Caucasians

[Thersites]

How did you guess? General von Wirbelrohr, first Nazi to cross the Atlantic by farting.... defecated in 1942...


added - you'd probably miss the reference : the Wirbelrohr was a plasma generator of the 'pinch' type dreamed up by those silly German idiots years before anyone else even bothered to investigate fusion, not fission.... later used as prototype for the British initiative at Harwell.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0741-3335/30/14/003/ppv30i14p1993.pdf

I am not disputing that there were many able German scientists, especially applied scientists. this went back to long before the nazis. Many were jewish and the UK and USA benefiited from their departure from Germany.
However, as the nazis' racial theories were founded on fantasies and delusions, which made them reject sensible scientific theories, that is completely irrelevant. Even in practical science the nazis encouraged "magic science"- things which were at or beyond the boundaries of the achievable- so they misuused the abilities of the scientists they had. An example: with rocket technology, which did more to win the war: the V-2 or the antiship and antitank rockets used by the UK and US? German nuclear physicists in Germany dreamed up fusion plants, which were used long afterwards. German nuclear physicists in the USA helped build atom bombs to use in the war.

 

[mercurio]

I am not disputing that there were many able German scientists, especially applied scientists. this went back to long before the nazis. Many were jewish and the UK and USA benefiited from their departure from Germany.
However, as the nazis' racial theories were founded on fantasies and delusions, which made them reject sensible scientific theories, that is completely irrelevant. Even in practical science the nazis encouraged "magic science"- things which were at or beyond the boundaries of the achievable- so they misuused the abilities of the scientists they had. An example: with rocket technology, which did more to win the war: the V-2 or the antiship and antitank rockets used by the UK and US? German nuclear physicists in Germany dreamed up fusion plants, which were used long afterwards. German nuclear physicists in the USA helped build atom bombs to use in the war.

Good thing I waited with my reply.... see you added a few last-minute things

Anyway: To think that simply because the Germans lost the war - after which we took the liberty to revile them in just about anything they did - is a good reason for a negative analysis of their technological development, is the most silly thing I ever heard.

They had a horrible political system, ditto leader, but frankly, because they were pretty much isolated and were forced to be self-supporting, there weaponry was superiour in most aspects. Trying to deny that, saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency, is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

As to your question: the V2, ofcourse, since the UK and US only developed such missile tech AFTER the war. The Russians had their katusjas, the Germans had their rockets, but the Americans and UK still had to go over all this with a fine comb before it would turn up anything useful.

Your opinions are coloured beyond anything remotely able to claim scientific ground. You're just kicking a corpse for political reasons, and worse, your prejudices (postjudices in this case?) are faultier than the corpse's ever were.

Bah. Read some (military) history books for a change, instead of Readers Digest (the Childrens Abridged Edition, that is).

 

[Thersites]

Anyway: To think that simply because the Germans lost the war - after which we took the liberty to revile them in just about anything they did - is a good reason for a negative analysis of their technological development, is the most silly thing I ever heard.

Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability? I have reviled- perfectly justifiably- the nazis' political system and its underlying assumptions, including the racial arrogance which made them ignore some scientific doscoveries, alienate potential allies and make enemies they did not need to make.

They had a horrible political system, ditto leader, but frankly, because they were pretty much isolated and were forced to be self-supporting, there weaponry was superiour in most aspects.

What does isolation have to do with the Germans' supposedly superior weaponry? Certainly, in some aspects it was superior: in others it was not. Much of the superiority was at the most basic level- the Sapndau versus other mgs., for example. Compare the effort the Germans put into developing jet aircraft with improved piston-engined aircraft: how far was they trying to achieve the ideal when it was the immediately better that was needed?

Trying to deny that, saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency, is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I did not say that the nazis were mentally defective. I said that their beliefs were untrue and stupid and these beliefs had a very bad effect on their political, scientific and military policies.

As to your question: the V2, ofcourse, since the UK and US only developed such missile tech AFTER the war. The Russians had their katusjas, the Germans had their rockets, but the Americans and UK still had to go over all this with a fine comb before it would turn up anything useful.

Yiou forget, I asked: which did more during the war? While the Germans were developing rocket technology they didn't have time to use effectively, the allies were using much more basic rocket technology more effectively.

Your opinions are coloured beyond anything remotely able to claim scientific ground. You're just kicking a corpse for political reasons, and worse, your prejudices (postjudices in this case?) are faultier than the corpse's ever were.

Leaving aside ethics, the fact that the nazis lost the war is pretty good evidence that they made big mistakes. To say that my alleged prejudices are faultier than prejudices which inspired and justified mass murder suggests that either you are rhetorically exuberant, haven't thought about what you are saying or share the nazis' prejudices.

I suggest you read something other than The Nazi Youths' Own Bumper Book of Aryan Genius- infants' edition.

 

[Thersites]

Anyway: To think that simply because the Germans lost the war - after which we took the liberty to revile them in just about anything they did - is a good reason for a negative analysis of their technological development, is the most silly thing I ever heard.

Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability? I have reviled- perfectly justifiably- the nazis' political system and its underlying assumptions, including the racial arrogance which made them ignore some scientific doscoveries, alienate potential allies and make enemies they did not need to make.

They had a horrible political system, ditto leader, but frankly, because they were pretty much isolated and were forced to be self-supporting, there weaponry was superiour in most aspects.

What does isolation have to do with the Germans' supposedly superior weaponry? Certainly, in some aspects it was superior: in others it was not. Much of the superiority was at the most basic level- the Sapndau versus other mgs., for example. Compare the effort the Germans put into developing jet aircraft with improved piston-engined aircraft: how far was they trying to achieve the ideal when it was the immediately better that was needed?

Trying to deny that, saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency, is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I did not say that the nazis were mentally defective. I said that their beliefs were untrue and stupid and these beliefs had a very bad effect on their political, scientific and military policies. Do you think expelling thousands of able scientists and disregarding their theories and discoveries was an example of applied brilliance in practise?

As to your question: the V2, ofcourse, since the UK and US only developed such missile tech AFTER the war. The Russians had their katusjas, the Germans had their rockets, but the Americans and UK still had to go over all this with a fine comb before it would turn up anything useful.

Yiou forget, I asked: which did more DURING THE WAR? While the Germans were developing rocket technology they didn't have time to use effectively, the allies were using much more basic rocket technology more effectively.

Your opinions are coloured beyond anything remotely able to claim scientific ground. You're just kicking a corpse for political reasons, and worse, your prejudices (postjudices in this case?) are faultier than the corpse's ever were.

Leaving aside ethics, the fact that the nazis lost the war is pretty good evidence that they made big mistakes. To say that my alleged prejudices are faultier than prejudices which inspired and justified mass murder suggests that either you are rhetorically exuberant, haven't thought about what you are saying or share the nazis' prejudices.

I suggest you read something other than The Nazi Youths' Own Bumper Book of Aryan Genius- infants' edition.

 

[Thersites]

Anyway: To think that simply because the Germans lost the war - after which we took the liberty to revile them in just about anything they did - is a good reason for a negative analysis of their technological development, is the most silly thing I ever heard.

Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability? I have reviled- perfectly justifiably- the nazis' political system and its underlying assumptions, including the racial arrogance which made them ignore some scientific doscoveries, alienate potential allies and make enemies they did not need to make.

They had a horrible political system, ditto leader, but frankly, because they were pretty much isolated and were forced to be self-supporting, there weaponry was superiour in most aspects.

What does isolation have to do with the Germans' supposedly superior weaponry? Certainly, in some aspects it was superior: in others it was not. Much of the superiority was at the most basic level- the Sapndau versus other mgs., for example. Compare the effort the Germans put into developing jet aircraft with improved piston-engined aircraft: how far was they trying to achieve the ideal when it was the immediately better that was needed?

Trying to deny that, saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency, is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I did not say that the nazis were mentally defective. I said that their beliefs were untrue and stupid and these beliefs had a very bad effect on their political, scientific and military policies. Do you think expelling thousands of able scientists and disregarding their theories and discoveries was an example of applied brilliance in practise?

As to your question: the V2, ofcourse, since the UK and US only developed such missile tech AFTER the war. The Russians had their katusjas, the Germans had their rockets, but the Americans and UK still had to go over all this with a fine comb before it would turn up anything useful.

Yiou forget, I asked: which did more DURING THE WAR? While the Germans were developing rocket technology they didn't have time to use effectively, the allies were using much more basic rocket technology more effectively.

Your opinions are coloured beyond anything remotely able to claim scientific ground. You're just kicking a corpse for political reasons, and worse, your prejudices (postjudices in this case?) are faultier than the corpse's ever were.

Leaving aside ethics, the fact that the nazis lost the war is pretty good evidence that they made big mistakes. To say that my alleged prejudices are faultier than prejudices which inspired and justified mass murder suggests that either you are rhetorically exuberant, haven't thought about what you are saying or share the nazis' prejudices.

I suggest you read something other than The Nazi Youths' Own Bumper Book of Aryan Genius- infants' edition.

 

[Thersites]

Anyway: To think that simply because the Germans lost the war - after which we took the liberty to revile them in just about anything they did - is a good reason for a negative analysis of their technological development, is the most silly thing I ever heard.

Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability? I have reviled- perfectly justifiably- the nazis' political system and its underlying assumptions, including the racial arrogance which made them ignore some scientific doscoveries, alienate potential allies and make enemies they did not need to make.

They had a horrible political system, ditto leader, but frankly, because they were pretty much isolated and were forced to be self-supporting, there weaponry was superiour in most aspects.

What does isolation have to do with the Germans' supposedly superior weaponry? Certainly, in some aspects it was superior: in others it was not. Much of the superiority was at the most basic level- the Sapndau versus other mgs., for example. Compare the effort the Germans put into developing jet aircraft with improved piston-engined aircraft: how far was they trying to achieve the ideal when it was the immediately better that was needed?

Trying to deny that, saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency, is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

I did not say that the nazis were mentally defective. I said that their beliefs were untrue and stupid and these beliefs had a very bad effect on their political, scientific and military policies.

As to your question: the V2, ofcourse, since the UK and US only developed such missile tech AFTER the war. The Russians had their katusjas, the Germans had their rockets, but the Americans and UK still had to go over all this with a fine comb before it would turn up anything useful.

Yiou forget, I asked: which did more during the war? While the Germans were developing rocket technology they didn't have time to use effectively, the allies were using much more basic rocket technology more effectively.

Your opinions are coloured beyond anything remotely able to claim scientific ground. You're just kicking a corpse for political reasons, and worse, your prejudices (postjudices in this case?) are faultier than the corpse's ever were.

Leaving aside ethics, the fact that the nazis lost the war is pretty good evidence that they made big mistakes. To say that my alleged prejudices are faultier than prejudices which inspired and justified mass murder suggests that either you are rhetorically exuberant, haven't thought about what you are saying or share the nazis' prejudices.

I suggest you read something other than The Nazi Youths' Own Bumper Book of Aryan Genius- infants' edition.

 

[mercurio]

Leaving aside ethics, the fact that the nazis lost the war is pretty good evidence that they made big mistakes. To say that my alleged prejudices are faultier than prejudices which inspired and justified mass murder suggests that either you are rhetorically exuberant, haven't thought about what you are saying or share the nazis' prejudices.

I suggest you read something other than The Nazi Youths' Own Bumper Book of Aryan Genius- infants' edition.

Last resort of the moron - you must be a sympathiser!

(you're cute when you stutter btw)

 

[Thersites]

Not at all: you show far more signs of being unable to think about what you say.
You forgot to answer any of my questions.

 

[mercurio]

In Dutch we have a word for a retort that basically boils down to: "No, You". It's called a 'jij-bak'. I'm not sure it has an English equivalent. Children use it a lot. And piss-poor jesters, like Thersites was.

I'll forgive you the 'sympathy for the Nazis' bit. I hadn't realised your lack of adulthood, but be more careful : in real life someone might have knocked one of your teeth out for every family-member he lost, which would have left you with minus a lot. Take care, next time.

 

[Thersites]

Still waiting for answers. just a few of my questions:
Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability?
What does isolation have to do with the germans' supposedly superior weaponry?
Do you think expelling thousands of able scientists and disregarding their theories and discoveries was an example of applied brilliance in practise?

"saying political errors are indicative of mental deficiency is the dumbest thing I ever heard." As i said, I didn't say these errors were indicative of mental deficiency. I said they were inspired by stupid and mistaken assumptions of their own superiority.
"Your prejudices...are faultier than the corpse's ever were".
The "corpse's" prejudices inspired the "political errors" [a beautiful euphemism for- among other crimes- murdering millions of people that had done them no harm and- in the case of Ukrainians- even welcomed them]. My own prejudice is against people who do things like that, regardless of what else they do.
The kindest explanation is that you got carried away with your rhetoric. Either that or you think my prejudices against mass murder, the ideas that inspire mass murder and the people that commit mass murder really are "faultier" than prejudices that cause mass murder.

 

[mercurio]

Still waiting for answers. just a few of my questions:

[1] Where have I reviled the Germans' technological achievements or their technological ability?

[2] What does isolation have to do with the germans' supposedly superior weaponry?

[3] Do you think expelling thousands of able scientists and disregarding their theories and discoveries was an example of applied brilliance in practise?

[4] The kindest explanation is that you got carried away with your rhetoric.

[1] If the nazis hadn't been stupid as well as vile they might have won (Werner Heisenberg was a (half-hearted) Nazi, but hardly vile, and certainly not stupid, unlike you.)

if he was a nazi, it helps confirm my hypothesis (about an American General).

[2] It had much to do with the general political climate during the Wilhelminian era, the growing isolation of Germany, and even preliminary preparations for a great war everybody expected to take place within the next few years. 3 It was the organic chemical industry that had great success by substituting natural products by synthetic products, based on German coal. The commercial and technological successes of the chemical industry before and during World War One with this main strategy paved the way to implement this policy of self-sufficiency into other industries after 1918. One means to achieve economic self-sufficiency was thought to be technology, based on scientific knowledge. And rewarding, the innovative system of the chemical industry was transferred to other branches. The tremendous growth of employment of scientists and engineers in German industry already before 1910 and especially after 1918 demonstrates the political priority of economic self-sufficiency as one of the main characteristics of national security policy, which turned twice, in 1914 and in 1939, into a national aggression policy. This hypothesis thus fits into Richard Nelson's analysis that countries with a strong technological basis had a footing in national security concerns.

from:
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:wJMjmWekhMQJ:www.ciaonet.org/wps/mau01/+&hl=nl&client=firefox-a

[3] Likewise, do you think locking up good fighters like the American Japanese in WWII, like the Americans did until the war was almost over, 'applied brilliance". Get out of here.

In January of 1943, the U.S war department announced the formation of a segregated 442nd regimental combat team made up of Nisei volunteers from Hawaii and the mainland. In the summer of 1944, 442nd joined the 100th infantry battalion in Europe. Due to their great success of the Nisei in combat, the draft was brought back for the Nisei in detention camps to increase the ranks of the 442nd. Due to their outstanding bravery in the war effort the 100/442nd became the most decorated units. They received over 18,000 individual decorations for bravery, 9500 purple hearts, and seven presidential distinguished unit citations.

[4] if he was a nazi, it helps confirm my hypothesis

'Lost in my rhetoric, indeed"...

Get a library card, loser.

[unsubscribes from thread in disgust]

 

[Thersites]

[1] If the nazis hadn't been stupid as well as vile they might have won (Werner Heisenberg was a (half-hearted) Nazi, but hardly vile, and certainly not stupid, unlike you.)

What did Heisenberg [who later denied he was a nazi at all] have to do with the application of nazi racial and political policies in their foreign policy and in the countries they invaded? What word would you use for Heisenburg- or anyone- who acquiesced in those policies, if you think "vile" is excessive?

if he was a nazi, it helps confirm my hypothesis (about an American General [who said the atom bomb wouldn't work).

This is what is known as a joke. On the one hand, as i pointed out, one of the reasons the nazis did not pursue the atom bomb was because it was based on "jewish science". On the other hand, some US generals were allegedly also very conservative and antisemitic- Patton, for example. Therefore if that particular US general fitted those parameters he could be described as a nazi and so helped to confirm my hypothesis.

[2] It had much to do with the general political climate during the Wilhelminian era, the growing isolation of Germany, and even preliminary preparations for a great war everybody expected to take place within the next few years. 3 It was the organic chemical industry that had great success by substituting natural products by synthetic products, based on German coal. The commercial and technological successes of the chemical industry before and during World War One with this main strategy paved the way to implement this policy of self-sufficiency into other industries after 1918. One means to achieve economic self-sufficiency was thought to be technology, based on scientific knowledge. And rewarding, the innovative system of the chemical industry was transferred to other branches. The tremendous growth of employment of scientists and engineers in German industry already before 1910 and especially after 1918 demonstrates the political priority of economic self-sufficiency as one of the main characteristics of national security policy, which turned twice, in 1914 and in 1939, into a national aggression policy. This hypothesis thus fits into Richard Nelson's analysis that countries with a strong technological basis had a footing in national security concerns.

What does this have to do with the nazis' racial prejudices and delusions and the particular policies inspired by them? Every German government shared these concerns. Only the nazis would have done what they did.

[3] Likewise, do you think locking up good fighters like the American Japanese in WWII, like the Americans did until the war was almost over, 'applied brilliance".

No. It was a crime, inspired by racial prejudice. Fortunately the USA and UK weren't as obsessive and dogmatic about their prejudices as the nazis and weren't- at that time- in the habit of committing mass murders of those they were prejudiced against.

'Lost in my rhetoric, indeed"...

lost in your rhetoric in fact. Either that or you really do think that prejudices against prejudices that inspire mass murder are "faultier" [I forgot to say, but this is a very interesting choice of adjective] than prejudices that inspire mass murder.

 

[Xylene]

It wasn't just the Nazis who were into eugenics in the '20's and 30's, of course--almost every western nation at the time was concerned about creating a better race (whatever their idea was in that respect) by making sure that the so-called 'weaker specimins' didn't breed. It's just that the Nazis carried the idea to extremes which were not reached in other countries (so far as I know).

 

[Rom]

If you want to be fair then a race could be two or more children of the same two parents, If you just want to play skin types, which by the way is only one bloody gene
controling pigmentation for god sake then there are probably only 20 or 30 distinct types of people as far as the older blood lines of Causians there were the old norse, the germanic people, various european races, UK before and after invasions from every other race on earth just about, but white skin is rather recesive so as a clasification of causasian you could remove any mixed breeding and say well these individuals are not caucasian hence they do not have predominantly white skin however, the caucasian race is masively diversified from other races such as asian indian chinese many skin shades eye and hair colours so if you would find that if you mixed all races on earth together and just took the ones who inherited white skin from both sides there could be an infinate mix of genetics to make the "Caucasian" which is incorect because that work is most commonly used to refer to somebody with light skin

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Thanks Rom for saving this thread from the fate of Godwin's Law at the last minute.

As I have posted elsewhere, in most languages the word for "race" is the same as the word for "breed" of an animal. You can have the Maltese race of dogs, the Arabian race of horses, and the Persian race of cats. So it doesn't seem quite so foolish or offensive to them to say that you can also have the European or Teutonic or German race of people.

I suspect that impetus for using "Caucasian" as a racial term arose because even the most primitive linguistic analysis easily discovered that almost all of the modern European peoples can be traced back through various migrations to a single tribe that actually lived in the Caucasus sometime around five or six thousand years ago.

Unfortunately for their cause that tribe was the brothers and sisters of the tribe that migrated in the other direction and gave birth to the Indo-Iranian peoples. Today we call the people of India "Caucasians" but I doubt very much that the Europeans of four hundred years ago did.

 

[madoc]

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza is a reknowned scolar of human genetics. His battles with Dr. Sykes are well known, and detailed in Sykes popular works. Dr. Sykes took the position that modern man arrived before farming. Cavalli-Sforza lined up in the opposite camp. mDNA studies of the present european populations and the mDNA studies of Cheddar Man proved that indeed modern man arrived in europe before farming.
The whole point of this and all these studies is that there is NO genetic basis for 'races' in Europe. In fact even the Basques, who claim to be the orginal europeans are genetically the same as everyone else in europe.. all desended from one of seven mDNA clusters no more then 45k years old. Most of the clusters are much younger then that.

For farther infromation on the subject I would point you to..

The Curse of Adam
The Seven Duaghters of Eve

 

[Rekkr]

Relevant to the discussion above are not Von Braun and his staff who helped the US to put a man on the moon, but rather those involved in the bogus race theory which gave an invalid basis to the notion that Aryans are supposedly superior and therefore have the moral right, even obligation, to create more Lebensraum for their prosperity.

You do realize that Nordic Race theory and the eugenics movement was born in the United States, specifically, California? American eugenicists like Madison Grant directly influenced Nazi science (In fact, it was Californian eugenicists who proposed the idea of gas chambers to eliminate "undesirables" and successfully initiated a mass compulsory sterilization program country-wide. 65,000 Americans have been sterilized as a result of these programs.). American racial science was not much different from Nazi racial science of the same period. Only after WWII did the subject of "race" become taboo in America and Europe. This fact is not mentioned much today (for obvious reasons), however, and has pretty much been left within dusty history books.

 

[Roman]

Hey Rekkr, do you have a source on any of that stuff? I'd like to learn more about it.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

locked

 

[Rekkr]

Wikipedia: Eugenics
Wikipedia: Madison Grant
Wikipedia: Anti-Semitism in the United States
Eugenics and the Nazis - The California Connection
(virginia.edu) EUGENICS

President Teddy Roosevelt associated with Madison Grant, and was influenced by him to a degree. He made a speech about American Motherhood in which he talks of concepts like "race suicide." This just shows how mainstream racial theory (Social Darwinist) ideas were at the time. The speech.