Social Justice, Social Engineering, Eugenics; Right or Wrong?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WRONG.

The radar located the Germans and conserved air resources by directing air crews to the menace. You need to do some reading about the history of radar, Fighter Command, and Hitler.

Plenty of imbeciles in the British government wanted to hoist fools in hot air balloons to shoot pistols at the German fliers. Fucking crazy Limeys!

 

[xssve]

Hitlers big strategic mistake was in not building any heavy bombers - all he had were Stuka's and light tactical bombers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

During World War 2 bombers werent significantly effective. At the end of the war Germany made more armaments than it did before the war.

 

[xssve]

But they still had to be transported to the battlefield.

Hitlers fatal mistake was in devoting so much critical transportation infrastructure into eradicating his trained workforce.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But they still had to be transported to the battlefield.

Hitlers fatal mistake was in devoting so much critical transportation infrastructure into eradicating his trained workforce.

I thiink his fatal mistake was invading the Soviet Union, especially the time of year when he did it, which put him in the teeth of the Russian winter. He made other mistakes too, such as underestimating the USA and overestimating Italy.

 

[driphoney]

But they still had to be transported to the battlefield.

Hitlers fatal mistake was in devoting so much critical transportation infrastructure into eradicating his trained workforce.

This wasn't too clever of him, but I always thought his fatal mistake was Russia.

I wonder what would have happened if he'd not gone into Russia (Soviet Union, rather) had backed off the African continent, negotiated with Churchill . . . . Okay, so that would just be one more alternative history novel.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I thiink his fatal mistake was invading the Soviet Union, especially the time of year when he did it, which put him in the teeth of the Russian winter. He made other mistakes too, such as underestimating the USA and overestimating Italy.

Books are coming out of Russia now that correct some of the World War 2 history. One Russian book I read disclosed that Hitler caught Stalin in the midst of preparing an attack on Germany, and Hitler then attacked before Stalin had the airfields ready and the tanks massed. If true it makes Hitler seem less of an idiot and explains how Stalin got caught with his pants down.

There isnt much of a window when the Russian winter ends in June and begins in October. Hitler failed when he overreached, trying to grab Moscow. Stalin woulda surrendered Ukraine, East Poland, and White Russia for peace. Hitler made most of his errors at Stalingrad.

 

[squarejohn]

I like chocolate brownies. I'll even share some with my friends. That probably makes me a "socialist".

Og

No, that would make you neighborly.

A socialist would take your brownies and share them with others.

 

[squarejohn]

Eugenics, at least as I understand it, is practiced to a very limited degree even now. Women looking to be artificially inseminated search for the donor with what they consider to be the best qualities. People looking for egg donors want those from a woman who has characteristics they consideer desireable. Incest is illegal, in part, because negative recessive characteristics are likely to appear in the offspring produced by such unions.

Everything you say is correct, but I would add more.

Eugenics is widely practiced in agriculture, on both crops grown from the soil, and livestock. It works because the plants and animals are not possessed with free will, reason, and imagination.

When eugenics is practiced on humans, it will always backfire, because humans do have free will, reason, and imagination. You might get desirable physical characteristics, but there is no way to predict what the mental outcome might be.

Also with artificial insemination, there is a mathematical possibility that children conceived by artificial insemination, a boy and a girl, would meet and marry when they came of age, and be unaware that they had the same "father," making them half brother and sister.

 

[driphoney]

Everything you say is correct, but I would add more.

Eugenics is widely practiced in agriculture, on both crops grown from the soil, and livestock. It works because the plants and animals are not possessed with free will, reason, and imagination.

When eugenics is practiced on humans, it will always backfire, because humans do have free will, reason, and imagination. You might get desirable physical characteristics, but there is no way to predict what the mental outcome might be.

Also with artificial insemination, there is a mathematical possibility that children conceived by artificial insemination, a boy and a girl, would meet and marry when they came of age, and be unaware that they had the same "father," making them half brother and sister.

In the off chance that a random half-brother and sister marry, it's unlikely much will be 'wrong' with the off-spring. This would probably take multi-generational inbreeding and many cultures today allow for first-cousin marriages.

I believe the word eugenics is only applied to human, right?

 

[squarejohn]

I believe the word eugenics is only applied to human, right?

You're not wrong. The word is usually used in connection with "improving" the human species. But take a look at the root of the word "eugenics." It can be applied to any species when seen in that light. My feeling is that "eugenics" is used as an euphemism for "human husbandry."

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I thought eugenics was a PhD program about Eugenes.

 

[xssve]

The Russians were all but beaten, but instead of transporting replacements and supplies to the troops poised to overrun Moscow, those trains were transporting Jews to Daschau.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Russians were all but beaten, but instead of transporting replacements and supplies to the troops poised to overrun Moscow, those trains were transporting Jews to Daschau.

The tracks cannot accommodate every engine and car you send. Moscow wasnt JFK with routes to everywhere. Rollingstock wasnt the problem and Himmler didnt crank up the Final Solution till a bit later. It takes time to build extermination camps and disguise them.

The latest book I read claims Himmler used 1st class passenger coaches, and pullmans, and dining cars, and whatever was available to haul Jews to Poland. And his trains had to wait for clear tracks cuz the military trains had priority.

 

[Handley_Page]

The American airforce didnt have a fighter aircraft to match the Spitfire until the P54 Mustang and that wasn't much good until they put British Rolls Royce Engines in it.

'Scuse me, but do you mean the P51 Mustang ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

And well, It WAS a RR Merlin, but many were made by Packard in the USA. When they got the drawings, they (apparently) complained that they could not make it and would RR do something about it. RR did, but it cost the engine a hundred or two horsepower output.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The P51 was really a P40 remodel.

 

[squarejohn]

The P51 was really a P40 remodel.

I think you're right. If I remember correctly, the Brits and the Ruskies, had them for a while, but gave them back as they weren't such great fighter planes. They found their true calling as ground support for the Marines in the Pacific. If they fired a 20 or 30 mm cannon from the center of the propeller hub, then I'm right. Anyone know for sure?

 

[colddiesel]

WRONG.

The radar located the Germans and conserved air resources by directing air crews to the menace. You need to do some reading about the history of radar, Fighter Command, and Hitler.

No I'm not wrong Jimbo. In July 1940 I was a 7 year old school kid living on the south side of the Thames estuary. I don't however claim that as any source of knowledge but it was exciting to watch for 3 months.

My source is not the books you place faith in but my elder cousin who was based in Dover(21 miles from France) His job was as one of the aircraftsmen coordinating the input of data under the Dowding system. This system consisted only partly of radar reports which due to the crudity of the radar technology at that time could only detect whole squadrons of German bombers as they took off and formed into groups in NW France.

For details of numbers, types of planes, headings etc reliance was placed on telephone and radio reports from the specially formed Observer Corps which were stationed in small groups along the entire British east and southern coasts as well as spotter aircraft.

Two and a half years later when America joined the war I would agree that radar effectiveness had greatly improved but the earlier claims are overstated by military radar heads trying to overstate their own importance in the earlier battle.

Incidentaly all of us kids could identify the different German aircraft by sight and some of the older ones, 11,12 year olds were pretty good at telling what was coming just based on engine noise.

However Jimbo it's good to see you have an interest in the history of the Battle of Britain in which of course some brave North Americans played a full part. They of course were your best friends, the heroic Canadians who unlike their cousins south of the 49th didnt shirk the fight.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No I'm not wrong Jimbo. In July 1940 I was a 7 year old school kid living on the south side of the Thames estuary. I don't however claim that as any source of knowledge but it was exciting to watch for 3 months.

My source is not the books you place faith in but my elder cousin who was based in Dover(21 miles from France) His job was as one of the aircraftsmen coordinating the input of data under the Dowding system. This system consisted only partly of radar reports which due to the crudity of the radar technology at that time could only detect whole squadrons of German bombers as they took off and formed into groups in NW France.

For details of numbers, types of planes, headings etc reliance was placed on telephone and radio reports from the specially formed Observer Corps which were stationed in small groups along the entire British east and southern coasts as well as spotter aircraft.

Two and a half years later when America joined the war I would agree that radar effectiveness had greatly improved but the earlier claims are overstated by military radar heads trying to overstate their own importance in the earlier battle.

Incidentaly all of us kids could identify the different German aircraft by sight and some of the older ones, 11,12 year olds were pretty good at telling what was coming just based on engine noise.

However Jimbo it's good to see you have an interest in the history of the Battle of Britain in which of course some brave North Americans played a full part. They of course were your best friends, the heroic Canadians who unlike their cousins south of the 49th didnt shirk the fight.

I understand there were a few US citizens who went to Canada and joined up to go and fight the Axis also. Most of the US Army Air Corps, such as it was in 1940, should have beeen there.

 

[colddiesel]

I understand there were a few US citizens who went to Canada and joined up to go and fight the Axis also. Most of the US Army Air Corps, such as it was in 1940, should have beeen there.

I like to be fair Box but make an exception for Jimbo. In fact quite a large contingent of some 270 US pilots volunteered to fight for Finland against the USSR when they invaded in 1940. When that didn't work out these men formed the core of the 3 RAF Eagle Squadrons before eventually transferring a couple of years later to US command.

 

[amicus]

Not going to do the research to confirm the content of several Military Channel episodes concerning the Battle of Britain; there is some confirming information to the preceding Posts and some contradictory.

The Germans had lined the French Coast with invasion vessels of all sorts and gathered troops and equipment for the planned invasion of England in 1940, if memory of the programs serves.

The English did have radar installations all up and down the coast that was able to detect German squadrons forming up over the Continent, both the height, speed, direction and approximate number of aircraft involved.

The intitial targets in England were shipping, air bases and industrial sites and, so it was said, an error in navigation caused a German pilot to drop his bombs on London proper. The Germans did attack radar installations several times but then abruptly changed their tactics permitting the radar installations to be rebuilt.

It was said that the radar and the network of coast watchers and landline communications won the air war as much as the much vaunted fighter pilots that faced overwhelming odds against the German Luftewaffe.

It seems to me...that over the years, perhaps as more classified information is declassified, that current programming provides a much more in depth picture of the early years of the war than ever before.

I do know, that for whatever reason, I find it fascinating and informative to learn of the courage and fortitude of the Brits during that very difficult time and then later when the 'Vengeance' bombs, the V1's began falling from the sky.

Oh, and to the Poster, (ColdDiesel) that gave a personal account, thank you so much for relating your thoughts, feeling and memories for that period of time.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think you're right. If I remember correctly, the Brits and the Ruskies, had them for a while, but gave them back as they weren't such great fighter planes. They found their true calling as ground support for the Marines in the Pacific. If they fired a 20 or 30 mm cannon from the center of the propeller hub, then I'm right. Anyone know for sure?

The P40 was a terrific but inadequate patrol plane. If you look at the early P51s they look very similar to the P40 but were significantly improved with greater range, powerful RR engine, faster, etc.

What I read says designers opted for a remodel of the P40 cuz it was a good design that was easily improved.

http://www.warbirddepot.com/dbimages/109/109-a-1280.jpg

P51A Looks like a modified P40 to me.

 

[oggbashan]

'Scuse me, but do you mean the P51 Mustang ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_P-51_Mustang

And well, It WAS a RR Merlin, but many were made by Packard in the USA. When they got the drawings, they (apparently) complained that they could not make it and would RR do something about it. RR did, but it cost the engine a hundred or two horsepower output.

Several companies eventually made the Merlin engine but they couldn't work from the original Rolls Royce drawings because the tolerances were too large. R-R expected the engines to be hand-finished to reduce the tolerances. Packard, and Ford, wanted to build the Merlin engines so they would fit together without hand finishing.

Packard and Ford were right. Rolls-Royce were not equipped for fast mass production.

The output of the Merlin engine was constantly being increased throughout the war.

Og

 

[bronzeage]

I think you're right. If I remember correctly, the Brits and the Ruskies, had them for a while, but gave them back as they weren't such great fighter planes. They found their true calling as ground support for the Marines in the Pacific. If they fired a 20 or 30 mm cannon from the center of the propeller hub, then I'm right. Anyone know for sure?

The P-39 Bell Aircobra fired a 37mm cannon through the propeller hub. A lot of them were sent to Russia and served well as air support and anti-truck aircraft. The cannon was manufactured by Oldsmobile. It could go through any armor less than a actual tank.

 

[driphoney]

However Jimbo it's good to see you have an interest in the history of the Battle of Britain in which of course some brave North Americans played a full part. They of course were your best friends, the heroic Canadians who unlike their cousins south of the 49th didnt shirk the fight.

While your dig is at "Jimbo", he's not the only Yank who reads such comments. Canadians were part of the Commonwealth, were they not? And as such, it would seem that the interest to race off and defend the Motherland would be greater. No less valiant in the effort, of course.

From the British comments I've read over the last month or two on various threads, I can't decide if you "lot" needed us or we were nearly useless and in the way during WWII.

While I do appreciate the fact that the US was late to the party, and could have been perceived as sissies and lightweights, you have to recall that the American voter at the time still had memories of WWI and they weren't pleasant. Given no American soil, until Pearl Harbor, was at risk, you might understand, with just a little thought, the lack of desire to sacrifice the nation's young men in yet another European agitation. As a matter of fact, more than once, I've heard that exact comment coming from Brits regarding the Iraq and Afghan Wars.

What I do think was shameful was America's shunning of desperate Jews and intellectuals in search of a safe haven.

And even more shameful is that I'm coming across as anti-British again, when just the opposite is true. I loved my very brief few days in the UK and yearn to go back for an extended stay. As Og said, we're allies and friends. We have more in common than not and share a rich cultural history. One-upmanship over WWII almost seems an affront to those who fought and died in it.

Other than that, I've enjoyed the comments on the thread. My basic understanding of WWII is good, but seeing the thoughts on the smaller details is fun.