Advanced versions of the V-2 rocket

On Jul 24, 7:14 am, Eunometic wrote:
On Jul 24, 3:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Jul 23, 5:09 am, Eunometic wrote:

On Jul 23, 12:36 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:

The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

I agree that von Braun was always targeting space flight not military
applications however there was a lot to be said for in regards to the
V2 as a military weapon.

For instance he got arrested over the issue of spaceflight by Himmler,
he advocated underestimating budgets to governments and sacked from
his job in NASA over the issue it nevetheless it worked A solid solid
propellant missile was not feasible at the time.

One reason the allies got cuaght by suprise was that the technical
hierachy in the UK: Sandys, Lindeman(the later Lord Cherwell), Ben
Lockspieser etc didn't believe solid propellants could do the job or
that the problem of pumps for liquid propellants rockets was not a
soluable problem. (As it turned out a German fire pump manufacture
had an off the shelf solution!). In the USA Goddard's personality
meant that he never communicated his work or enthused others and it
died with him wheras von Braun was a charismatic salesman, manager and
motivator.

Solid propellants with sufficient performance to mach anything the V2
could such a missile was actualy used: this was the Rheinbot which was
meant to be a 150km range missile that could support troops on the
frontline without heavy artillery having to be moved forward and
without the use of dive bombers like the stuka. A sort of MLRS.
First and second generation missiles such as SCUD, Redstone, Atlas,
Thor, Pershing-1 all used liquid propellants. Rheinbot used 4 stages
to achieve this range.

Obviously the Whermacht was expecting great accuracy from Rheinbot and
this would've required a guidence system but some kind of radio
guidence was never completed.

Rheinbot was a smaller missile than the A4 and a few unquided versions
were fired of in anger. It was intended to include some kind of
guidance package, most certainly radio command or a beam rider, but
how to guide a missile whose rocket can not be cut off on command?
The only way I can think of is to fire of the mssile at an appropriate
elevation and then use airbrakes to slow the projectile down to the
correct speed as determined by an accelerometer or doppler system.
The V2 always tilted over to 48 degrees from the horizontal. The
integrating accelerometer (which output missile speed as shaft turns)
turned gears and made electrical contacts that controlled range by
throttling down and then finally cutting of the rocket motor to
achieve the correct velocity. I suppose a beam riding system with
draglerons for directional and velocity control and a single
accelerometer for velocity information was conceivable.

On the othe rhand while the 4.5km CEP of the V2 was so large as to
make the missile of limited value in attacking a specific structure
such as a factory, refinery or power station there was indications
that a great improvement of accuracy was achievable. With a CEP of
1km then 200 missiles, costing less than 100 fighters to produce and a
lot less to opperate could ensure that no area was not within 50m of a
warhead impact within a radious of 500m.

My post acknowledges Mr. Carrier's and Flannery's
and Dan's post as well.
My background is designing and building
rocket engines, solid and liquid, IMHO, if you can build
an A-4 (V2) you can build an SRB. The easy part of
SRB's is they scale up quickly,http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ast/index.html

If something works at 1000# thrust, it scales to
10K and then 100K fairly straightforwardly.
The so-called secret advanced solid propellants
would be easily achieved by von Braun's group,
if they tried.
IMO, the top scientists had no desire to follow
Hitler's suicidal dreams (including atomic scientists)
of building mass murder machines, and wanted
Germany to lose that stupid unjustified war.
Regards
Ken

The story of the unguided SAM missile known as the Taifun I (which
used storable liquid propellants discharged by gas generator) and the
Taifun II (which used solid propellants) is telling. These were both
developed by EMW at Penemunde.

Taifun I was so accurate its dispersion was the same as an anti-
aircraft shell. The idea was to fire them in salvo to fill a large
area of sky.
Because it was considered to expensive it was converted to solid
propellants. The accuracy degenerated and the whole idea became
unworkable.

Eurometic (what's your real name?), I think the author
of that idea regarding accuracy has a problem, gas
generation uses a solid propellant and is quite ticklish.
Solid rocket boosters have very good consistency.
Ken

On Jul 24, 8:45?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Jul 24, 7:14 am, Eunometic wrote:





On Jul 24, 3:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jul 23, 5:09 am, Eunometic wrote:

On Jul 23, 12:36 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:

The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

I agree that von Braun was always targeting space flight not military
applications however there was a lot to be said for in regards to the
V2 as a military weapon.

For instance he got arrested over the issue of spaceflight by Himmler,
he advocated underestimating budgets to governments and sacked from
his job in NASA over the issue it nevetheless it worked A solid solid
propellant missile was not feasible at the time.

One reason the allies got cuaght by suprise was that the technical
hierachy in the UK: Sandys, Lindeman(the later Lord Cherwell), Ben
Lockspieser etc didn't believe solid propellants could do the job or
that the problem of pumps for liquid propellants rockets was not a
soluable problem. (As it turned out a German fire pump manufacture
had an off the shelf solution!). In the USA Goddard's personality
meant that he never communicated his work or enthused others and it
died with him wheras von Braun was a charismatic salesman, manager and
motivator.

Solid propellants with sufficient performance to mach anything the V2
could such a missile was actualy used: this was the Rheinbot which was
meant to be a 150km range missile that could support troops on the
frontline without heavy artillery having to be moved forward and
without the use of dive bombers like the stuka. A sort of MLRS.
First and second generation missiles such as SCUD, Redstone, Atlas,
Thor, Pershing-1 all used liquid propellants. Rheinbot used 4 stages
to achieve this range.

Obviously the Whermacht was expecting great accuracy from Rheinbot and
this would've required a guidence system but some kind of radio
guidence was never completed.

Rheinbot was a smaller missile than the A4 and a few unquided versions
were fired of in anger. It was intended to include some kind of
guidance package, most certainly radio command or a beam rider, but
how to guide a missile whose rocket can not be cut off on command?
The only way I can think of is to fire of the mssile at an appropriate
elevation and then use airbrakes to slow the projectile down to the
correct speed as determined by an accelerometer or doppler system.
The V2 always tilted over to 48 degrees from the horizontal. The
integrating accelerometer (which output missile speed as shaft turns)
turned gears and made electrical contacts that controlled range by
throttling down and then finally cutting of the rocket motor to
achieve the correct velocity. I suppose a beam riding system with
draglerons for directional and velocity control and a single
accelerometer for velocity information was conceivable.

On the othe rhand while the 4.5km CEP of the V2 was so large as to
make the missile of limited value in attacking a specific structure
such as a factory, refinery or power station there was indications
that a great improvement of accuracy was achievable. With a CEP of
1km then 200 missiles, costing less than 100 fighters to produce and a
lot less to opperate could ensure that no area was not within 50m of a
warhead impact within a radious of 500m.

My post acknowledges Mr. Carrier's and Flannery's
and Dan's post as well.
My background is designing and building
rocket engines, solid and liquid, IMHO, if you can build
an A-4 (V2) you can build an SRB. The easy part of
SRB's is they scale up quickly,http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ast/index.html

If something works at 1000# thrust, it scales to
10K and then 100K fairly straightforwardly.
The so-called secret advanced solid propellants
would be easily achieved by von Braun's group,
if they tried.
IMO, the top scientists had no desire to follow
Hitler's suicidal dreams (including atomic scientists)
of building mass murder machines, and wanted
Germany to lose that stupid unjustified war.
Regards
Ken

The story of the unguided SAM missile known as the Taifun I (which
used storable liquid propellants discharged by gas generator) and the
Taifun II (which used solid propellants) is telling. These were both
developed by EMW at Penemunde.

Taifun I was so accurate its dispersion was the same as an anti-
aircraft shell. The idea was to fire them in salvo to fill a large
area of sky.
Because it was considered to expensive it was converted to solid
propellants. The accuracy degenerated and the whole idea became
unworkable.

Eurometic (what's your real name?), I think the author
of that idea regarding accuracy has a problem, gas
generation uses a solid propellant and is quite ticklish.
Solid rocket boosters have very good consistency.
Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

EMW Taifun (Typhoon):

Taifun was proposed by Ing. Scheufeln of EMW in Peenem?nde as a cheap
alternative for the delayed Wasserfall antiaircraft missile program
and was intended for attacking high flying strategic bomber formations
at altitudes up to 10-12 km.

The design was accepted by the RLM in October 1944 and put into
further development in EMW. The basic idea behind the Taifun was using
an impact fuse in view of the increased size of Allied bombers and
their formations, what in turn allowed great reduction of an explosive
charge needed for destruction of an aircraft. The result was a small
fin stabilised unguided rocket fired in series from a launcher for 30
projectiles placed on an 8.8 cm Flak gun mounting.

Two versions of the Taifun were developed, the liquid fuelled Taifun F
and solid fuelled Taifun P, while a number of other variants was tried
or drawn. Production of the F version started in EMW in January 1945
where 600 out of 1000 ordered rockets were built, then the production
was moved to the B3a Hydra underground factory in the Harz Mountains,
where some further 800 Taifuns, mostly P, were made, out of 20,000
Taifuns F and 50,000 Taifuns P ordered.

It is doubtful if the rocket was operationally tested, although the
target production number was 2 million per month and 4,800 launchers
in 400 batteries were to be deployed by September 1945.

The Loki antiaircraft rocket built in the USA in 1949 was patterned
after Taifun P.

The Taifun F was a liquid fuelled fin stabilised rocket. The
cylindrical fuselage housed co-axial tanks, inner for Sv-Stoff Salbei
oxydizer (90 per cent of nitric acid + 10 per cent of sulphuric acid)
and outer for Visol fuel (85 per cent of vinylethylether or
vinylisobuthylether + 15 per cent of aniline). The propellants were
fed into the combustion chamber by means of a powder charge
pressurising the tanks. The motor achieved maximum thrust of 1,000 kg,
dropping to 600 kg during 2.5-3 seconds. Two kinds of warhead fuses
were developed, a normal mechanical one armed by acceleration during
start and an electrical one, with a condenser charged by ionisation of
air during flight and discharged upon contact with the target. The
projectile was stabilised with 4 fins, giving additional
selfstabilising rotation.

The Taifun P was similar to the F version in general layout, although
had a cylindrical fuselage made of a steel pipe with walls 3 mm thick
housing a solid fuel charge 150 mm long, ignited by an electrical
igniter. The demolition warhead had steel walls 7 mm thick; four fins
were mounted at an angle of 1-degree giving additional stabilising
rotation.

Rob

On Jul 24, 10:25?am, Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:45?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:





On Jul 24, 7:14 am, Eunometic wrote:

On Jul 24, 3:51 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jul 23, 5:09 am, Eunometic wrote:

On Jul 23, 12:36 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Jul 22, 6:03 am, wrote:

The V2 was designed for a step into space exploration,
it was a crumby military rocket. A good cheap and fast
military missile would have used solid propellant, and
staging.
A single stage liquid fueled military missile is NUTZ.
Ken
[snip rest, good stuff]- Hide quoted text -

I agree that von Braun was always targeting space flight not military
applications however there was a lot to be said for in regards to the
V2 as a military weapon.

For instance he got arrested over the issue of spaceflight by Himmler,
he advocated underestimating budgets to governments and sacked from
his job in NASA over the issue it nevetheless it worked A solid solid
propellant missile was not feasible at the time.

One reason the allies got cuaght by suprise was that the technical
hierachy in the UK: Sandys, Lindeman(the later Lord Cherwell), Ben
Lockspieser etc didn't believe solid propellants could do the job or
that the problem of pumps for liquid propellants rockets was not a
soluable problem. (As it turned out a German fire pump manufacture
had an off the shelf solution!). In the USA Goddard's personality
meant that he never communicated his work or enthused others and it
died with him wheras von Braun was a charismatic salesman, manager and
motivator.

Solid propellants with sufficient performance to mach anything the V2
could such a missile was actualy used: this was the Rheinbot which was
meant to be a 150km range missile that could support troops on the
frontline without heavy artillery having to be moved forward and
without the use of dive bombers like the stuka. A sort of MLRS.
First and second generation missiles such as SCUD, Redstone, Atlas,
Thor, Pershing-1 all used liquid propellants. Rheinbot used 4 stages
to achieve this range.

Obviously the Whermacht was expecting great accuracy from Rheinbot and
this would've required a guidence system but some kind of radio
guidence was never completed.

Rheinbot was a smaller missile than the A4 and a few unquided versions
were fired of in anger. It was intended to include some kind of
guidance package, most certainly radio command or a beam rider, but
how to guide a missile whose rocket can not be cut off on command?
The only way I can think of is to fire of the mssile at an appropriate
elevation and then use airbrakes to slow the projectile down to the
correct speed as determined by an accelerometer or doppler system.
The V2 always tilted over to 48 degrees from the horizontal. The
integrating accelerometer (which output missile speed as shaft turns)
turned gears and made electrical contacts that controlled range by
throttling down and then finally cutting of the rocket motor to
achieve the correct velocity. I suppose a beam riding system with
draglerons for directional and velocity control and a single
accelerometer for velocity information was conceivable.

On the othe rhand while the 4.5km CEP of the V2 was so large as to
make the missile of limited value in attacking a specific structure
such as a factory, refinery or power station there was indications
that a great improvement of accuracy was achievable. With a CEP of
1km then 200 missiles, costing less than 100 fighters to produce and a
lot less to opperate could ensure that no area was not within 50m of a
warhead impact within a radious of 500m.

My post acknowledges Mr. Carrier's and Flannery's
and Dan's post as well.
My background is designing and building
rocket engines, solid and liquid, IMHO, if you can build
an A-4 (V2) you can build an SRB. The easy part of
SRB's is they scale up quickly,http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/m...ast/index.html

If something works at 1000# thrust, it scales to
10K and then 100K fairly straightforwardly.
The so-called secret advanced solid propellants
would be easily achieved by von Braun's group,
if they tried.
IMO, the top scientists had no desire to follow
Hitler's suicidal dreams (including atomic scientists)
of building mass murder machines, and wanted
Germany to lose that stupid unjustified war.
Regards
Ken

The story of the unguided SAM missile known as the Taifun I (which
used storable liquid propellants discharged by gas generator) and the
Taifun II (which used solid propellants) is telling. These were both
developed by EMW at Penemunde.

Taifun I was so accurate its dispersion was the same as an anti-
aircraft shell. The idea was to fire them in salvo to fill a large
area of sky.
Because it was considered to expensive it was converted to solid
propellants. The accuracy degenerated and the whole idea became
unworkable.

Eurometic (what's your real name?), I think the author
of that idea regarding accuracy has a problem, gas
generation uses a solid propellant and is quite ticklish.
Solid rocket boosters have very good consistency.
Ken- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

EMW Taifun (Typhoon):

Taifun was proposed by Ing. Scheufeln of EMW in Peenem?nde as a cheap
alternative for the delayed Wasserfall antiaircraft missile program
and was intended for attacking high flying strategic bomber formations
at altitudes up to 10-12 km.

The design was accepted by the RLM in October 1944 and put into
further development in EMW. The basic idea behind the Taifun was using
an impact fuse in view of the increased size of Allied bombers and
their formations, what in turn allowed great reduction of an explosive
charge needed for destruction of an aircraft. The result was a small
fin stabilised unguided rocket fired in series from a launcher for 30
projectiles placed on an 8.8 cm Flak gun mounting.

Two versions of the Taifun were developed, the liquid fuelled Taifun F
and solid fuelled Taifun P, while a number of other variants was tried
or drawn. Production of the F version started in EMW in January 1945
where 600 out of 1000 ordered rockets were built, then the production
was moved to the B3a Hydra underground factory in the Harz Mountains,
where some further 800 Taifuns, mostly P, were made, out of 20,000
Taifuns F and 50,000 Taifuns P ordered.

It is doubtful if the rocket was operationally tested, although the
target production number was 2 million per month and 4,800 launchers
in 400 batteries were to be deployed by September 1945.

The Loki antiaircraft rocket built in the USA in 1949 was patterned
after Taifun P.

The Taifun F was a liquid fuelled fin stabilised rocket. The
cylindrical fuselage housed co-axial tanks, inner for Sv-Stoff Salbei
oxydizer (90 per cent of nitric acid + 10 per cent of sulphuric acid)
and outer for Visol fuel (85 per cent of vinylethylether or
vinylisobuthylether + 15 per cent of aniline). The propellants were
fed into the combustion chamber by means of a powder charge
pressurising the tanks. The motor achieved maximum thrust of 1,000 kg,
dropping to 600 kg during 2.5-3 seconds. Two kinds of warhead fuses
were developed, a normal mechanical one armed by acceleration during
start and an electrical one, with a condenser charged by ionisation of
air during flight and discharged upon contact with the target. The
projectile was stabilised with 4 fins, giving additional
selfstabilising rotation.

The Taifun P was similar to the F version in general layout, although
had a cylindrical fuselage made of a steel pipe with walls 3 mm thick
housing a solid fuel charge 150 mm long, ignited by an electrical
igniter. The demolition warhead had steel walls 7 mm thick; four fins
were mounted at an angle of 1-degree giving additional stabilising
rotation.

Rob- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Loki rocket:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Loki

Loki Dart: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/n-1.html

Rob

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Eunometic wrote:
snip

Finally of course we have the allegation that the swiss knew that
there were concentration camps that were death camps in which
purposefull execution happened. The allegation is absurd. No one
knew this least of all the Swiss.

Through communications intercepts, concentration camp escapee reports.
photo reconnaissance and other sources the Allies were fully aware the
Holocaust was in progress. They may not have known the scope, this is
subject to debate, but they knew. Did the Swiss know? I don't know. I do
know the entire world, including the U.S., knew of the camps, Nazi
treatment of communists and Jews and the like. Newspapers in the U.S. and
U.K. had reported on the subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Not only that, the efforts by some to actually bomb the camps (figuring that
while it might kill the present prisoners but at least stop the holocaust
from continuing) must have been a figment of some people's imaginations.
But of course I'm sure Rob with all his copious research is already aware of
that.

Or wait, maybe he's not.





--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Jul 25, 2:28 am, Dan wrote:
Eunometic wrote:

snip

Finally of course we have the allegation that the swiss knew that
there were concentration camps that were death camps in which
purposefull execution happened. The allegation is absurd. No one
knew this least of all the Swiss.

Through communications intercepts, concentration camp escapee
reports. photo reconnaissance and other sources the Allies were fully
aware the Holocaust was in progress. They may not have known the scope,
this is subject to debate, but they knew. Did the Swiss know? I don't
know. I do know the entire world, including the U.S., knew of the camps,
Nazi treatment of communists and Jews and the like. Newspapers in the
U.S. and U.K. had reported on the subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

First of all Dan let me say this is a sad topic. I can only imagine
how it makes you feel. I can only say I've found myself taking some
uncomfortable and surprising positions on these newsgroups.

As far as I can tell no source claims there was a death camp till at
least mid or late 1942. There were concentration camps full of not
only Jews but political opponents (some who were released), partisans,
communists and Christians etc.

That Jews were singled out, discriminated against and dispossesed is
of no doubt.

However look at the context of the times. The Bolsheviks led the way
in this in scale and the allies had their own German, Italian and
Japanese internees. Compounding this was that 80% of German Jews
survived, they simply left before things got too serious while some
that stayed, amazingly, continued to remain free. The cover story
Germans were told was that they were being sent for re-settlement in
the east initially this may even have been the plan. There was
certainly a plant to place Jews in their own homeland in Madagascar
and many Nazis let alone swiss and germans surely believed this
themselves.

When the British decided they wanted to take South Africa as one of
their colonies they started the propaganda campaigns normal associated
with this sort of action. After burning the Boer farms the women and
children were placed in concentration camps where over 50% died from
the effects of inadequate food and sanitation shelter and the general
effects of not being in control of ones circumstances. Over half of
those were children. This, I think, is more or less what happened in
the initial to middle phases of the concentration camp system.
Remember this is the British acting on orders from Lord Kitchener.

After Stalingrad and after the mess got worse and worse and the whole
thing ended up bigger than they conceived of the whole slippery slope
to the abyss began.

Yet at all times there was a plausible explanation. The Zyklon-B
insecticide was used in the tons in specially designed fumigation
cupboard to delouse clothes. The portable cupboards were widely
advertised and used. After the war the allies doused people in DDT to
save lives.

The captain of the bismark. lindemann was of Jewish background while
Admiral Lutjens (presented as a nazi fanatic in sink the bismark) was
actually someone who wrote a stern letter of protest after
krystalnacht. You could always find the Nazi system being reasonably
tollerant at times.

What of those decrypts. The massive deaths in the camp system were
mentioned only once (I think in late 43 or 1944) and very briefly in
decrypts of ultra or enigma yet that source had to be protected with
plausible second sources. In the book "Delusions of Intelligence"
R.A. Ratcliff claims that strategic reconnaissance flights were flown
and aircraft developed simply to provide cover for ultra. In order to
decrypt enigma machines the allies needed to capture a machine with
its rotors, then use the brute force method of an electronic try all
simulation of the machine to work out the rotor setting for the day.
When the Germans introduced a new rotor wheel Belechely park was able
to work out the wirings of the new rotor over a few weeks because the
same message went out via the old rotors to some destinations and they
they were able to work out the wirings of the new rotor from the fact
that they had a known message. Had the Germans introduced more new
rotors while withdrawing the old ones simultaneously the whole system
would have broken.

In my opinion 'shamming' may have been the best way to stop the
killing, yet what reaction could that have provoked?

I think even Nazis would have found the whole thing repugnant. They
were into it because the Nazis got things done, made them feel good
and initially at least took care of people and communities.

In the end the citizens of Switzerland of all creeds and religions
were safe.

On Jul 25, 4:25 am, Rob Arndt wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:45?am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:


Two kinds of warhead fuses
were developed, a normal mechanical one armed by acceleration during
start and an electrical one, with a condenser charged by ionisation of
air during flight and discharged upon contact with the target. The
projectile was stabilised with 4 fins, giving additional
selfstabilising rotation.

This second fuse was almost certainly a proximity not a contact fuse
similar to "Kuhklocke" since this decribes the actions of an
electrostatic proximity fuse. It has only half the range of a radar
proximity fuse but is very hard to jam even today.

Having said that the Germans used electrical contact fuses for their
bombs. Because of the safety of this system the Germans were the
only nation able to ship bombs with the fuzes installed. Crashes of
German aircraft with bombs attached did not usually lead to
detonation. This however sounds like is a proximity not a contact
fuse.

The Taifun P was similar to the F version in general layout, although
had a cylindrical fuselage made of a steel pipe with walls 3 mm thick
housing a solid fuel charge 150 mm long, ignited by an electrical
igniter. The demolition warhead had steel walls 7 mm thick; four fins
were mounted at an angle of 1-degree giving additional stabilising
rotation.

The testing program for the liquid propellant missile kept getting
delayed so
a reliable way of manufacturing a consistent system was never found.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:08:40 -0700, Eunometic
wrote:

On Jul 25, 2:28 am, Dan wrote:
Eunometic wrote:

snip

Finally of course we have the allegation that the swiss knew that
there were concentration camps that were death camps in which
purposefull execution happened. The allegation is absurd. No one
knew this least of all the Swiss.

Through communications intercepts, concentration camp escapee
reports. photo reconnaissance and other sources the Allies were fully
aware the Holocaust was in progress. They may not have known the scope,
this is subject to debate, but they knew. Did the Swiss know? I don't
know. I do know the entire world, including the U.S., knew of the camps,
Nazi treatment of communists and Jews and the like. Newspapers in the
U.S. and U.K. had reported on the subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

First of all Dan let me say this is a sad topic. I can only imagine
how it makes you feel. I can only say I've found myself taking some
uncomfortable and surprising positions on these newsgroups.

As far as I can tell no source claims there was a death camp till at
least mid or late 1942. There were concentration camps full of not
only Jews but political opponents (some who were released), partisans,
communists and Christians etc.

While that is true, there is no doubt that the killings started
by the end of 1939 (Polish leadership) and continued into the
fall of France (the institutionalised) and the invasion of the
Soviet Union. In that one special units to kill off the Jews
followed the troops. Graves the later clean-up missed have been
found to collborate the photographs and eye-witness reports that
were smuggled out at the time.

It took a little time to get the slaughter machine
institutionalised, but the early efforts were quite bad enough.

That Jews were singled out, discriminated against and dispossesed is
of no doubt.

But not particularly worse treated than Russian prisoners of war,
Gypsies or mental incompetents. The Nazis had a long list of
hated and useless.

However look at the context of the times. The Bolsheviks led the way
in this in scale and the allies had their own German, Italian and
Japanese internees. Compounding this was that 80% of German Jews
survived, they simply left before things got too serious while some
that stayed, amazingly, continued to remain free. The cover story
Germans were told was that they were being sent for re-settlement in
the east initially this may even have been the plan. There was
certainly a plant to place Jews in their own homeland in Madagascar
and many Nazis let alone swiss and germans surely believed this
themselves.

When the British decided they wanted to take South Africa as one of
their colonies they started the propaganda campaigns normal associated
with this sort of action. After burning the Boer farms the women and
children were placed in concentration camps where over 50% died from
the effects of inadequate food and sanitation shelter and the general
effects of not being in control of ones circumstances. Over half of
those were children. This, I think, is more or less what happened in
the initial to middle phases of the concentration camp system.
Remember this is the British acting on orders from Lord Kitchener.

The losses in the camps were about 25% of whites and 12% of
blacks which is quite bad enough. No need to exagerate. (The 50%
number is for white children under 16.

The reaction of the British population when this information came
out during the war was in sharp contrast to that of the Germans
as knowledge of the killings in WWII came out. You might want to
look it up.




Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

But not particularly worse treated than Russian prisoners of war,
Gypsies or mental incompetents. The Nazis had a long list of
hated and useless.



And with typical Nazi anal retentiveness, insignia for them all to wear
to show what each prisoner's faults we
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_co...on_camp_badges
We speak of labeling people; the Nazis literally had it down to an art.
Back during the 1980s, the Israelis were concerned about Palestinian
terrorists hiding among the Palestinian fishermen off the coast, so it
was proposed that all real Palestinian fishermen should have to get a
license and be issued a difficult-to-fake badge that they had to wear
while fishing so that terrorists could be spotted. As soon as this idea
became public it was pointed out that something about it seemed
familiar, so it was quickly dropped.
The tattooing of numbers on the prisoners was, of course, also involved
in its specifics:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../tattoos1.html

Pat

Eunometic wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:28 am, Dan wrote:
Eunometic wrote:

snip

Finally of course we have the allegation that the swiss knew that
there were concentration camps that were death camps in which
purposefull execution happened. The allegation is absurd. No one
knew this least of all the Swiss.
Through communications intercepts, concentration camp escapee
reports. photo reconnaissance and other sources the Allies were fully
aware the Holocaust was in progress. They may not have known the scope,
this is subject to debate, but they knew. Did the Swiss know? I don't
know. I do know the entire world, including the U.S., knew of the camps,
Nazi treatment of communists and Jews and the like. Newspapers in the
U.S. and U.K. had reported on the subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

First of all Dan let me say this is a sad topic. I can only imagine
how it makes you feel. I can only say I've found myself taking some
uncomfortable and surprising positions on these newsgroups.

As far as I can tell no source claims there was a death camp till at
least mid or late 1942. There were concentration camps full of not
only Jews but political opponents (some who were released), partisans,
communists and Christians etc.

That Jews were singled out, discriminated against and dispossesed is
of no doubt.

However look at the context of the times. The Bolsheviks led the way
in this in scale and the allies had their own German, Italian and
Japanese internees. Compounding this was that 80% of German Jews
survived, they simply left before things got too serious while some
that stayed, amazingly, continued to remain free. The cover story
Germans were told was that they were being sent for re-settlement in
the east initially this may even have been the plan. There was
certainly a plant to place Jews in their own homeland in Madagascar
and many Nazis let alone swiss and germans surely believed this
themselves.

When the British decided they wanted to take South Africa as one of
their colonies they started the propaganda campaigns normal associated
with this sort of action. After burning the Boer farms the women and
children were placed in concentration camps where over 50% died from
the effects of inadequate food and sanitation shelter and the general
effects of not being in control of ones circumstances. Over half of
those were children. This, I think, is more or less what happened in
the initial to middle phases of the concentration camp system.
Remember this is the British acting on orders from Lord Kitchener.

After Stalingrad and after the mess got worse and worse and the whole
thing ended up bigger than they conceived of the whole slippery slope
to the abyss began.

Yet at all times there was a plausible explanation. The Zyklon-B
insecticide was used in the tons in specially designed fumigation
cupboard to delouse clothes. The portable cupboards were widely
advertised and used. After the war the allies doused people in DDT to
save lives.

The captain of the bismark. lindemann was of Jewish background while
Admiral Lutjens (presented as a nazi fanatic in sink the bismark) was
actually someone who wrote a stern letter of protest after
krystalnacht. You could always find the Nazi system being reasonably
tollerant at times.

What of those decrypts. The massive deaths in the camp system were
mentioned only once (I think in late 43 or 1944) and very briefly in
decrypts of ultra or enigma yet that source had to be protected with
plausible second sources. In the book "Delusions of Intelligence"
R.A. Ratcliff claims that strategic reconnaissance flights were flown
and aircraft developed simply to provide cover for ultra. In order to
decrypt enigma machines the allies needed to capture a machine with
its rotors, then use the brute force method of an electronic try all
simulation of the machine to work out the rotor setting for the day.
When the Germans introduced a new rotor wheel Belechely park was able
to work out the wirings of the new rotor over a few weeks because the
same message went out via the old rotors to some destinations and they
they were able to work out the wirings of the new rotor from the fact
that they had a known message. Had the Germans introduced more new
rotors while withdrawing the old ones simultaneously the whole system
would have broken.

In my opinion 'shamming' may have been the best way to stop the
killing, yet what reaction could that have provoked?

I think even Nazis would have found the whole thing repugnant. They
were into it because the Nazis got things done, made them feel good
and initially at least took care of people and communities.

In the end the citizens of Switzerland of all creeds and religions
were safe.

There was much more to the Holocaust than the death camps. The
Commissar Order combined with the special actions units orders to find
and murder Jews were followed with enthusiasm. The units committing the
crimes filed reports as a matter of routine. Enough of those reports
were intercepted by the Allies to have a pretty good idea what was going on.

The death camps were built so forward troops wouldn't have their poor
little feelings hurt killing babies. The poor slobs were committing
suicide and getting drunk to do the job. I am so broken hearted. I hope
they rot in Hell.

As for murdering innocent people the Nazis never hide the euthanasia
programme. They stopped doing it because they got bad press. They
decided to never again openly slaughter people en masse.

The Bolsheviks, British in the Boer War and all the similar examples
you make do not excuse the Nazis murdering Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals,
political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The Turk's
genocide of Armenians doesn't either. Mao and Stalin made Hitler look
like a piker, they just didn't use gas chambers.

As far as I am concerned Germany and Austria, as nations, have owned
up to what happened. Now Switzerland, France, Ukraine etc. need to own
up to their participation. Japan, as a nation,needs to own up to what
they did too. You see, it's not just about the Jews. It never was
despite aren't and his rants.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Jul 25, 1:49?pm, Dan wrote:
Eunometic wrote:
On Jul 25, 2:28 am, Dan wrote:
Eunometic wrote:

snip

Finally of course we have the allegation that the swiss knew that
there were concentration camps that were death camps in which
purposefull execution happened. The allegation is absurd. No one
knew this least of all the Swiss.
Through communications intercepts, concentration camp escapee
reports. photo reconnaissance and other sources the Allies were fully
aware the Holocaust was in progress. They may not have known the scope,
this is subject to debate, but they knew. Did the Swiss know? I don't
know. I do know the entire world, including the U.S., knew of the camps,
Nazi treatment of communists and Jews and the like. Newspapers in the
U.S. and U.K. had reported on the subject.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

First of all Dan let me say this is a sad topic. I can only imagine
how it makes you feel. I can only say I've found myself taking some
uncomfortable and surprising positions on these newsgroups.

As far as I can tell no source claims there was a death camp till at
least mid or late 1942. There were concentration camps full of not
only Jews but political opponents (some who were released), partisans,
communists and Christians etc.

That Jews were singled out, discriminated against and dispossesed is
of no doubt.

However look at the context of the times. The Bolsheviks led the way
in this in scale and the allies had their own German, Italian and
Japanese internees. Compounding this was that 80% of German Jews
survived, they simply left before things got too serious while some
that stayed, amazingly, continued to remain free. The cover story
Germans were told was that they were being sent for re-settlement in
the east initially this may even have been the plan. There was
certainly a plant to place Jews in their own homeland in Madagascar
and many Nazis let alone swiss and germans surely believed this
themselves.

When the British decided they wanted to take South Africa as one of
their colonies they started the propaganda campaigns normal associated
with this sort of action. After burning the Boer farms the women and
children were placed in concentration camps where over 50% died from
the effects of inadequate food and sanitation shelter and the general
effects of not being in control of ones circumstances. Over half of
those were children. This, I think, is more or less what happened in
the initial to middle phases of the concentration camp system.
Remember this is the British acting on orders from Lord Kitchener.

After Stalingrad and after the mess got worse and worse and the whole
thing ended up bigger than they conceived of the whole slippery slope
to the abyss began.

Yet at all times there was a plausible explanation. The Zyklon-B
insecticide was used in the tons in specially designed fumigation
cupboard to delouse clothes. The portable cupboards were widely
advertised and used. After the war the allies doused people in DDT to
save lives.

The captain of the bismark. lindemann was of Jewish background while
Admiral Lutjens (presented as a nazi fanatic in sink the bismark) was
actually someone who wrote a stern letter of protest after
krystalnacht. You could always find the Nazi system being reasonably
tollerant at times.

What of those decrypts. The massive deaths in the camp system were
mentioned only once (I think in late 43 or 1944) and very briefly in
decrypts of ultra or enigma yet that source had to be protected with
plausible second sources. In the book "Delusions of Intelligence"
R.A. Ratcliff claims that strategic reconnaissance flights were flown
and aircraft developed simply to provide cover for ultra. In order to
decrypt enigma machines the allies needed to capture a machine with
its rotors, then use the brute force method of an electronic try all
simulation of the machine to work out the rotor setting for the day.
When the Germans introduced a new rotor wheel Belechely park was able
to work out the wirings of the new rotor over a few weeks because the
same message went out via the old rotors to some destinations and they
they were able to work out the wirings of the new rotor from the fact
that they had a known message. Had the Germans introduced more new
rotors while withdrawing the old ones simultaneously the whole system
would have broken.

In my opinion 'shamming' may have been the best way to stop the
killing, yet what reaction could that have provoked?

I think even Nazis would have found the whole thing repugnant. They
were into it because the Nazis got things done, made them feel good
and initially at least took care of people and communities.

In the end the citizens of Switzerland of all creeds and religions
were safe.

There was much more to the Holocaust than the death camps. The
Commissar Order combined with the special actions units orders to find
and murder Jews were followed with enthusiasm. The units committing the
crimes filed reports as a matter of routine. Enough of those reports
were intercepted by the Allies to have a pretty good idea what was going on.

The death camps were built so forward troops wouldn't have their poor
little feelings hurt killing babies. The poor slobs were committing
suicide and getting drunk to do the job. I am so broken hearted. I hope
they rot in Hell.

As for murdering innocent people the Nazis never hide the euthanasia
programme. They stopped doing it because they got bad press. They
decided to never again openly slaughter people en masse.

The Bolsheviks, British in the Boer War and all the similar examples
you make do not excuse the Nazis murdering Gypsies, Jews, homosexuals,
political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The Turk's
genocide of Armenians doesn't either. Mao and Stalin made Hitler look
like a piker, they just didn't use gas chambers.

As far as I am concerned Germany and Austria, as nations, have owned
up to what happened. Now Switzerland, France, Ukraine etc. need to own
up to their participation. Japan, as a nation,needs to own up to what
they did too. You see, it's not just about the Jews. It never was
despite aren't and his rants.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I noticed that you left out the US and Britain- conveniently. They
knew about the persecution of the Jews BEFORE WW2 began and denied
immigration and then when war started never sent any special teams nor
bombers to stop the flow into the death camps nor liberate them. Yet
they show those 1945 films of Allied soldiers weeping at the piles of
dead bodies and emaciated living human beings... what a crock!

The US and Britain (especially the latter) were anti-semetic and have
long histories of genocide and persecution. In the US it was the slave
trade, attempted genocide of the Native Americans, Japanese-American
internment (over 60% were citizens), and support historically for
groups like the KKK (which in the 1920s was around 2.2 million strong-
first blockbuster movie was "Birth of a Nation"). Britain was used to
being an arrogant colonial giant that killed around the globe and
prevented Jews from going to Palestine when it was their possession,
even ramming the Exodus 1947 ship and beating the Jews on the ship
before sending them back to France (which did not want them) before a
return trip back to Germany where the Germans openly mocked them and
threatened them- even under Allied occupation. The US also
deliberatedly did NOT bomb US interests in Germany and there is enough
documentation available to prove US companies traded with the enemy
through other nations in violation of the Trading with the Enemy Act.

Rob

p.s. You can even go backwards or forwards from WW2 and genocide has
happened all over the world, but you blame Germany also exclusively.
Don't use me as an excuse for your hatred of Germans.