They had a serious problem with "Jewish Science" i.e. quantum physics and relativity. Hard to design nuclear reactors with out reference to those theories.Skipjack wrote:Well, I guess it depends on how you define close. I do know that they were working on a nuclear reactor and that they had an almost completed prototype by the end of the war. I saw the pictures of the allies recovering it. I cant quite remember since it was so many years ago, but I vaguely remember something that looked like a bunch of boxes tied together.
In any case, I do agree that scaring away capable scientists out of their ridiculous etnic cleansing policies was one of the many stupid things that Nazi Germany did. However, Nazi Germany was still technologically very advanced. They surpassed the allies in jet engine, rocket science and aero/hydro dynamics. Helmut Walter e.g. built the best submarines of their time.
Their nuclear science was behind for many reasons. One might have been their idiotic etnic policies, another one was the constant bombings by the allies and the lack of money. Los Alamos was never bombed by any of the axis powers and the US in general saw very little destruction. They had all the peace and time and a lot more money to finish up their science.
Lets not forget that.
Yet another fussion
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Uhhm, Heisenberg, uncertainty principle, heard of that, yes?They had a serious problem with "Jewish Science" i.e. quantum physics and relativity. Hard to design nuclear reactors with out reference to those theories.
These problems only go so far as they dont affect your chance at winning a war
Also, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuc ... gy_project
Generally, I think that the Germans were further than some believe.
A lot of information got lost or distorted in post war and cold war secrecy.
The US and England still have not opened their WW2 archives to the public. I am sure there is lots of interesting info in there.
Well, of course there was a lot of prejudice. There was a lot of distrust. There was a war going on after all and the jews were considered "the enemy" (for some reason that only ideologically handicaped idiots can understand).There was a lot of prejudice against uncertainty, generally, not jut in Germany.
But the discussion was whether the Germans were that far behind the allies in nuclear science and I still doubt that.
Personally I too dislike the uncertainties and paradoxes raised by quantum physics. They are very counter intuitive. Someone explained them with chaos theory once and that is more to my liking.
Currently though the state of the art physics says that quantum theory is right. So whenever someone asks me whether it is right or not, I will tell you that it is right So if I had to, I would work with it until (hopefully one day) someone will find a new theory.
Now, I dont believe that all Germans, especially not the ones in leading science positions, were ideologically brainwashed enough to not accept science over ideology. You can dislike, even hate someone, but if the person tells the truth, it still is the truth and if the person does something right, it is still right.
Btw, even Einstein was arguing against quantum physics. "God does not throw dice" was his quote, right?
Not the ones that matter. The Russian archives (that have been opened) tell some interesting stories though.A lot of the WW2 archives have been opened.
Perhaps. Too many of the various elites in Germany "revealed" their "heroic resistance to Hitler" after the defeat of Germany to give much credit to such claims, simply because the claims are so convenient and self-serving.
Payload was to be a dirty bomb. *Yawn.* The anthrax attacks after 911 revealed mass DISRUPTION from that type of attack, but NOT mass DESTRUCTION.choff wrote:I saw a tv show about the Horten 18 jet powered stealth flying wing that was supposed to go into production 1946, range New York and back, payload A-bomb. Very advanced I'd say.
Vae Victis
Yeah, yeah, and Hitler almost won WW2 with just a few thousand SS- soldiers on his side. Must have been a real genius that guy.Perhaps. Too many of the various elites in Germany "revealed" their "heroic resistance to Hitler" after the defeat of Germany to give much credit to such claims, simply because the claims are so convenient and self-serving.
The sad truth is that the had support, lots of that. Not just in Germany. There was quite a lot of support for him in the US as well.
I believe even G.W. Bushes grandfather was one of Hitlers supporters.
So was Ford and many others. Charles Lindberg testflew the Me 109.
The world is a grey one. There is not just good and evil. There are many that believe they are good while doing evil things.
Sometimes the subjective perspective of something prevents us from seeing that what we are doing is wrong. Sometimes, we justify doing wrong to ourselves out of personal comfort. "Hitler gave us food and work and therefore I dont want to believe all the bad things he is doing, dont want to see them". I am sure that that happened very often.
Some thought they would get justice for injustice that happened to themselves (people that got disowned by the Austro fascists, e.g.).
Others were upset about the way WW1 had ended for Germany and Austria.
So many reasons, so many perspectives. None of them the same, or as simple as "just plain evil".
Well it depends on how you define right and wrong.KitemanSA wrote:"You can't do good by doing wrong."Skipjack wrote: There is not just good and evil. There are many that believe they are good while doing evil things.
Bombing cities - evil.
Stopping the Germans 1939 - '45. - good.
Bombing cities to stop the Germans - not too bad.
So in that case good was done by doing wrong.
I hate absolutist statements absolutely.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Exactly, but in this case, as it is with many other, it depends on your personal perspective, how good, or how bad that really was.Bombing cities to stop the Germans - not too bad.
There were towns inhabited with nothing but elderly, women and children that were bombed when the war was basically over already. Good, or bad?
As I said, the world is grey.
"People have a right to voluntary action." For those less fortunate in wholistic thinking, that means that it is wrong to involve a person in an action involuntarily.MSimon wrote:Well it depends on how you define right and wrong.KitemanSA wrote: "You can't do good by doing wrong."
Not quite true. Bombing cities that have NOT given their permission by an initial attack, wrong.MSimon wrote:Bombing cities - evil.
But they had volunteered to receive by initiating the war in the first place.MSimon wrote:Stopping the Germans 1939 - '45. - good.
Bombing cities to stop the Germans - not too bad.
No wrong was done to the bombed German cities. Your initial premise was incorrectly stated. The rule is "People have a right to voluntary action". The Germans volunteered for war (initiated the war), they got war, no wrong was done to them.MSimon wrote:So in that case good was done by doing wrong.
MSimon wrote: I hate absolutist statements absolutely.
except when they are absolutely right!You also need to guard yourself against a common error in such discussions, mixing the concepts of "right/wrong" with "good/bad". The first represents the absolutest nature of morality (there is no "wronger", just "wrong". The second represents the situational spectrum of ethics. "Good/better/best; bad/worse/worst". "Evil" is a really bad badness.
Things can be right, but bad (vices typically lie in this area). But I have yet to see anything be wrong but good.
Kiteman,
I think we can then agree that the Iraq war was justified based on Saddam's involvement in WTC1 and the thwarted attack on Bush 1.
By those acts Saddam gave permission for our attacks on him.
Of course if you consider our defense of Kuwait illegitimate - all bets are off.
Me? Occasionally it is wise to go about smashing things and breaking the furniture just to put miscreants on notice. Because he needed it and because we can. But that does not fit one of your preprogrammed computer solutions.
It is in accord with human nature. Because humans are not computing machines. They are pattern recognition machines.
I think we can then agree that the Iraq war was justified based on Saddam's involvement in WTC1 and the thwarted attack on Bush 1.
By those acts Saddam gave permission for our attacks on him.
Of course if you consider our defense of Kuwait illegitimate - all bets are off.
Me? Occasionally it is wise to go about smashing things and breaking the furniture just to put miscreants on notice. Because he needed it and because we can. But that does not fit one of your preprogrammed computer solutions.
It is in accord with human nature. Because humans are not computing machines. They are pattern recognition machines.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Who is "The Germans"? The children that boiled to death in the bunkers? The women and children that were killed when they hid in churches that ended up being bombed, thinking they were save there. The ones that were killed in the completely senseless retaliation- bombings in the last few days of war, when the war was already over?But they had volunteered to receive by initiating the war in the first place.
Your initial premise was incorrectly stated. The rule is "People have a right to voluntary action". The Germans volunteered for war (initiated the war), they got war, no wrong was done to them.
I personally think that this was wrong. But hey, I do value human life more than others here, I guess.
I am pretty sure that they thought the same about their adversaries.But they had volunteered to receive by initiating the war in the first place.