Who started both World Wars?

[Chaos]

Really? From the same Dutch wikipedia link:

De naam V1 (Duitse afkorting) of V-1 (Engelse afkorting) was een afgeleide van Vergeltungswaffe 1 (Vergeldingswapen). Eigenlijk was de aanduiding Fieseler Fi 103 of FZG-76 (FZG betekende Flak Ziel Gerät ofwel luchtafweerdoelapparaat).

From this I understand that it's original purpose war air defense (against Anglo destruction).

And if they had been called "Super Happy Fun Peace and Goodwill Packages", you´d have swallowed that, too, right?

 

[9/11-investigator]

And if they had been called "Super Happy Fun Peace and Goodwill Packages", you´d have swallowed that, too, right?

Content free smear. I merely stated what the Dutch wikipedia entry said. The german entry says this:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103
Die Fieseler Fi 103, auch V1 genannt (Vergeltungswaffe 1), intern unter dem Tarnnamen FZG 76 (Flakzielgerät) geführt,

implying that FZG was a code name with the intention to deceive.

http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/v1.htm
Known alternatively as the FZG 76 (Flakzielgerat: anti-aircraft aiming device 76) or Vergeltungswaffe Eins (Reprisal Weapon 1), or more simply as the VI, the Fi 103 flying bomb had an airframe designed by Dipl-Ing Robert Liisser of Fieseler, and a Siemens guidance system.

 

[ddt]

Typical mendacious lefty reaction. Scans the text until he finds a minor mistake and then zeroes in on it, giving him an excuse to ignore the overall message that is left unchanged by the minor error.

Oh, I'll leave reacting to the whole list to those who have more extensive knowledge of WW2 in their head; there are quite a number of them in this thread.

I guess the joke went right past you.

Really? From the same Dutch wikipedia link:

De naam V1 (Duitse afkorting) of V-1 (Engelse afkorting) was een afgeleide van Vergeltungswaffe 1 (Vergeldingswapen). Eigenlijk was de aanduiding Fieseler Fi 103 of FZG-76 (FZG betekende Flak Ziel Gerät ofwel luchtafweerdoelapparaat).

From this I understand that it's original purpose war air defense (against Anglo destruction).

You deduce this from the FZG-76 code name.

Content free smear. I merely stated what the Dutch wikipedia entry said. The german entry says this:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_103
Die Fieseler Fi 103, auch V1 genannt (Vergeltungswaffe 1), intern unter dem Tarnnamen FZG 76 (Flakzielgerät) geführt,

implying that FZG was a code name with the intention to deceive.

http://www.plane-crazy.net/links/v1.htm
Known alternatively as the FZG 76 (Flakzielgerat: anti-aircraft aiming device 76) or Vergeltungswaffe Eins (Reprisal Weapon 1), or more simply as the VI, the Fi 103 flying bomb had an airframe designed by Dipl-Ing Robert Liisser of Fieseler, and a Siemens guidance system.

Now you admit that the code name's intent was to deceive. How's that now with your claim that the V-1 was a "defence weapon"?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Oh, I'll leave reacting to the whole list to those who have more extensive knowledge of WW2 in their head; there are quite a number of them in this thread.

I guess the joke went right past you.


You deduce this from the FZG-76 code name.


Now you admit that the code name's intent was to deceive. How's that now with your claim that the V-1 was a "defence weapon"?

I admit nothing, I merely repeat what Wikipedia entries have to say about the topic. I don't have more knowledge about the V1 than the average layman.

Unlike my Anglo opponents her I have zero interest in weapons and means to kill people as efficiently as possible.

As we all know the US spends more on the most horrific weapons than the rest of the planet combined, leaving not much to guess about the intentions of the 'Great Satan'.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Interesting character, this A.J.P. Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor

Obviously a main stream historian (main stream defined as having a paid position at a state institution and not being harassed by Jews all the time), he nevertheless seems to have been a revisionist.

These ideas were most clearly expressed in The Origins of the Second World War—by which he specifically meant the war between Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom and France that broke out in September 1939—where Taylor argued against the widespread belief that the outbreak of the war was the result of an intentional plan on the part of Hitler. He began his book with the statement that too many people have accepted uncritically what he called the "Nuremberg Thesis", that World War II was the result of criminal conspiracy by a small gang comprising Hitler and his associates... Taylor's thesis was that Hitler was not the demoniacal figure of popular imagination but in foreign affairs a normal German leader...

Taylor argued that the basic problem with an interwar Europe was a flawed Treaty of Versailles that was sufficiently onerous to ensure that the overwhelming majority of Germans would always hate it, but insufficiently onerous in that it failed to destroy Germany's potential to be a Great Power once more. In this way, Taylor argued that the Versailles Treaty was destabilising, for sooner or later the innate power of Germany that the Allies had declined to destroy in 1918–1919 would inevitably reassert itself against the Versailles treaty and the international system established by Versailles that the Germans regarded as unjust and thus had no interest in preserving...

One of Taylor's finer moments occurred in the 1960s when he became the first English language historian and indeed the first historian after Hans Mommsen to accept the conclusions of the book The Reichstag Fire by journalist Fritz Tobias, that the Nazis had not set the Reichstag on fire in 1933 and that Marinus van der Lubbe had acted alone...

In his 1969 book War by Timetable, Taylor examined the origins of World War I. He concluded that though all of the great powers wished to increase their own power relative to the others, none consciously sought war before 1914.

 

[Hans]

So tell us about why the peaceful Germans had plans to invade Switzerland? Operation Tannenbaum? Were the Swiss planning to invade Germany? Were the Germans planning to preempt an invasion by the British?

What is your position on Anton's NSB during the German invasion of the Netherland and the brutal occupation that occurred?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I merely repeat what Wikipedia entries have to say about the topic.

Well, there's your ptoblem. Don't rely on Wikipedia.

 

[dudalb]

The Luftwaffe never developed a heavy bomber force. Partly that was because the prevailing doctrine saw the Luftwaffe as a tactical rather than a strategic force. It's intended role was to support the army, thus the favouring of dive bombers and twin-engined medium bombers. And partly it was because the champion of developing a long-range heavy bomber force, General Walther Wever, was killed in a crash before the war, and the program essentially died with him.


So, the Allies bombed 'safely' did they? I'm not sure how, for example, having 69 American bombers shot down in the March 6, 1944, raid on Berlin (9.8% of the attacking force), or 95 British bombers shot down on the March 30/31, 1944, raid on Nuremberg (12.1% of the attacking force) is considered 'safe.'

The benchmark for sustainable losses in the bombing campaign was 5%. But a constant 5% loss rate is actually enormous. If you start with a force of 100 bombers and lose a constant 5% of them on each mission, after just nine missions you are down to 63 aircraft. That's 37% of your force gone in just nine missions. Doesn't sound particularly safe to me.

RAF bomber crews were required to fly a tour of thirty missions. At an average loss rate of 5%, a crew stood a 60% chance of completing 10 missions, a 37% chance of completing 20 missions, and just a 22% chance of completing all 30 missions. Doesn't sound safe to me at all.

So, crews stood a very good chance of being shot down well before completing their tour of duty. But what were their chances of escaping alive their downed aircraft? From January-June 1943, on average the member of a Lancaster crew stood just a 10.9% chance of surviving being shot down; a Halifax crew, 29.0%; a Wellington crew, 17.5%. This especially doesn't sound safe to me.

Germany had plenty of day and night fighters to defend its airspace, not to mention radar networks and numerous flak batteries. In regards to the last, in March of 1942 there were 3,970 heavy flak guns defending German cities (at a time when the RAF had not even yet launched its first so-called 'thousand plane' raid). By September 1944 the number had grown to 10,225. Indeed, according to Albert Speer (who certainly was in a position to know these things), of the 19,713 88-mm and 128-mm dual-purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft flak guns produced between 1942 and 1944, only 3,172 (16%) were allocated to the army for use in the anti-armour role. The rest were pointed skywards at Allied bombers. (Which was a fortunate thing for Allied armoured forces; that's over 16,000 fewer excellent anti-tank guns pointed at them.)





If by 'specialized in mass killing' you mean 'crippled Germany's ability to wage war' then yes.

Now, was the RAF's nighttime offensive as decisive in crippling that ability to wage war as was the USAAF's daytime offensive? Certainly not. The Americans went after specific industries to cause specfic economic disruption; the British went after cities to cause general economic dislocation and disruption (since hitting the area of a city was often the best one could hope to do at night, as I stated previously). The former is naturally easier to measure than the latter. But the RAF's nighttime bombing offensive most certainly had some signficant indirect effects on the German economy.

Those indirect effects, combined with the direct effect of the American bombing, devastated the German economy and destroyed its ability to wage war.

Do recall what I said many posts back (and which you have not challenged): no civilians, no economy; no economy, no military; no military, no war. That equation remains unchanged. You can continue to make the civilian/military distinction, but in an industrialized nation-state with the military utterly dependent on the mass production of that nation-state to survive and operate, such a distinction is, at best, purely arbitrary.





By the way, what precisely is a 'civilian' target?





That's pretty much why I'm doing it.

Just to Clarify, the Germans were working on Heavy Bombers in the Mid 30's, but then put them on the back burner in favor of Light and Mediium Bombers.
This was not out of any humanitarian outlook, but a belief that the Air Force's main job was supporting the Army,and light bombers (include the Stuka here) and medium bombers were better suited to that then Four Engine Heavy bombers. The Germans were never heavily influenced by Drouhet as the Americand and the British were.
In the 40's ,the Germans did give some condiseration to developing a true Heavy bomber, but it never got much in the way of resources. The V weapons looked like a cheaper way..in terms of materials..to get a strategic Air Strike capability then bombers.

 

[dudalb]

Well, there's your ptoblem. Don't rely on Wikipedia.

Damn Straight. I think there is great potential in a on line Excyclopedia, but not one which "anybody can edit".
It is puzzle to me why so many intelligent people bought into the idea that an Enclycopedia without any real, solid, oraginized editing process that was open to anybody could end up anything other then a mess. Accuracy is one area where Democracy does not work.

 

[MG1962]

Damn Straight. I think there is great potential in a on line Excyclopedia, but not one which "anybody can edit".
It is puzzle to me why so many intelligent people bought into the idea that an Enclycopedia without any real, solid, oraginized editing process that was open to anybody could end up anything other then a mess. Accuracy is one area where Democracy does not work.

The strength of Wiki is the ability to follow the references rather than the text. When I have a choice I always try to use primary sources. Having said that, Wiki is also helpful in gaining broad brush stroke overviews of events

 

[beachnut]

I am shocked!

I thought that these Germans liked killing and what better means of safely killing other people is there than heavy bombers?

Are you saying that in reality it were the allies specialized in mass killing?

I am amazed, my world is upside down!

P.S. slowly Corsair is morphing into an asset for my case.

V2? Seems the German's skipped heavy bombers and went straight to ICBMs (but it has been explained in history, the topic you are light in). Why did they kill millions of Jews? The German's lost the war the second Hitler found himself to be a member of the superior race, a syphilitic idiot in the superior race; pure moronic nonsense. only a dirt dumb NAZI can dream up a bigger hallucination, the super race.

 

[Hans]

what better means of safely killing other people is there than heavy bombers

It would seem our expert in not knowing anything about history has forgotten or failed to learn that casualties amongst bomber crews were some of the highest amongst categories of military service. The safest way (for the crews doing it) to kill civilians was to fire V-1 and V-2 at population centers.

Flying bombers was a very dangerous jobs for both allied and axis aircrew with over 50% losses for the British and Americans. German aircrew losses in Operation Steinbock were over 75%.

 

[Corsair 115]

The V weapons looked like a cheaper way..in terms of materials..to get a strategic Air Strike capability then bombers.

In the end those two programs ended up consuming a prodigious amount of resources that could have been devoted to much more militarily useful things like tanks and aircraft.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

neigh/11, the reason the Germans didn't develop a heavy bomber is because Hitler refused to believe the war would run long enough for it to be designed and built.

 

[9/11-investigator]

It would seem our expert in not knowing anything about history has forgotten or failed to learn that casualties amongst bomber crews were some of the highest amongst categories of military service. The safest way (for the crews doing it) to kill civilians was to fire V-1 and V-2 at population centers.

Flying bombers was a very dangerous jobs for both allied and axis aircrew with over 50% losses for the British and Americans. German aircrew losses in Operation Steinbock were over 75%.

These V-1/V-2 did only a fraction of the damage as a result of the terror bombing campaign of which we have earlier established that it was started by the British. My heart is breaking in the sight of these kind of losses, boohoo. Fact remains that that killratio (innocent civilians)/(bomber pilots) is extremely high. With a few hundred of these Anglo mass murderer low lifes it was possible to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, including (mainly) women and children. Not to mention the outright evaporation of tenths of thousands of Japanese civilians in a matter of seconds with no other intention then to terrorize.

 

[9/11-investigator]

neigh/11, the reason the Germans didn't develop a heavy bomber is because Hitler refused to believe the war would run long enough for it to be designed and built.

The real reason was that the Germans never planned for a world war in the first place.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The real reason was that the Germans never planned for a world war in the first place.

Bingo. They were crappy planners. They expected to win a series of small(ish) wars and have a breather between each one. See the Stuttgart memoranda, for example, or the 1939 and 1940 Fuhrer Conferences on Matters Concerning the German Navy.

 

[9/11-investigator]

V2? Seems the German's skipped heavy bombers and went straight to ICBMs

It is clear that you are rather light in aereonautics yourself, even if you try to suggest otherwise with your avatar. 'IC' stands for inter continental, although most of these Vx's were launched from near the Dutch and Belgian coast in order to be able to make it over the North Sea.

Why did they kill millions of Jews?

That is very likely a lie concocted by the Jews and supported by our noble allies in order to whitewash and justify their own war crimes. The Jews were already dreaming of 6 million killed before the war as becomes clear from several articles in the (Jewish owned) NYT. They had the story waiting in the wings for an unsuspecting world long in advance.

The German's lost the war the second Hitler found himself to be a member of the superior race, a syphilitic idiot in the superior race; pure moronic nonsense. only a dirt dumb NAZI can dream up a bigger hallucination, the super race.

Well Beachnut, on this planet we have moonlander cultures and we have penis sheath cultures. That's not my choice but that is the way it is. The US is now btw slowly moving from the first to the second type as a result of their desastrous immigration policies, but hey, if they want to commit suicide, be my guest (News flash: Mel Gibson has understood that he should leave the US while it is still possible). The reason why the Germans lost was because they were outnumbered 7:1, and that was even too much for them. Both the Allies and the Germans based their battlefield planning calculations roughly on the equation 2 Anglos = 1 German in combat strength. As we all know this alliance and subsequent destruction of Europe (including Britain itself) was organized by the British. The combination of a) the destruction of the US (Balkanization) likely in this decade and b) the rise of revisionism thanks to the internet plus the increased receptivity for the revisionist message as multiculturalism really starts to bite, does not bode well for the British as they are going to take the full blame for the desaster and be the target of continental European contempt from Amsterdam to Wladiwostok.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Bingo. They were crappy planners. They expected to win a series of small(ish) wars and have a breather between each one. See the Stuttgart memoranda, for example, or the 1939 and 1940 Fuhrer Conferences on Matters Concerning the German Navy.

The Germans respected the British, that was their catastrophic mistake. There is nothing respectable about the British. The Americans operate on a higher level, thanks to the input of German blood, the Germans still being the largest minority in America. The Brit is mentally basically a small Jew (**), an anti-European, paid by the real Jews to do the dirty work for them, like destroying Europe. It were the British by 'virtue' of Churchill who tilted the balance in the struggle between the Jews (in 1940 already mastering the US and the UK) and the Germans to the advantage of the Jews. WW2 was in the deepest sense a struggle between the Jews and the Europeans over the supremacy over Western Civilization. The Jews won thanks to the British (Churchill). This could potentially result in the total disposession of the 'White Race' by means of the multicultural ideology, designed by the Jews and enforced upon us by them through their holocaust story. The greatest civilization of all, the civilization of the Greeks and the Romans, of Chartres, of Goethe, Rembrandt, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Nietzsche, industrialism, high-tech, TGV's, etc., etc., culminating in the Apollo project and moon landing... all this could possibly be turned into a jungle thanks to the actions of the ugliest, the smallest, the least competent, the most revengeful fake Europeans...

Thanks Brits.

(**) - the reason why the British have become 'small Jews' was a hidden consequence of the Dutch invasion and conquest of Britain in 1688 ('Glorious Revolution'). The operation was a gigantic success for the Dutch as two enemies (Britain and France) were defeated in one stroke. What is far less known is that the operation was to a large extend financed by the Jews:

Wikipedia: Further financial support was obtained from the most disparate sources: the Jewish banker Francisco Lopes Suasso lent two million guilders;[40] when asked what security he desired, Suasso answered: "If you are victorious, you will surely repay me; if not, the loss is mine".

The string attached (repayment) was that in case of victory the Jews would be allowed to play a prominent role in setting up a national bank in Britain (the Jews in America even own the central bank) which meant the beginning of the rise of the Jews in Britain and in global finance, a leading position they still enjoy today.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sad, sad, sad.