Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Joakim < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 252
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 05:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You wrote this on another thread:

"strictly speaking Russia was as instrumental as the US in winning the war"

IF you are talking about WWII then this is my reply:

Given that Russia was instrumental to helping Hitler start WWII, as an American I find your statement to be highly offensive. Their "contributions" at the end of the war were purely the result of being double crossed.
This space open to interpretation
 

Joakim Ruud
Intermediate Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 499
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 08:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron, now you are entering a complex and difficult field. Blame for allowing Hitler to rise to power rests at many different feet, admittedly among them Stalin, but Hitler was helped along by Western nations also. Most famously/notoriously by Chamberlain and his mantra "peace in our time".

However, if Russia had not survived, and then repelled, the German invasion in 1941, and the subsequent counterattacks, tying up vast German resources (the Western front could be described as a side-show compared to the eastern front), then neither D-day nor the Italian landings would have ever happened.

Putting "contributions" in quotation marks, like the eastern front really didn't mean much, shows that you haven't read up on the matter. In fact, Russia was fighting against Germany for a lot longer than the US was!

Since Chamberlain did what he did, are you suggesting that you'd be offended if I stated that the UK made a big contribution to winning the war...?

I don't see how you could be offended by my stating a simple historical fact. It has nothing to do with my personal political preferences or allegiances, it's like stating that a clear sky is blue.

Edited for a typo that changed the entire meaning of a statement... :-p

(Message edited by joques on January 05, 2007)
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 253
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 09:19 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We are not talking about England and Chambelain. American did not have a Chamberlain.

Interesting that you consider the Battle of Iwo Jima and Midway as well as the Bataan Death March as a side show.

To get back on point in terms of contributions between Americans and Russians to WWII, I have a simple question for you.

What percent of Russians died on foreign soil and what percent of Americans died on foreign soil?
This space open to interpretation
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 501
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Interesting that you consider the Battle of Iwo Jima and Midway as well as the Bataan Death March as a side show."

What part of "The Western front" did you not understand?

"We are not talking about England and Chambelain. American did not have a Chamberlain"

I didn't say that it did (you do know the difference between the UK and the US, don't you? Please read my post again.) I said that Chamberlain and his administration bears some blame for Hitler's rise to power. And as you were offended that I'd mention Russia's contributions in WWII since they also bear some of that blame, I somewhat facetiously projected that you'd be just as offended that I mentioned the UK's contributions.

"What percent of Russians died on foreign soil and what percent of Americans died on foreign soil?"

I do not have those numbers. But I would be very much surprised if more Americans died on foreign soil than did Russians. The fighting in eastern Europe outside Russia's borders was...ferocious. I presume you have hard numbers on this, since you brought up the point?

It's all moot, though, as that was not the point of my original comment. My point was merely that Russia was _at_least_ as instrumental in defeating Germany as the US and the Western allies were.

You're the one who got all offended.

(Message edited by joques on January 05, 2007)
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 502
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 10:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

...just want to interject, for the benefit of any British brewing brethren (hoo, alliteration! How clever of me! I think my strong bitter may be getting the better of me tonight...) who might improbably be reading this rather meaningless exchange:

I'm not claiming that Chamberlain was unique in his appeasance. All over the Western world there was widespread sympathy for Hitler and his administration before the war. We were all guilty of that. It's just that Chamberlain is so iconic.
...then he got a look on his face as if he were thinking. Daniel had learned, in his almost seventy
years, not to expect much of of people who got such looks, because thinking really was
something one ought to do all the time.

-Neal Stephenson, The System of the World
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 254
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 11:06 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I thought you were refering to "our" Western front. My mistake.

Here is my point, pretty close to 100% of our casualties were on foreign soil while the Russians were fighting to preserve their homeland.

Seems to me that the fact that we sent our folks across a vast ocean to fight on foreign soil while the Russians were 1. partly to blame for starting that mess and 2. only fought on our side because they got double crossed means, to me, that our contribution were vastly superior to the Russians.

To equate Russian contributions with America's is simply wrong in my opinion.
This space open to interpretation
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 503
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, January 05, 2007 - 11:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ah, you were referring to the Pacific Theatre. No, my mistake.

"Here is my point, pretty close to 100% of our casualties were on foreign soil while the Russians were fighting to preserve their homeland."

I see your point now. Cunning of you to phrase your question like that :-) I still don't see how Russians fighting for their motherland is less of a contribution to defeating Hitler. I happily concede that it takes a whole other outlook to go out and fight a war on behalf of another nation than to defend your homeland. And I am very happy that it happened, or I might conceivably be speaking Russian today. Just so that we're entirely clear on this: I am VERY grateful that the US got involved in the war.

I still don't see how this makes Russia's contributions to defeating Germany any less, or what the heck you got so offended about.

Without Russia, Hitler would have lived to a ripe old age. Unless he were assassinated, of course :-p

I don't see how this can go forward from here. Shall we agree to disagree?
...then he got a look on his face as if he were thinking. Daniel had learned, in his almost seventy
years, not to expect much of of people who got such looks, because thinking really was
something one ought to do all the time.

-Neal Stephenson, The System of the World
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 255
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 12:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Shall we agree to disagree?"

We can but one more point if I may. America chose to fight while the Russians were forced to. I guess what I am really doing is giving what I consider a significal moral advantage to America in terms of its contributions as opposed to just its people and machinery.

Peace.
This space open to interpretation
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 6179
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 03:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We can argue that Stalin was as much a monster as Hitler (he was responsible for an even greater number of deaths), but it is difficult to ignore the huge losses suffered by Russia during World War II. More than a million died at Stalingrad alone.

I'm not sure that the moral high ground is worth fighting for more than 60 years after the facts.
 

Graham Cox
Advanced Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 836
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 08:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As an amateur WWII historian, I cannot help but weigh in on this friendly debate.

It goes without saying that the Soviet Union was a very significant participant in the defeat of Nazi Germany. If you compare the sheer numbers of men and machines contributed by the Soviets to those contributed by the West, it would be hard to argue that they were not at least an equal contributor to the victory than were the forces of the West.

Now, when one intones, "the West," one is referring to all of Great Britain, the United States, Canada, free France, and a host of smaller allies. On the other side of the map is the Soviet Union. So, you have a lot of countries against Germany in the west versus the U.S.S.R. against Germany and her eastern European allies in the east.

It isn't that simple. The U.S.S.R. was supplied at tremendous cost to both Great Britain and the United States through the northern port of Murmansk, among others. We gave them tanks, aircraft, fuel, ammunition, food, everything. While the West was supposedly doing nothing while the Russians were carrying the load in 1942-1944, we were in reality busting our asses to get them supplies while we were simultaneously conducting significant combat operations in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy while basically conducting the Pacific war on our own, and oh-by-the-way conducting a ruinous around the clock air campaign against the German homeland and training and building our forces for the largest seaborne invasion in history up to that time. The Brits and the Canadians were right there with us.

The Russians were basically absent from the fight against Japan until they had been defeated by the United States. The same could be said for almost every other nation except for the Brits, the ANZACS and the resistance fighters in the Phillipines, etc.

The Soviets were largely unimaginative brutes who relied on sheer numbers and overwhelming firepower to defeat the enemy. They needed the huge numbers that they had to triumph because they weren't terribly innovative in their tactics, because innovation and effectiveness took a backseat to political reliability. Losses were acceptable, so long as the line kept moving forward. There were individual commanders that were great, but overall Soviet doctrine was one of the bludgeon vice the rapier.

The fighting in western Europe in 1944 and 1945 was the stuff of legend in the annals of American military history, but the total German forces arrayed there were a mere shell (other than the Bulge) compared to what was being ground down in the east by the Soviets.

I recommend reading the book "Brute Force," a treatise on the specific numbers of men and machines that fought in WWII. It tells where they came from, where they were utilized, etc. The book, while readily acknowledging the tactical acumen and the heroism of both the Allied and Axis forces, argues that the win was one of shear logistical might of the combined Allied powers versus the combined Axis powers. It is correct in that argument.

Suffice it to say that absent the Russians, WWII would have ended very, very differently. They were HUGE in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and given that we were fighting Japan almost alone, it is highly unlikely that we would have been able to defeat Germany so handily once we regained a foothold on the continent. It is unlikely that we would have even had that foothold in 1944, or even 1945 or later.

Who was the overall greatest single contributor to the win in WWII? The answer is obvious.
 

Joakim Ruud
Advanced Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 504
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 10:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey, Graham, join the fray :-)

No doubt at all that the Lend Lease program had a large impact by bolstering the Russian forces. Whether or not Russia would have lost without it, is something that historians get into heated debates about, and we may never know.

When it comes to the Russians being unimaginative brutes, that is kind of debatable, and definitely misleading. They did employ vastly inferior tactics, due to the fact that most competent military leaders, in all levels of command, were wiped out in Stalin's purges. However, in the latter half of the war they had mastered the art of operational warfare, turning the tables on Germany on the larger military scale. Still, one could probably say that on the small scale, the tactical scale, they never caught up to the Germans.

"Who was the overall greatest single contributor to the win in WWII? The answer is obvious."

I think you are right, if you include the Pacific. And I may be as much a perpetrator of cultural bias here as anyone; since when Ron mentioned "the war", I naturally think of only the war in Europe, while for an American the Pacific was at least as important and maybe even more so.

Still and all, my only point during the start of this was to show Ron that Russia in fact made a huge difference in the war (at least in Europe), and did not just make "a contribution, in quotation marks" :-) I've never claimed that the US weren't hugely important, even if some might have taken my comments that way.
...then he got a look on his face as if he were thinking. Daniel had learned, in his almost seventy
years, not to expect much of of people who got such looks, because thinking really was
something one ought to do all the time.

-Neal Stephenson, The System of the World
 

Ron Siddall
Intermediate Member
Username: El_cid

Post Number: 256
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 03:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Bill, the moral high ground must always be remembered or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Graham, nice insight.

Joakim, thanks for the discussion.

Peace.
This space open to interpretation
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 3919
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 04:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Ron, did the "moral high ground" get us into Iraq or did forgetting it get us there?

--This space is STILL being left intentionally blank.-


 

David Lewinnek
Intermediate Member
Username: Davelew

Post Number: 298
Registered: 02-2005
Posted on Monday, January 08, 2007 - 06:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As another very amateur WWII historian, I take issue with the idea that the Russians were unimaginative brutes.

They figured how to attack one variant of the Tiger (the Mark VII, I think) which had an unreliable machine gun but a great main cannon. At the battle of Kursk, the Russians took out huge numbers of these tanks by sending waves of infantry with minature flamethrowers to hold against the air vents. These may seem crude and cruel, but the Russian had more men than equipment, and this maximized their natural advnatage

Marshall Zhukov had the tactic of sending poorly trained and equipped troop sgainst the Germans for 72 hours, while watching them get slaughtered. Then he followed up with ihs crack troops after the Germans had been awake for three days straight.

On other fronts, Russian intelligence had penetrated Hitler's inner circle, and in some cases the German attack plans got to the Russian field commanders before they got to the German field commanders.

Finally, a few notes on the allied supply of Russia. While Russia might not have survived without the supplies coming through Murmansk, those supplies certainly did not include tanks. The Russian T-34 was one of the best tanks of the war (Germen General Friedrich von Mellinthin said "we have nothing comparable." to the T-34-85), certainly far superior to death traps like the American Sherman tank in armored warfare (although, to be fair, the Sherman was really designed for anti-infantry opertions, and the American lacked a good tank for anti-tank operations, preferring to destroy armor with aircraft or artillery).

Most of what I've just said comes from two books, "The Tigers are Burning" about the battle of the Kursk salient, and "Death Traps" about armored warfare in western Europe.

Oh, and one more thing. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that declared a cease-fire from 1939 (borken in 1941) was not the Russians enabling the Germans. Russia agreed to the ceasefire in order to enlarge its army and move industry east of the Urals where it could be better defended in the upcoming war. Germany agreed to the ceasefire in order to focus on other fronts before coming back to Russia, but I think both countries realized at that point that war was inevitable.

Finally, Russia didn't just engage Japan after the Empire was defeated. Russia also fought an undeclared border war with Japan in 1938-1939, with a major battles at Khalkin Gol (where the soviets had 50,000 men and 430 tanks, while the Japaneses had 200 tanks and I'm not sure how many men).
 

Graham Cox
Advanced Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 850
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 07:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Marshall Zhukov had the tactic of sending poorly trained and equipped troop sgainst the Germans for 72 hours, while watching them get slaughtered. Then he followed up with ihs crack troops after the Germans had been awake for three days straight.

Wow, cannon fodder! What an imaginative tactic! Effective, to be sure, but one could hardly describe this as anything other than brutish and brutal.

Finally, a few notes on the allied supply of Russia. While Russia might not have survived without the supplies coming through Murmansk, those supplies certainly did not include tanks.

Really? "Certainly?" http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Vehicles/russian/lendleasetanks.htm

Whether or not the Allied tanks were popular with the Russian crews, several THOUSAND were sent to the Soviets at great cost to the western Allies. Not a few dozen, not a few hundred, but several THOUSAND.

Finally, Russia didn't just engage Japan after the Empire was defeated. Russia also fought an undeclared border war with Japan in 1938-1939, with a major battles at Khalkin Gol (where the soviets had 50,000 men and 430 tanks, while the Japaneses had 200 tanks and I'm not sure how many men).

WWII ran from September of 1939 to September of 1945. The war between Japan and the United States ran from December 1941 to September 1945. Where was the Soviet Union regarding Japan between those dates? Preoccupied with European matters. It was only after the defeat of Germany that the U.S.S.R. turned their attention to trying to abscond territory from an already-defeated Japan.
 

Graham Cox
Advanced Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 851
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 05:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

"Through the Murmansk Run, the United States supplied the Soviet Union with 15,000 aircraft, 7,000 tanks, 350,000 tons of explosives, and 15,000,000 pairs of boots. American boots made a difference on the Eastern Front, especially during the harsh winters."

http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

(What they overlook here, surprisingly so, are the vitally-important trucks and jeeps that we also provided in the tens of thousands.
 

Joshua Coman
Member
Username: Crazyjae

Post Number: 172
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 06:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

David,

You mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as merely a cease-fire agreement. The agreement was far more nefarious than that.

Within the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (aka Hitler-Stalin Pact) there was a seceret protocol that split Eastern Europe (and Finland) between the two parties. Essentially it was nothing more than a land grab agreement. A land grab that was hostile.

The Soviet Union denied the existence of the secret protocols until 1988, when Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev (a member of the politburo) admitted their existence. The document was declassified in 1992, only after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Graham,

One thing you might also find interesting is that Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German author of the nefarious soviet pact with Russia, attributed Germany's defeat to three things:

1. Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
2. The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
3. The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.

I think it is fair to say that without the support Russia had from the US, in vehicles, weapons, aircraft and food, the outcome of the war most likely, at least on their part, been worse.

Of course, the irony here is no one will ever give credit to Germany for any good it may have done during WW II because of the atrocities that were committed. So why are we even talking about the soviets in a positive light?

The soviets were no better than the invading forces it was fighting off.

Look at how many people Stalin had executed during his routine purges, and how many starved because of his self-created famines. Look at how many were sent to the gulags and forced into slave labor. Hell, look at how many of the Soviet Union's war veterans ended up in the gulags after the war.

In my opinion, the soviets should not be given any credit for their war time accomplishments because of their actions prior to, during and after the war. The human rights abuses that occurred in the Soviet Union were as bad as, perhaps in some cases worse than, what was occurring in Germany at the time.
 

Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 1506
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 07:22 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Wow, you guys truly are amazing. I think history is interesting and something we could all stand to learn more about, and I enjoy watching things on the History Channel and stuff like that, but you guys have all taken it to a new level. Kudos to each and every one of you!
 

Graham Cox
Advanced Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 853
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2007 - 07:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Of course, the irony here is no one will ever give credit to Germany for any good it may have done during WW II because of the atrocities that were committed. So why are we even talking about the soviets in a positive light?

Speaking only for myself, I have been pointing out that the Soviets provided a massive military force that contributed significantly to the defeat of Nazi Germany. I don't think pointing this out is either positive or negative - it is simply a historical fact.

The soviets were no better than the invading forces it was fighting off.

No argument here. I used to play a lot of computer wargames and I almost always played the German side versus the Soviets.

Look at how many people Stalin had executed during his routine purges, and how many starved because of his self-created famines. Look at how many were sent to the gulags and forced into slave labor. Hell, look at how many of the Soviet Union's war veterans ended up in the gulags after the war.

In my opinion, the soviets should not be given any credit for their war time accomplishments because of their actions prior to, during and after the war. The human rights abuses that occurred in the Soviet Union were as bad as, perhaps in some cases worse than, what was occurring in Germany at the time.


That is an emotional judgement. The fact that you don't like the history of the Soviet regime does not alter the facts of military history. I don't like them either (who does?), but they still contributed mightily to the defeat of Germany.
 

Joshua Coman
Member
Username: Crazyjae

Post Number: 173
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 03:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

That is an emotional judgment. The fact that you don't like the history of the Soviet regime does not alter the facts of military history. I don't like them either (who does?), but they still contributed mightily to the defeat of Germany.

Is it? There are quite a few scientific breakthroughs the Germans made during WW II. Attribution will never be given for those things, as a matter of national policy in the US and all other nations in the world.

Ultimately, the estimated death tolls under Stalin was approx. 200,000 Jews; 5 million Ukrainians between 1932-33, 14-15 million Soviet peasants between 1930-37, and at least 3 million "enemies of the people" between 1937-38.

That's up to 18 million people dead as a result of a directive issued by a specific person.

Hitler was responsible for a number that is roughly the same.

I'm hardly emotional about it. And I'm making no judgment about it. The facts speak for themselves. Stalin was a despot, Hitler was a despot. They killed a boatload of innocent people during their reign.

It's nice to know the soviets helped defeat the Germans and it's good to understand the sacrifices they made. But, to put them on a pedestal and glorify them for what they did -- no thanks. Especially considering the fact that they signed a pact with Germany prior to going to war that was nothing more than a deal to steal countries from their citizens, by force.

I don't think pointing this out is either positive or negative - it is simply a historical fact.

I'm sorry if you interpreted what I had to say that way. I'm not saying we don't acknowledge that the soviets also fought the German forces in WW II -- I'm merely saying it must be remembered that they were not a innocent party and they had ulterior motives in what they were doing. Much like the Germans, the soviets also used forced labor/slave labor in their war effort. Not really a shining example of heroic country.

Sure, I don't like the soviets (or any communists or socialists for that matter) but, the fact, despite my opinion, is that the soviets were nothing more than tyrants.

(Message edited by crazyjae on January 14, 2007)

(Message edited by crazyjae on January 14, 2007)
 

Graham Cox
Advanced Member
Username: T2driver

Post Number: 857
Registered: 11-2004
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 04:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joshua, I'm not disagreeing with you.

I do take slight issue with your assertion that the scientific advances of the Germans are not acknowledged. I don't think this is true at all. I am a pilot, and as such, I am very familiar with the contributions they made to aerospace, rocketry, and ultimately our space program, personified by Werner von Braun. This was prominently featured in the movie, "The Right Stuff." Our space program, and ultimately our ICBM and SLBM fleets, would not exist in their present form were it not for the Germans and the scientific bedrock they provided.

The Germans were and are highly respected engineers of all disciplines. One of their downfalls, in fact, was that they over-engineered a lot of their equipment so that it was very difficult to maintain in the field. Their tanks were so complex and had so little commonality that they often broke down and could not be repaired due to the want of some specific little part that could not be supplied under field conditions.
 

Joshua Coman
Member
Username: Crazyjae

Post Number: 174
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Sunday, January 14, 2007 - 08:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Graham,

One example of what I was referring to, as far as un-acknowledged contributions, is the German research concerning hypothermia mortality. It's one of many contributions that Germany will never be acknowledged for, despite the good it has done since the war.

We have a huge amount of data on hypothermia, courtesy of Nazi Germany, yet attribution for that data will never, ever, be given to Nazi Germany. As it never should.

The reason is ethical issues. The research was carried out on non-consenting individuals.

The data that was collected by the Germans in these barbaric experiments is used by pilots today. The field manuals and survival manuals put out by the US military, and others, includes data on hypothermia -- data that was collected by the Germans in very evil ways.

Your a pilot -- look at any survival manual you have that describes hypothermia and water survival -- the data (i.e. the hard numbers on temperatures) comes directly from German experiments on prisoners. When reading the manuals remember that the data came from human subjects. People died for those numbers.

I don't disagree on our rocket program. Operation Paperclip was a very important part of our Cold War program. The people the US allowed to run the programs were nothing more than war criminals that were given a reprieve thanks to our need at the time. But, remember that even Wernher Von Braun was implicit in allowing the use of slave labor to build his rockets. He toured Peenemünde on several occasions -- no secret on what was going on there. Even he admitted that slave labor was used there.

(Message edited by crazyjae on January 14, 2007)

(Message edited by crazyjae on January 14, 2007)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: