Plans for the Luftwaffe if the war continued ...

[Koopernic]

even with just the auxiliary chamber alone running at 660lb thrust that is around 655lbs of fuel per minute. IF these numbers are correct the auxiliary chamber alone used fuel at a faster rate than a B-29 climbing out with a heavy load.

They can't be correct, the specific impulse of this type of hypergolic bipropellant is around 180-240 seconds. So 660lbs fuel would provide 660 lbs thrust for 180-240 seconds. About 3.0 to 2.5lbs per second or 150lbs per minute. It's still poor, 660lbs is 300kg would be about 300L of fuel. Nevertheless the rocket compensates by being smaller lighter and not having an intake system adding both drag, weight and taking up space that could be used for propellant. A WW2 jet would be doing well to produce as much thrust at 10,000m.

 

[tyrodtom]

The Me163B1 weighed 4200 lb empty, 8710 loaded. Not light by anyone's measure.
Almost as much as a loaded as a mid war Fw190, although the 163 was a great deal smaller.

Let's say even if it's around 5000 lbs with pilot and ammo, the other 3700 lbs is fuel and oxidizer all of which it expends on one climb.

 

[stona]

he other 3700 lbs is fuel and oxidizer all of which it expends on one climb.

T-Stoff, 1550 Kg. C-Stoff, 468 Kg. Operational installation of the motor, 369 Kg.

The airframe only weighed 912 Kg so there was a lot of other equipment. Instruments, electrical and hydraulic installations weighed 146 Kg and were obviously a permanent installation. There was 350 Kg of armour, armament, radio etc.

Cheers

Steve

 

[tyrodtom]

I just gave a very rough estimate. So actually over 4400 lbs. of fuel and oxidizer expended on one takeoff and climb to operational altitude.

Empty weight of most fighters is the weight of the aircraft minus pilot, munitions, and fuel isn't it ?

 

[Shortround6]

There are two empty weights ( and the British through in tare weight just to keep everybody on their toes) really empty weight does NOT include the weight of the guns, radios, oxygen equipment (or at least the oxygen) and perhaps oil,etc. Basically it only includes mission orientated equipment if the equipment is part of the airplane or not easily removable, gun mounts and gun control equipment (remote cocking and firing) can count even if the guns don't.

Empty equipped includes the guns (but no ammo), radios, residual oil (oil that is stuck in places that a few drain plugs won't drain), basically everything is now included except for the pilot/crew and what will be used/consumed in one flight/mission. Ammo/bombs, fuel/oil, oxygen

 

[stona]

I just gave a very rough estimate. So actually over 4400 lbs. of fuel and oxidizer expended on one takeoff and climb to operational altitude.

Yep, over two tonnes gone in 6 minutes at full throttle. This is an obvious limitation to rocket propelled aircraft of the era.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Seawitch]

With those borders their production would collapse due to lack of resources and food shortages causing famine.

If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!

 

[wiking85]

If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!

Considering when the decision was made Hitler could care less who starved, he even ordered the German people die with him:
Nero Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kool kitty89]

The trouble with rockets is that they carried their own oxygen instead of using air. The engine it self was light (very attractive) but the fuel was heavy. The two chamber rocket for the Me 163C weighed 365lbs, a single chamber rocket was lighter.

Unfortunately it consumed fuel at the rate of 19.5lbs of C stoff per lb of thrust per hour and an traditional 40.1 lbs of oxidiser (t-stoff) per lb of thrust per hour, this compares to a Jumo 004 consuming 1.4lbs of fuel per lb of thrust per hour.

That consumption seems impossibly high if you apply that to the 3,800 lbf thrust and 7.5 minute full throttle endurance of the Me 163. That would be 3775 lbs (1714 kg) of combined fuel+oxidizer consumed per minute and 28310 lbs (12853 kg) of total fuel/oxidizer. Your figures seem to be off by a factor of nearly 3:1. Wiki lists the combined fuel/oxidizer consumption at full throttle to be 20 lb/lbf/hr (combined fuel+oxidizer) which complies with the 7.5 minute figure and approximate 4 tonnes of fuel+oxidizer onboard.

Still about 14x poorer than the 004, but gives a good deal more margin for the thrust/weight threshold. And comparing a mixed powered aircraft using a single 004B and single 3,800 lbf rocket would offer nearly as much maximum thrust as 3x 004Bs (or better, but I'm going by the 1984 lbf offered by the 004B-4) and given the dry engine weights of perhaps 150 kg for the rocket engine and 719 kg for each of the jets, that's 869 kg to 2157 kg or some 1288 kg of additional fuel weight before the jets become more attractive for take-off/max thrust. (albeit you gain much more general advantages even before that point) Or the same difference for 2x 004s vs a single rocket engine. (enough fuel for about 2 min 14 seconds of full power thrust)

Though that said, with the amount of fuel the Me 163 carried, and its take-off weight, a similarly small aircraft with 2 jet engines (003s would be better, but 004s should have been possible) should have been better performing in most respects and much more fuel efficient. However, it would perform worse on power-out landings given the Me 163 expanded much more of its mass as fuel and thus glided better.

OTOH, using jet assist purely for take-off/climb would make much more sense given you'd only use a limited amount of fuel and expend all of that weight before entering combat. Something the Me 163's size with a single 004B and single 3,800 lbf jet might make a lot of sense, or slightly bigger than the 163 to properly accommodate the added bulk of the engine and weight increase. (me 262 with a rocket in the tail and drop tanks carrying the rocket fuel, might make sense, but a single engine jet with rocket assist might be more cost effective)

Good engine-out performance is critical for anything using those early jets with reliability issues, and in a single engine aircraft that means good dead-stick performance. (I'm not sure if the Me 163's landing skid arrangement would have made emergency landings on rough airfields or off airfields any more practical or less damaging than belly landings -obviously the Me 262 was poorly suited to belly landings given the underwing nacelles, taking that into account for a jet/mixed powered 163-a-like could have been significant -aside from trying a dorsal/saddle mount, embedding the engine in the fuselage above or below the rocket engine might have worked, above probably better due to potential of dripping corrosive rocket propellant during priming; an arrangement that allowed fairly quick engine replacement would still be necessary though, so a fairly easily removable 'embedded' module type arrangement would have been preferable -probably simpler than removing the entire long tail section as on the Mig 15 and P-80)

If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!

Fermentation of ethanol really isn't all that efficient, if they'd really wanted to mass produce alcohol fuels efficiently, synthetic fuel plants would be the ideal option. Be it methanol, ethanol or other alcohols (methanol is the simplest/cheapest by far but has a lower energy density -at least part of the Me 163's high fuel consumption rate was due to the use of methanol and large portions of water in the fuel and oxidizer, the hydrazine isn't that efficient of a fuel either, and ethanol isn't THAT much better than methanol -plus methanol was seriously considered for use in the V2 and vaporizes more easily).

Small, relatively simple (nothing like the massive, costly hydrogenation synthetic fuel plants primarily used in war-time Germany) Fischer–Tropsch synthesis plants, including ones on the countryside closely associated with farms (potentially producing biomass feedstock both from crops and especially from waste -dry agricultural waste would be ideal as like wet brown coal or peat, wet plant matter has to be dried or heated to drive off the water before conversion to synthesis gas).

Wood works well as biomass feedstock for such factories too and along with a number of other plant materials, also produces some useful distillates directly from destructive distallation, including limited portions of methanol (hence 'wood alcohol' ) and wood tar, plus turpentine from pines. (the usefulness of that all depends on the region, and in the specific discussion on rocket fuel, wood alcohol and synthetic methanol production would be the relevant ones -stuff like turpentine in diesel or gasoline or alternative fuel blends is another topic)


That said, the V2 was hugely expensive and of limited practical use for a number of reasons, even ignoring the research costs, deployment aside from maybe a few special cases would be hugely costly compared to more conventional alternatives, including that synthetic fuel (or potatoes or grain) going to better uses elsewhere.

Hell, even for purse research use, the V2 was hugely expensive, and US testing quickly shifted to lower cost alternatives after running through their initial supply of captured V2s. Putting more of the V2's resources into SAM development with the Wasserfall program might have been more sensible use for similar resources. (engineering talent included) But, of course, that would mean greater interest in DEFENSIVE weapons development. (or possibly tactical short range offensive weapons too for potential short range SAS missiles -I wonder if a scaled down, tactical short range version of the V1 might have been useful too, something much easier to set up using mobile launch sites -pulse jets scale down really well, but the guidance system would be more problematic)

 

[kool kitty89]

I also totally overlooked one other very valid point regarding rocket power on aircraft: air augmentation.

I feel particularly silly given I mentioned this so many times in my V-1 thread in regards to pulse jets (it's also relevant to turbojets but usually not worth the weight/drag unless an afterburner is used and turbofans use the same concept but with the added fan/compressor driving the external mass of cool air rather than using ram or venturi induction).

Air-augmented rocket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(unlike the examples posed in that article, any sort of ducting that introduces air into the rocket exhaust jet would apply, not just tubes/channels running the entire length of the vehicle or engine, including rings/ducts suspended aft of the exhaust nozzle itself http://www.pulse-jets.com/valveless/valvelesspulsejet_files/image084.gif )

It makes fairly little sense for ballistic rockets, but on a rocket powered aircraft (particularly a sub-sonic one) the added flow of air mixed into the rocket exhaust would be extremely useful and also potentially be used to help keep the exhaust nozzle/ducting within reasonable temperatures) Radial engine/radiator style flaps might be worth using for the air inlets both to prevent overcooling the nozzle and more so to just optimize drag at varying speeds.

Augmentor ducts of some sort likely also would have been useful for RATO/JATO units, including those using solid fuel. (pure rocket propulsion is good at very high speeds, but with these being used at take-off, the added drag from broad air inducer ducts would be small compared to the increase in thrust)


Aside from that, it'd be changes to fuel and oxidizer that would result in better specific fuel consumption using similar reaction chamber and nozzle designs. (kerosene and fuming nitric acid or nitrogen dioxide would both be much better than hydrated hydrogen peroxide in terms of volume and weight, and kerosene or some other mix of hydrocarbons and/or heavy alcohols in that energy content range would gain a lot over hydrated methanol and hydrazine -more than 2:1)

Nitric acid and nitrogen dioxide, while more difficult to work with than hydrogen peroxide, probably would have been at least easier to work with than liquid oxygen on the whole.



Edit: Rocket Science Books: Thrust Augmentors for Jet Propulsion
That article points to an NACA study published in 1932 citing tests dating back to 1927 ( see cover page http://rocketsciencebooks.com/books...entors_files/naca-thrust-augmentors-cover.JPG ).

So such concepts were already being seriously researched for jet/rocket propulsion before the Nazis even came into power in Germany.

The concept applies to rockets, turbojets, ramjets, pulse jets or any other sort of high velocity and/or high temperature jet propulsion arrangement. Turbofans took those same principals a step further and accelerated that additional air rather than ramming or inducing it. (in principal it should also improve the specific fuel consumption of ram jets considerably for the same reason as pulse jets and rockets -albeit more akin to pulse jets given ram jets at moderate speeds produce very hot hot but not extremely high velocity exhaust -if the augmentor duct uses ram effect to significant effect, it's also more or less like concealing a small ram jet inside the body of a larger ram jet with the smaller one more or less acting as a combustion chamber for the larger, but that's more complex and likely heavier than simpler augmentor ducting configurations -and likely drawing more on the research and experience relating to NACA cowlings given the temperatures and speeds involved -it's also a bit like having ejector exhaust outlets buried inside an aerodynamic cowling)

 

[Koopernic]

If the V2 really need 30 tons of potatoes (?) to produce the alcohol element of it's fuel I think dumping that project would have been essential!

I can't believe that a man as intelligent as von Braun, or Dornberger or the Reich Government would authorise a weapon that if produced in the quantities desired (1000 missiles per month) would require 30,000,000 kg of potatoes to produce the ethanol fuel per month, enough to feed 1 million people a kilogram per day and likely fully feed 300,000. In fact hopes were for production of up to 5000 missiles per month.

No doubt these would not have been prime potatoes, ie maybe of cuts and peels, rotted or partially blighted ones that are unfit for humans but such food is excellent for pork production.

The synthetic route for Industrial scale production of ethanol was hydration of ethylene. At the time ethylene could be obtained in industrial quantities from coke oven gases or by the steam cracking of hydrocarbons followed by cryogenic distillation (the hydrocarbons were available from any of the synthetic fuel factories). Germany had a substantial ethylene capacity at Linde and IG Farben.

Possibly the damage to the German petrochemicals industry forced the interim production of Ethanol via fermentation of potatoes. Possibly ethanol was already being fermented to do the reverse: to produce ethylene, which was an extremely important chemical. Possibly the potato fermentation claim is a sensational myth about those insane nazi scientists.

Synthesis by fischer-tropsch is apparently possible either via expensive Rutheniam catalysts or modified methanol catalysts, however this also produces large amounts of other of the higher alcohols that may or may not be of use. It seems unattractive.

Considering when the decision was made Hitler could care less who starved, he even ordered the German people die with him:
Nero Decree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler, especially after the almost successful assassination attempt by bomb was physically and mentally shattered. I don't know what his performance and attitude would have been like without this but perhaps still harsh enough. Even Roosevelt was described as sick (in the moral sense) at Yalta by some Americans and British alike no doubt to the excesses of extreme stress but he seems to have gotten onto the same wavelength as Stalin and Morgenthau. Churchill had non of it.

The Rational was based on the delusional hope, but hope nonetheless, that when German forces advanced to recapture lost territory that the Allies would destroy the same facilities anyway so they may as well be destroyed immediately. It doesn't seem to have covered food crops or agricultural machinery but it certainly would have wiped out the ammonia fertiliser plants and fuel sources for tractors.

Some years before I believe Stalin had carried out a similar order with predictable results.

 

[tyrodtom]

I can't believe a man as intelligent as Von Braun would have ever associated with Nazis at all, but we might be generous and say he was so blinded by his ambition to advance his rocketry theories he didn't care what devil he had to hitch himself to.
He certainly had no problem looking the other way to ignore the thousands of forced workers murdered while producing his rockets.

He no doubt would have "overlooked" a few million starving Germans just as easily.

 

[kool kitty89]

Synthesis by fischer-tropsch is apparently possible either via expensive Rutheniam catalysts or modified methanol catalysts, however this also produces large amounts of other of the higher alcohols that may or may not be of use. It seems unattractive.

Hence why I was suggesting that route primarily for a methanol fueled V2. Von Braun had seriously considered Methanol as the primary fuel, and it has some positive trade-offs with ethanol along with the negative. Production aside, methanol's lower energy density is the main drawback. It's somewhat easier to render anhydrous (free from water) than ethanol due to its inability to form an azeotrope with water, so either distillation or 'salting out' (using salt or concentrated brine solutions to extract the water) are both practical where Ethanol will be stuck at 94/95% in those methods. Methanol's lower boiling point reduces distillation energy costs and the better vaporization properties may have eased its use as a fuel in general.

Dehydrating methanol to dimethyl ether may have been a practical alternative as well. Easily liquified under modest pressure and a higher per-volume and per-weight energy density than ethanol or methanol. It also lacks the corrosive issues of Methanol or Ethanol. (and far far easier to handle than liquid oxygen, much closer to common LPGs like propane and butane -closer to butane)

Had the V2 used fuming nitric acid or nitrogen dioxide as the oxidizer, storage/generation/containment should have been a fair bit less problematic as well. (nitrous oxide would be easier -higher pressure to liquify but non corrosive- but the oxygen content is much lower and manufacturing cost is higher)

 

[stona]

I can't believe a man as intelligent as Von Braun would have ever associated with Nazis at all
He certainly had no problem looking the other way to ignore the thousands of forced workers murdered while producing his rockets.

I couldn't agree more, many of the 'Paperclip' scientists and technicians were tainted goods. However we should remember that the allies were prepared to overlook his, and others, close association with the Nazi regime when their own national interest was at stake. Nobody comes out of this smelling of roses, but the Americans did get to the moon first.

'Needs must when the devil drives'

Cheers

Steve

 

[Koopernic]

I can't believe a man as intelligent as Von Braun would have ever associated with Nazis at all, but we might be generous and say he was so blinded by his ambition to advance his rocketry theories he didn't care what devil he had to hitch himself to.
He certainly had no problem looking the other way to ignore the thousands of forced workers murdered while producing his rockets.

He no doubt would have "overlooked" a few million starving Germans just as easily.

Non of this is factual. There is no credible evidence against him.

Werner von Braun doesn't deserve your sarcasm. Everyone that knew him knew him as a decent man but certainly one who got things done.

von Braun started rocket research on his own volition having decided to dedicate his life to the achievement of manned space flight. It is inevitably space that will provide the space and resources mankind needs. The Wehrmacht i.e. German Army eventually took over his work in order to develop essentially what was seen to be a new form of long range Artillery. For von Braun it promised the funds needed.

As I have pointed out Forced Labour was a 1944 phenomena, it seems to have been mostly absent in 1943. Foreign workers of any kind were officially banned by order of the Fuhrer from involvement in either the Fi 103 (V1) and EMW A4 (V2) program for security reasons. So von Braun would have seen nothing in 1943 and much of 1944. There was no forced labour at Peenemunde where the research and initial production was developed.

Where there was Forced labour it was at the Dora production facility and some of the most hideous events there are associated with excavation of tunnels, allied bombardment and evacuation marches in the face of allied advances. von Braun was not a civil engineer overseeing construction, he had nothing to do with it as the facility had been developed for other weapons production. Again it is a 1944 event and a late 1944 one at that that happened a the time that 60,000 people were burned and suffocated to death at night, when the Morgenthau plan for what was inevitably the starvation death of 30% of Germans was known, when an exhausting 58 hour working week was normal and when most able bodied men were at the front and most had lost a relative or close friend. Mass starvation was already inevitable, it was only a matter of exactly how many and who.

von Braun in fact had found himself arrested, along with Dornberger, for what was effectively a charge of misusing military funds for space flight development but was really a gambit by Heinrich Himmler to take control of the program in particular its valuable electrical and electronics engineers and their knowledge of radar, radio control etc.

Wars generate huge amounts of prisoners of many kinds. For POW the legal thing to do under the Hague and later Geneva conventions was to compel them to do work. In general this meant such things as farm work. It was felt that having huge numbers of prisoners who did not work might be seen as a burden and that this would inevitably lead to a reduction in the taking of prisoners. The Germans stepped outside of conventions by using POW for producing munitions as well as those who had been involved in partisan or anti German activity or in many cases Germans themselves who had committed political 'offenses'. Who these souls were in proportions and numbers and where they all came from I do not know.

There is one account of supposedly von Braun abusing a forced labourer, he is supposed to have face slapped the Gentlemen for sabotaging production in the presence of several officers or guards. Given the penalty for deliberate sabotage was likely death its odd that this Gentlemen was left alive and on the production line. I rather think it might have been a case of mistaken identity.

Rape is a very serious and heinous offense. The reaction of most men is protective and angry and we are inclined to jump to the aid of the lady. Since the introduction of women into main line staffing of the US military the military faces the same problem as university campuses in terms of sexual assault. The US Army found that fully 27% of accusations of rape it had to deal with could be dismissed outright on the basis of incontrovertible evidence and alibies such as being seem in a video at a different location. The rate is around 41% outside the military. Yet women do get raped, even murdered and mutilated, but 40% of accusations seem to be false according to one police study and another university study. Why do they do it? I don't know, perhaps being a victim is therapeutic rationalisation of ones problems, a explanation for having consensual but drunken sex etc. (my knowledge of this came out of the UVA/Fraternity rape hoax. The thing to remember is that young men's lives often get ruined by these sorts of things and it could be your son or brother. In Israel folks sometimes get caught faking being a holocaust survivor and they get dealt with severely. Men wearing US medals fake having experience combat and PTSD. The problem with all of these things to varying degrees is one can become somewhat of a pariah for applying the same standard of scepticism one would of other accusations. Accusing someone of being a genocidalist nazi is a little like accusing someone of being a potential child molester for a reminiscing smiling at some kids in the public park, the mud sticks, its too easy.

 

[Koopernic]

I couldn't agree more, many of the 'Paperclip' scientists and technicians were tainted goods. However we should remember that the allies were prepared to overlook his, and others, close association with the Nazi regime when their own national interest was at stake. Nobody comes out of this smelling of roses, but the Americans did get to the moon first.

'Needs must when the devil drives'

Cheers

Steve

Perhaps non of these extreme things would have happened had there not been carpet bombing of civilian centres.

Here is a review in "The Spectator" of Richard Overy's book the bombing war:
Hitler didn't start indiscriminate bombings â€" Churchill didÂ* » The Spectator
"Overy dismisses the long-held belief 'firmly rooted in the British public mind' that Hitler initiated the trend for indiscriminate bombings. Instead, he says, the decision to take the gloves off was Churchill's, 'because of the crisis in the Battle of France, not because of German air raids [over Britain].'

Ethical restraints which had been imposed at the start of the war became slowly eroded as a result of Britain's decision to initiate 'unrestricted' bombing of targets located in Germany's urban areas"

If you know the spectator you know its not exactly left wing peacenik or Nazi, I believe the owners are in fact Jewish. As far as Overy goes he is a long time military Historian who has written many books and appeared on the History Channel.

Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.

 

[parsifal]

The descent into unrestricted warfare cant be placed at the feet of any single individual, or even country. But it certainly had more roots in German behaviour than anyone elses. Germany had started the trend during the war in Spain, they had moved onto indicriminate bombing over Warsaw and Rotterdam. try telling the older generations of the Norwegian city of Namsos that its the British that initiated the unrestricted forms of warfare. At sea, long before there were any formal declarations by the German government about unrestricted attacks, such attacks were being carried out without formal sanction. There were numberous cases of lifeboats being machine gunned, more than half the tonnages sunk by the Germans up to may 1940 were of un-involed, genuine neutral vessels that were in no way contributing to the allied efforts. Acts of flagrant piracy were occurring with the full sanction of the German govt as completely neutral vessels, particualalry in the Baltic, were seized, their crews imprisoned (most of the time) and the ships illegally used by the germans. There were many occasions of the waters of neutrals being mined and worse, the germans making no declarations of having done so. On all except one occasion (the DoW against the US), the Germans dispensed with such niceties as making a formal declaration before they attacked.

Do i need to continue and provide details for you?

Its more than a little bit rich to start pointing an accusing finger at Churchill, when the Germans have a track record like that. Its just that the british took it to the next level. Being good at killing civilians does not make you more morally bankrupt. It just makes you a more efficient killing machine.

 

[GrauGeist]

I have trouble with this:

Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.

While Hitler was writing Mein Kampf, he was venting his hatred of Der Juden...then as the Nazis came to power, the Jews became their focus point - Kyrstall Nacht would be a prime example of this anti-Semitic movement.

The Nuremberg laws of 1935 target Jews specifically, as did the revised Gun laws of the same time period. The concentration camps started popping up from 1933 onward, of course the first victims were the mentally infirm, homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners. Once Poland fell to Germany in 1939 and the Reich started it's territorial expansion, the Jews came to be a broader target and those that weren't crammed into Ghettos found their way to a concentration camp.

All before 8 December, 1941.

So Buchanan is completely full of horsesh!t.

 

[kool kitty89]

Why do they do it? I don't know, perhaps being a victim is therapeutic rationalisation of ones problems, a explanation for having consensual but drunken sex etc. (my knowledge of this came out of the UVA/Fraternity rape hoax. The thing to remember is that young men's lives often get ruined by these sorts of things and it could be your son or brother.

Actually, I'd think that's more often the point: intentional slander for revenge/retribution (petty or otherwise). Using such false threats for blackmail is hardly unheard of either. Nasty, evil people will do all sorts of underhanded things to anyone if it serves them ... or just out of spite. Same thing goes for abusing (relatively) innocent, yet unfortunate situations, technically breaking the law as grounds for blackmail and manipulation or revenge/attack/etc. Or political mudslinging. (factual or otherwise, twisting context of events -or not providing context- is a huge matter as well -people have a nasty habit of making assumptions and not questioning those conclusions ... all too relevant in history discussions too)

Ethical restraints which had been imposed at the start of the war became slowly eroded as a result of Britain's decision to initiate 'unrestricted' bombing of targets located in Germany's urban areas[/I]"

If you know the spectator you know its not exactly left wing peacenik or Nazi, I believe the owners are in fact Jewish. As far as Overy goes he is a long time military Historian who has written many books and appeared on the History Channel.

Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.

The escalation to total war with few (if any) ethical limits (let alone moral ones) may have been mostly escalated between the Germans and British during the European War, but wouldn't some examples have come even sooner if looking specifically at Soviet and (especially) Japanese conflict involvement prior to Bomber Command's unrestricted strategy being executed?

Of course, the topic of pragmatic or rational decisions made for the sake of a total war strategy is another topic in itself. (cold hard decisions made in the name of winning the war vs sheer spite/vengeance ... or ideological reasons, or simply false/insane/incompetent decisions/planning) Topics like that do make me wonder what the likes of Bismark may have thought about such matters ... or the specifics of their execution.

Its more than a little bit rich to start pointing an accusing finger at Churchill, when the Germans have a track record like that. Its just that the british took it to the next level. Being good at killing civilians does not make you more morally bankrupt. It just makes you a more efficient killing machine.

I think the point was more the escalation to total war in general, and the British Unrestricted Bombing campaign being one of the more decisive examples.

The psychological effect seemed to backfire in a similar way as the Blitz over London, but on a far larger scale ... the practical/strategic effect was certainly a usable strategy one, strictly logically speaking, but only because of the sheer logistics of the situation and the lack of an organized German defensive military/technology development strategy and due to the American bombing campaign splitting resources between day and night. (both in terms of production and development)


It's a shame actual terror bombing rarely has the desired effect, the destruction and duration of the war might have been far less if it had worked. (we're lucky it worked over Japan to the degree it did)

 

[kool kitty89]

Patrick Buchanon goes so far as to argue, plausibly and eloquently in my view, that had the US not entered the war the holocaust wouldn't have happened. His over riding concern always being to prevent the US from getting embroiled in wars for moral reasons that end up making things worse. Things don't look so good in Iraq at the moment despite operation enduring freedom.

I have trouble with this:

While Hitler was writing Mein Kampf, he was venting his hatred of Der Juden...then as the Nazis came to power, the Jews became their focus point - Kyrstall Nacht would be a prime example of this anti-Semitic movement.

The Nuremberg laws of 1935 target Jews specifically, as did the revised Gun laws of the same time period. The concentration camps started popping up from 1933 onward, of course the first victims were the mentally infirm, homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners. Once Poland fell to Germany in 1939 and the Reich started it's territorial expansion, the Jews came to be a broader target and those that weren't crammed into Ghettos found their way to a concentration camp.

All before 8 December, 1941.

What is Buchanon's actual argument though, and what is the Holocaust defined as in this context? Is it more an argument that American involvement (including logistical support before they formally entered the war) a significant factor in the overall severity of the situation or execution of Hitler's Final Solution?

Besides that, there's a difference between using America's involvement as a point of blame vs just an example of how escalation of the war greatly deepened destruction (criminal atrocities or otherwise) across the board rather than making it anything specific to the Americans or their policies themselves.

There's plenty of turning points and what-ifs that could be made across the board though, like the Holocaust being largely prevented or greatly reduced if more countries had been open to actually accepting Jewish refugees ... or the bigger problem that too was a symptom of: the more universal Anti-semitism that left the Jewish people with few to no places to move to, and why the Nazi's found it impossible (or impractical) to drive them out at all.


Singling out any racial or ethnic group aside, the losses and tragedies, and horrors of WWII easily overshadow the Holocuast itself, even over Germany alone. Not to mention what followed under the Soviets post war. (granted, Chirchill called that danger rightly too, if not fully realizing how far reaching Stalin's actions would become, or the long-lasting consequences ... Koopernic's point on Iraq being relevant there as well, or practically any former European Colonies drawn into turmoil during the cold war -yes, the US made a good deal of mistakes for the worse during that time as well, but nearly all of that was reactionary to Soviet expansion -including the paranoia and blanket hatred of 'communism' )



I may be wrong here, but Koopernic's points don't seem to so much be attempting to downplay the events of the Holocaust, but put them in perspective lest the many other (or worse) horrors of the time be diminished. (the Atomic Bombings of Japan are similarly over-hyped compared to the rest of the war, including what China and Korea suffered -as well as other attacks on Japan like the firebombing of Tokyo, though I'd certainly say the Holocaust is a more deserving subject to be emphasized in terms of sheer horrific nature and harm -and loss of life, and torment- than the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombings, more valid by far)

The Holocaust was partially horrific for its discriminant nature alone, Britain's unrestricted bombing campaign was horrific for the opposite reason: complete lack of discrimination. (what's 'worse' and which had longer lasting consequences is more a moral ... or ethical discussion that I'd prefer to not delve into, plus any alternative to that bombing capaign -including anything less horrific/destructive on the whole- is purely conjecture or at least hypothesis, and while certainly interesting -and perhaps even uplifting to fantasize about, or depressing in other respects- it's that rather emotionally/morally/politically charged end of things that makes me tend to focus more on purely technical topics)