wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 12, 7:03 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Eunometic wrote:
(snip)
Note that the B-29 and particulary the Lancaster (as the Manchester)
was crap in it first year. The V1 never got the year.
You're forgetting one other factor he It was being built by slave
labor who were more than happy to do anything they could to sabotage it
during production if they though they wouldn't be caught doing it.
One technique was to urinate on the guidance system electronics. During
tests at the end of production this would pass fine; but within a few
days corrosion would set in that would make the unit unusable when the
missile was readied for launch.
That some forced workers were actively sabotaging V2 sub component
production in some plants is something that the V2 shared with some
other Nazi era plants.
The Nazis were not good at most things, not surprising they were
opposed.
It doesn't say anything about the cost effectiveness or potential cost
effectiveness of the V2. The V2, minus R+D costs, was much cheaper
to produce than an aircraft and even cheaper to opperate with less
risk to personel.
What I like is the way so much of it is "potential", rather than the
reality.
Like the resources the V2 pulled away from other missile development,
and other research projects. Like the real accuracy the type achieved,
like the "cheap" ignores the fundamental reality it was a 1 ton bomb
with a range of around 200 miles, using nearly 12 tons of structure
and fuel.
Rather ignores the other benefits the aircraft brought.
Junkers only employed 2% of foreign workers and they were
generally well treated. Several aerodynamicists and test pilots were
jewish for instance and they were clearly protected by Junkers personel.
So how about naming these people and how they were protected.
So Junkers employed around 65,000 workers in early 1944, correct?
Concentration Camp Prisoners Working and intended prisoner worker
numbers in the Aircraft industry, As of January 1944.
Table is Prison camp, firm, planned and actual prisoners working and
remarks,
Buchenwald,
Erla Leipzig // 2800 // 1550 // fuselages, wings, tails for Bf109
Junkers Schonebeck // 2000 // 1310 // parts for Junkers
Leichmetall Wernigerode // 1200 // 772 // cylinder blocks
Anhydrit Stollen // 10000 // 0 // parts for Junkers
Ago, Oschersleben // 1500 // 0 // Fw190
Dachau,
BMW, Munchen-Allach // 12000 // 3434 // engines
Dornier Neuaubing // 3000 // 60 // parts
Messerschmitt, Augsburg // 2400 // 2695 // Me410
Messerschmitt, Gablingen // 600 // 352 // parts
Messerschmitt, Dachau // 600 // 192 // parts
Messerschmitt, Kottern // 1000 // 341 /parts
Prazfix Dachau // 400 // 356 // parts
Sasche, Kempten // 1000 // 374 // parts
Flossenburg
Steinwerke, Flossenburg // 4000 // 1911 // Messerschmitt parts
Erla, Johanngeorgenstadt // 600 // 546 // Bf109 parts
Erla, Mulsen // 500 // 30 // Bf109 parts
Keramische Werke, Neurohlau // 100 // 100 Messerschmitt parts
Luftfahrtgeratewerke Zwodau // 1500 // 199 // Messerschmitt parts
Gross Rosen,
Famo Bunzlau // 1500 // 0 // Ta154 parts
Herzogenbusch
Steinwerke Herzogenbusch // 600 // 411 // repairs
Mauthausen,
Steinwerke Mauthausen // 500 // 423 // Fuselages for Messerschmitt
Flugmotoren, Wiener-Neudorf // 3000 // 1983 // engine parts
Heinkel Schwechat // 3200 // 2065 // He219 parts
Esche II // 10000 // 0 // aircraft
Natzweiler
Steinwereke Natzweiler // 400 // 261 // Jumo engine repair
Geratewerk Diedenhoffen // 600 // 0 // missiles
Neuengamme
Stram Hamburg-Bergdorf // 80 // 80 // parts
Ravensbruck
Erprobungstelle Peenemunde // 600 // 598 // V1, V2
Heinkel Barth // 2000 // 1721 // missiles
Mech. Werkstatten Neurbrandenb. // 4000 // 1981 // bomb-launchers
Siemens Ravensbruck // 2400 // 872 // radars
Maschinenbau Velten // 600 // 596 // parts
Sachsenhausen
Heinkel Oranienburg // 6500 // 5939 // He177
(probably a left over from the Hugo Junkers days)
It had the among the highest productivity of German aircraft plants.
The Germans discovered that Germans were the most productive
overall, then came foreign workers, then came slave labour.
Heinkel on the other hand ended up with about 40% foreign workers with
Ernst Heinkel spending time in jail over this due to the harsher
conditions.
See the above list.
In part because they were told to stop He 111 and tool up for Me 210
production when that program was a temporary disaster (because Willy
Messerschmitt had shortened the tail and built fast tracked the tooling)
and as a result production had to be shifted to the Ju 88. They would
have been better of building the He 219 which was efficient to mass
produce.
Me210 first flight in September 1939.
He111 built at the Rostock plant, with 1,399 built in 1939, 827 in 1940,
930 in 1941 1,337 in 1942, 1,408 in 1943, to use the USSBS figures. This
was the only He111 production line.
Heinkel was producing Ju88s at its Oranenburg plant from 1940 to
1942, some 298 in 1941 and 150 in 1942.
The He177 came into production at the Arado Neuendorf plant at
the start of 1941, and the Heinkel Oranenberg at the end of 1942
about 6 months after the end of Ju88 production.
The Me210 had 3 German production lines, Messerschmitt at Augsberg
and Regensburg and Luther at Braunschweig, the latter building 10 of
them. The Augsburg line had been producing Bf110, as had the
Braunschweig line, the Regensburg line the Bf109. All these lines went
back to their original types in 1942, after starting Me210 production in the
second half of 1941.
So the Heinkel Ju88 production was phased out in favour of He177,
the Me210 production lines came from existing fighter lines, and it
was always understood the He111 would be replaced by later types,
line the Ju88 and He177. For example Ju88 production climbed from
2,184 in 1940 to 2,619 in 1941.
(snip)
Ever read the numbers that died making it versus the number it killed in
combat? They were depriving themselves of more workers than the allies
of citizens.
So the idea is to bring up death camps or holocaust issues to distract
from the argument as to whether the V2 could have been cost effective?
No, pointing out how ineffective the V2 was except as a method
of killing workers.
The Dora camp had 60,000 workers. The Nazi camp statistics
record 12,000 deaths whereas other statistics say 20,000.
So if these were the deaths at the camp how come deaths in
claimed marches away from the camp are used as an excuse
to lower their deaths during production figure?
The sources of those deaths we
1 Allied bombing.
I have seen German air raid casualties make it to well over 600,000
it depends on what is being measured, the borders chosen, whether
it is just German civilians for example. The 593,000 figure appears
to apply to Germany as defined by the 1937 borders, so it excludes
Austria for example, and it is people killed, including foreign workers
and PoWs.
Richard Sorge in the Other Price of Hitler's war claims 410,000
civilians killed and "hundreds of thousands" missing. The 410,000
figure appears to be German civilians killed, then add 23,000 police
and civilians working in the military, 32,000 foreign workers and
PoWs plus 128,000 displaced persons, total 593,000. This total
is from the post war investigations of the German Statistical Office.
Note the total of 32,000 foreign workers and PoWs, perhaps
Eunometic can tell us how come the allies managed to kill so
many of them in 1945 at the V2 production line.
2 Deaths of labourers foced to excavate the tunnels used to secure
production facilities.
Somehow these are not supposed to count.
3 Forced evacuations and marches as Soviet forces approached,
How come they end up as losses for the camps they have marched
away from?
4 Deaths arising from intimidating people into producing would seem to
be the least likely cause of deaths.
I note Eunometic has decided this, please provide the relevant statistics.
By the way who exactly occupied the plant in 1945?
In other works there was nothing about V2 production, even when using
forced labour, that directly caused such heavy deaths.
In other words Eunometic is going to avoid the lack of food and
sanitation for a start, the absurd work quotas to go on with and
of course the SS idea of discipline.
In a relatively short time much of the production would have been
reduced to series of automated operations as the designs and
manufacturing operations were productionised with large pressed
or stamped parts etc.
Even assuming this was possible it would have been needed
given the SS was killing so many of the workers.
To put that in context:
Translation, need to find something bad someone else did.
"During the latter stages of World War II, Pforzheim, a town in south
west Germany was bombed a number of times. The largest raid, and one
of the most devastating area bombardments of the war was carried out
by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on the evening of February 23, 1945.
About one fifth of the town's population, over 17,000 people, were
killed in the air raid, and about 83% of the town's buildings were
destroyed."
By the way the RAF harassed Pforzheim in October and November
1944 with 10 raids totalling 39 Mosquito sorties, then the single big
raid in February 1945.
The USSAF mounted raids of the Industrial area in April 1944,
the marshalling yard in October and December, There were 5
further raids January to March 1945, on the yards and industrial area.
Savagery develops where people are trying to survive themselves.
Stupidity develops when people like the Nazis are in power, well
cared for workers are more productive for a start, weapons like
the V2 appear as another example.
If you are going to use slave labor at least use it to make something
that you really can hope to change the war situation with.
They lost an estimated 20,000 slave workers at Mittlebau-Dora on V-1/V-2
production:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelbau-Dora
There's some info on bomber costs versus explosive delivered
hehttp://www.spacedaily.com/reports/
The_Totalitarian_Temptation_in_Spac...
Here the claim is 6 V2's could be produced for the cost of one
Lancaster. That would be the upper cost of a V2, which was still and
immature weapon yet a very simple weapon once the technology was
developed. Halving production costs was a target. Unlike an aircraft
there were no elaborate fuel injection systems, carefully machined
cylinder for the engine.
So in one sortie the Lancaster delivers 80% of the same bomb tonnage
as the claimed 6 V2s. Given the number of sorties the average Lancaster
you can see why the bomber is actually cost effective. Fire a V2 and
you have used it, most Lancaster sorties came back.
The USSBS noted the 8th Air Force bombers managed to deliver
around 150 tons of bombs per loss. This would be short tons so
call it 135 long tons, or 135 to 140 V2's. Now compare the costs.
Oh yes, note the Eunometic declaration the V2 costs are as high
as possible and could only go lower.
By the way, any adjustment for the fact the Lancaster builders were
paid real wages and the V2 builders were largely charged out at
slave labour prices? If indeed the SS charged itself.
The empty, warheadless weight, gives some indication of the cost.
Just ignore the fuel weighed more than the empty carcass and what it
cost.
The V2 weighed less than most WW2 fighters and about a 6th of a
heavy bomber.
This appears to be the way to pretend the V2 was lightweight,
just measure it without fuel or warhead, so it comes in at around
2.87 long tons, this is still more than the weight of the early Bf109s
and Spitfires etc.
Go to the 12.65 tons loaded weight and it is more than the P-47
loaded weight, basically around the maximum weights of the
various twin engined types, like the Mosquito and P-38. And
a half to a third the loaded weight of things like the B-17 and
Lancaster.
Some 35% of the labour cost of a ww2 bomber was in the wings.
The v2 didn't have that nor did it have the complicated structural
connections to allow wing attachment. Apart from the autopilot
and fin/vane servos it was quite a simple device.
Ignore the fact the better guidance systems to produce the
claimed better results will up the costs. Just try and tell us
how much cheaper not fitting wings is.
As for the V-2's economics, from another posting:
"As a weapon the V-2 sucked. Even using your figures, we come to a
figure of total dead of
9,202 for Britain and Belgium, plus whatever the malfunctions amounted
to (say 500) so taking 9,702 and dividing it by your total production
and launch figures
There were barely 3000 V2's ever launched. Counting another 6000
produced but never completed or delivered or launched because they
got caught up in the final month or two of the war is absurd.
Except that the V2 needed to be fired within days of being built,
otherwise it was back to the factory.
Except that the claims about costs require the long production
run
we arrive at 1.6 deaths per V-2 produced; or 2.7
deaths per V-2 actually used- for a terror weapon it seems about as
efficient as a well-placed hand grenade.
It's as 'efficient' as any other bomber.
Eunometic has declared it to be so.
By the way the 570,000 deaths in Germany were the results of
hitting the country with well over a million tons of bombs, or under
half a death per ton of bombs, the V2 is well above that, thanks to
the lack of possible warning and its targets. Assuming the above
analysis is correct.
The tremendous amount of money
that was spent on them would probably have generated far more deaths if
it had been spent on other military weapons, or merely on thousands and
thousands more V-1s; which was a far more effective weapon from the cost
point of view- fromhttp://www.strandlab.com/buzzbombs/
The V1 was an effective weapon but it would have been countered
eventually and those counter measures were bound to become cost
effective. Hence the decision to produce both of them,
Try the V2 had lots to do with inter service rivalries and the Nazi
need for such symbols.
By the way I presume you are telling us the cruise missile is hopeless,
given the much better technology these days for shooting down the
type. Given the apparent idea that such defences would become cost
effective in WWII.
Improved versions of the
Fi.103 would have had midcourse guidance. (a minor course and range
update) higher speeds and longer range (up to 400 miles) and potentially
could have been made more difficult to intercept with radar altimeters to
allow low flights. The range was to be extended by disposable turbojets
(improving guidence accuracy due to less vibration as well) but with
these features the price increases as well.
As usual we have what the Germans did not do used as what they
could have done. But it is good to know even with these improvements
the allies were going to have cost effective defences against them.
'Afterwards, the Allies acknowledged that the V-1 was a tactical
success. It was also a very cost-effective weapon:
From a strictly dollar point of view, the V-1 cost the Germans less to
build and to operate than it cost the Allies in damage and
defense. A wartime British study [concluded that] using the German costs
as unity . . . it cost the defenders 1.46 for damage and loss of
production, 1.88 for the bombing, .30 for fighter interception, and .16
for static defenses, for a total ratio of 3.80:1 [in favor of the
Germans.]'
How long would that last?
Tell the USAF to remove its cruise missiles.
Oh I forgot, in order to make the German WWII technology look
good, technology from the 1950s or later will be selectively used
to show what could have been done.
Mittelwerk production costs per V-1 were around 6,000 marks per
unit...so that 2 billion marks used on the V-2's would have built around
another 333,333 of them; even taking 1/2 that money and using it for
more launch sites as well as destruction of V-1's in airstrikes before
they were launched and you could have around 166,000 more V-1s heading
toward Britain and Belgium- using the total number of ground and
air-launched V-1s used against Britain as a guide- 10,492; and the total
that reached Britain itself after malfunctions, interceptions, and
anti-aircraft fire- 5,822- we come
The argument is ludicrous in that the amount of material needed to
build 166,000V1's just wasn't available.
You mean the fact the V2s needed all that fuel for example, or all that
steel for a carcass?
Or just another attempt to avoid the problems of the Eunometic
economics, wish for a result and back fill the data.
V2 production costs were likely to
come down to RM50,000 and even RM28,000.
In other words around 4 to 8 times the cost of a V1. Even assuming
Eunometic's figures are correct, somewhat unlikely. And of course
the V1 could not have been made cheaper seems to be the other idea here.
The higher
costs of the V2 relate to a higher consumption of labour not so much
a higher consumption of material. Eventually costs are reduced to
the material costs and in the V2 a large amounts of materials were being
substituted for non strategic ones.
Consumption of labor has a rather sinister tone when to comes to V2s.
And the labour was cheaper than most of the usual workers building
V1s at Feisler.
By the way note the idea non strategic materials, as opposed to
cheaper materials.
(snip)
The V1 was not ready any earlier than the V2, the V1 would eventually
be countered by jets etc and V1 launch sites could be successfully
attacked whereas v2 launch sites were never ever found.
So in other words the fact the V1 was used in June 1944 is no
proof it was available earlier than the V2, first used in September
1944.
The allies were bound to develop jets and intercepting a
V1 with a jet is a relatively easy.
Yes folks, in the need to make the V2 a wonder weapon the V1 is
being written down. No point in mentioning the effort the allies
needed to prevent V1 attacks.
Oh yes, the allies did find and attack V2 launch sites, which were
harder to find than the V1 sites. Note the V1 sites were redesigned
to make them harder to find. And of course air launching of V1s
was used to extend their range but at a cost of relying on the
accurate navigation to the launch point by the aircraft.
At 1 and 3/4 people killed by each rocket (and the vast majority of
those civilians, not military personnel), this was a pathetically
inept
and unsuccessful weapon.
The records of Bomber Command and the 8th airforce are not better:
they killed mainly civilians. Infact their record is far worse.
At least at Hamburg and Dresden, it was their intention to cause as
much damage and as many casualties as possible in a terror campaign.
Try as much damage, if they wanted as many casualties try a mixture
of AP to hit shelters, fragmentation bombs to hit people. And also
hitting the surrounds of the city where people tended to move at night
to avoid the bombing.
Which was also the intention of the Luftwaffe once the attacks on
British airfields switched to London during the Battle Of Britain, years
earlier in 1940.
The attacks on London were directed against docks (in support
of the u-boat campaigne against supply commerce) and against specific
areas such as refineries.
This is nice, I like the way the 7 September attacks are taken as
the standard for the whole campaign. Ignoring the other attacks
and their effects on the city.
There was never a Luftwaffe "dehousing" campaigne.
Incorrect. Try for example the use of Sea Mines on parachutes
because of their high blast effect. They came with low accuracy.
Some results,
Clydebank, only 7 out of 12.000 houses undamaged, 35,000 out of
45,000 inhabitants made homeless.
Plymouth, raids on April 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29. Total of damaged houses
reported exceeded the number of houses in the town as damaged houses
received more damage in later raids, up to 30,000 homeless.
In Bootle around 90% of the houses were damaged or destroyed. Note
the Bootle council had resisted its fire brigade amalgamating with
Liverpool's and this hurt the fire fighting efforts.
At Liverpool some 1,900 people killed, 1,450 seriously hurt, and up to
70,000 made homeless as a result of the raids.
Care to comment on how those claimed accurate Luftwaffe bombers
hit so many houses?
The term "dehousing" was the British euphemisim for area bombardment
of densely populated urban populations using a device (H2S) the USAF
bascially called "crap". if anything was used at all.
The RAF used various marking techniques, the idea of H2S was to
locate the general area then use better crews and flares to mark
the specific target.
By the way if the USAAF thought it was crap why did it use the
system so much?
On one occasion a lone He 111 strayed and
accidentally offloaded on london. This was to begin
the cycle of increasing violence you seem to approve of.
Both claims in the two sentences are wrong.
For a start the Luftwaffe was flying night bomber sorties against
England from May 1940 onwards. These kept building during the
July to September period, they were up to 500 sorties in the week
12 to 18 August, compared with 1,650 day bomber sorties.
On 10 May 1940 bombs fell near Canterbury. Middlesbrough was
raided on 24 May. The first bomb on the outskirts of London fell
on 19 June.
As time passed the bombs began falling closer to central London
until finally,
London on 24/25 August 1940,
"After dark on the 24th the attacks were stepped up, and
some 170 German aircraft ranged over England from the
borderland to Kent. Largely due to bad navigation bombers
directed to Rochester and the Thameshaven oil-tanks
dropped their loads on the City of London. For the first time
since the Gothas of 1918, Central London was damaged in
an air raid. Fires burned at London Wall, and boroughs like
Islington, Tottenham, Finsbury, Millwall, Stepney, East Ham,
Leyton, Coulsdon and Bethnel Green all received their share."
The Narrow Margin, Wood and Dempster.
The Peoples War by Angus Calder, notes "considerable fires".
If a single He111 could carry this sort of load, then why build the
He177?
The attack on Coventry was made with the idea of pretty much wiping the
city off of the map in retaliation for a RAF attack on Munich.
Again that's not quite true. Conventry was the center of machine tool
production and had a Rolls Royce engine plant. These were the targets.
Actually the city was one of the targets, plus specific ones within
the city.
The Coventry raid was part of a series codenamed Moonlight Sonata,
talk to the aircrew involved and they make it plain the night was so
bright there was little need for navigation aids.
"The raiders first fired the medieval centre, crowned by its beautiful
cathedral, which was gutted. They then poured hundreds of tons
of bombs into the city in an attack which lasted for ten hours.
Approaching one third of the city's houses were made uninhabitable,
over half its buses were damaged or wrecked, and six out of seven
telephone lines were put out of action. All the main railway lines
passing through the city were blocked. A hundred acres of the city
centre were destroyed. Five hundred and fifty four people were
killed, eight hundred and sixty five seriously wounded."
quote from Angus Calder, The People's War.
Coventry had 213,000 people in 1938 and the number had increased
considerably by the end of 1940.
Some 21 important factories were severely affected. Then come
all the smaller works.
One of the major effects the British noted was the destruction of things
like the shopping district having a major effect as people found it more
difficult to obtain their day to day needs. This proved more disruptive
than the damage to factories.
The Luftwaffe had accurate targeting aids. The X-garaet for instance
guided the bombers along a beam, an additional 3 intersecting beams
provided the following functions, the first provided a warning the second
started a timer and the third stopped the timer and initiated a
calculation
that solved wind speed and direction and then released the bombs. It was
quite an accurate system. Although the claim is made that it was jammed
it was rendered ineffective not by jamming (the German systems could hear
through the jamming) but by the real danger of allied fighters roaming
along
the beam.
Think of the above paragraph in this way, with Oboe the RAF had an
even more accurate system than X or Y Gerat. So therefore the RAF
could not have been bombing indiscriminately right? After all that
seems to be the idea behind the Luftwaffe claims.
Just ignore the X and Y systems were for the "pathfinders", not the
main force. Also the RAF tried flying along the beams but without
much luck, the target density was too small, better to use ground
controlled interception.
By the way when the Luftwaffe bombed Stratford-on-Avon on 12
August what was the military target it was after?
The RAF's conduct of its nighttime bombings was far more severe in
inflicting civilian losses as a matter of calculation rather than the
sum of extenuating circumstances.
No, the Luftwaffe understood the same realities, and was quite willing
to have the perceived effects of civilian casualties.
The bombing of Rotterdam. The targeting was deliberate, and was meant
to help the German troops fighting in the city. A few days later leaflets
were dropped on Utrecht threatening them with the same fate unless they
surrendered.
The V2 was no worse. The lack of a firestorm probably would keep
civilian casualties down.
The V2 was no worse than other bombers except that the lack of
warning meant it would catch more people out in the open, causing
more casualties.
In all the thousands of bombing raids in WWII firestorms resulted on
so few occasions they can generally be named. Think of it this way,
aV2 hits an ammunition dump killing hundreds of people, about the
same sort of probability as a firestorm raid. The usual thing, look for
the exceptional results, not the normal ones.
The big difference was that at the end of the war, attacks on London had
ceased and Germany had its rail infrastructure destroyed and its
petrochemical industry rendered useless.
As my calculations showed: 200 V2's with a CEP of
1km pretty much destroys an oil refinery in that area.
If the CEP is 2km then 800 missiles will be needed
though the destruction zone is wider.
Great, now add 10 to 20% for the missiles that go missing in flight
and once again try and understand such accuracy was beyond
the 1945 Germans.
And if the refinery is to be destroyed by such a light weight
attack go look at the bombing results of attack on German
oil refineries. And their ability to be repaired.
(big snip)
Page 29 of Holsken's V-Missile book.
It was from a lecture Dornberger presented on December 14, 1939.
He stated that the A4 would be capable of launching from trains and
ships, have a range of 270 km and would only deviate from its target by
"some 100 m with regard to longitude and latitude"
It's been possible since the late 1950s to do that and
probably 500m was possible with the best technology of 1943/44
Try about 10 times that.
If you disagree then tell us why the V2 bombardment of Antwerp
did almost nothing to the port based there, given the V2s did not
have to operate at maximum range to attack the target.
(big snip)
You seem to be arguing that no improvements in the v2 is possible.
Improvements were quite possible.
Clearly there were improvements that were at a late stage of
development:
better gyros, better accelerometers and a more comprehensive control
system.
The dispute here is the idea the improvements were "at a late stage"
and they would be as good as Eunometic wants them to be. I note
the usual appearance of missiles from well after WWII as examples
and then the heroic assumption the technology was available in 1945.
Actually 1944, in order for it to make the production line.
(snip)
1km was, I asser achievable. double the accuracy of the gyros and
initial alignment, introduce cross range acceleromters and instroduce
a ball and disk integrator and 2km is a dead certainty and 1km CEP
achievable.
Eunometic keeps telling us and uses 1950's technology to do it.
Just ignore the realities of 1945 technology.
Think of it this way, in 1940 North American should have been
building the F-86, it was only 7 years away, sort of ideas.
(snip)
Yeah...right...Hitler was a really nice guy.
I'm pretty sure I could find you several million ghosts who might
disagree with that, starting with the population of Lidice.
Lidice was revenge for some kind of anthrax based assassination of
Heidger. on Nazi orders, but carried out by Czech security forces
(not Germans) lackeys as they were.
This is becoming hysterical,
Richard Heydrich, killed by Czech agents flown in by the British.
Using good old fashioned grenades, and basically the wound
being contaminated by horsehair and upholstery from the car.
Heydrich meted out brutal punishment and torture to those
suspected of being in the resistance and those who failed
to make Nazi work quotas.
No Anthrax. And I like the way the Czechs are lackeys for actually
trying to rid their country of the Nazis.
Probably very effective at
preventing further assassinations it had the effect of turning Czechs
against the Germans who were trying to bring them on side. The is
probably the reaction the British wanted.
Try the Czechs were already anti Nazi. The British did not need
to bring them on side, what the Nazis demonstrated was the cost
to the world if any of their senior people were killed like Heydrich.
See Lidice and Lezaky.
Heydrich's name was used as the operation name when creating
the death camps.
Remember why Hitler didn't want them to build the V-2?
Because it might hit that sphere of ice that surrounds the Earth at
around 100 km altitude and all that water could fall in, like during
Noah's flood. Then the Moon might fall in next, the way that one did
that destroyed Atlantis.
That makes even Stalin look rational by comparison.
Hitler's intuition (and he lived by it) was right. SST's and rocket
launches damage the ozone layer. Quite seriously. It's a modern
concern.
So where exactly is the dome of ice. Try the aerosol propellants
and refrigerants designed to be very stable at sea level become
highly reactive at high level as the Ozone's problems.
By the way why the need to show Hitler was supposed to be "right"?
Hitler didn't kill or execute randomly the way Stalin did.
This seems to require a new definition of random.
It's as simple as that.
Apparently the fact the Nazi killing program was more efficient does
not count.
Hitler was predictable.
You could guarantee he would grab more power and break his word.
Stalin tended to keep his word at international level.
He was egocentric, self centered and could be ruthless and exhibit a
temper but he was a vegetarian, had charm and good manners.
You really should read how many people found Hitler coarse,
lacking manners and good grace.
Or are you talking about another Hitler, not the one in charge
of Germany during WWII?
Oh yes, it shows lots when being a vegetarian has to be put out as
a virtue, in stead of the achievements as leader.
Unlike stalin he didn't kill large number of his own people.
Apparently the millions of Germans killed in the war Hitler started do
not count.
(snip)
If they are saying "Germany did it first" they are correct.
And this isn't the only time something happened like this; during WW I
Germany bombers and Zeppelins hit cities without much concern for
civilian casualties, and a group of German battlecruisers opened fire on
British east coast resort towns with no naval facilities in them with
the intention of causing as much fear in the populace as possible, so
that the Royal Navy would be forced to defend them, and divert some of
its ships from the blockade of the Baltic ports.
Yes and German soldier raped every Belgium woman and threw babies onto
Bayonets.
As opposed to things like hostage taking and collective punishments.
It is illustrative that the naval raids are ignored.
The targets of the Gotha raids were military or factories. The
reality is that bombers miss more often than they hit something. This
wasn't properly understood at the time.
Yet the Germans could evaluate the results and know quite quickly
it was the result.
The reality is that British q-boats attacked without a flag and then
machine gunned survivors in the water to the last man without mercy.
Oh good, can you please give examples of no flag and machine gunning?
War is a savage thing.
Eunometic needs to embellish it though.
Those baltic ports that were causing famin issues in Germany at them
time.
What baltic ports? The reality was the German navy bombarded British
coastal towns that had little in the way of war related industry.
(snip)
They shoved Japanese, Italians and Germans and probably others into
camps and they made them work. Had conditions gotten hard enough they
would probably have forced them more and more to do harder work.
You see here Eunometic is full of additions, the allies used axis
PoWs for work under the terms of the Geneva convention, just as
the Germans used allied PoWs. Time to add the allies might have
been worse if pushed, no evidence. Sort of summarises the Eunometic
world, full of fiction with the Germans gaining lots and everyone else
losing.
Of course the millions of Soviet prisoners starved to death in Heer
custody, or worked to death or starved or died of neglect during the
war are another story.
(snip)
It's sort of like two people in a fight when the cop shows up.
First question: "Who threw the first punch?"
And the London Blitz came well before Hamburg and Dresden.
You remarked on Stalin earlier.
Considering the Germany invaded Russia twice inside of thirty years, and
were responsible for getting 1,700,000 Russians killed the first time
around, and another 23,600,000 killed in WW II (over 13% of the
population; Hitler really did literally decimate the Soviet population)
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
The communists were rather good at blaming the Nazis for their
own crimes. Hides a certain demographic and statistical problem.
I note nothing has been produced to show the Soviet WWII
casualty figures are too high. I note the loss of Soviet citizens
to Luftwaffe air raids appears to be higher than the German losses
to air raids in Germany. Take a look at the death toll from the air
raids against Stalingrad before the Heer arrived.
Instead somehow the communists did it, or at least a noticeable
part of it. No evidence given of course.
Incidentally Russia declared war on Germany the first time around
On 29 July 1914, after the Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia, the German
ambassador told Russia even partial Russian mobilisation would
provoke German mobilisation and war. The Russians began mobilising
on 30 July, and on 1 August Germany declared war.
and I have not doubt the Soviets, were going to do to Hitler what
Hitler did to them first only 1 year later.
But we know Eunometic's beliefs do not match with reality very well.
As shakspere would say: pox on both your houses.
Ah, that is why they were after Stratford-on-Avon.
...I think Stalin showed incredible restraint in the way he dealt with
Germany after the war...I would have expected him to kill every man,
woman, and child in the the part of the country the Soviets occupied,
and salt the soil.
They considered doing as much but what good would that do to
Stalin? Random violence cemented in place Stalins power and
taught people fear. In addition the world was watching this time,
unlike the Ukranian genocide when only Mussolini and Hitler drew the
world attention to it and the New York times even refused to mention
it.
Try others publicised the famine and it was hard to obtain any
sort of good evidence.
The same sort of barriers that enabled some people to think
Hitler was a nice person, or was at least the better alternative
to Stalin.
Certainly Hitler had something along those lines in mind for the
Russians, so it would only be turnabout of unfair play.
The policy was never implemented.
I presume you have looked into the food shortages in the German
occupied part of the Soviet Union, propelled by a deliberate policy
of the military living off the land and major exports of food to
Germany.
(snip)
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.