Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: john9001 on February 28, 2004, 08:45:36 PM
-
What would the world be like today if the United States had stayed out of WW2?
Would Japan still control half of china, both Koreas, indo-china and the Philippines? Would Japan have fought Ho Chi Min?
Would Germany still control most of Europe including France?
Would Great Britain have signed a peace treaty with Germany?
Would Germany and USSR have fought to a standstill, made peace and devided eastern Europe between them, Would the USSR still be a major power?
Would Israel exist today? Would the Arabs still hate the USA?
What would the USA be like today, a super power that is hated by the whole world or a big harmless country that everyone likes , sort of like a really big Canada?
-
Why do we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?
-
this thread needs more type-R in it
(http://death.innomi.com/uploads/sigpig1l.gif)
-
Originally posted by john9001
What would the USA be like today, a super power that is hated by the whole world or a big harmless country that everyone likes , sort of like a really big Canada?
Who says everybody loves Canada? I hate those runny nosed little Socialist fish breath frostbitten scum.
-
What would the world be like today if the United States had stayed out of WW2?
Does this mean not lend lease or aid at all?
Would Japan still control half of china, both Koreas, indo-china and the Philippines? Would Japan have fought Ho Chi Min?
Yes, Ho Chi min would have fought without our air, I think he did mostly anyway. He would have lost eventually. Without the US in the war the Japanese would have a lot of resources to spare. The Japanese I am sure would have just rounded up and executed the Vietnamese people until there was no one left to fight.
Yes they would controll china and most of the pacific as well, Maybe even india.
Would Germany still control most of Europe including France?
Yes, they would eventually crush the resistance in France and I think they would have been able to at least keep the Russians at bay.
Would Great Britain have signed a peace treaty with Germany?
Eventually. Without any US aid, the Brits would have lost in the desert, I think. They would not have much of an army left to fight with and they could not invade alone.
Would Germany and USSR have fought to a standstill, made peace and divided eastern Europe between them, Would the USSR still be a major power?
No with no US aid at all I think the Russians would have folded. or if not folded, they would have been forces back past the Urals and then maybe sued for peace.
Would Israel exist today? Would the Arabs still hate the USA?
No, nor would their be many jews left.
What would the USA be like today, a super power that is hated by the whole world or a big harmless country that everyone likes , sort of like a really big Canada?
That would depend on what we did after the war. I am sure we would be hated more in Europe for not helping. The Arabs may have still hated us depending on what we did in the middle east post war. Over all I would say they wouldn’t, and would even they exist? How long before the Germans round them up for the ovens?
-
If we stayed out of WW2, we would have eventually become a very right wing government. Almost facsist. Henry Ford and his ilk would have tried to make a run for political power.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
If we stayed out of WW2, we would have eventually become a very right wing government. Almost facsist. Henry Ford and his ilk would have tried to make a run for political power.
Uh... but we HAVE a very right wing Government.... Almost Fascist... and Henry Ford and his ilk DO control polotical power.
The problem we on the Left have in educating the Masses is that we can't convince you just how miserable you really have it. We try, but as long as you're busy making your mortgage payments on your 2400 square foot ranch style with built in pool and your car payments for your Beemer and paying the tuition for the kid's private prep school you're too busy making money to work for social change... indeed, you're too busy enjoying the fruits of your labor... to be concerned with those who are less fortunate than yourselves and have no labor with which to enjoy the fruits from.
You really should be ashamed.
-
Airhead
I thought the troll had been ruined for ya?:D
-
GTO not trolling, just trying for a sig or two. :)
-
If we stayed completely out of WWII, we'd either be speaking German or Japanese by now.
-
There would be fewer idiotic hypotheticals.
-
Originally posted by SOB
If we stayed completely out of WWII, we'd either be speaking German or Japanese by now.
And watching "Leave it to Hitler" reruns on PBS
-
Ever read Robert Harris - I think the book was Fatherland where Germany does win WW2 and America stays out of the war - it takes place in the 60's 20 years after the war.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Uh... but we HAVE a very right wing Government.... Almost Fascist... and Henry Ford and his ilk DO control polotical power.
The problem we on the Left have in educating the Masses is that we can't convince you just how miserable you really have it. We try, but as long as you're busy making your mortgage payments on your 2400 square foot ranch style with built in pool and your car payments for your Beemer and paying the tuition for the kid's private prep school you're too busy making money to work for social change... indeed, you're too busy enjoying the fruits of your labor... to be concerned with those who are less fortunate than yourselves and have no labor with which to enjoy the fruits from.
You really should be ashamed.
Why is it that an immigrant can come to this country at the age of 40, with no English, and in the space of 20 years, with no help from the goverment, having mastered the language and redone a gruelling 7 year medical residency alongside men twelve years younger, raise himself to the enviable station where a 47% income tax is considered by some to be insufficient, while at the same time, an American-born citizen can complain, with great effect, that the hand he has outstretched for help isn't being filled with enough free dollars--many of which are coming out of the first guy's pay as he works 80 hour weeks?
That hand would better serve the second man if he used it to prop himself up and get to his own two feet--and who was more unfortunate than the man who comes here, with a family in tow, at the age of forty, without even the ability to speak the language and nothing but a small network of friends to lend him a twenty here and a fifty there?
The reason is that in this cycle is that people like you, who blindly support any and all measures to appease the whining loafers, have made it so easy to sit and beg that many choose leaching as a career rather than put in one tenth the work that some admirable Americans consider their duty to themselves and their loved ones.
There're more than enough hand-outs in the US. If you want to improve public education to give the masses a better shot at prosperity, try diverting a few billion from welfare and pay teachers more, give them more materials with which to work.
Speak freely. It's your right. Accept charity when it is offered, but keep your whoopee hand out of my already crowded pocket.
And keep your shame. You need it to drive you. I'm proud and thankful.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
If we stayed out of WW2, we would have eventually become a very right wing government. Almost facsist. Henry Ford and his ilk would have tried to make a run for political power.
What makes you think henry ford is a right wing militant fascist?
He had some crazy ideas about jews but he recanted them, crazy racist ideas dont make you a fascist. Or for example how ford single handedly raised the wage rate of millions of US workers by unilaterally raising the wages in his plants - forcing other employers to match to compete for workers...
Now the other day you said you were open minded and would be willing to change your stances if i could prove you were tool - well here it is - a link...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAWford.htm
and...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7689
Of course I just made it all up....
So are you a tool or not?
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Uh... but we HAVE a very right wing Government.... Almost Fascist... and Henry Ford and his ilk DO control polotical power.
The problem we on the Left have in educating the Masses is that we can't convince you just how miserable you really have it. We try, but as long as you're busy making your mortgage payments on your 2400 square foot ranch style with built in pool and your car payments for your Beemer and paying the tuition for the kid's private prep school you're too busy making money to work for social change... indeed, you're too busy enjoying the fruits of your labor... to be concerned with those who are less fortunate than yourselves and have no labor with which to enjoy the fruits from.
You really should be ashamed.
There you lefty's go again...I don't buy Kraut cars....I got a Lincoln Navigator...Drives the tree huggers nuts.
-
What sort of control did henry ford have over his plant during ww2?
Or are you saying every person who built or bought a factory in germany before the outbreak of ww2 was a nazi?
BTW what "war" effort are yoiu talking about? The spanish civil war? Cuz Ford got that award in 1938... Its nice how you try to link it to ww2.... Like ford got it and was in control during the war and then that factory was blown up and so was paid the money...
Anyway tread the links I posted, that ford sure is a war mongering right wing zealot... :rolleyes:
Some of you lefty automatic corporate haters are just a treasure...
-
Originally posted by john9001
What would the world be like today if the United States had stayed out of WW2?
What would the USA be like today, a super power that is hated by the whole world or a big harmless country that everyone likes , sort of like a really big Canada?
USA wouldn't be a Super Power.
The US wouldn't have received British money, islands, secrets and orders for planes that they may never have made; would not have received German scientists for their space race and other futuristic programmes; wouldn't have received Japanese technology and other advances they were making etc., etc., etc.
It's hard to say just what the USA would be doing today. Would they have even participated in the Vietnam war? Would there have been subsequent European wars? Would they have sent out spies to gather world wide technology and resources much like the Japanese originally did?
I think the USA would be like modern day Japan. Of course, all IMHO! :)
-
Originally posted by Replicant
USA wouldn't be a Super Power.
The US wouldn't have received British money, islands, secrets and orders for planes that they may never have made; would not have received German scientists for their space race and other futuristic programmes; wouldn't have received Japanese technology and other advances they were making etc., etc., etc.
It's hard to say just what the USA would be doing today. Would they have even participated in the Vietnam war? Would there have been subsequent European wars? Would they have sent out spies to gather world wide technology and resources much like the Japanese originally did?
I think the USA would be like modern day Japan. Of course, all IMHO! :)
I think the USA would have more than it's share of German, Japanese, Russian, British and other scientists immigrate over, just like we did before WWII.
The US was one of the most technologically advanced and the worlds richest country on it's own merrit before war.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
I think the USA would be like modern day Japan. Of course, all IMHO! :)
That wouldn't be so bad.. except the weird porn. :D
-
Henry Ford did not run ford plants in germany during ww2?
Tell me how could he stop them producing after the war?
Are you saying that he should never have invested in germany? That he should have been more prescient about hitler (unlike all of europe)?
Hitler made germany an attactive investment area during the depression beacuse of its economic strength, people invested an whoopdeee doo that makes them nazis..., :rolleyes:
-
We can learn a great deal today from the United States' earlier fascinations with "corporatism," as fascism was once called.
And this is of cpourse what its all about, isnt it?
Just like I said earlier in the thread...
"Some of you lefty automatic corporate haters are just a treasure..."
:rofl
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Ever read Robert Harris - I think the book was Fatherland where Germany does win WW2 and America stays out of the war - it takes place in the 60's 20 years after the war.
Never read the book but saw the movie with Rutger Hauer.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think the USA would have more than it's share of German, Japanese, Russian, British and other scientists immigrate over, just like we did before WWII.
The US was one of the most technologically advanced and the worlds richest country on it's own merrit before war.
I'm not denying that, but often power comes from who can be the first or most advanced the quickest. Everyone else is then catching up. I think that Germany would have done this and everyone else would be trying to catch up with them.
On another thought, it would have been interesting to see if Great Britain had relinquished its Commonwealth as early as it did do in RL. Would the war have made the commonwealth pull together more and be stronger.... that's a difficult one?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Grun, Henry Ford was in control of the German Ford plants until Germany declared war on the US. That means that for the first two years of the war he was helping Germany's war effort against the UK and the Russians and every other nation Germany attacked and occupied during those two years.
The US was officially nuetral up to that point. We allowed businesess to be owned in lots of countries I'm sure.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Of course. I'm saying he helped the Nazis ... not that it was illegal.
That's fine, but at that time it was just another war in Europe. Nobody knew what was going to be revealed later on regarding the Nazis.
To imply HF was like a Nazi and sympothized with them and willingly helped their cause is not right.
-
What would the USA be like today, a super power that is hated by the whole world or a big harmless country that everyone likes , sort of like a really big Canada?
First off the whole world does not hate the USA. Only the kind of people who the USA entered the war to fight against, hate the USA. The fascists the communists and the extremists of all kinds.
They don't like the USA because it mostly thwarts their aims. Some people in America try to spread the perception the America is hated because they want to to return to the kind of isolationism that Lindbergh and others espoused. It won't work and Americans enjoy the concept of freedom too much to sit idly by and let the world go to hell, literally in the WW2 case. It's not in the interests of American big business either.
So don't buy the lie that the USA is hated by most of the world.
But to return to the original question. I think the question itself is flawed. America was dragged into the war. America was in the way of Japan's ambition in the Far East They had to eliminate America's fleet and they tried to on December 7th. Hitler also gave the USA no choice by declaring war on it. America had no more choice than France, Poland or Holland. Holland was neutral but with Germany as a neighbour that option was not possible. Only Geographical separation and size prevented the same fate from befalling the USA.
American was in the way of Japan and Hitler's interests. The only possible way America could have stayed out of the war for Japan to be satisfied with it's foray into China and for Germany to remain within it's borders or at least it's claimed greater German borders.
In that case the post war world would probably be red in Europe. I think Germany would have become unstuck against the USSR in the end. The USSR really didn't need US aid it would simply have taken longer.
Once that war had finished, Stalin would have turned his attentions to Japan. Now that would be an interesting war.
-
I concur.
Empty shipping lanes in the North Atlantic would have done nothing to thwart the Russian resolve and desire for revenge, undo their Earth Scorching, quell their industrial capacity or their vast numerical superiority, or turn their winter in to a second summer.
The Germans were doomed the moment Hitler sent them East. It would have taken longer, for sure, but the sheer size and brutality of Russia and its armed forces would have swallowed the Germans eventually. No technological novelties would have been enough to save them.
As for the US, I agree again. This question is silly. Some say we'd be speaking German or Japanese today if America had not entered the war--doesn't that imply that America was defeated by a german or japanese aggressor? American interests were at stake early on, and ignoring the war in Europe or Asia would be no different than ignoring a Stateside invasion--or one at Pearl Harbor, for that matter.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
USA wouldn't be a Super Power.
The US wouldn't have received British money, islands, secrets and orders for planes that they may never have made; IMHO! :)
So the British made us a super power.....If thats true how come your food still sux....Chutney....YECCCCHHHH!!!!
-
Don't forget their various 'puddings'
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
So the British made us a super power.....If thats true how come your food still sux....Chutney....YECCCCHHHH!!!!
You tell em weaselsan
-
:lol
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
You tell em weaselsan
Nice misquote, you forgot to quote the technology from both Germany and Japan; the rocket scientists helped move USA from technology advanced into the super league where everyone tried to follow. Jeez, touchy spam can't take a hypothetical reply without getting your girdle in a twist.
So, you're saying that USA didn't benefit from German technology? Or from other secrets from the spoils of war?
-
Originally posted by john9001
Would Germany still control most of Europe including France?
Yes. But look on the bright side. At least the whole world would be driving decent cars. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Nice misquote, you forgot to quote the technology from both Germany and Japan; the rocket scientists helped move USA from technology advanced into the super league where everyone tried to follow. Jeez, touchy spam can't take a hypothetical reply without getting your girdle in a twist.
So, you're saying that USA didn't benefit from German technology? Or from other secrets from the spoils of war?
The Russians, British, French, Canadians, Austrailians and more all won the war together.
Why is is that only the US came into the "super leage"?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You are right that owning a business in Germany doesn't make Ford a fascist ... however he was a fascist. As early as 1922 he was financing Hitler's Nazi movement in Germany ... to the point that the Germans appealed to the US Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and halt Henry Ford's intervention into German domestic affairs.
The Bavarian Diet has long had the information that the Hitler movement was partly financed by an American anti-Semitic chief, who is Henry Ford. Mr. Ford's interest in the Bavarian anti-Semitic movement began a year ago when one of Mr. Ford's agents, seeking to sell tractors, came in contact with Diedrich Eichart, the notorious Pan-German. Shortly after, Herr Eichart asked Mr. Ford's agent for financial aid. The agent returned to America and immediately Mr. Ford's money began coming to Munich.
Herr Hitler openly boasts of Mr. Ford's support and praises Mr. Ford as a great individualist and a great anti-Semite. A photograph of Mr. Ford hangs in Herr Hitler's quarters, which is the center of monarchist movement.
- Vice President Auer of the Bavarian Diet, in Hitler's trial in 1923
I acknowleged Ford had his serio anti-smitic poblems. However he recanted them. And I would be very careful beliveng anything hitler said aboutb the exent of his support by somedidy as alrge as Ford in 1923... It would be very conveniet for his movement at the time, very conventient.
And what of the material I presented? Like for example the fact that he tried to stop ww1? Or that fo8unded all those left foundations? I think he a very complicatd man...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The Russians, British, French, Canadians, Austrailians and more all won the war together.
Why is is that only the US came into the "super leage"?
What I'm trying to say is that the US and Russia benefitted the most from Germany's surrender. i.e. German scientists going to each country. The Super League being Russia and US, and everyone else tried to follow their advances but have never quite caught up. Had the US not had enterred WW2 then they wouldn't have had many, if any, German scientists to bolster their technology into what it is today. Of course it's all hyperthetical but Germany would more likely to be the super power of today rather than say, the US. Again, IMHO! What ifs can never really be substantiated! :)
-
The only way the US doesn't get involved in the war is if Japan doesn't get all imperialistic. So let say they don't.
This frees up British colonies and pervious dominions to help in Europe. As well as a good chunk of the RN. So now you also have India, Australia, New Zeland, Singpore, and a couple extra Canadian regiments added to a potentially invade Europe or what have you.
I think that you will find that if this were to occure you would probably end up with a world that needed more cowbell.
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Nice misquote, you forgot to quote the technology from both Germany and Japan; the rocket scientists helped move USA from technology advanced into the super league where everyone tried to follow. Jeez, touchy spam can't take a hypothetical reply without getting your girdle in a twist.
So, you're saying that USA didn't benefit from German technology? Or from other secrets from the spoils of war?
I said Chutney sux and it's a misquote about German, Japanese, and Bengalese technology????? O.K. If you say so?????
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I acknowleged Ford had his serio anti-smitic poblems. However he recanted them. And I would be very careful beliveng anything hitler said aboutb the exent of his support by somedidy as alrge as Ford in 1923... It would be very conveniet for his movement at the time, very conventient.
And what of the material I presented? Like for example the fact that he tried to stop ww1? Or that fo8unded all those left foundations? I think he a very complicatd man...
I cannot believe you are defending a man who founded a USA chapter of the hitler youth. The man was a facsit all the way grun. stop makeing excuses, his side lost the war so of course he is going to recant everything to come out smelling like roses.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
I cannot believe you are defending a man who founded a USA chapter of the hitler youth. The man was a facsit all the way grun. stop makeing excuses, his side lost the war so of course he is going to recant everything to come out smelling like roses.
He recanted his WW2 fascism by trying to stop WW1 and founding peace organizations in 1936?
You are a tool....
-
Ford was a great american, no doubt about it. Flawed and eccentiric but on the blance of things he helped the america, the american people, the american worker and the world at large faaar faar more than any negative. Nobody can dispute that, well frogman can but he is a tool and a cxommunist who hates productive people and hate america..
BTW fpr all the BS about ford having built car factories in pre war germany lets not all forget that he built way more factories in the usa and deliberatly had them build weapons to defeat the germans..
So your Quisling comparison is nonsense. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Grun ... are you drunk?
No, why u think so? My spelling? I just mind speelling atv all on bbs, makes it more fun/
-
That was in response to Frogmans dumb staement that Ford ONLY did all of those things (I'm making the assumption that he read the articles i posted) because he felt the need to repent for the nazis losing the war, ww2. Trying to stop ww1 in 1914 and making those peace foundations in the early 1930s are hardly acts of repentant nazis...
Tell me what sort of a fascist joins up with a buch of left wing socilaists and tries to stop a big industrial corporate war of imperislsm? What sort of fascist sets up a giant foundation to fun progressive peace activities for decades to come? What sort of fascict is so progessive to raise the wages of his employees unliatreally?
You are so focused on your anti-cororatesism which you the readily link to facism that you are unwilling ton accept the fact that Ford is an incredibly complicated man. A mechanical and production genious on one hand while calearly a misguided political naive as witnesses by his various follies beggining with his quixotic attempt to stop WW1. You are aware of that right? He tried to stop ww1... What sort of facsist does that?
An your comparison to quisling, a man who openly betrayed his nation and delivered it to hitler, is in no way comporable to a man who built auto fcatories in pre war gemany...
-
How did i disreagard anything about him? I meantioned it all openly.
Look at the posts in this thread.
From the begging I was accepting that he was deeply flawed.
?Your first pots were just about how he was evil nazi....
Dont even say I wasnt presenting a balanced portrayal.
Nice how your comparsions are again very convenient. Ford as qusiling, ford as goring, ford as hitler.
Tell me what effect would ford starting left wing socialist leano9ng peace groups in the usa have on desuding hilrt from war in europe? :rofl
-
Its amazing you are calling a guy who tried to prevent a world war and funded peace groups for decades a nazi and that he is responsible for ww2 and the holocaust by extension...
How did ford use slave labor in germany? Prove that ford used any illegal labor in his german factories before december 7 1941. Afther that it dont matter cuz he had no contol?
Ford was a quack anti-semite, he ralized it was a mistake and stopped being one when he realized it was all based on lies - he was a production genious but politaccly naive. I guess norway does not favor forgiveness.
But I want to hear from you that you belive Henry Ford's life has been a net negative impact to humanity.. Say it if you think so.... I dare you, too...
No spell check, I dont care. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Shaddup, I'm watching "The West Wing"! I'll deal with you to you later. ;)
Yuck, I'll leave you be then... :)
"I'll deal with you to you later"
Are u drinking? :lol
BTW they really have that show in norway playing now?
-
No mention of slave labor there before december 41...
Ford played no major role in getting hitler to power, they won by having the nazis become a large party in the bundestag through bad elections and intimidation. Many german people wanted him in - they fell to his promises and propaganda. But if you wish to fantasize that ford was a big cause of it then so be it.
I am not surprised that french subsidiaries of american companies collaborated with the nazis, are you? Its typicall of the weak french character held by many of them at the time - they also murdered USA airmen in vietnam bu giving them to the japanese.
Ford "gave us cheap cars." Typical limited, materialistic, zero sum, socialist thinking.
Ford, his products and innovations created millions of high paying jobs and trillions of dollars of wealth for america, for all americans and really the world. Thats far more accurate.
He gave nobody nothing, he created the condition where gainfully employed people created value for themselves, for ford and for the communty at large. His wage rate increases made possibvle by productivity made millions of americans wealthier and help grow the economy. Gave them, gave them.... Thts always the problem with socialist thinking, zero sum, nobody can create additional value... Get away from that GS. :eek:
Which tracked vehicles did ford factories produce for the invasion of france and russia? Did he Produce Panzer
I? Panzer II? Panzer III? Panzer IV? Sdkfz 250 and 251? Henschel, Hanomag, MAN and a whole lot of german companies would beg to disagree.
"And he continued to give them these vehicles long after the war started, and even to the very end of the war did Ford's factories in Vichy France make vehicles for the Nazis."
How culd he stop that? Are you really so naive as to think vichi france was even remotely independant in fact?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
... and no, we don't forgive Nazis in Norway ... just like you don't forgive Communists.
Anybody who who honestly renounces that vile filth is fine in my book. I would forgive them and I would give them that chance up until the last second... They just have to decide.
-
Nice to see your arguments braking down to the point that you accuse me of being an anti-semite... :)
The only response to atht is that I'm confident in that not being the case about me - you may however wish to keep your fantasy, I appreciate it as sign of your weakness in this argument and my strength.
However in intrest of decency and for your charcters sake I do ask that you recant that accusation - its quite pointless, has little impact on me and only hurts you.
Now, where were we?
How did ford control the operations of its plant during wartime germany? Did he fly in from micxhigan and set up the plant?
What exactly did he produce? Which tracked vehicles? Which trucks and in what quantities?
Are you suggesting that he had direct control of his plants in wartime germany and that he could order them to not use slaves or to stop producing war material and instead make hair dryers or washing machines?
Here is some food for thought - from obvious evil nazi source...
This counters many of your claims, including on the control issue during wartime.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/ford.html#4
It does say slave labor was used between 41 and 45, but it argues convincingly that US ford could not have known about it... You see GS when I see evidence that may not suit my prejudices I acknowlege it, will you do tyhe same?
Like I said countless times ford although a brilliant genious of car manufacture was a a simple and naive political man swept up by anti semetism which he condemned later in his life when he found he was decived in the info he got.
You on the other hand are bent characterising hgim as hitlers number one man and fellow excecitioner who did everything possible to make sure the nazis won world war two up untill the last day of the war.
I counter that erronious perception with the truth of a man who tried to stop ww1. A man who funded numerous anti war, socioalist left leaning peace groups for decades. I counter it with a man who enabled the wealth of millions of americans and their move away from early industrial poverty and into the middle class. A man who made car ownership possible to millions of isolated farmers, enabling them to transport their goods to markery. A man who created jobs and wealth for millions in related industies. As for ford war production lets see some of your numbers...
We all know how much war material he produced in the USA as did GM and chrsler and any of the other corporations you seem to fancy as nazi fascist stooge...
And of course how did ford kill thousands of jews?
Pleae read the linked article, I welcome your respons and hopefull will see a positive cahnge in your hostility towards ford.
-
You're both NAZIs.
-
Originally posted by SOB
You're both NAZIs.
I think the USA is great, apart from SOB who is a banana.
(apologies to banana)!
-
Originally posted by SOB
You're both NAZIs.
But you live in Oregon! :D
-
Lucky me, I could live in California! Blecchhh.
-
The parallels between Hitler's Germany and Bush's America are chilling.
Of course being a "Bush Youth" sounds odd.
-
Airhead oh great Xtroller!
What are some of those parallels?
-
Had the US not had enterred WW2 then they wouldn't have had many, if any, German scientists to bolster their technology into what it is today. Of course it's all hyperthetical but Germany would more likely to be the super power of today rather than say, the US. Again, IMHO! What ifs can never really be substantiated!
German engineering was always good (but not an order of magnitude beyond anyone else the vast majority of areas), but German science took a significant hit during the Nazi era. Not only did many “intellectual elites” (Jewish and otherwise) emigrate but science became bureaucratic and political. Look at the team that ran the Manhattan Project and imagine it working (Jewish members aside) in a Nazi controlled and led environment -- just don’t see it happening. They were loose, creative, politically diverse (which had it’s problems to be sure), opinionated, eccentric, risk takers … what’s needed for theoretical science. It’s been noted that areas like physics (which Germany commanded a pre-Nazi lead) were almost thought of in the same way as the “degenerate art” the regime worked so hard to repress after Hitler came to power. The allies were way ahead in areas like nuclear research, radar, computers and codebreaking. And in many cases, these allied advances were not even considered early on (at great military loss) because they were thought impossible or impractical by Nazi scientists. Now, the Nazi’s might have been able to engineer a better atomic bomb -- if only they had thought one practical in the first place.
From an engineering standpoint the Nazi’s were marginally ahead with jet technology, well ahead with rocket technology (that was a decade away from having any real military application of merit for the work involved in developing it), somewhat behind in automotive technologies (IMO), well behind in industrial engineering and production engineering, ahead in some ancillary areas like optics… but not quite up to the mythology that has since developed. I’ll take the Manhattan Project alone over the sum of German technology during WW2.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Airhead
The parallels between Hitler's Germany and Bush's America are chilling.
Of course being a "Bush Youth" sounds odd.
Name five commonalities:
-
Originally posted by Airhead
The parallels between Hitler's Germany and Bush's America are chilling.
Of course being a "Bush Youth" sounds odd.
Oh this ought to be good.....Tell us how you came to this conclusion please.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Name five commonalities:
Only five?? Piece of cake!
Hell I can do just Bush and Hitler, the countries would be even easier.
Both are homo sapiens.
Both are caucasian.
Both are male.
Both have a full head of hair.
Both served in thier countries military.
If you want to be particular about the "country" thing, just take it up a level and stick, "Both countries had head of states that are...".
And that was just of the top of my head. I think the question needs to be clarified more.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Only five?? Piece of cake!
Hell I can do just Bush and Hitler, the countries would be even easier.
Both are homo sapiens.
Both are caucasian.
Both are male.
Both have a full head of hair.
Both served in thier countries military.
If you want to be particular about the "country" thing, just take it up a level and stick, "Both countries had head of states that are...".
And that was just of the top of my head. I think the question needs to be clarified more.
I meant the respective countries... So I'll start the list off:
Both had(and have) atmospheres of oxygen and nitrogen
Both were (and are) subject to the laws of gravity
Both enjoyed(and enjoy) blue skies on clear days
Although I think the creator of this sub-post was trying to promote the idea that Bush is a fascist. Personally, until the US Government decides to start euthenizing the mentally handicapped, I think Airhead's pretty safe.
-
The articlew by that jewish group and their resercher says that even in the 1930s ford had no control over his plants and that he gained no profit from them.
I am going to belive them.
You really must be naive to think that the nazis would just let ford do whaterver he wanted in their factiries during the war.
-
the Thirties, the management of Ford's German subsidiary felt so threatened by the hostility of the Third Reich that it consistently sought to ingratiate itself with the Nazi regime in order to keep the company viable. The importance of the government's good will for the Ford subsidiary's prosperity cannot be overstated; it became apparent as early as 1936, when Ford in Germany was denied certification as a national producer, a certification necessary if it was to be awarded government contracts for manufacturing. With such contracts steadily growing to constitute the vast majority of all sales in Germany, denial of certification was a grievous blow to the subsidiary. The subsidiary's management knew that the road to economic salvation meant submitting to government demands, even if that meant lying to or limiting contact with the Dearborn head office.
The company's managers at Cologne also feared for their own individual jobs -- feared that they would be replaced by political appointees. So Cologne's management attempted to assuage the Nazis' concerns about their and the company's loyalties in at least three ways. First, they introduced a racial criterion for the hiring of management staff. Foreign and Jewish members of the subsidiary's management board were removed, despite, interestingly, the strenuous opposition of Henry Ford. The first time that a Jewish manager was fired (in 1936), Ford himself was successfully able to reverse the decision. Subsequently, however (certainly by 1940), control of the subsidiary effectively shifted to Cologne, and Ford was unable to thwart further dismissals.
Second, the Nazi government, before the war, wanted to increase the import of raw materials that were in short supply. It also limited Ford's access to the raw materials it did have (generally, rubber). The company attempted to appease the Nazi regime and relieve its own shortages by importing as much scarce raw material as possible.
Finally, the Nazi government desperately needed foreign currency to fund the purchase of raw materials. Ford in Germany responded by attempting to maximize the export of its finished products -- negotiating with U.S. and U.K. Ford in order to secure profitable export markets. The company's German managers hoped that a favorable outcome for these ventures would mean that the German government would look upon their business more positively and that success would save their jobs.
All of these efforts failed to prevent the government from appointing executives at Ford in Germany who were more attuned and indebted to the Nazi Party than loyal to the company. A few members of management did retain their positions through the period spanning the Weimar Republic, the early Nazi period, and the war. But the power within the company clearly shifted from pre-Nazi or non-Nazi managers to government-sponsored managers, most pointedly Robert Schmidt, who was selected and appointed by the Nazi government. (Because, I believe, Fordwerke's senior management did not contest Schmidt's appointment, the company was officially allowed to remain under nominal American ownership.)
Who was in charge of Fordwerke when it used slave labor (it is now generally accepted that this occurred between 1941 and 1945)? By the time that slave labor was introduced, Fordwerke was clearly under the direct control of the Nazi government, though administered through the company headquarters in Cologne (albeit by Robert Schmidt). The meetings of the board of directors had already been suspended, and didn't resume until after the war. Although the American parent company desperately sought to retain control of their German assets, they failed to do so. Fordwerke became an instrument of the Nazi state. I certainly found no evidence that American management ever sanctioned the use of slave labor or that it even knew of the use of slave labor.
Ford had no control, end of story. They were under extreme durress by the nazis, who I'm sure we can agree are not the savory types when they want somerthing.
If he had no control there is no way he could be held accounbtable for what the factories produced.
Sorry dude, I know this must be crushing to your anti-corporate bias but the facts and commin sense logic are obvious..
-
BTW notice thae artickle seems to be sourced from the ADL, the Anti Defamation Legue a leading jewish rights organization in the usa and the world.
So frankly GS when it comes to the holocaust if they say ford was not so bad as you say then maybe I will belive them over you.
-
Hey if the Jewish anti Defamation League is OK with Ford's Company behavior during WW2 then who am I or who are you to argue them.
Don't you place any credence in the fcat that such a pro-jewish rights groups authors a paper that absolves ford of the accusations you are making?
I't seems that you dont. I really think much of your oppostion is due to stubborn and now baselkess anti-corportaism. I'm sorry you are not able to grow beyond that, even with faced with devestating counter evidence from a very ligitimate and significant source on holocaust and jewish rights/protection issues as the ADL.
Nonetheless I still like ya and I feel keeping good realtionship with you is more importat, even if yoiu are clearly wrong and stubborn. So now that i have gone so far as to show that even influenntial Jewish orgs are on fords side in this dispute, and yiu still wont accept it there really is nothing more I can write here in good faith about this issue while remaininig friendly or constructive. Good luck, and have a nice day today. :)
-
Originally posted by Charon
German engineering was always good (but not an order of magnitude beyond anyone else the vast majority of areas), but German science took a significant hit during the Nazi era. Not only did many “intellectual elites” (Jewish and otherwise) emigrate but science became bureaucratic and political. Look at the team that ran the Manhattan Project and imagine it working (Jewish members aside) in a Nazi controlled and led environment -- just don’t see it happening. They were loose, creative, politically diverse (which had it’s problems to be sure), opinionated, eccentric, risk takers … what’s needed for theoretical science. It’s been noted that areas like physics (which Germany commanded a pre-Nazi lead) were almost thought of in the same way as the “degenerate art” the regime worked so hard to repress after Hitler came to power. The allies were way ahead in areas like nuclear research, radar, computers and codebreaking. And in many cases, these allied advances were not even considered early on (at great military loss) because they were thought impossible or impractical by Nazi scientists. Now, the Nazi’s might have been able to engineer a better atomic bomb -- if only they had thought one practical in the first place.
From an engineering standpoint the Nazi’s were marginally ahead with jet technology, well ahead with rocket technology (that was a decade away from having any real military application of merit for the work involved in developing it), somewhat behind in automotive technologies (IMO), well behind in industrial engineering and production engineering, ahead in some ancillary areas like optics… but not quite up to the mythology that has since developed. I’ll take the Manhattan Project alone over the sum of German technology during WW2.
Charon
Wha....? you call having a crude cruise missles like the V1 and ICBMs like the V2 not to forget swept wing jet fighters in prototype as early as '39 only marginal? Never mind the vastly superior ground equipment.
The Germans were decades ahead of the Allies.
-
read "The man in the high castle" by Philip K DIck. bit different, the Allies lose the war, but very interesting assumptions about the 60s under tha premises
-
Wha....? you call having a crude cruise missles like the V1 and ICBMs like the V2 not to forget swept wing jet fighters in prototype as early as '39 only marginal? Never mind the vastly superior ground equipment.
The Germans were decades ahead of the Allies.
Just saw the response.
You're right with the definition "crude" missile. Check out the Navy's radar homing BAT glide bomb for a comparison. Far more on focus for a modern day cruise missile. I don't really recall the pulsejet going very far after 1945 either. And the V2 was not an ICBM. It could put a 2000 pound warhead 300 miles down range with a point of impact somewhere within a dozen miles of a target. A great engineering achievement that laid the groundwork for the US and Soviet missile programs of the 1950s/60s, but also a colossal waste of effort from a war winning perspective. It was another 10 years before throw weight was sufficient and range sufficient (when added with smaller atomic bombs) and accuracy sufficient to make an actual ICBM that was a dominant weapon.
Swept wing jets? I give the Germans a good two-year advantage over the allies that diminished as more attention was paid to the technology. Even so, the P-80 would have been a better A2A fighter in all but diving performance. As to the LW 1946 stuff, I can foresee enough resource being available to quickly catch up if the need arose.
Better ground equipment? Mainly by nature of policy. The Sherman existed as an infantry support tank that suffered because of a misguided consideration of the needs of armored warfare (Patton actually played a role in this). But, it was mechanically reliable with excellent mobility unlike the later generation German tanks. The reliability did improve, but the Tiger series lacked the offensive characteristics that made the earlier blitzkrieg so successful. Not to mention the Elephant, etc. Of course these are policy issues as well. That’s why I see this as a fairly even area with greater allied (US) reliability/general mobility; better optics and better cannon on the German side; stabilization systems and power operated turrets on the allied side… really a battle of policy decisions and priorities both good and bad on each side.
Would I rather be in a Sherman 76 compared to a Tiger or Panther (probably the best tank developed during the war) -- no. Would I rather be in a Pershing, Comet or Centurion -- not so much to choose from there. The T-34 series wasn't so bad either. What about the human engineering that went into the soldiers kit? The Garand rifle -- good enough for a decade or so (and more if you count the M-14) even after the MP-44 was developed. MG-42, best LMG of the war, but not seen as a need for US tactical combat doctrine. The 2.5 ton truck? The jeep? The Hellcat tank destroyer?
What do you think would have happened if the allies had put the $20 billion 1940s dollars and 10,000 people (including many of the top scientists and engineers) from the Manhattan project into rocket or jet research? Even with the Manhattan project hogging scientific resources there was time for centimetric radar and codebreaking.
[edit: The Germans spent $2 billion 1943 dollars on the V-2 program, which was equal in GNP to the $20 Billion the US spent on the Manhattan project. Had we seen the need for a V-2 we would have had one, maybe spending an extra billion or two as needed to catch up.]
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/v2.htm
Charon
-
Originally posted by ??
Wha....? you call having a crude cruise missles like the V1 and ICBMs like the V2 not to forget swept wing jet fighters in prototype as early as '39 only marginal? Never mind the vastly superior ground equipment.
The Germans were decades ahead of the Allies.
You're right, 'marginal' was the wrong word. Ineffectual would have been better, as would have impractical, foolish, vain, superficial, wasteful, or childish.
German novelty weapons, however cool, were developed and deplyed with a useless mindset. V-1s and V-2s had no effect other than the demoralization of the British populace(if you can call it that, because it probably did more to solidify their will to beat their enemy than anything else). Calling the V-1 a 'cruise-missile' is laughable. It went in a straight line and fell to the earth after a set number of miles travelled. It wasn't even the first expression of that concept. Engineers experimented with a gyro-stabilized flying bomb back in WWI. It was powered by a piston engine and could carry a medium-sized bomb aloft. Cruise missile? Fine. It wasn't winning any wars. Same for the V-2. What good is an ICBM when all it can take to its target is a bomb that could be carried, along with several others, in a low-tech bomber? These machines were toys, prototypes, that were years from practicality.
As for their jets. Well, all I have to say is that while pretty and sleek and fast and whatever, they made no difference. Again, a machine concieved and implemented more as an expression of vanity than purpose. You say the Allies were decades behind, why then didn't the Germans have fighters capable of the p-51s endurance? Where was there A-bomb when it may have made a difference? In reality, they were only ahead in very narrow elements of their technology and only because some members of their leadership were too shortsighted to develope more practical, less spectacular machines that could have won the war, rather than impressive concepts that made no difference whatsoever in the long run.
-
Just to be clear, that's Torque's quote. I should have put the proper atribution when I quoted it in mine. Wouldn't want anybody to be confused :)
Charon
-
As for their jets. Well, all I have to say is that while pretty and sleek and fast and whatever, they made no difference. Again, a machine concieved and implemented more as an expression of vanity than purpose.
lol.. oh sorry.
The ONLY reason the 262 wasn't effective at changing the outcome of the war is because it was too late. Had the Germans had more time, and had Hitler used them as fighters.. woah
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
lol.. oh sorry.
The ONLY reason the 262 wasn't effective at changing the outcome of the war is because it was too late. Had the Germans had more time, and had Hitler used them as fighters.. woah
Correction. Too late, too few, too short-ranged, too labor-intensive to build and maintain. Technology means also having the infrasctructure to support said technology. Making enough 262s to stop 1000 bomber raids would have depleted the German industrial reserves even quicker, and there still would have been ten p-51s for every 262.
Like I said, they would have been better off building something like a 4-engined bomber, or maybe a cheap, easily producable, high-quality tank like the t-34.
It's good that they followed the doctrine that they did, however. Not only did it lose the war for them, but it contributed to what today is perhaps the best Automotive tradition in the world.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The V1 was a cruise missile by definition.
It would have been practically impossible for the Allies to close the gap in rocketry technology. Even as the V2s were falling on London the British scientists said it was impossible. The Germans developed the liquid fuel technology that was essential to make ballistic missiles practical. The development of liquid rocket fuel is universally heralded as the greatest leap in rocket technology ever.
The Germans were in the final stages of developing the "New York" rocket when the war ended.
Why didn't the Germans produce a fighter with the endurance of the P-51? They didn't need a fighter with the endurance of the P-51. They did have several projects, but they all got cancelled because Germany needed interceptors more.
Germany was only months away from developing a working A-bomb. Some believe they had a working A-bomb in the final days of WWII.
Germany developed the first intercontinental bomber, the Ju390. Capable of carrying 22 000 pounds of ordinance to the east coast of the United States. Only two were made before the project was cancelled and resources reallocated to "emergency fighter program". One of the Ju390s served with the KG200 special-ops unit and made a recon flight to New York, some say to test the feasibility of dropping an A-bomb.
Germany fielded the first guided air-to-ground missiles and bombs. Germany was testing guided surface-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles late in the war.
Germany fielded the first jet fighter, jet bomber, and rocket interceptor. Not until the F-86 and Mig-15 did anyone develop a fighter that outperformed the Me-262.
Again, my point is that all these 'developments' were all but irrelevant given the type of war being fought. Having one or two or even a hundred of some prototypical super machine(other than the a-bomb) would have made no difference against the onslaught. Testing something towards the end of the war has no bearing on the war's outcome. What's more impressive--building 2 superbombers with a 22,000lb load and flying one once or several hundred more conventional b-29s, not just capable of dropping the bomb, but actually doing it with great effect. The American Colonies were 'testing' submersibles during the revolution--who cares? They weren't filling the seas with them and it would be a long time before anythnig like a useable, reproduceable model would reach the battle.
Your defense of the v-1 as a cruise missile, while it may be valid, is absurd when taken in context with modern cruise missiles. Tomahawks that today may make a serious difference in warfare are as removed from their WWI and WWII predecessors as the Minie ball is from modern Flechette ammunition.
-
It's good that they followed the doctrine that they did, however. Not only did it lose the war for them, but it contributed to what today is perhaps the best Automotive tradition in the world.
While I disagree with most of what you said, this is awesome !!!
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Calling a P-51 a fighter is also absurd compared to modern fighters. The Germans were far ahead of anyone else in most scientific fields. That they didn't mass produce the Ju390 because the war had shifted in favour of the Allies doesn't negate the achievement. That they could only make 1400 Me-262's and pilot them with rookies because they already had lost the war does not negate the achievement.
You're arguing that the Germans weren't technologically ahead of the Allies because they failed or were unable to take advantage of the technologies due to other aspects of the war. Your argument is fallacy.
Um, I never said they weren't ahead. Don't put words in my mouth. I said their technological edge was ineffectual, given the circumstances of the war.
-
It would have been practically impossible for the Allies to close the gap in rocketry technology. Even as the V2s were falling on London the British scientists said it was impossible. The Germans developed the liquid fuel technology that was essential to make ballistic missiles practical. The development of liquid rocket fuel is universally heralded as the greatest leap in rocket technology ever…
The Germans were in the final stages of developing the "New York" rocket when the war ended.
So what? They did great engineering to move the liquid fueled rocket to the next step, using the same percentage of their GNP as the US used for the Manhattan project. The greatest achievement of the program was tying up resources that might actually have helped Germany prolong the war. Had the allies put a fraction of the effort they put into the Manhattan project starting at a comparable time, well, I have no doubt there would have been no gap. The development of the liquid fuel rocket is the greatest leap in rocket technology ever. Thank you Robert Goddard. As for the New York rocket, how do you define final stage? One or two years from production, hope you get within 20 to 50 miles of the target?
Germany was only months away from developing a working A-bomb. Some believe they had a working A-bomb in the final days of WWII.
No, the facts don’t support your opinion. I mean, the Germans weren’t even able to produce a working atomic pile (as happened at the University of Chicago in 1942). Where was the German Oak Ridge? Even the head of the German atomic program does not make such claims. The only real controversy is weather Werner Heisenberg, whose task it was to build an atomic bomb for Nazi Germany, purposely decided against developing an atomic bomb [edit: to be more precise, Heisenberg stated in an interview that German scientists were well aware of the specifics needed to make an atomic bomb, but recommeded against it as being impractical in the timeframe of the war], or was just plain wrong about it being remotely practical at all and was trying to save face. Evidence seems to suggest that he was just plain wrong.
Captives of Their Fantasies: The German Atomic Bomb Scientists
Irving M. Klotz
Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208-3113
When the Nazi government collapsed in May, 1945, an Allied intelligence mission took into custody nine of the German scientists who played key roles in the German atomic bomb project. Under great secrecy these men were confined in a large country house, Farm Hall, near Cambridge (England), and their conversations were recorded surreptitiously by hidden microphones in every room. The transcripts were kept TOP SECRET for 47 years and were finally released recently. They give fascinating insights into the personalities of the guests and invaluable information on what the Germans really understood about the physics and chemistry of a nuclear reactor and an atomic bomb.
The Farm Hall transcripts clearly establish that (a) the Germans on August 6, 1945 did not believe that the Allies had exploded an atomic bomb over Hiroshima that day; (b) they never succeeded in constructing a self-sustaining nuclear reactor; (c) they were confused about the differences between an atomic bomb and a reactor; (d) they did not know how to correctly calculate the critical mass of a bomb; (e) they thought that "plutonium" was probably element 91. The Farm Hall transcripts contradict the self-serving and sensationalist writings about German efforts that have appeared during the past fifty years.
http://jchemed.chem.wisc.edu/Journal/issues/1997/feb/abs204.html
Considering the German atomic program was largely unfunded, and that the Nazi’s consider physics a “Jewish science,” that should be no surprise. Germany was no where near developing the resources even required to make the atomic bomb.
Germany developed the first intercontinental bomber, the Ju390. Capable of carrying 22 000 pounds of ordinance to the east coast of the United States. Only two were made before the project was cancelled and resources reallocated to "emergency fighter program". One of the Ju390s served with the KG200 special-ops unit and made a recon flight to New York, some say to test the feasibility of dropping an A-bomb.
The flight itself is a rumor -- maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t matter either way. You’re absolutely sure it could reach the East Coast carrying 22,000 lbs of bombs and return to Axis territory? It did fly in late 1943 and the B-36 [a proven intercontinental strategic bomber and not a maratime partrol/transport "bomber" like the JU 390] flew in 1946, but only because the War Production Board determined it was unneeded in 1944 and back-burnered the project. The B-29 was more than adequate (I suppose the He-177 equals that as well) for the Pacific and the need to attack Germany from the continental United States never developed as an issue. I do find it odd that Hitler, who wasted so many resources to terrorize the British with his V weapons, would pass up an opportunity to terrorize a few Americans as well if he could. Even if it was just one or two raids to siphon resources into home defense it would be worth the effort.
Germany fielded the first guided air-to-ground missiles and bombs. Germany was testing guided surface-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles late in the war.
The Hs 293 and the Fritz X and were notable achievements. Radio controlled and effective in an environment lacking a strong CAP and rudimentary ECM. The HS 293D even had TV guidance. As a counterpoint, the US Navy deployed the ASM-N-2 bat, the first fire and forget radar guided glide bomb in the Pacific. There were more than a few problems with the system (many due to training, maintenace and the operational environment in addition to the newness of the technology), but it did hit and damage Japanese shipping. If it weren’t so easy to sink Axis ships using conventional means by the middle of the war, perhaps guided missiles would have received more attention and funding. And, IMO, the Bakka was superior to all with a well trained pilot.
SAMs and AAMs like the Hs 117 and Kramer X-4 were also interesting weapons. Still, they were visually guided and of questionable accuracy -- never operational, but innovative. But not so far ahead (far less in fact compared to a V-2) than what Allied technology could provide if needed, which they obviously weren’t.
Germany fielded the first jet fighter, jet bomber, and rocket interceptor. Not until the F-86 and Mig-15 did anyone develop a fighter that outperformed the Me-262.
The P-80 outperformed the Me-262 in all aspects but diving. It outperformed the first Mig-15 it ran into as well.
P-80A
Speed: 558 mph
Climb: 4,580 fpm
Range: 780 miles
Ceiling: 45,000 feet
Me-262
Speed: 540 mph
Climb: 3,937 fpm
Range: 650 miles
Ceiling: 38,000 feet
Reliability: Both had initial problems. The P-80 solved it’s fairly quickly and served in trainer versions into the 1990s. What about wing loading?
The YP-80 was designed and built using the British De Havilland jet engine in a mere 143 days, after evidence of the Me-262 was discovered in 1943. You seem to confuse a lack of technical ability with a lack of interest. When the interest was there, Uncle Sam just wrote the appropriate check and made it happen.
[Edit: The GDP and program cost figures for the Manhattan project and V-weapons programs need further anlysis. The US GDP tended to run 2 to 4 times that of Nazi Germany during the war, and not 10 times as is suggested. If the $20 billion figure is actually adjusted 1996 dollars and not 1940s dollars, then the progam cost for the Manhattan project and the V-weapons programs don't match up to some stated figures. Someting to look into when time allows.]
Charon
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Germans developed the liquid fuel technology that was essential to make ballistic missiles practical. The development of liquid rocket fuel is universally heralded as the greatest leap in rocket technology ever.
The American, Dr. Robert Goddard was the rocket pioneer and the Germans studied his results for their rocket programs.
Goddard launched the world's first liquid fueled rocket on March 16, 1926..... having first conceived of the idea in 1909
-
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/75th/history.htm
GODDARD'S HISTORIC FIRSTS
First explored mathematically the practicality of using rocket propulsion to reach high & altitudes and even the moon (1912);
First proved, by actual static test, that a rocket will work in a vacuum, that it needs no air to push against;
First developed and shot a liquid fuel rocket, March 16,1926;
First shot a scientific payload (barometer and camera) in a rocket flight (1929, Auburn, Massachusetts);
First used vanes in the rocket motor blast for guidance (1932, New Mexico);
First developed gyro control apparatus for rocket flight (1932, New Mexico);
First received U.S. patent in idea of multi-stage rocket (1914);
First developed pumps suitable for rocket fuels;
First launched successfully a rocket with a motor pivoted on gimbals under the influence of a & gyro mechanism (1937).
In 1914, Goddard received two U.S. patents. One was for a rocket using liquid fuel. The other was for a two or three stage rocket using solid fuel
Towards the end of his 1920 report, Goddard outlined the possibility of a rocket reaching the moon and exploding a load of flash powder there to mark its arrival. The bulk of his scientific report to the Smithsonian was a dry explanation of how he used the $5000 grant in his research. Yet, the press picked up Goddard' s scientific proposal about a rocket flight to the moon and erected a journalistic controversy concerning the feasibility of such a thing. Much ridicule came Goddard's way. And he reached firm convictions about the virtues of the press corps which he held for the rest of his life. Yet, several score of the 1750 copies of the 1920 Smithsonian report reached Europe. The German Rocket Society was formed in 1927, and the German Army began its rocket program in 1931. Goddard's greatest engineering contributions were made during his work in the 1920's and 1930's (see list of historic firsts). He received a total of $10,000 from the Smithsonian by 1927, and through the personal efforts of Charles A. Lindbergh, he subsequently received financial support from the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation. Progress on all of his work was published in "Liquid Propellant Rocket Development," which was published by the Smithsonian in 1936.
Goddard's work largely anticipated in technical detail the later German V-2 missiles, including gyroscopic control, steering by means of vanes in the jet stream of the rocket motor, gimbalsteering, power-driven fuel pumps and other devices
You dont think the US could have had a nice rocket program just as advanced, maybe more so, than the Germans if the government spent the money on it?