Originally posted by theAymen
but this was a major battle one of which that sparked ww2.

What are you talking about? WW2 had been going on for over 3 months when the Battle of the River Plate took place, so how could it have sparked WW2?

this along with the hindenburg makes me think the americans were involved earlier than thought

The Hindenburg disaster occured 2 1/2 years before the start of WW2, so why make the claim the yanks were involved earlier than thought?

Originally posted by dereks

What are you talking about? WW2 had been going on for over 3 months when the Battle of the River Plate took place, so how could it have sparked WW2?

not with the uk...as the uk & US won it...im only concerned with them...blowng up east europe and walking into france dont mean nuffin to me

The Hindenburg disaster occured 2 1/2 years before the start of WW2, so why make the claim the yanks were involved earlier than thought?

did you know the US sent soldiers to train with the SAS in scotland long before 1941. and took part in joint operations

theAymen, you are surely getting completely lost in your inaccurate view of history. I pulled you up about your revisionism regarding the Battle of the River Plate and have read other codswallop. Either you truly believe what you are saying or you are having a laugh.

If the former, I don't know what you are using as a reference but I strongly suggest you widen your reading. There are so many inaccuracies and falsehoods in what you say. In this case, the SAS did not exist "long before 1941" as they were officially formed in mid 1941. If you want to state the source for your information (including the assertion of “joint operations” with the US) then that may help, otherwise many here will conclude (quite rightly) that you are making it up.

Originally posted by theAymen
did you know the US sent soldiers to train with the SAS in scotland long before 1941. and took part in joint operations

Regards

Originally posted by theAymen

Originally posted by dereks

What are you talking about? WW2 had been going on for over 3 months when the Battle of the River Plate took place, so how could it have sparked WW2?

not with the uk.

Yes, with the UK. I will give you some exact dates.
On 1st September 1939 (1/9/1939) the German army marched into Poland.
Almost immedately, the British government sent them a message that there would be war unless the Germans promised to withdraw.
On 3rd September 1939, at 11.15, Neville Chamberlain made his famous broadcast to the British people;
"I have to tell you now that no such assurances have been received, and consequently this country is at war with Germany."
The Battle of the River Plate took place in December, and the Graf Spee was blown up by its own crew on 17th December 1939,at 8.54 pm local time.
So World War Two had been going on for at least two and a half months.
The River Plate did NOT "spark off" the war. It was an effect of an existing war, not a cause of anything.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne


Germany stopped work in the U bomb for the UV bomb perhaps for
East Coast use on American cities approachable by submarines.
They lost the A bomb race most likely because of no delivery system
and had to find another weapon fast for any last bombing threat
to the US land itself.

Germany stopped work on the A-Bomb for many reasons; the main one being that by the time that the upper Nazi Echelon realized that the Bomb was important it was already too late to develop one within the timeframe of the war.

The other thing that strikes me as odd is that you say it was a lack of delivery system: I'd say the German designs and conceptions for delivery systems where the one aspect that Germans mastered better than the US; think of the Amerikabomber or the A9/A10.

IMHO the reasons are numerous:

-Lack of technical knowledge (Heisenberg held cruder notions about atomic physics back then than he publicly admitted later)

-Lack of funds

-Lack of ressources

-Lack of scientists

-Lack of nuclear material (although this question is rightfully disputed).

My take: At most the Americans found a sophisticated trigger mechanism in Germany and adapted it to one of their bombs (not both). Perhaps it was also (unadmitted) German fissible material that allowed the rather rapid progress made in the summer of 1945 by the Manhattan Project. But that is about as far as I'm ready to speculate since already these notions rely on unclear and disputed testimony and interpretations of documents.

Good thread - there are a lot of very interesting aspects concerning WW2 and its aftermath that deserve further questioning and examination.

* We know Germany did not move into a fullscale war economy until after 1942. That said, Germany's wartime production steadily increased throughout 1943-1944 and was still churning it out in 1945. Of particular interest is the relative ineffectiveness of strategic bombing campaigns against industrial targets. While we were able to level entire cities like Dresden, the most notably industrial target was a Swedish ball-bearing plant that was severely damaged. Other industrial targets were left almost unscathed. Two sides of the coin on this - one that we avoided hitting American owned/financed businesses and perhaps purposely avoided massive industrial destruction with consideration to the aftermath of WW2 and the situation with the Soviets. Conversely, there were many American companies effectively involved in producing equipment that was used against our own troops.

* Research into the history of the EU will show its beginnings in coal/steel unions - working for companies like Krupp and Thyssen - juggernauts of German industry. Much the same people and companies involved in the early formation of the EU remain very influential. Consider that the EU basically includes what Germany had conquered militarily through the Summer of 1942.

* Factor in the amount of war booty and that a lot was smuggled out of the country and/or reinvested via methods that make tracking difficult. Figure that all of the same banks involved in supporting Germany and handling reinvestment are the same banks that exist today; and that many of them has the same chief bankers in the span building up to the EEC/EU.

Both of these are double-edged as well, suffice that Fascism is control of the state by industry/corporations.

Assertion is that the Nazi leadership was comprised of madmen. However, that makes the sane/smart leaders of virtually all other countries look like complete and utter buffoons as they got rolled over one by one. It has to be considered that they did have plans and provisions for a Fourth Reich - which is what we are seeing today - control of the state by industry and corporations, well beyond Germany. Understand too, that the French have always had an interest for a united Europe, too - and that for a time they were on the side of the Axis. Understand that most countries in Europe and beyond had pro-Nazi supporters.

Another consideration is that even in the United States we have continued loyalty to "the Confederate Flag" of the Civil War. Just because the war formally came to a stop does not mean that the war ended. In the immediate aftermath of WW2 - German sentiment regarding the Nazi Party was still highly favorable and/or neutral with as little as 1-10% of the population having negative views of it.

Finally, there are questions surrounding the Fate of both Deputy Fuhrers (Rudolf Hess and Martin Bormann), as well as Himmler. If today, we are even remotely embarrassed that bin Laden has evaded us, how much more of an embarrassment would it be for even one of these figures to have slipped through our fingers? Seriously, despite satellite imagery, drones, warrantless wiretapping, and everything else... we've killed some leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban four or five times now. I'm not sure that the evidence that we have regarding the final dispensation of either of these individuals is nearly as clear cut as the US Intelligence community would like the world to believe - or for that matter, England's. Operation Sealion may very well have been carried out - by a single man.

And relative to Bormann and Himmler - the United States has pressed the matter of people like Saddam Hussein and some of his underlings, even Osama bin Laden, as having "body doubles". We know for a fact that Hitler had at least one, too.

Whatever the case - there's a lot worth questioning regarding WW2 and its aftermath - politically, economically, scientifically, culturally and socially, and even in matters of mysticism. The real shame is that our government/s have failed to retain our trust to the point that at least some of us are unable to just "take their word for it". We are told what they want us to believe. While we may not be able to do a danged thing about it... not quite sure I believe that, I wonder how long the status quo would last if everyone played by the same rules the government - i.e the corporations behind the government, play by?

Overall, it does not really matter - the conflict between ideas and ideals has been perpetual - for thousands of years. The endless cycle of good and evil is perhaps necessary for our souls - without either, I think life would be without meaning.

I suppose with the fantasy so far, it was only a matter of time before over-hyped Nazi technology was brought into the thread. The fact is that the proliferation of a large number of aircraft designs – many on paper – was a symptom of a collapse in design management and increasing desperation to come to terms with a total loss of control. Yes, the Nazi’s fielded jets, but the engines were unreliable and their impact was inconsequential as they were too little and too late to wrest air superiority from the allies – who also had jets.

Foo fighters, Nazi UFOs, the Nazi atomic bomb, space planes and other alleged programmes are just fantasies. If there is any REAL evidence then please post and artist impressions or drawings are not evidence.

The facts are that the only programme the Nazi’s had any measurable lead on was rocketry in the form of the V2. U-boats were sunk, tanks destroyed and planes shot down and not an alien in sight.

Regards

Originally posted by theAymen
not with the uk

What are you on about? The war started with the UK in 1939 3 months before the Battle of the River Plate....

did you know the US sent soldiers to train with the SAS in scotland long before 1941. and took part in joint operations

As the SAS was not raised until 1941.... and do you have a source for your claim?

Hitler financed the war by robbing the rich Jews to feed the war machine.

Originally posted by paraphi

I suppose with the fantasy so far, it was only a matter of time before over-hyped Nazi technology was brought into the thread. The fact is that the proliferation of a large number of aircraft designs – many on paper – was a symptom of a collapse in design management and increasing desperation to come to terms with a total loss of control. Yes, the Nazi’s fielded jets, but the engines were unreliable and their impact was inconsequential as they were too little and too late to wrest air superiority from the allies – who also had jets.

AFAIK the alies did NOT have jets till after the war ended. And yes the nazi jets came out too late and were not enough to alter the course of the war effort. Still that does not change the fact that THEY were the FIRST to develop jets AMONG ALL NATIONS!

Originally posted by paraphi
Foo fighters, Nazi UFOs, the Nazi atomic bomb, space planes and other alleged programmes are just fantasies. If there is any REAL evidence then please post and artist impressions or drawings are not evidence.

I am NOT aware of any nazi ufos. The foo fighters some people saw were exactly that.....ufos(unidentified flying objects). Ufology is NOT a current theme by any stretch of the imagination, it is a re-occuring phenomena throughout the ages.

Originally posted by paraphi
The facts are that the only programme the Nazi’s had any measurable lead on was rocketry in the form of the V2. U-boats were sunk, tanks destroyed and planes shot down and not an alien in sight.

Regards

Do you know the difference between a rocket and a missle? A missle implies there is a GUIDANCE SYSTEM attached to the warhead that guides the warhead to its target. Rockets on the other hand are "dumb weapons" that can NOT guide themselves or be guided by RC after discharge. V2 "rockets" were actually crude missles, much like the scud missles used by iraq 5-6 decades later.

The u-boats were nothing special but during the early stages of WW2 germany sunk quite a few cargo vessles in the open atlantic and the allies were caught off-guard. Again they served their purpose despite being a bit crude in design.

As for field artillery/tanks/planes, germany was top notch in every regard. Allied hardware was no where close to matching them. The reason germany lost WW2 was because they were OUT-gunned, NOT out-classed. You can have the best hardware but if you are outnumbered 3-1 you will eventually lose. Plus the fact hitler made many tactical errors such as attacking russia when he should have focused all his resources on the western front. They even guessed wrong as to where in france the allies would launch their offensive thanks to careful planning and deception.