NY Times: Nazis Were Given 'Safe Haven' in U.S., Report Says

page: 8
93
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
hey ats folks. think about this. if its a fact that many former nazi officers/ss/take your pick war criminals were given safe haven in ny, it probably does mean that they lived with new identities and got married and had kids. do we as a civilized society have the right to know who these individuals were and are, as well as their wives and progeny? and if so, should their names be exposed along with their pictures and addresses?




posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The 4th Reich is rising as they have funneled the National Wealth of the United States (and the world) into China where they will all go to watch their dream become reality.

The United States will be abandoned and left to bear the blame for the robbery of the world. They used our country for every nickel and dime they could get out of it. Now the world will take out its anger on us.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


This is nothing new. This has been public knowledge for decades now. There may even be a few nazis still alive in America today. America allowed many Nazi scientists to live in America in order to have them work for us, and to keep from them from working for Germany.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Well, if I have misinterpreted you, I apologise unreservedly. However, to be fair, you said:

Who knows why now, other than to givesome members, etc.
(emphasis mine)
To most, "some" means more than "a couple" & why not address them both directly. There's nothing in the T&Cs to stop you politely opining that certain individuals are habitually mistaken about an issue, so long as it doesn't go OT, or turn into a poo fight. A generalised "some" suggests that anyone who believes there may be Nazi connections to the US Govt is exercising the "hate & ignorance" you referred to. As I said, I wouldn't call the USA Nazi, but lets also be fair here, the Nazis were pretty piss poor Socialists, way into Nationalism, undermined & then persecuted Trade Unions & were so not about wealth redistribution: there are parallels.
"Dont like communism" was a poor choice of words on my part, used for brevity. I dont think it would work either, on a large scale, but since we've only ever seen brutal dictatorships/oligarchies masquerading as communism, its difficult to be sure. Still, I disagree that we cant know what might have happened if the Soviets had captured Von Braun et al. The USA already had the A-bomb & long-range bombers that could take off from aircraft carriers. As soon as Hiroshima & Nagasaki were destroyed, proving that the 1st bomb wasn't a fluke, that would have been the start of the cold war, just the same as it did happen. Like I said before tho, the USSR was in no position to continue a war, or start another.
Ask yourself, how could a country with almost no navy conquer the continental USA? How would they get there? The USA had experienced naval officers & crew, pilots trained to spot what would be a tiny blob in a vast ocean & vector bombers onto it. Stalin knew all this. It was just never going to happen, no matter the technology, b/c y'all wouldn't have stopped R&D either.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Oops, double post, but I'll take the opportunity to elaborate:
If it were the case that Patton's advance had been slowed more, or even stopped dead, by the need to win "The Battle of The Bulge", then its possible that the Red Army may have overrun sites like Peenemunde before US forces. Is it likely that scientists in the USA had not already been tasked to discover how to make missiles like the V2, since some had been captured intact in France? Just as the Soviets did, they would have put their minds to the problems & solved them.
"What 1 man can do, another can do."
There seems to be a mystique about Nazi scientists. As if only they could come up with cutting edge technology. My friends, I'm pretty sure its a product of films, ie "The glamour of evil", or some such romanticised nonsense. The truth of the matter is that they made some startling breakthroughs b/c they were given the resources to do so. Look @what Allied scientists came up with during the same period, when they were given whatever they needed: offshore radar along Britain's south coast - the Germans had no idea what was going on @1st; Onboard radar for night-fighter aircraft; The 1st attempt @stealth aircraft made of wood once the Germans did suss this themselves; Electronic proximity fuses for Ack-Ack shells - that reduced the average number of shots fired/aircraft down drastically - which would prove critical against The Kamikaze; The worlds 1st programmable computer @Bletchley Park; but 1 of my absolute favourites b/c its so simple, Laying the keels of new big ships in the southern hemisphere so that the magnetic alignment would not set off magnetically triggered mines in northern seas.
Just b/c our blokes were shy, specky, cardigan wearing geeks with seriously pent up sexual frustrations, rather than "Herr Doktor", ordering people around & partaking of the dubious pleasures of "The Joy Division" whenever they felt the urge, doesn't mean they were any less clever.
Still, the OP article makes it plain that it wasn't just scientists.
edit on 15/11/10 by Bunken Drum because: DP + elaboration



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
I'm sincerely shocked that so few people (Americans?) seem to know about their own history....


"Their Own History"....does that have Snooki in it? No? Then yea....many American's won't know anything about it.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


All fair points, but absent the Nazi scientists, we would not have jet powered craft for some time, and the Soviets could. The advances by the german scientists allowed development of long range ballistic missiles (ICBM) that did not require aircraft for delivery. Giving the Sovets the edge in ballisitic missiles, rockets for space, and an edge in aircraft (jet power vs prop), its entirely possible our nukes would not have been a deterrant since they would most likely never make it to their targets.

The other areas I look at were the medical experiments that took place at the camps. The liquidation of mentally retarded / deficent people etc. That type of madness stopped, and I beleive because of the countries who snagged these scientists. Not all of them were able to get out of Germany, and many more were executed at nuremburg or other tribunals.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
1st off, I'm mobile & busy, so it may look like I'm online but I'm only here in spirit. I apologise for using my DP to add to the debate, since you may not've noticed it. It wasn't on purpose.
The jet engine was simultaneously invented, without collaboration, or mutual awareness, by Sir Frank Whittle & Hans von Obain (I think that was his name). Von Obain's flew 1st & he got a patent in, I think 1936, but Whittle's flew in '41 for sure. Neither design proved significant during ww2. It wasn't until the Korean War that jet aircraft were used extensively. Guess what? The Chinese already had Soviet made Migs! Nazi tech made no difference @all.
Despite the USA snagging Von Braun et al, the Soviets put the 1st satelite & man into space (& the 1st manned space station).
They also managed to stay ahead of the west in ICBM capability. Why is this ATSers? Perhaps down to that age old saying:
"Necessity is the mother of invention"?

Necessity? How about a belligerent power that'd become rich from playing both sides against the middle until such times as it had to take the side of those that owed the most money, & were dependent upon its manufactured goods? Now I understand that most Americans dont like to face it that their leaders were actually the aggressors during the Cold War, but facts are facts.
As politically impossible as it was, the Red Army could've rolled over anywhere useful in Western Europe in no longer than 3months @the end of ww2, if it hadn't been for the fact that to do so would put them @war with the USA; a war which simply couldn't be won. Absent nuclear weapons from the scenario & they most certainly could've bided their time & struck later.
Google "NATO 17 hours estimate", that should grab you the info that @the height of The Cold War, the USA was the aggressor. Why else would the USSR need such a massive conventional army? What would they use it for but defence?
I dont get the rest?



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


German technology was quite advanced even at the turn of the century and during WW1.
I'll repost this link and reverse engineer it a little to get you started.
This was the 1927 "Whirlwind" motor used in the "Spirit of St Louis".

www.bigscalemodels.com...

The engine unnecessarily uses custom right and left magnetos that are completely different and wound backward to each other? My only explanation is that these early engines were actually working artistic expressions.

Getting back on topic about jets, one of the odd things about this motor were the three concentric helical springs used to dampen the spring resonance on each valve. Contemporary overhead cam 4 stroke engines that exceed 10,000 RPM's avoid valve float using just 2 concentric valve springs. An engineer would ask why this ancient low RPM pushrod style engine was designed with such a concern about resonance?

My theory is that even at the turn of the century Turbojet engines had been dreamed of, but questions such as the ability to control the flame front resonance needed to be answered. There were performance issues the Germans solved involving turbofans spinning on ceramic ball bearings, but the basic concept was probably available to all.

Of course there were rumors of the Germans stealing the technology in the 20's but this is kind of an old story and not very interesting to most of the engineers on the forum...



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


The Soviets needed a massive Army because we chose quality, and they chose quanitity. The Cold War and the US being the agressor is accurate, and so is the statement that the USSR was an agressor as well.

As far as where you respond from your fine man. The threads not going anywhere, and delays in the back and forth helps keep people calm.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
So what is the position of Israel about the subject??Is really them the ones spying on US and walking hand on hand with the enemy??theres got a be a sentiment among camrades no??



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Both sides were agressive during the beginnings of the Cold War as the communists of Russia saw capitalism as an enemy and the U.S. already had already seen the first Red Scare around 1920 and saw communism as an enemy to democracy. I would say that the U.S. was the main agressor because we had a foreign policy of containment. This policy of containment said that if we can contain communism to the areas they are presently controling, they will eventualy wither and die because communism needs to spread to survive as it is imperialistic in nature. Since the U.S. actually had policy to hold the Russians back I think that the U.S. was the main agressor.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
The 4th Reich is rising as they have funneled the National Wealth of the United States (and the world) into China where they will all go to watch their dream become reality.

The United States will be abandoned and left to bear the blame for the robbery of the world. They used our country for every nickel and dime they could get out of it. Now the world will take out its anger on us.


So perfectly stated. How many people realize China was given the rights to organize a corporation in the "U.S" back in 1928.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


This report is really old news. It came out at least 40 years ago.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bordon81[i/]
 
Well, my area of engineering is sound, so it doesn't surprise me that experts in mechanical engineering would attempt to compensate, or "over-engineer" for not yet fully understood problems of vibration & sympathetic resonance. Back in those days, the idea was that the machine should work, & keep on working, regardless of what anyone who was @least vaguely qualified to use it did to it. These days, its all about engineering to the finest tolerances that can be deemed safe by some august body or another, to penny-pinch the bottom line.
My point about Nazi scientists is that, whilst they certainly were clever blokes, they weren't the only ones. You dont have to be @the cutting edge of your field to come up with something that works perfectly well for the job it was designed for. Take the Stuka: by all accounts a pig of a thing to fly, but devastatingly effective during the Blitzkrieg. Utterly useless against anyone that had air cover later in the war.
Where were these Nazi jets that had flown even before the war? Oh right... even if they could've coordinated their take off time so that they'd be over London to protect their bombers, they'd have had just a couple of goes @the spitfires & hurricanes before having to return to base for lack of fuel.
Strange then, that just a few years later, in Korea, jets were able to fly much farther, faster & still pick targets in the air or on the ground. Was this all down to captured Nazis? Or was it simply that, once an idea is out there, anyone with an ounce of gumption can stand on the shoulders of giants to tackle each tiny problem @a time?
My dad was an aircraft engineer, but we never got on well, so I dont know much about the subject, but I remember him telling me that the Lightning was the finest piece of flying machinery ever built, but... they just couldn't find a way to keep the pilot conscious whilst he pushed it. Since, such problems have been solved.
edit on 15/11/10 by Bunken Drum because: Kin tags



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
To start (& to I B Dazzlin as well) I'll say I probably shouldn't have brought who was the aggressor into it b/c it can only drive us OT.
Anyhoo, the Russian T34 is widely acknowledged as the most successful battle tank of its era. As far as I remember, it had to do with sloping armour making it light enough to also have fat treads without becoming too fuel inefficient. Any Nazis in sight?
Er... yes, actually. They attempted to copy the Russian ideas into the Tiger tank, except they wanted bigger, more ammo storage, huge chunks of flat plate steel on various potentially vulnerable bits - basically to have a machine that could fight a war pretty much on its own for a while. Did it work? Excellently... until it ran out of fuel, which since it needed a monster engine, was frequently. For all its brilliant design tho, an Allied infantryman with a piat, bazooka, sack of explosives, or a special .50cal humongous rifle (that apparently would nearly break a big man's shoulder with recoil, but they used them anyway) could still blow the tracks of it. Hey, them Nazis sure were clever!
Meantime, some English blokes came up with the idea that you could retrofit an ordinary Sherman tank with some well greased canvas & a propeller, so you could drive it straight into the sea off a ship & put it right where it was needed, right when it was needed, on the beaches of Normandy. Ok, they didn't all make it ashore, but plenty did, & I'd expect that if I was an infantryman on those beaches, I'd have been bloody glad of something mobile & bulletproof to hide behind. So they rusted up a few weeks later... who cares? They worked when they were needed, & the USA had factories churning out plenty more.
So who was the most clever?
I honestly didn't get the point you were making above about medical experiments. Please elaborate.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Who was more clever? Now that is a good question that could bring up quit a debate. I think in the beginning the Russians were a little bit cleverer than the U.S. but I think that things have drasticaly changed since then. I don't think the Russians are far behind us but I think the U.S. has the most dominant technology now. In the beginning the U.S. took all the major scientists and left all the lower level technicians and scientists for the Russians. However the Russians beat us into space. They made it there first using bundle rockets insted of stage rockets. Because the U.S. saw the bundle rocket technology as less valuable the Russians grabed many of the technicians. Through the years there has been much back and forth between the two countries technology advancements so it is hard to say exactly who was the most clever of the two countries.



posted on Nov, 15 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
 

Please explain. I don't think i am getting your context or something, because I don't understand what you are talking about.


Cant really spell it out, lest I go bye bye for high treason. To get some inkling click on the link in my signature.

Germany had already lost the war and out of the blue the bell scientists claim a device that is war decisive. Think about it.



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by I B Dazzlin
 
I meant, who was most clever during ww2 between Nazi, Russian, British & American scientists/designers/engineers with specific reference to tank design? Those who designed & built tanks eminently suited to their role, relatively cheap to make & run, or those that put all the bells & whistles on, making it more expensive to make & run, but no less vulnerable to simple infantry tactics to immobilise it?
Lets take rocketry as a more pertinent example. As a hypothesis, lets forget politics & assume that Hitler didn't attack the Russians & that the USA did then enter the war as an ally of Britain.
Its unlikely that D-Day would've been considered militarily feasable, but if it was, it'd have taken a considerably larger force than was used, which would've taken a lot longer to amass, besides the British Isles would've needed to be garrisonned against invasion. @some point, the Vergeltungswaffen, or "Vengeance Weapons", V1 & V2, would've been invented. Except they'd not have been called that, they'd have probably been named with 1 of those long German compound words that meant "Easy Way To Kick Your Ass Without Risking Our Own Weapons", or perhaps something more symbolic like "Valkyrie". Whatever, the US garrison would get proper pissed off by being on the receiving end. They'd want a way to get vengeance themselves.
Back in the USA, the Manhattan Project was underway. Sure, the key brains that made it possible were Germans who'd fled the Nazis, but they weren't the only 1s. There were plenty of top-notch Americans involved taking theoretical physics & turning it into a working A-bomb. Does anyone think this scenario wouldn't have happened?
*"Hi guys," begins Joe Govtman, "take a seat. We've got you aircraft, bomb & propulsion designers together to see if y'all can solve this." He reveals a blackboard diagram of a V2. "Bigger ya say?" asks 1 of the team, "Why sure! Where's ma goddamned slide rule?"*



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


To answer the question about the tanks I think that the U.S. was the most clever. They tried to balance the needs of the tanks such as fire power, mobility, protection and mechanical reliability. Insted of making bigger tanks to combat the larger German tanks they improved the power of the weapons on the tanks. The addition of more armor meant that the tank would weight more, and need a larger engine to drive it making it less maneuverable. In retrospect the all of the tanks used in W.W. II came along way from the tanks of W.W. I, which would get stuck in the mud and had a hard time traversing other terrains.

I agree if Hitler would have not attacked the Russians then D-Day would of been much harder to accomplish and we would of needed a much larger force. We would of needed a huge force and would probley need to split them into at least two fronts to make D-Day work without help from the Russians. Yes there were many great American minds working on the Manhatten Project as it was researched at over 30 sites including Universities. It is a strong possibility that if Germany had not attacked Russia that Europe would of been more of a stale mate. This would cause more American deaths and we would of dropped an Atomic Bomb, once developed on Germany, like we did to Japan to bring an end to the war in the Pacific and save the lives of many American soldiers.






top topics



 
93
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join