Weapons of WWII (facts, Europeans, economic, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even to this day many Russians give him a lot of credit for this.
Hmmm, this has me thinking; IF Nazism was the capitalist reaction to communism and the German invasion of the Soviet Union thus a part of this capitalist reaction---doesn't that in a sense justify many of the actions of Stalin in ruthlessly making the Soviet Union a modern state capable of defending itself from that reaction?
You're all over looking the fact that the Russians surrendered in WW1 do to massive internal strife. The new Soviet government signed the armistice to gain popular support and end the war. The Russians had suffered mightily in WW1 on the battlefield, but it was the discontent and revolution at home that brought about the surrender and the very generous terms for the Germans. No one knows if the Germans in WW1 would have met with anymore success than the Germans in WW2 did had the war continued.
WW2 had a very different outlook in the mind of the average Russian. While WW1 was viewed as a Czarist war that the people were dieing for, WW2 was viewed as a national cause for the preservation of the Russian nation. Isn't it amazing what a couple decades of purges and "re-education" can accomplish?
I don't think that fascism is the capitalist reaction to communism. You need to seperate political and economic ideas. While democracy and capitalism are gerneally tied together as are communism and socialism it is possible to have a communist capitalist society and a democratic socialist one. Fascism is more the reaction to a state of affairs and a strong sense of nationalism or imminent threat. If you look at the political color graph it is generally represented as:
Democracy - Monarchy - Communism - Fascism
You can also intersperse other smaller government types througout. For instance, Republic occupies a space in between Democracy and Monarchy and Oligarchy occupies a space between Monarchy and Communism and Theocracy slots between Communism and Fascism. The closer two types are on the graph, the more common traits they share. It is also generally agreed by a lot of political scientists that fascism and democracy wrap around. Generally societies move at most one degree in any direction on the chart and moves can be done rapidly like in the case of the fall of the Soviet Union. They rapidly moved from Communism (Gorbachev) to Fascism (Yeltsin post revolution) to Democracy (Yeltsin under new consitution) and are now falling back toward Fascism (Putin/Medvedev).
In the case of the Soviet Union it tended to oscillate between Fascism and Communism throughout it's existence. Many people would place Stalin and Hitler in the same camp politically. If you look at the political situation pre-WW2 it was really two fascist societies that both had geo-political goals that ran contrary to one another and hence conflict with one (Germany) attempting to take out the other (Russia) before the Russians could do it to them.
In that light you need to view Stalin's programs not as communist, but as fascist with the goal of making his nation powerful enough to assert it's goals and influence. I don't believe that you can justify any of Stalin's actions, but he is certainly not alone in what he did and even the United States has built itself upon exploitation of classes and races of people. Stalin's achievement was that he was able to do so rapidly and still suppress the people who suffered the most.
Fascism does not fit well in the continum between communism and capitalism, it shares elements of both. Its creators, not the greatest thinkers of all times, stressed emotion rather than rationality, thus much of it is illogical at best. Having said that it combined three elements 1) and emphasis on race borrowing from social darwinism and European extreme nationalism; 2) a stress on violence as a positive value and more generally a rejection of bureaucracy and the status quo, and 3) socialistic aspects such as cartels rather than capitalism as a way of organizing the economy. A fourth point might be added, all fascist movements were statist in nature although one can argue whether that was part of its formal doctrine.
Unlike capitalism fascist doctrine stressed the community -rejecting both individualism and what it perceived as artifical distinctions between worker and owner. It should be realized, however, that whatever the theory, in practice fascist movements commonly worked out deals with powerful businessmen.
noetsi, please go back and read my post. It is a general mistake to discuss economic and political systems as if they are one in the same. Fascism is not an invention of 20th Century Europeans and certainly has nothing to do with capitalism. For instance, Hitler's Germany was a fascist capitalist society while Stalin's Russia was a fascist socialist society.
The problem with these discussions is that people like to deal in black and white, while the world is most definitely painted in grey.
First I entirely disagree that economic and political systems are one and the same. Second, I disagree that fascism was not created in the 20th century, but instead harked back to older value systems. While all ideas draw from the past, fascism was nearly entirely created after the First World War and likely would never had occured without that war. It profoundly differed (and saw itself as differing) from pre-war thought. Third, I disagree that Stalin's communism was in any way fascist. It was authoritarian, but communism differed signficantly from fascist ideas. The only way to equate communism and fascism is to argue all authoritarian systems are the same. They are not.
As I noted in my previous post German fascism was not sympathetic in any way to capitalism - Hitler specifically rejected capitalism and held up fascist theory as a counter system. Its factually incorrect both in practice and in theory to equate fascism in Germany with capitalism.
In terms of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany they both fit the requirement of the four main pillars of Fascism: authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and preserved class hierarchy.
In Stalinist Russia Socialism was the economic system of choice and the state directly owned industry. They leaned more towards communism on the scale in that their philosophies were based more on egalatarian principles and equality for all. However, this was tinted with the fascist proof of preserving a class hierarchy, in this case the party insiders.
In Nazi Germany while industry was heavily influenced by the state, the state did not own the industry, it was left in private hands and private ownership and entrepeneurship were allowed to continue as long as they were in line with the fascist ideal of promoting nationalism and didn't interfere with the preservation of the chosen hierarchy. Nazi Germany rejected egalatarianism and believed strongly in the abilities of the individual.
In this way, we can stylize both as being fascist. With Nazi Germany having a capitalist system leaning towards more democratic ideals. While Stalinist Russia had a socialist system leaning towards communist ideals.
When discussing theory you have to break out of the mindset that there are absolutes, as none exist. By definition we can call Nazi Germany fascist and Stalinist Russia communist, but in reality, their shades show that they are more alike then some would think.
If you can equate marxism with fascism then all authoritarian systems are the same. I listed some of the obvious idealogical differences between the two, there are many more. Marxism is the exact opposite of fascism and was seen this way by both Hitler and Stalin and most of the intellectuals of the time. For that matter most Europeans.
Quote:
In terms of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany they both fit the requirement of the four main pillars of Fascism: authoritarianism, nationalism, militarism and preserved class hierarchy.
I have no clue where you came up with those four pillars. I have read a fair amount of fascist theory and analysis of it and never seen such an argument. Regardless nationalism, militarism, and class hiearchy were all specifically rejected by marxist in the Soviet Union and beyond. They sought to create society build around class that transcended and eliminated national states - indeed this was one of the major criticisms made of Marxism at the time by foreign governments. They were firmly anti-nationalistic inside Russia until the Second World War forced Stalin to turn to it to fight Hitler. Its simply not correct to argue that Marxist stressed nationalism, they stressed the exact opposite in the thirties.
In terms of militarism the Soviet Union followed largely defensive policies until 1939, very much different than the agressive policies of Hitler or Mussolini. There is nothing in Marxism as a doctrine, unlike fascism, which glorifies the use of force or the military. You are weclome to cite it, I can easily cite this in fascism. Fascism romanticized the use of military force - its one of its defining features. Marxism never did - their focus was on class revolt and social change inside a country tied to economics. Stalin, unlike Hitler, was deeply concerned with the strenth of his military leading to extreme behavior like the purges and lesser actions such as removing braid from uniforms. Militarism, aside from its negative role in Marxist theory, was the last thing he was interested in.
As for supporting class hiearchy, the whole point (almost the only point) of marxism is to get rid of class.
I'm interested in the offball and experimental weapons which were deployed, or never got past the testing stage.
Churchill made a habit of granting appointments to people with loopy ideas on the grounds that you never know if a true genius may be among them. I suspect that he also did it just to amuse himself. One such fellow claimed to have the key for defeating the U-boats. Chruchill asked him what it was and the man replied "You boil the sea which will force the submarines to the surface where they can be destroyed."
"And how do we boil the seas?" Churchill asked
"That's what you have to figure out" the man answered "I'm just the idea man, it is up to others to put them into practice."
During the English preparation for repelling Operation Sea Lion, the Brits had an array of experimental devices. There was the "Flame Fougasse" which was a 40 gallon drum filled with tar, lime and gasoline. When ignited, it showered the surrounding area with waves of adheisive burning liquid. The drums were stationed at intersections in Southern England and the idea was to wait for a tank, or a column of tanks to come by, and then set them ablaze with the Fougasse.
They also installed large pipes into the sides of cliffs at beaches deemed likely to be landing points. The pipes were rigged so that they could rapidly shoot 12 tons of flamable liquid into the ocean, which a sea invader might find unpleasant. Although it never got past the unsuccessful prototype, there was also the "Larwood" which was a modern day catapult which flung four gallon drums of petrol at approaching sea vessels. They were never able to come within 100 yards of an intended target, so the Larwood was scrapped.
Among the offbeat weapons that did get used, I think the most fascinating was the Yokosuka MXY-7...the Ohka Bomb, or as the Americans called them, the Baka Bomb. ("Baka means "fool" in Japanese.)
These were excusively designed suicide rockets with a cockpit and control stick added. These were small aircraft (about 20 feet long) with short stubby wings and a rocket engine designed for a short one way trip. They were air launched, towed under the belly of a Betty bomber and released 20-23 miles from the target ship. They cruised at 500 mph and dived at 650 mph, so once released, they were going to be nearly impossible to shoot down. However they were also incredibly difficult to steer and at those speeds, slight corrections on the stick could send an Ohka way off course.
And Tanother catch was...."once released" because carrying the Ohka slowed the Betty bomber greatly and prohibited any violent maneuvers to escape an attack. Of the 75 Bettys to carry Ohkas on attacks, 69 were shot down.
The first Ohka attack was in March of 1945 off Okinawa. Sixteen Bettys with Ohkas were sent out, but the flight was jumped by a squadron of F6F's and they were forced to jettison the Ohkas prematurely. All 16 Bettys were shot down, all 16 of the Ohkas crashed uselessly into the sea.
The next attempt featured six Bettys & Ohkas and this time they scored one hit on a battleship turret, all six Bettys were shot down. After that it was an attack by nine, with two getting through and one Betty actually getting back to base, the first of its type to do so. Between April and June of 1945, another 44 Bettys with Ohkas were sent out for attacks. Six of the Bettys survived to return, all of the Ohkas of course were lost....and they scored a total of three hits on American ships.
Radar itself came about in part because the Tizard committe suggested the possibility of a death ray. And asked scientists if it was possible.
Quote:
As Professor R V Jones describes in his Most Secret War, Watson-Watt gave the problem of calculating the amount of power required for a death ray to his assistant, Arnold ‘Skip’ Watkins, who quickly concluded the proposed ray was way ahead of what could be achieved using current technology. When he handed his calculations to Watson-Watt he said: “Well then, if the death ray is not possible, how can we help them?”
Wilkins replied that he was aware that Post Office engineers had noticed that whenever aircraft flew in the vicinity of BBC masts, it caused disturbances to the radio signal. Maybe this phenomenon could be utilised for the detecting enemy aircraft before they reached the British Isles? On 26 February 1935, the day Hitler created the Luftwaffe, Watson-Watt and his assistant set up an experiment at Daventry in Northamptonshire which proved it was possible to detect aircraft by the use of radio waves.
The russians used a molotov projector at Stalingrad. How effective it was is subject to a lot of debate.
The Japanese put a lot of effort into developing a microwave weapon late in the war. But it never got past the prototype stage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
