German Atomic Bombs in WW2

[DWG]

On the aviation side, which I can judge well, he is reasonably neutral. For example he takes seriously the claims of Gustave Whitehead to have beaten the Wright brothers, without declaring for either side.

This is the same problem we've seen with climate change, just giving the oil-industry funded climate sceptics a seat at the table during discussions gives them a legitimacy that their supposed scientific basis doesn't warrant. Just taking a non-Wright Brothers first flight seriously is giving it backing it wouldn't otherwise have - 'neutrality' isn't possible in these discussions, just letting them onto the table is a 'little bit pregnant' scenario.

 

[Hood]

I haven't read the other chapters, but large portions of the aviation chapter, like the claims about the P-51 and P-86s ancestry are basically one-liners.
Sure the contents look impressive but how much is regurgitation of secondary sources and how much is Rider's own analysis? There are perhaps too many sources here, probably too many to seriously digest and interpret (Rider would have to be a serious polymath of exceptional ability to be able to cover all the topics across the book) and cherry-picking could easily distort the view given in the book.
There is some interesting and handy biographical data on design teams in the book, but its swamped by a mass of irrelevant material that could easily lead to unwary astray. The point of the book is not so clear, if its simply a record of the work done by German-speaking scientists and engineers then so be it. But it seems to have sufficient duality and bias to proclaim a heavy German science is superior message (these Swiss guys spoke German they did X, these Germans went to the *insert Allied nation* and did X and Y alone) - which does a disservice to these scientists and engineers.

There does seem to be a growing scepticism of the Wright brother's first flights. Some of it seems rather arcane and very much like conspiracy theory (measuring angles in photographs etc.), some of it is probably lingering academic infighting from the time and some of it might stem from a genuine lack of hard documentary evidence and their subsequent actions.
Nothing is ever clear cut, no history ever can be, sometimes you just have to accept the gaps and move on. Any historian asks questions but if you reach a big hole in the evidence and you can't fill it, accept it. Its no good asking speculative questions and supplying your own equally speculative answers that sound good to fill the holes to your own satisfaction.

 

[kaiserd]

On the aviation side, which I can judge well, he is reasonably neutral. For example he takes seriously the claims of Gustave Whitehead to have beaten the Wright brothers, without declaring for either side.

This is the same problem we've seen with climate change, just giving the oil-industry funded climate sceptics a seat at the table during discussions gives them a legitimacy that their supposed scientific basis doesn't warrant. Just taking a non-Wright Brothers first flight seriously is giving it backing it wouldn't otherwise have - 'neutrality' isn't possible in these discussions, just letting them onto the table is a 'little bit pregnant' scenario.

I see exactly what you mean; wanting to give a fair chance to an alternative view can easily become given equivalency or equal weight to positions that do not warrant them. Seen recently re: COVID denialism plus lockdown and vaccine “scepticism”.

But there is an additional elephant in the room when topics relate to Nazi Germany.
I have no idea of the motivation of the principal contributors here pushing this Nazi nuclear bomb narrative.
There is always going to be a natural additional concern re: who may be pushing controversial narratives re: Nazi Germany and why. And having what might be seen as an unusually strong determination to prove that Nazi Germany did actually produce nuclear weapons (and, apparently, nuclear weapons notably more advanced than those actually produced by the US) may not suggest an entirely normal relationship and/or attitude to Nazi Germany.
It is in this context that you really have to urge particular vigilance and decisiveness by the Moderators.

 

[Sherman Tank]

Like I observed in the other thread, there's a lot of weird out-and-out mistakes in Rider's book, like including Chopin (Polish) and Smetana (Czech) in a list of classical composers from "German speaking areas". Also his section on submarines includes Dutchman Cornelis Drebbel as a "German" inventor and about a dozen pages of irrelevant photos of the inside of a Type XXI U-Boat.

 

[DWG]

But there is an additional elephant in the room when topics relate to Nazi Germany.

Absolutely, and it's one that had definitely crossed my mind.

 

[DWG]

Like I observed in the other thread, there's a lot of weird out-and-out mistakes in Rider's book, like including Chopin (Polish) and Smetana (Czech) in a list of classical composers from "German speaking areas".

Smetana, who somehow didn't title 'Ma Vlast' as 'Mein Land'!

(Useful prompt, now listening to Ma Vlast )

 

[edwest4]

I would propose, just to answer to arguments, not to persons. Being in the minority often is difficult enough,
even without mockery from the majority.
Of course, that means dealing in a reasonable way with questions, like the one in the recent post from Zoo Tycoon,
by those in the minority, too.
As with religions, there seems to be no give in with regards to such discussions. Maybe a "agree to disagree"
could be accepted as closure ?

Unilateral disagreement is like unilateral disarmament. It doesn't work.

 

[fightingirish]

Another option might be:
The topic "German Atom Bomb Projects in WW2" is only open to senior members and/ or heavily moderated.

 

[edwest4]

Another option might be:
The topic "German Atom Bomb Projects in WW2" is only open to senior members and/ or heavily moderated.

I don't think your suggestion is workable since, according to Orionblamblam: "there's no ability to deal with such madness rationally, since rationality didn't get them to that position. So you either despair or you point and laugh."

 

[steelpillow]

sometimes, the mockery is justified.

No, it never is. One of the disappointments here is the way sceptics such as yourself display such bombastic self-righteousness as if it carried some rational weight. It doesn't, it makes you look a bunch of egotistical and irrational fools, it really does; it does not help your case one iota. I am disgusted by your childish attitude; your case deserves better than this garbage.

For example there is a clear distinction between super-weapon foolery and historical researches you guys may not have caught up with. If you could acknowledge that fact in a calm and collected way it really would help the impartial bystander take you a bit more seriously.

Frankly, if partisan playground insults are all this thread has to offer, then yes it should be terminated with extreme prejudice.

 

[zen]

I do not believe for a second that anyone here wants answers to "straight forward" questions. You've seen the posts. The nonsensical comments.

Yeah, yeah, we all against you. In fact, we were against you before you even get born. Oh, I recall this night in 1798 in Transylvania, when we assembled in Dracula's castle, and collegially decided "in less than a two centuries there would be born a men, who would claim that future ruler of German lands invented a weapon of incredible destructive force before the American rebels managed to... WE MUST SILENCE HIM!!!"

Oh I remember this conversation! You got drunk on Romanian peasants blood and starting singing Verdi.

 

[edwest4]

A comparison with "religious fundamentalists"?

In real life, do you walk up to strangers, call them a nutter, and then expect them to stick around for a conversation?

 

[Dilandu]

For example there is a clear distinction between super-weapon foolery and historical researches you guys may not have caught up with. If you could acknowledge that fact in a calm and collected way it really would help the impartial bystander take you a bit more seriously.

The problem was, that when I noticed the obvious problem with "historical research" - that document, theoretically official, was attributed to the person who does NOT hold the mentioned official position at the alleged time of the document being written - the answer was anywhere but not calm and collected. What I get as answer was "erm, maybe he was unoifficially called the other way in official document". Instead of agreeing that said document is obviously highly suspicious and could not be used as reliable source, opponents tried to justify the obvious mistake by inventing hand-waived explanation. Sorry, but after such behavior its kinda... hard to stay calm and collected.

 

[martinbayer]

I’m really surprised by the endorsement that Rider has got from some individuals in places
which will find difficulty with supporting such a narrative;- did they read it or were just impressed with its weight?

I long ago learned to be skeptical of glowing endorsements. I once worked for a guy who turned out to be not only a terrible engineer, but IMO something of a self-important sociopath, who for a blessedly brief moment was skilled in the art of getting himself in front of cameras. He wrote a book. And due to his popularity at the time, a Famous Astronaut came to visit the offices. Bosshole had asked him for an endorsement, which came by way of an endorsement that the Bosshole himself wrote, printed off on a sheet of paper and slid across the table to Famous Astronaut, who signed it. I have no idea if Famous Astronaut actually read the book, but Bossholes own self-endorseent suddenly became Famous Astronaut's with the stroke of a pen.

Were those perhaps Zubrin and Aldrin?

 

[Orionblamblam]

I’m really surprised by the endorsement that Rider has got from some individuals in places
which will find difficulty with supporting such a narrative;- did they read it or were just impressed with its weight?

I long ago learned to be skeptical of glowing endorsements. I once worked for a guy who turned out to be not only a terrible engineer, but IMO something of a self-important sociopath, who for a blessedly brief moment was skilled in the art of getting himself in front of cameras. He wrote a book. And due to his popularity at the time, a Famous Astronaut came to visit the offices. Bosshole had asked him for an endorsement, which came by way of an endorsement that the Bosshole himself wrote, printed off on a sheet of paper and slid across the table to Famous Astronaut, who signed it. I have no idea if Famous Astronaut actually read the book, but Bossholes own self-endorseent suddenly became Famous Astronaut's with the stroke of a pen.

Were those perhaps Zubrin and Aldrin?

I will neither confirm nor deny. But if you hear the word "sociopath" and you think "Zubrin," well....

 

[CiTrus90]

In all honesty, I've always tried to steer away from certain topics and even whole sections of this site because I feel like those corners are inhabited by a very "special" kind of users.

And by "special" I mean it in a general spectrum that spaces from the delusional, to the asperger-ish (with all due respect to people that have Asperger), to the personal pet peeves-oriented ones, in a way that they usally contribute nothing much besides the waste of storage space.

These people are luckily less than a dozen and easily ignored since, much like trolls are usally depicted as living under bridges, they, as well, flock towards certain threads and topics and gravitate generally there.

After viewing many discussions about these same issues in the past on the site and, also as a personal preference due to my own character and experiences in life, I came to the conclusion that engaging with these people is a fruitless waste of energy and time.
They cannot be reasoned with, because, much like it happens with religious dogma, only these people know the "truth".
No matter if researchers, engineers, rocket scientists and actual experts try to discuss with them or offer them the proofs that they're wrong, the world can only be black or white for them, so if you're not on their side, you're against them.

It's like terrorism, but with idiocy. Hopefully it does less victims than the former, but after what's been happening with Covid, I'm not much sure about it anymore.

The point is, that thread was full of BS and a waste of time. It's not the only such thread, and there will probably many more threads like that in the future.
For my own sanity I will keep to ignore them as they come.

What leaves me perplexed though, is what the point of this actual thread is.

Why making a poll about locking a thread or not? Rather, I could understand the logic behind this move if the poll was reserved to moderators only and away from public eyes, but not like this.
If something is stupid, or BS, or disinformation, or a fraud it should not be left to the general users to determine if it's worthy to continue to peddle in it or not.
It seems more like a way to waive responsability than anything else.

That topic had run its course, went off road another couple of miles and then some more.
Had more people voted for keeping it open, would it have been the wisest choice to follow the will of the majority?
If the majority of userse were dumb, would it have been the right call to make them choose what to do?
It's not a matter of democracy. Facts and science are not opinions, they can be verified and if someone is entertaining a stupid idea or is maliciously feeding disinformation they should not be left to do as they please.

And this is not a matter that should be left up to the single users to rectify or justify each time something like this happens.

I know it's a PITA but this is something that you Paul, as owner of the site, and together with the mods, should be taking a stance on.
Either this site has rules like "Posts on UFOs, Nazi wunderwaffen/flying saucers, conspiracy theories, alien crashes, moon landing denials and the like are specifically discouraged and would be better posted elsewhere" and these rules are enforced, or they are not, and this is free real estate where everything is up grabs.

I'm sorry if I sound like an ass, but it's quite discouraging to see this sort of problem periodically resurface every month or so.

 

[Antonio]

Time to stop because this is going far from the contents we want for this forum

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

For example there is a clear distinction between super-weapon foolery and historical researches you guys may not have caught up with. If you could acknowledge that fact in a calm and collected way it really would help the impartial bystander take you a bit more seriously.

The problem was, that when I noticed the obvious problem with "historical research" - that document, theoretically official, was attributed to the person who does NOT hold the mentioned official position at the alleged time of the document being written - the answer was anywhere but not calm and collected. What I get as answer was "erm, maybe he was unoifficially called the other way in official document". Instead of agreeing that said document is obviously highly suspicious and could not be used as reliable source, opponents tried to justify the obvious mistake by inventing hand-waived explanation. Sorry, but after such behavior its kinda... hard to stay calm and collected.

Lets examine this rationally please.

In November 1944, Antonov was a General of the Army having been promoted from Colonel-General in 1943. So that's correct. His official title was First Deputy Chief of Staff, but he was considered de facto head operationally while Vasilevsky was often busy on frontline duty. Antonov wasn't officially promoted to this position until February 1945 when Vasilevsky was formally transferred to the Far East, but Vasilevsky was engaged in planning the forthcoming assault on Japan from late 1944 onwards.

The memo is addressed to

Head/Chief of the Red Army General HQ

General of the Army, Comrade Antonov




Now, it is possible that this memo is a fake. It's also possible that Antonov was now effectively full time Chief, but the official title change hadn't yet happened. Its also possible that he the letter is addressed to the office/position of Chief of the Red Army General HQ (nominally still Vasilevsky) but the writer is aware that Antonov is currently filling that role and hence put his name down. Ultimately it's Antonov he wants to talk to, not Vasilevsky.

For anyone with archive access, it should be possible to examine other memos sent to and from Antonov in this timeframe which would help prove or disprove the authenticity of this memo. Allegedly, this has been done, and the memos reproduced are part of a large number between these people. This should be verifiable.

Dismissing it out of hand as a fake without investigation is wrong. I think it's probably genuine, but meaningless.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What leaves me perplexed though, is what the point of this actual thread is.

Why making a poll about locking a thread or not? Rather, I could understand the logic behind this move if the poll was reserved to moderators only and away from public eyes, but not like this.
If something is stupid, or BS, or disinformation, or a fraud it should not be left to the general users to determine if it's worthy to continue to peddle in it or not.
It seems more like a way to waive responsability than anything else.

I had locked the original topic already.

I wanted to gauge what the general feeling of the users was about this topic, to see if my instincts were correct. There are some interesting snippets of interest buried in this topic, and I don't doubt that genuine original historical research can alter our earlier understanding of historical events. However, the messengers don't help their cause by their methods of research and presentation.

That certainly doesn't mean that if people want this kind of content that it's going to be allowed. It would merely be one input into my decision.

I've merged all topics on this subject to one topic, which is locked.