Russians still love Stalin?

[phongn]

German scientists led the world since the turn of the century in nuclear physics. It's true they failed in their nuclear program, but with Russia and Britain under their control they'd have an even greater scientific advantage over the US.

They were good at theoretical physics, but not at the engineering side. Look at the German nuclear program! It was a joke! As others have said, the Soviet Union was ahead of them.

There's more to building a nuke then having a bunch of scientists. Where is your electrical power to refine the fuels? The heavy water for research (assuming the Norway plant is hit)? The money needed to fund this program? You completely ignored this points.

German scientists were also very far along in rocketry. If they could have launched rockets from ships they probably could have got close enough to hit the US coast.

And CEP is stil huge - and it's possible the US could get its own project with such funding that even Von Braun's genius cannot compensate.

[Sea Skimmer]

German scientists led the world since the turn of the century in nuclear physics. It's true they failed in their nuclear program, but with Russia and Britain under their control they'd have an even greater scientific advantage over the US.

Great, even more people in the program who will work against it. Germany was hopeleslly behind. Its not a matter of them gain a larger advantage, it a matter of catching up to the US. There acutal program was hopeless and theres no reason why more unwilling workers would change that.

German scientists were also very far along in rocketry. If they could have launched rockets from ships they probably could have got close enough to hit the US coast.

The CEP of the V-2 rockets was 10-20 miles, they could aim for New York city and have the bomb land in the Atlantic. Theres also the matter of launching a rocket with a 20,000 pound payload from a ship. It took a very long time, another decade, to get ballistic rockets to launch for submarines, and its hopeless from a rocking surface ship. Then theres the fact that the USN has a massive advantage in tonnage and would sink anything that approached. U-boat life spans would be in the hours.

[Hobot]

German scientists led the world since the turn of the century in nuclear physics. It's true they failed in their nuclear program, but with Russia and Britain under their control they'd have an even greater scientific advantage over the US.

Great, even more people in the program who will work against it. Germany was hopeleslly behind. Its not a matter of them gain a larger advantage, it a matter of catching up to the US. There acutal program was hopeless and theres no reason why more unwilling workers would change that.

When I said they'd get an advantage, I meant through studying the work the Russians did. I'm sure the British and Russian scientists wouldn't be very cooperative.

German scientists were also very far along in rocketry. If they could have launched rockets from ships they probably could have got close enough to hit the US coast.

The CEP of the V-2 rockets was 10-20 miles, they could aim for New York city and have the bomb land in the Atlantic. Theres also the matter of launching a rocket with a 20,000 pound payload from a ship. It took a very long time, another decade, to get ballistic rockets to launch for submarines, and its hopeless from a rocking surface ship. Then theres the fact that the USN has a massive advantage in tonnage and would sink anything that approached. U-boat life spans would be in the hours.[/quote][/quote]

Could the USN have defended both coasts and fought off both the Japanese and the Germans? The German U-boats were quite effective...

[Rubberanvil]

When I said they'd get an advantage, I meant through studying the work the Russians did.

The Russians would and will destroy their works just to keep the Germans from getting it.

[Sea Skimmer]

When I said they'd get an advantage, I meant through studying the work the Russians did. I'm sure the British and Russian scientists wouldn't be very cooperative.

That’s not going to happen, the Russians would stash everything behind the Urals.

Could the USN have defended both coasts and fought off both the Japanese and the Germans? The German U-boats were quite effective...

Which is why over 75% of them where sunk. The USN could did and would sink every last ship in the IJN and the same goes for the KM. Remember, in this scenario there are no convoys to the UK so the USN can field hundreds more vessels for hunter killer groups. The U-boats would be decimated. Germany will gain little additional shipbuilding resources while the US was canceling hundreds of escorts and capital ships historically in 1945. The longer the war lasts the wider the gap grows in the US's favor.

[Hobot]

Ok, so it doesn't look like Germany would have any chance of successfully attacking the US. However, would the US have bothered to fight Germany if Britain and Russia were knocked out? It would have been a very costly campaign for the US.

[Howedar]

Not really. They'd only need to be bombed into submission.


I like how you're all assuming that England would fall to Germany once Russia was lost. It wouldn't. There's no way in hell England could fall to Nazi Germany.

[phongn]

Ok, so it doesn't look like Germany would have any chance of successfully attacking the US. However, would the US have bothered to fight Germany if Britain and Russia were knocked out? It would have been a very costly campaign for the US.

Yes, I think we would.

[Hobot]

Not really. They'd only need to be bombed into submission.


I like how you're all assuming that England would fall to Germany once Russia was lost. It wouldn't. There's no way in hell England could fall to Nazi Germany.

I was just using Sea Skimmer's worse case scenario where both Russia and Britain are lost before the US enters the war.

[Kuroneko]

The Russians would and will destroy their works just to keep the Germans from getting it.

No kidding. When retreating, the Russians typically destroy everything that could be of any possible use to the enemy. The "scorched earth" tactic has been in place since Peter the Great, and there is no doubt it would apply to research centers as well.

[Kuroneko]

Great, even more people in the program who will work against it. Germany was hopeleslly behind. Its not a matter of them gain a larger advantage, it a matter of catching up to the US. There acutal program was hopeless and theres no reason why more unwilling workers would change that.

Heisenberg, the head of the German nuclear program, claimed that the German scientists themselves wanted to prevent the construction of a nuclear bomb. But regardless of whether he was truthful or not, it was quite clear that they had no real idea of how to do it. Bohr realized the necessity for a "critical density". Heisenberg didn't. It was as simple as that.

[Howedar]

I was just using Sea Skimmer's worse case scenario where both Russia and Britain are lost before the US enters the war.

At any rate, you're starting with an unreasonable scenario, even before you start to be wrong about other things.

[The Albino Raven]

back on topic (AHEM), Stalin may have done a lot of good for the russian economy, but hey, Hitler worked wonders for the German economy, brought them out of a depression. In the long run, Stalin had as many fascist policies as he did communist or socialist policies. Lenin is a much better representative of communism and socialism.

[Sea Skimmer]

At any rate, you're starting with an unreasonable scenario, even before you start to be wrong about other things.

Its unreasonable from what we know today, but from the Allied planners new during the war it was possibul. Thats why the B-36 existed.

[Howedar]

Yes, I know. The B-36 would have existed anyway, but that does not make this a valid scenario.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, I know. The B-36 would have existed anyway, but that does not make this a valid scenario.

sigh... You know I can spin a way to make it possibul if you want, its my senario and whoes to say the British military will be the same? The nation might collapse politically in 1940. Many things are possibul when you alter a massive power.

[Kuroneko]

... Stalin may have done a lot of good for the russian economy, but hey, Hitler worked wonders for the German economy, brought them out of a depression.

Quite. I'm not a fan of Stalin, but I'm glad that we got him instead of Trotski.

In the long run, Stalin had as many fascist policies as he did communist or socialist policies. Lenin is a much better representative of communism and socialism.

If you mean fascist in the more loose sense of the word, then yes. Though they're opposites ideologically, in actuality the difference is pretty superficial.

[Howedar]

Yes, I know. The B-36 would have existed anyway, but that does not make this a valid scenario.

sigh... You know I can spin a way to make it possibul if you want, its my senario and whoes to say the British military will be the same? The nation might collapse politically in 1940. Many things are possibul when you alter a massive power.

sigh... All right, you can completely remove the RAF, give the RN to the KM, and eliminate the British Army. And the waves and currents in the English Channel. Happy now?

[Sea Skimmer]

sigh... All right, you can completely remove the RAF, give the RN to the KM, and eliminate the British Army. And the waves and currents in the English Channel. Happy now?

Or I could just have Hitler come to power in the 20's and star WW2 early with the result of Germany having landing craft, drop tanks and other such useful things.

[Howedar]

Probably would have been possible then. Of course, one wonders how the Brit's "no war for 10 years" spending policy would have been affected.

But I digress. I accept your scenario. Britain is conquered.

[Peregrin Toker]

back on topic (AHEM), Stalin may have done a lot of good for the russian economy, but hey, Hitler worked wonders for the German economy, brought them out of a depression. In the long run, Stalin had as many fascist policies as he did communist or socialist policies. Lenin is a much better representative of communism and socialism.

1. Stalin deliberately inflicted famine upon the citizens of the Soviet Union. This is well-documented.

2. There were actually very little difference between the policies of Lenin and Stalin. In fact, all Stalin did was to take Lenin's practices and take them to their utmost extremes.

If you mean fascist in the more loose sense of the word, then yes. Though they're opposites ideologically, in actuality the difference is pretty superficia

Fascism and Communism aren't opposites. In fact, an analysis of the Third Reich will reveal that only the Soviet Union had a more restrictive economic policy. Corporations were allowed to exist under the Nazi regime, but neither wages, prices, working conditions nor even allocation of materials were left to managerial decision - let alone the market.

Hitler also noted that former Communists made excellent converts to Nazism. "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it" - Hitler quoted in "Hitler Speaks" by Herman Rauschning.

It is also interesting that Mussolini used to be leader of the Italian Socialist Party and probably picked up many of his totalitarian ideas from Lenin's writings. One might even consider whether there are any differences between fascism and communism, other than the rampant nationalism and racism which is the most common denominator of fascists.

In short - Fascism is not the polar opposite of Communism. Rather, fascism is a grotesque mixture of the worst elements of nationalism and communism. If anything is the polar opposite of communism, it's gotta be libertarianism.

[Darth Gojira]

Well, now you know that people like that really exist, Gil!

People who think I'm a Communist for being somewhat liberal or people who masturbate to Joesph Stalin?

Mine eyes! I can't see! I'm blind and yet I can still see the ghastly image! AAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGHH!!!![/b]

[Kuroneko]

If you mean fascist in the more loose sense of the word, then yes. Though they're opposites ideologically, in actuality the difference is pretty superficial.

Fascism and Communism aren't opposites. In fact, an analysis of the Third Reich will reveal that only the Soviet Union had a more restrictive economic policy. Corporations were allowed to exist under the Nazi regime, but neither wages, prices, working conditions nor even allocation of materials were left to managerial decision - let alone the market.

Oh, quite so; my point only was that they typically used ideologically opposite reasons to justify precisely the same actions. As I said--a superficial difference only.

Hitler also noted that former Communists made excellent converts to Nazism. "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it" - Hitler quoted in "Hitler Speaks" by Herman Rauschning.

It is also interesting that Mussolini used to be leader of the Italian Socialist Party and probably picked up many of his totalitarian ideas from Lenin's writings. One might even consider whether there are any differences between fascism and communism, other than the rampant nationalism and racism which is the most common denominator of fascists.

Well, so what? "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explain simply [in socioeconmic terms] .... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect." -- Mussoulini in What is Fascism?

Hitler speaks in practical terms and Mussoulini in ideological. Both of them are correct. And that's my point--the difference can only be found in the ideological foundations; one could say that 'Fascism' and 'Communism' (note the capitals) are opposites, while there is no real difference between 'fascism' and 'communism'.

In short - Fascism is not the polar opposite of Communism. Rather, fascism is a grotesque mixture of the worst elements of nationalism and communism. If anything is the polar opposite of communism, it's gotta be libertarianism.

It depends on how one looks at it. Look at the ideological foundations: fasicm/nazism is founded in racism, which is itself grounded in Nietzschean "Will to Power" and "Ubermensch" coupled with a kind of perversion of the Darwinian "survival of the fittest." Perhaps not polar opposites, but surely this sort of "we are the Masters, you are the slaves" mentality is opposite to that of the communist 'extreme egalitarianism'.

Libertarianism is political egalitarianism. Communism (ideologically speaking) is both political and material egalitarianmism. You may think it silly of me to separate the ideology from the actual implementation, but I think it is the best way to think about such things--that attempts at 'Communism' invariably go the opposite of their intent just underscores just how messed up the idea of Communism is.

[Peregrin Toker]

Well, so what? "Fascism [is] the complete opposite of ... Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explain simply [in socioeconmic terms] .... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect." -- Mussoulini in What is Fascism?

There is only one point where fascism is the polar opposite of Marxism, and that it the whole nationalist thing. Fascists are always national jingoists and extremely xenophobic, but Communism has a long internationalist tradition.

It depends on how one looks at it. Look at the ideological foundations: fasicm/nazism is founded in racism, which is itself grounded in Nietzschean "Will to Power" and "Ubermensch" coupled with a kind of perversion of the Darwinian "survival of the fittest." Perhaps not polar opposites, but surely this sort of "we are the Masters, you are the slaves" mentality is opposite to that of the communist 'extreme egalitarianism'.

Nazism usually starts out elitarian, but it is notable that Hitler believed that after all "undesirables" had been terminated, then all people who remained should be equal. A very Leninist idea, isn't it??

Libertarianism is political egalitarianism. Communism (ideologically speaking) is both political and material egalitarianmism.

Depends on which communists who ask. Anarcho-communists and most modern socialists consider political equality to be just as important as economic equality, but Leninists believe that economic equality must be achieved by having a powerful elite maintaining the economic equality.

(In real life, they seem to have got it right - political equality can't go together with economic equality, and vice versa)

You may think it silly of me to separate the ideology from the actual implementation, but I think it is the best way to think about such things--that attempts at 'Communism' invariably go the opposite of their intent just underscores just how messed up the idea of Communism is.

Actually, communist states usually follow the same pattern because that's what Marx and Lenin advocate! In one of his works, "On The Jewish Question", Karl Marx claims that the very idea of human rights are nothing but a by-product of capitalist thinking. In other words - true Communism is exactly the same as establishing equality by throwing all freedom out of the window. And this is what all existing communist states yet have done. (Except for Chile under Salvador Allende, but their government was overthrown before they could do anything)