

dont see the words United States in there do you!!!!. The united states had fomal treaties with all European Nations AFAIK in 1914. No formal war alliances or treaties. but the Brits and French were considered allies in the coloquial sense.

these clips are just clips, the whole truth is much much more complicated.

Von_Rat
03-21-2005, 10:58 PM
blakdog

dont see the words United States in there do you!!!!. The united states had fomal treaties with all European Nations AFAIK in 1914. No formal war alliances or treaties. but the Brits and French were considered allies in the coloquial sense.
_______________________________________________-

thats my point, there were no formal defence alliances. and my other point is france and britain were not considered as allies of the u.s. in 1914. friendly nations yes, allies no.


hell britain and france nearly went to war over the fashoda incident, not all that long before ww1. i forget exact date. but britain and france did not even have a understanding of mutual defence, until the german naval buildup threatened britain.
in the latter half of 19th century, britain considered france its most dangerous rival , not prussia/ germany. so if britain didn't consider france a allie until the german naval buildup threaten her, what makes you think the u.s. considered either a allie that we would immediatly join in a war.


i neither need or want a history lesson from someone whose view of history is so, lets say disorganized. anybody can cut and paste from internet, you really haven't posted much of your own thinking on the subject, aside from dog stories and slurs against the serbs.
try reading guns of august, or dreadnought. you might get enlightened as to the international situation prior to ww1. the internet is nice, but i prefer to read referanced works to learn about history.

as for ww2, blakduk said it best, i agree with him totally.

why don't we stop trying to give a history lesson to each other and just answer this.

is it your belief that the u.s. let down nations you consider our allies in 1914 and 1939, by not immediately joining the wars.

the original poster did. i disgreed with him.

Blackdog5555
03-22-2005, 01:03 AM
Von_Rat..First you ask for information and research, I give it to you. instead of looking at it or commenting, now you ask for just my opinion. I just didnt cut and paste i gave you the references to study. you failed to do so you get a D- for a grade. Now, you just want my opinion. LOL. You complain about my answers being unorganized. IROTGL. You agreed with Blakduk's assersions without reference or authority. Again you get a D-. Not doing so good.
----Welly, In not sure who u mean by the original poster. Im not sure sure who you mean by "our allies." but here's my opinion anyway.

1. no

end of lesson. ok now im bored. Just a word of caution in your research. I you trully read Guns of August you should express your own opinions of the book instead of asking silly questions & If you think you will find the truth in any one source, look again. Im through here; Cheers BD

Blutarski2004
03-22-2005, 09:07 AM
By 1940 the US was selling ever growing amounts of war materiel to the UK for cash. Just three examples of many: the high octane aviation gasoline consumed during the BoB largely came from American refineries; the Stuart tank was already in active service with 8th Army in North Africa before the end of 1941; the first Lend-Lease deal which sent fifty obsolescent US destroyers to England in exchange for "leases" to operate US military bases in British colonial possessions in the western hemisphere. Altgoether, hardly the acts of a "neutral" government leadership.

When Great Britain ran out of gold to pay for war materiel and further American support was restricted by the cash and carry provision of the Neutrality Act, Roosevelt and his staff dreamed up the Lend-Lease scheme to keep the door open.

Roosevelt paid a great deal of public lip service to "keeping the US out of war", while behind the scenes doing everything possible to get the US actively involved in the war. Consider the "Neutrality Patrol", whereby USN warships were escorting merchant shipping bound for England well beyond the official US 12 mile territorial limit. Of course, part of the motivation behind this was the fact that many of the ships were US merchants carrying US manufactured war materiel to England.

IMHO, Roosevelt's political neutrality pronouncements were a sham meant strictly to placate an isolationist US citizenry until a sufficient provocation could be found to turn public opinion and justify active entry into the war. Pearl Harbor did quite nicely, and Hitler cooperated beyond FDR's dreams to open the door into the European side of the war as well.

I will leave it to others to debate the ultimate morality of Roosevelt's war entry strategy. But his methods were by no means open-handed or straightforward in the antiseptic academic manner by which we like to judge such things.

Blackdog5555
03-22-2005, 12:09 PM
Blutarski, I agree 100%. The "we will stay out of the war unless attack" was a bit disingenios as all knew (before) after Sept. 1, 1939 that we were in it, and would be eventually be attacked by the Axis. (my Grandfather used to tell me that we were selling Japan Scap steel in 1938-40 and we all knew it was going to be given back to us in the shape of bullets and bombs) Germany was aready sinking our destroyers in the patrols in the atlantic. The AVG flying Tigers was an admitted covert US-China operation. A deal between Chiang Kia-Shek and Roosevelt. That was my point that we "not isolationist", just anti-war. good post. The reality of staying out of war while the world burns defies political reason as war would eventually come to our door (as Roosevelt knew). Still, one reality of living in a democracy is that you need to get elected, and although in 1940 the US Population was generally anti-war.. sentiments were to help the "allies" in every way possible. As most know, in The 1940 election the war in Europe already stared. People were not really thinking of the Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs of 1933-38 when they went to the poles in the 1940 election. Nice to see someone reads history with some understanding. Pardom my platitudes. BD.

Blutarski2004
03-22-2005, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackdog5555:
Nice to see someone reads history with some understanding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... same back at ya.

Aaron_GT
03-22-2005, 01:51 PM
You hit the nail right on the head, Blutarski

blakduk
03-22-2005, 09:44 PM
Blackdog- i'm not sure that we are disagreeing! It seems that you have gathered evidence to support my argument that i was too lazy to post. The central tenat of politics is that if you tell the bald truth all the time you will get crucified- human beings seem to have an innate understanding of this.
Roosevelt and many others knew of the inevitability of US troops being called for but couldnt dare state that until the population was ready.
The most common contemporary example of this is the notion that a government must tax if it is to govern, yet in a democracy you dare not state that that is what you intend to do!

Blackdog5555
03-23-2005, 12:44 AM
I'll agree with that. I was just pointing out semantics. Not really disagreeing. Posting in forums on complex geo-political historical events is not easy in four sentences or less. Especially after 3 glasses of Burgundy. Doesn't help with the spelling either. LOL. I enjoyed you posts. cheers. BD.