The forgotten holocaust [Archive]

artmiser

06-27-2008, 11:21 AM

Seven million died in the 'forgotten' holocaust

By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Toronto Sun

Five years ago, I wrote about the unknown Holocaust in Ukraine. I was shocked to receive a flood of mail from young Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent telling me that until they read my column, they knew nothing of the 1932-33 genocide in which Josef Stalin's Soviet regime murdered seven million Ukrainians and sent two million more to concentration camps.

How, I wondered, could such historical amnesia afflict so many? For Jews and Armenians, the genocides their people suffered are vivid, living memories that influence their daily lives. Yet today, on the 70th anniversary of the destruction of a quarter of Ukraine's population, this titanic crime has almost vanished into history's black hole.

So has the extermination of the Don Cossacks by the communists in the 1920s, the Volga Germans in 1941 and mass executions and deportations to concentration camps of Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians and Poles. At the end of World War II, Stalin's gulag held 5.5 million prisoners, 23% of them Ukrainians and 6% Baltic peoples.

Almost unknown is the genocide of two million of the USSR's Muslim peoples: Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Tajiks, Bashkirs and Kazaks. The Chechen independence fighters who today are branded as "terrorists" by the U.S. and Russia are the grandchildren of survivors of Soviet concentration camps.

Add to this list of forgotten atrocities the murder in Eastern Europe from 1945-47 of at least two million ethnic Germans, mostly women and children, and the violent expulsion of 15 million more Germans, during which two million German girls and women were raped.

Among these monstrous crimes, Ukraine stands out as the worst in terms of numbers. Stalin declared war on his own people in 1932, sending Commissars V. Molotov and Lazar Kaganovitch and NKVD secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda to crush the resistance of Ukrainian farmers to forced collectivization.

Ukraine was sealed off. All food supplies and livestock were confiscated. NKVD death squads executed "anti-party elements." Furious that insufficient Ukrainians were being shot, Kaganovitch - virtually the Soviet Union's Adolf Eichmann - set a quota of 10,000 executions a week. Eighty percent of Ukrainian intellectuals were shot.

During the bitter winter of 1932-33, 25,000 Ukrainians per day were being shot or died of starvation and cold. Cannibalism became common. Ukraine, writes historian Robert Conquest, looked like a giant version of the future Bergen-Belsen death camp.

The mass murder of seven million Ukrainians, three million of them children, and deportation to the gulag of two million more (where most died) was hidden by Soviet propaganda. Pro-communist westerners, like The New York Times' Walter Duranty, British writers Sidney and Beatrice Webb and French Prime Minister Edouard Herriot, toured Ukraine, denied reports of genocide, and applauded what they called Soviet "agrarian reform." Those who spoke out against the genocide were branded "fascist agents."

The U.S., British, and Canadian governments, however, were well aware of the genocide, but closed their eyes, even blocking aid groups from going to Ukraine.

The only European leaders to raise a cry over Soviet industrialized murder were, ironically and for their own cynical and self-serving reasons, Hitler and Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.

Because Kaganovitch, Yagoda and some other senior Communist party and NKVD officials were Jewish, Hitler's absurd claim that communism was a Jewish plot to destroy Christian civilization became widely believed across a fearful Europe.

When war came, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British PM Winston Churchill allied themselves closely to Stalin, though they were well aware his regime had murdered at least 30 million people long before Hitler's extermination of Jews and gypsies began. Yet in the strange moral calculus of mass murder, only Germans were guilty.

Though Stalin murdered three times more people than Hitler, to Roosevelt he remained "Uncle Joe."

The British-U.S. alliance with Stalin made them his partners in crime. Roosevelt and Churchill helped preserve history's most murderous regime, to which they handed over half of Europe in 1945.

After the war, the left tried to cover up Soviet genocide. Jean-Paul Sartre denied the gulag even existed.

For the western Allies, Nazism was the only evil; they could not admit being allied to mass murderers. For the Soviets, promoting the Jewish Holocaust perpetuated anti-fascism and masked their own crimes.

The Jewish people, understandably, saw their Holocaust as a unique event. It was Israel's raison d'etre. Raising other genocides at that time would, they feared, diminish their own. This was only human nature.

While today, academia, the media and Hollywood rightly keep attention focused on the Jewish Holocaust, they mostly ignore Ukraine. We still hunt Nazi killers, but not communist killers. There are few photos of the Ukraine genocide or Stalin's gulag, and fewer living survivors. Dead men tell no tales.

Russia never prosecuted any of its mass murderers, as Germany did.

We know all about the crimes of Nazis Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler; about Babi Yar and Auschwitz.

But who remembers Soviet mass murderers Dzerzhinsky, Kaganovitch, Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria? Were it not for writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, we might never know of Soviet death camps like Magadan, Kolyma and Vorkuta. Movie after movie appears about Nazi evil, while the evil of the Soviet era vanishes from view or dissolves into nostalgia.

The souls of Stalin's millions of victims still cry out for justice.

pdf27

06-27-2008, 02:32 PM

Just a generic warning to everyone - topics like this have gone way-out before and been locked accordingly. This means you in particular, Kato.
I'll be keeping a very close eye on this thread - everybody keep things civil or I'll lock it.

Firefly

06-27-2008, 03:52 PM

Just like to echo PDF here. Please keep any replies civil and factual, thanks.

Egorka

06-27-2008, 04:33 PM

I am too lasy to check myself, but is not it a very-very old article? Like 15 years old o so? Or even older...
EDIT: OK, it seem to be from 2006.

And also for me as Russian sentences like "But who remembers Soviet mass murderers Dzerzhinsky, Kaganovitch, Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria?" sound just strange and funny. But I guess the article was adressed to the local population of Toronto and it maybe the explanation.

And also just a thougt... The attempts to mention word "Holocaust" and the mentioned here event of the Soviet history, essentially trying to equalizing them, will be met with great rejection by the Russians.

Firefly

06-27-2008, 06:39 PM

Im ignorant here. Was this planned by the Soviets or was it something that just resulted from the consequence of some other action?

Whetther or not it was a holocaust revolves around my question I think.

Nickdfresh

06-27-2008, 07:04 PM

This has been covered (to death) and is a bit of a dupe...

Moreheaddriller

06-27-2008, 07:21 PM

To second Egorka i think a soviet genocide is terrible and its right up there with the holocuast in terms of human disregard but as far as the death toll its no way comparable

Rising Sun*

06-28-2008, 09:50 AM

Margolis's article is a superficial, highly selective, unbalanced, and rather rabid anti-Stalin and anti-Soviet catalogue of events well known to people who are marginally better informed than journalists like Margolis.

But apparently not so well known or of such bitter folk memory that it has been passed down through the generations of the victims.

Five years ago, I wrote about the unknown Holocaust in Ukraine. I was shocked to receive a flood of mail from young Americans and Canadians of Ukrainian descent telling me that until they read my column, they knew nothing of the 1932-33 genocide in which Josef Stalin's Soviet regime murdered seven million Ukrainians and sent two million more to concentration camps.

You'd think that the parents of Stalin's victims might have passed on just a touch of the anger they felt about the unknown [Margolis thumping his intellectually knowledgeable chest :rolleyes:] genocide which, remarkably, resulted in their parents living through it, getting into America and Canada, and forgetting to tell their children about the terrors they survived.

I happen to live in what may be the city with the largest proportion of Holocaust survivors, some of whom and the children of some of whom I have known, and it is very rare that some knowledge of the past is not passed on.

I'm not arguing that Stalin wasn't one of the nastiest bastards the planet has ever seen or that the Holomodor didn't happen and so on, but one-sided selectively pointless and self-indulgently florid for effect articles like the one in #1 are so narrow and empty of historical fact and context as to be totally useless in explaining what happened and why.

Kato

06-28-2008, 01:28 PM

You'd think that the parents of Stalin's victims might have passed on just a touch of the anger they felt about the unknown [Margolis thumping his intellectually knowledgeable chest :rolleyes:] genocide which, remarkably, resulted in their parents living through it, getting into America and Canada, and forgetting to tell their children about the terrors they survived.

The massive immigration of Ukrainains to the US and Canada started an at the end of XIX century. Most of American and Canadian Ukrainians come from Western Ukraine that was occupied by Poland 1921-1939 and did not experience Holodomor. The proportion of American and Canadian Ukrainians who came from the Soviet Ukraine is very little. There were some possibilities to escape from the USSR only 1941-44 when Bolsheviks lost control over Ukraine but those possibilities left much to be desired.

Besides it can be implied that many of the mentioned people of Ukrainian descent in the US and Canada can be of mixed origin for instance Ukrainian-Quebec French or the like, have only one Ukrainian grand parent or great grand parent.

I happen to live in what may be the city with the largest proportion of Holocaust survivors, some of whom and the children of some of whom I have known, and it is very rare that some knowledge of the past is not passed on.

Jewish Holocaust has had an absolutely incomparably higher level of publicity and coverage in the West for more than half a century. It has been far away from just ordinary passing some knowledge of the past from Holocaust survivors to their children.

Chevan

06-30-2008, 12:42 AM

There were some possibilities to escape from the USSR only 1941-44 when Bolsheviks lost control over Ukraine but those possibilities left much to be desired.

Actually in the 1944 the many Nazic colloborationists, rest of ukraine waffen-ss bast..rds , policements and ets run away together with Germans, beeing in fear of retrebution.
Many of them took active participation in Jewish holocaust, hepling the Germans to clean the Ukraine from "low races".
Most of them after the war escaped to Canada- the new motherland of former East front criminals.

Chevan

06-30-2008, 01:14 AM

Gentlements
You all are enough adult looking people not to be to naive about this article:)Well at least most of you:)
Even me , old "anti-zionist", can't ignore the hiden anti-semitic , anti-russian sense of this provocative article..
But who remembers Soviet mass murderers Dzerzhinsky, Kaganovitch, Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria?

Just replace the "Soviet" by "Jewish" and you would have got the TUPICAL Nazy slogan. One of that they used in Ukraine for justification of execution of "jewish criminals" during the NAzy occupation!!
Do you forget - the Nazy always pointed on the jewish origin of THAT Bolshevicks leaders, try to rise the anti-semitism on the occuped territories.
The ERIC MARGOLIS of cource can't write the "Jewish" in toronto , but this doesn't change the sense of article- the anybody who hear the Kaganovich , know for sure what he is talking about:)
The relatives of former Nazis colloborationists and race-biased ukrainians nationalists still welcomes the neo-nazi blunder about "poor Ukraine occuped by Moskalays( russians) and Jews"
This is old-fashion provocative tactic - to present you country as the victims of "foreign occupant".And blame the others in Holodomore.

The souls of Stalin's millions of victims still cry out for justice.
Just like they cryed in 1941, after the Nazis "liberation of Ukraine", starting the ethnical terror- revenge for Holodomore..

B5N2KATE

06-30-2008, 12:46 PM

I'll be careful here....

Solzhenitsyn stated quite clearly that the crimes of the Soviet Stalin Regime would not go un-noticed, even if they did escape retribution.

Alexander gave the information that, internally, the Soviet Union was facing quite a contest to keep the lid on these crimes. It is interesting to note that modern Russians have no time for Solzhenitsyn at all, seeeing him as the object of far too much attention from the West.

He tells the story in the Gulag Archipeligo that the State "Organs" were unselectively arresting people on a QUOTA BASIS....ie...Orders recieved at intervals to make a fixed number of arrests.

The purpose alluded to from my other readings is that the vast frozen wastes of the interior of the Russia were not "wastes" at all, but full of mineral and natural resources waiting to be exploited. Foreign investment would not go near it all before the Revolution, but the regime knew it was there, and formulated the camp "system" to provide labour, cheap and replaceable, to open up these interior regions for exploitation by the Soviet Government and People.

There was. simply, no other way to get anybody to migrate into these extremely isolated regions...

I have said all along on this forum that Russian people must learn to condemn this aspect of their 20th century history, rather than seeing the Old Union as some kind of "Golden Age".....

Historians still speak of the Romanovs with a certain amount of respect. I put it to you that Russia might have controlled Europe economically but for that terrible year of 1917...

The Regime's many enemies were eliminated in WW2....it was an opportunity that Stalin did not pass up......and it has gone largely unpunished due to the fact that records kept were nowhere near as thorough as the National Socialist Regime...

All that is left, really, are the memories in the minds of the survivors...

One would hope that modern Russians get cracking to record the experiences of these people, so that their memories are not lost for good to the mists of time...

Hi Chevan!!

Chevan

07-01-2008, 01:37 AM

Hi Chevan!!
Hello B5N2KATE.
Because you greet me in end of you post , i 've realized this was adressed to me.

I'll be careful here....
Actually you should be very careful here....Just remember- any critic of bloody Stalin's environment is the anti-semitism:)
So attack ONLY Stalin, not somebody else

Historians still speak of the Romanovs with a certain amount of respect. I put it to you that Russia might have controlled Europe economically but for that terrible year of 1917...

That's probably true, but there are to much unless...
..unless if the NEw York banker Yakob Shift would has not sponsored and sended the full armed band of Trockij-bernshtain to the Russia.He spend the 20 millions of dollars for those criminals for "proletarian revolution"...the enourmouse sum of money at that time
..unless if the GErmans intelligence would had not delivered the Lenin-Blank to the st. Petersburg in the special wagon.
...unless the Antanta would has attacked the Bolshevics instead to help them, stopped the german army in the 1918.
and unless the West would not trade with bolshevics since the 1924, helping them hold the power.
So you see there is to much enemies of old Russia outside , who helped to destroy the Empire. Even the the regiment of Latvian criminals ( so called the "Red Latvian Riflements " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Riflemen#Red_Latvian_Riflemen) helped the Bolshevick to terrorise the Russian popultion in the most beginning, when boslhevics were still weak.
SO sorry but this is a naive to think in such way like you do....
The Regime's many enemies were eliminated in WW2....it was an opportunity that Stalin did not pass up......and it has gone largely unpunished due to the fact that records kept were nowhere near as thorough as the National Socialist Regime...

The other very rough mistake my friend is to think that the "poor enemies of regime" have been eliminated.
They were not Enemies...they have created, builded and hot supported of the Red Criminal Regime since most beginning.
The All of Bolshevick were the criminals. And there were no a Regime enemies among then- this was just the political fight where the some of groups just losed...and were executed by the OWN THEIR Terror MAshine.
The most cruel of them was Trockij - the odious Boslhevic War Criminal- who dreamed about "WOrld Proletarian Revolution" and even tryed to help the GErmans proletariat.He , together with Dzerzhinsky PERSONALLY created the Red Terror mashine ( i mean the police, NKVD and GULAG).
They simply losed the fight for power and were eliminated by their own terror;)

Egorka

07-01-2008, 04:50 AM

The purpose alluded to from my other readings is that the vast frozen wastes of the interior of the Russia were not "wastes" at all, but full of mineral and natural resources waiting to be exploited. Foreign investment would not go near it all before the Revolution, but the regime knew it was there, and formulated the camp "system" to provide labour, cheap and replaceable, to open up these interior regions for exploitation by the Soviet Government and People.
Hello!

Lets have little excercise, shell we. Butm please promise me no cheeting! :) Do not look it up on the Net before answering, pleaee.

So could you please tell me:

How many people were in GULAG, lets f.ex. say in 1937?
What % was number of GULAG inmates in the total USSSR work force?

Please write what you think/feel. Do not look it up.

I have said all along on this forum that Russian people must learn to condemn this aspect of their 20th century history, rather than seeing the Old Union as some kind of "Golden Age".....
It depends what you put into the Golden Age notion...
Regardless, Russians in overal never in hisotry lived better material life than in 1970. And that is a fact too.
Condemning history is like condemning rain or wind... Makes no sense.
At the end people get what their deserve.

Historians still speak of the Romanovs with a certain amount of respect. I put it to you that Russia might have controlled Europe economically but for that terrible year of 1917...
Revolutions do not happen without reasons. The old structure colapsed and had to be replaced with new one.

The Regime's many enemies were eliminated in WW2....it was an opportunity that Stalin did not pass up......and it has gone largely unpunished due to the fact that records kept were nowhere near as thorough as the National Socialist Regime...
Could you elaborate, please? I did not get your point.

One would hope that modern Russians get cracking to record the experiences of these people, so that their memories are not lost for good to the mists of time...There is a lot of those records... Solzhenitsin is just one of them, f.ex. Though his writing came early and were very important for that time.
But again TODAY they are dated from the factual point of view.
You see when he wrote hi "Archipelago GULAG" there was no information in open and he had to rely on personal experiences and rumors. That is fine too, as far as the reader is informed and aware of it while reading.

B5N2KATE

07-01-2008, 12:31 PM

OK...playing the game your way and without looking up the figures...

Quick guess at number of inmates in political work camps....considering the number of people arrested who did not make the camps, I would say there were upward of a million people in camps, special or otherwise...

Population of the Soviet Union in 1937.....guessing (no googling), 210 million people...

% of workforce.....say about Half a percent (0.5?)?

I am condemning Modern Russian attitudes to history....the history itself has been in line for a cross (as opposed to a "tick" of approval) for a long time now...

I don't agree that ordinary Russians necessarily "got what they deserved"....it's modern revisionism to blame the people for the excesses of their leadership...

I have no doubt that Russia was in good shape in the 70's, but they were also spending up to 20% of GNP on defense.....the United States, even today, averages at about 5%..

Russia's present GNP is approx. 460 billion dollars, of which, 120 BILLION is "lost" to corruption of some kind or another (figure from BBC World Service).

"Revolutions do not happen without reasons"....I've no doubt of this, but Russia's war effort in WW1 floundered for lack of Railway ROLLING STOCK..Too much car space was taken up to supply the army, particularly for horse fodder, and not enough allocated for the distribution of food....Czarist Monarchy could have handled this as a crisis, but were not given the opportunity to before the Kerensky Government took control. Kerensky simply wanted to continue the war, but the people had had enough of it....By my understanding, without the Bolshevik Revolution, the treaty of Brest Litovsk would still have been signed, and we may have had a wounded but still intact REPUBLIC there and then....correct me if I'm wrong, but Bolshevism was most certainly NOT "the will of the people", rather, it was the construct of intellectuals who had waited for just the right moment to spread their movement...

Rather opportunistic, would you not say?

The real tragedy was that this new form of socialist government survived long enough to become recognised.....by the time Russians themselves had enough of Leninism, he died, making a classic martyr for "the cause"....and for people such as Stalin, Beria and Dzerhizinsky to exploit....

Stalin then set about the elimination of EVERY opposing viewpoint.....Dictatorship had arrived...and most of the opposition was in the mind of Stalin alone...And the records of these crimes were not exactly complete. To my knowledge, many people simply "dissappeared", with no record of their "crime" ever recorded...

Are we to suppose that all of this was justified, even from an historical point of view, by the "prosperity" of 1970?

Russia really IS "A mystery, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in an enigma..."

Ashes

07-06-2008, 02:19 AM

On the Holodomor ............

What actually happened in Ukraine in 1932–1933? did it really amount to''genocide'' or ''democide'' to use Rummels name for it?

On one hand the Ukrainians say it was genocide.

In late 2006 Ukraine's parliament recognized the Stalin-era famine known as Holdover, which claimed the lives of around 3-7 million people, an act of genocide by the Soviet authorities against the Ukrainian people, and urged other countries to do the same.

http://www.ukrainesf.com/inform/Holodomor/Holodomor.htm
http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/gregorovich/

And the act of genocide against Ukrainians was recognized by the parliaments of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Poland and the USA.

On the other hand Moscow has consistently rejected Ukraine's interpretation of Holodomor.

The statement adopted by Russia's lower house of parliament, the State Duma, said: "there is no historic evidence that the famine was organized on ethnic grounds."

According to a Moscow Times article: "The Kremlin argues that genocide is the killing of a population based on their ethnicity, whereas Stalin's regime annihilated all kinds of people indiscriminately, regardless of their ethnicity. But if the Kremlin really believed in this argument, it would officially acknowledge that Stalin's actions constituted mass genocide against all the peoples of the Soviet Union."

Think Solzhenitsyn supports that view.

Chevan

07-07-2008, 12:51 AM

According to a Moscow Times article: "The Kremlin argues that genocide is the killing of a population based on their ethnicity, whereas Stalin's regime annihilated all kinds of people indiscriminately, regardless of their ethnicity. But if the Kremlin really believed in this argument, it would officially acknowledge that Stalin's actions constituted mass genocide against all the peoples of the Soviet Union."

Think Solzhenitsyn supports that view.
Actualy...
The bolshevic teror mashine was based on the Marx Class Enemy theory - so they killed a million of ethnical russians as well during the civil war..
Besides the collectivisation has been started in the whole SOviet union at the same time- my gramma told me - in my area Kuban ( southern Russia) there were also victims of famine, caused by the first stage of collectivisation - the "dekulakusation".
The Ukraine populists politicans simply try to blame the others in the common tragedy.
This is just a pure political step - they try to justify their own Commies , who also actively supports the Stalin's desigion to steal the food in villages for the industrialisation purposes.
Also the ukrainin's comrides forget- the other positive resault of collectivisation was that the Ukraine firstly at its history ,has been transformed into the power Industrial region with new plans and great power station.
In the 1991 when USSR was elinminated, the Ukraine was one of the most higly developed industrial state - they buld every thing- from the computers chips - till the strategical and space missles.
Todays they domestic "democrats-liberals" lost most industry capability of plants- the Ukraine economy is one of the lowest in region.
But this fact don't bother thier populists too much- they got the old nationalistic slogan about "poor Ukraine , suppresed by the Russia", trying to unite the population agains "external enemy".
It's irony , but this politic is actively supported by Washington,who want to pull the Ukraine out of Russian sphere of influence.
But we have very funny situation here- as we say the Ukraine nationalist still blame also the Jews for holodomore:);)
So the attempt to surface the old nationalism is very danger for all of us.
Becouse every one should understand - the any question about Ethnical origin of terror of Boslhevics- would deal the very interesting question of Ethnical origin of Bolsheviks itself like Trockij , Lenin and ets.
As we know - they ALL were the jews or halaxy jews.

Rising Sun*

07-07-2008, 02:32 AM

As we know - they ALL were the jews or halaxy jews.

What's a halaxy jew?

An answer before Kato occupies the next three pages with a response to your last post would be good. ;)

sceadugenga

07-07-2008, 05:15 AM

Chevan

07-07-2008, 08:16 AM

What's a halaxy jew?

An answer before Kato occupies the next three pages with a response to your last post would be good. ;)
I meant the man who has a jewish mother- the Judaism aslo recognize them as a jew.
The Lenin has a jewish mother

B5N2KATE

07-07-2008, 10:17 AM

Egorka

07-07-2008, 03:58 PM

What's a halaxy jew?

An answer before Kato occupies the next three pages with a response to your last post would be good. ;)

Well, you know... once upone a time in halaxy far-far away...
:)

Halakha - the collective body of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha)

The clame is that some of those poeple were Jews according to the rules of Halakha.
One of the rules is that Jewishness is passes through the mothers line, not through the fathers one. Accoding to this one I am a Jew. But i am a Christian. That is no-no according to Halakha.

pdf27

07-07-2008, 06:09 PM

Accoding to this one I am a Jew. But i am a Christian. That is no-no according to Halakha.
Going by your first paragraph you're probably a Jedi!

sceadugenga

07-07-2008, 09:37 PM

Chevan

07-08-2008, 02:10 AM

Chevan...

It is my understanding of Leon Trotski that the worst thing you could do to any of the early Leninist/Bolsheviks was to refer to their Jewish origins...

Leon, himself, is said to have been running away from his "Jewishness" by becoming an atheist Bolshevik/Menshevik to begin with....I don't know who else this applies to, but it's definately a known factor.

They were not proud of the Jewish religon, and sought to distance themselves from it as much as possible, as an example to the new society they thought they were creating..

Correct me if in error
Might you ever be in error sir?:)
Just let me say the obvious fact that the jewish life today is no more determined only by the Judaism.
There a lot of the outstanding bankers, producers, scientists that have plenty different views toward religion and social order - upon marxism, capitalism - till the atheism and even feminism:)
But all of them feel themself as a Jews.
The jewry today is much more then judaism.
Actualy the Leon Bernstain-Trotski denyed the traditional judaism and thought that the "religion is the opium for masses".But this absolutly didn't mean he did not recognized himself as a jew.
Moreover he seriously thought that Jews should play the leading role in the building of new social structure, and this is widely known fact even among the jewish historians.
The personal secretary of Grigory Pasputin and former jeweller of Tsar family , Aaraon Semanovich , wrote in his book "Recollections" the interesting speech of Trotski in 1919.

"Мы должны превратить Россию в пустыню, населенную белыми неграми, которым мы дадим такую тиранию, которая не снилась никогда самым страшным деспотам Востока. Разница лишь в том, что тирания эта будет не справа, а слева, и не белая, а красная, ибо мы прольем такие потоки крови, перед которыми содрогнутся и побледнеют все человеческие потери капиталистических войн. Крупнейшие банкиры из-за океана будут работать в теснейшем контакте с нами. Если мы выиграем революцию, то на погребальных обломках её укрепим власть сионизма и станем такой силой, перед которой весь мир опуститься на колени. Мы покажем, что такое настоящая власть. Путем террора, кровавых бань мы доведем русскую интеллигенцию до идиотизма, до полного отупения…А пока наши юноши в кожаных куртках - сыновья часовых дел мастеров из Одессы и Орши, Гомеля и Винницы - о, как великолепно, как восхитительно умеют ненавидеть они всё русское'
************************************************** ************************************************
We shall transform the old Russia into the desert, populated by White Negroes, who deserved the such Tyranny that was not dreamed by the most terrible despots of East.The difference is only that this Tyranny will not from Right, but from LEft, Not White, but Red, and we will shed a such rivers of blood, that put in shade the the previous victims of capitalists wars.The biggest bankers from across the ocean will work alongside with us. If we will have won the Revilution, in debris of it we will have strengthen the power of Zionism, and we willl be a such power that world kneel down. We'll show them a REAL power.Through terror, bloody baths we reduce the old russian inteligencia till the Idiotism, till the full stupidity...but while OUR YOUNGS in leather jackets - the sons of the watch-makers from Odessa and Orsha, Gomel and Vinnica ( the cities, where the jewish community lived in Tsar russia - my comment)- how amazing , delightful might they hate all russians".

The other sources claims that it was in Trotski article " dying cont-revolution".
This article clearly demonstrats the relation Trotski to the jews and ethnical russian.He obviously tryed to involve the young jews into the Boslhevick's side.
He was one of them who were responsible of starting Big Red terror..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Atrocities_of_the_Red_Terror
Of cource the terror was a mutual, common and total.
But somethimes the "sons of the watch-makers from Odessa" losed any human look in ther mad cruelty. This is also a well known fact that Jews actively participated in the Cheka, NKVD and even among the Gulag chiefs(see http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%A3%D0%9B%D0%90%D0%93#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.87. D0.B0.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.B8_.D0.A3.D 0.BF.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B2.D0.BB.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1. 8F), especially in the 1918-mid of 1930 during the most fierce mass terror.

Later Nacis cynicaly used the crimes of Boslshevics-jews as a "justification" of their Ethnical clearisings.In Every city they come in the 1941 ( especially in Ukraine), they immediately started the Ethnical terror as a "retrebution" and "demonstration the liberation" for locals.
So as i sayd the original article of ERIC MARGOLIS is a hidden old nazy blunder- the attempt to colored the Bolshevick's crimes with the Ethnical tinge.
This is very danger IMO.

Chevan

07-08-2008, 02:15 AM

Well, you know... once upone a time in halaxy far-far away...
:)

Halakha - the collective body of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law, as well as customs and traditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha)
.
Sure mate Halakha.
I/m stupid:)

Chevan

07-08-2008, 02:58 AM

It's not fashionable to mention it but the Tsarist war machine had it's genocidal moments as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-Circassian_War
May be it's a Russian thing rather than an ideological one.

No more russian than for instance American one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#American_atrocities)
Or their British comrides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22 The_Devil.27s_Wind.22) thing.
Indeed the cruelty was a common and mutual.The russian Caucasian wars of 19 centure was a tupical cruel wars against the Ottoman impare and its former allies- locals aborigens ( mostly pro-muslims) .It was a war with old enemy for territories , kinda like the Western Colonian wars.
Later the Turks has started the REAL GENOCIDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide)
That has exceed all that world seen before in the Caucaus..

sceadugenga

07-08-2008, 03:29 AM

No more russian than for instance American one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War#American_atrocities)
Or their British comrides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Retaliation_.E2.80.94_.22 The_Devil.27s_Wind.22) thing.
Indeed the cruelty was a common and mutual.The russian Caucasian wars of 19 centure was a tupical cruel wars against the Ottoman impare and its former allies- locals aborigens ( mostly pro-muslims) .It was a war with old enemy for territories , kinda like the Western Colonian wars.
Later the Turkey has started the REAL GENOCIDE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide#The_Armenian_Genocide.2C_1915.E2 .80.931917_period)
That has exceed all that world seen before in the Caucaus..

Thanks for the link to the Philippine American war, I was aware of that conflict but hadn't realised it had got that bloody.
I doubt Wikis upper estimate of 1.5 million civilian casualties, many quite possibly just moved away from the war, Philippinos being great sea goers and there are thousands of islands to hide in.
America's history in the PI is appalling, the Philippino people fought bravely against Japanese after MacArthur left in WW2 only to watch as the US rebuilt Japan and handed the country back to the same corrupt upper class group that had collaborated with the Japanese. A country with huge natural resources is now one of the poorest in Asia.

The British reaction to the Indian Mutiny (I notice Wiki calls it a rebellion) was fairly predicable. Many British subjects were murdered and for a while it looked as though they would lose India.
At the end of mutiny they set about executing the mutineers, the traditional punishment for such actions, enthusiastically assisted by those Indians who had stayed loyal to the crown, and only showed restraint after an outcry in the British press. Not mentioned in Wiki I see.

My original comment was not meant to disparage Russians, rather to point out that atrocities were not exclusively carried out by Soviets in that country.

stevey14/88

08-16-2008, 07:37 PM

MOD NOTE!

Piss off!

Take your racist shit somewhere else...

sceadugenga

08-17-2008, 01:55 AM

Wow, your carefully presented facts and logic really destroyed my post.
(That's sarcasm if you hadn't worked it out).

If you're new to forums here's a couple of tips.
i) The little exclamation mark in the triangle in the top right hand corner is for alerting the Moderators. I just clicked on it so they're on their way.
ii) If you disagree with someone, attack the post, not the poster.
:roll:

stevey14/88

08-17-2008, 05:29 AM

MOD NOTE!

Piss off!

Take your racist shit somewhere else...
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-2/crybaby.jpg
Deleting my posts and insulting me. will you be given a warning nick no and [[deleted]]

total Hypocrisy

MOD NOTE!

Really? You haven't received sufficient warning yet? Please define why it is total hypocrisy you little cunt. You shouldn't even be here...

sceadugenga

08-17-2008, 07:53 AM

iii) Don't drink and post at the same time.

Rising Sun*

08-17-2008, 08:37 AM

iii) Don't drink and post at the same time.

Well, that's the end of Nick and me, then. :D

sceadugenga

08-17-2008, 09:06 AM

I might jump of a bridge myself.
What's wrong with this clown? Is he slagging me or what?:confused:

Nickdfresh

08-17-2008, 09:55 AM

Well, that's the end of Nick and me, then. :D

:lol:

Nickdfresh

08-17-2008, 09:56 AM

Rising Sun*

08-17-2008, 10:14 AM

I might jump of a bridge myself.
What's wrong with this clown? Is he slagging me or what?:confused:

Stevey is just a stupid little Nazi troll who is slagging everyone off.

Sorry, but you haven't been specially favoured. ;) :D

Chevan

08-18-2008, 12:47 AM

I might jump of a bridge myself.
What's wrong with this clown? Is he slagging me or what?:confused:
Don't worry please.
This racist 16-years kid ( with intellect of no more 12 years child) try to slagg everyone here.
I just womder how our Sado-Mazo mods letting him to post and them enjoing by Deleting his posts .
:mrgreen:

herman2

08-18-2008, 11:25 AM

The word Holocaust has always mystified me as to its origin. Apparently the word is from Greek Origin and means death by fire. Below photo from Lager Nordhausen C.C.

2400

Krad42

08-18-2008, 03:11 PM

It is always interesting to see how when the atrocities committed by the RUssians are brought up, it is suddenly anti-semitic and anti-Russian, and pro-Nazi. Stalin killed far more people than the Nazis. The Japanese committed horrible atrocities in the Pacific, yet their apologies are almost non existent and they had never been forced to pay back to the victims and the families of the victims to the extent that Germany has. I'm certainly not anti-semitic and I have Jewish friends, but there is no doubt in my mind that the influence of Jewish people in making everyone remember over and over again the terrible Holocaust has been far greater than that of the victims of other regimes. That most definitely includes Russia!
I served with pride in the US Army, so I'm not anti-American either. However, the US did everything they could to allow Russia (and Japan) to keep everything under wraps. If the truth would have been known in this country, perhaps they would have had as much trouble getting public acceptance of the war as they have with Iraq now.
To call attention to the atrocities committed by Stalin and his regime is NOT anti-semitic or pro-Nazi. It is a call for the truth to finally come out. Nazi Germany was by far NOT the only evil during WW2, but they sure as heck paid dearly for it and with greater harshness. The fact that the US joined Stalin in the war has always been one of the times in history that I think that the US got it wrong. That was a mistake that a couple of generations paid for with the fear and apprehension of a cold war that defined over three decades of US history.
A professor of history of mine once said in class "The best service that a citizen can do for his country is to demand an accounting of the abuses perpetrated on other peoples of the world".

pdf27

08-18-2008, 03:23 PM

Nazi Germany was by far NOT the only evil during WW2, but they sure as heck paid dearly for it and with greater harshness. The fact that the US joined Stalin in the war has always been one of the times in history that I think that the US got it wrong. That was a mistake that a couple of generations paid for with the fear and apprehension of a cold war that defined over three decades of US history.
There is one critical difference however. Germany was an expansive, empire-building regime which invaded and occupied a significant number of other countries (and furthermore, declared war on the US - the US did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on the US). The Soviet Union did none of these things, and US aid during WW2 to the Soviets was overwhelmingly military in nature and aimed at ensuring the Soviets continued to kill Germans.

sceadugenga

08-19-2008, 01:43 AM

If the Russians had caved in to the Germans early in the war Hitler would have mopped up the rest of Europe, struck east to the Middle Eastern oilfields and invaded India from the West while the Japanese attacked from the east.

The US would have found itself isolated with little or no chance of invading Europe.
And bear in mind that if they had have got ashore they would have found that the German elite regiments were not safely behind barbed wire in North Africa or dead in Russia as they were on D-Day.

pdf27

08-19-2008, 02:45 AM

If the Russians had caved in to the Germans early in the war Hitler would have mopped up the rest of Europe, struck east to the Middle Eastern oilfields and invaded India from the West while the Japanese attacked from the east.
It's unlikely that they would have got that far. The terrain is truly horrible and at the time there were only a few dirt roads crossing it. There is simply no way that an effective invasion could be mounted across it.

The US would have found itself isolated with little or no chance of invading Europe.
And bear in mind that if they had have got ashore they would have found that the German elite regiments were not safely behind barbed wire in North Africa or dead in Russia as they were on D-Day.
Maybe not - more likely they would be policing parts of Russia, or stuck somewhere in Persia or Afghanistan.
In any case, the US did not have to invade, it had to beat Germany. The combination of the B-36 and nuclear weapons make it relatively easy to destroy Germany from the air.

Chevan

08-19-2008, 03:10 AM

If the Russians had caved in to the Germans early in the war Hitler would have mopped up the rest of Europe, struck east to the Middle Eastern oilfields and invaded India from the West while the Japanese attacked from the east.

The US would have found itself isolated with little or no chance of invading Europe.
And bear in mind that if they had have got ashore they would have found that the German elite regiments were not safely behind barbed wire in North Africa or dead in Russia as they were on D-Day.
Well i/m agree with this point.
Actualy the downfall of USSR would cost the Allies the victoy in this war

Chevan

08-19-2008, 03:16 AM

In any case, the US did not have to invade, it had to beat Germany. The combination of the B-36 and nuclear weapons make it relatively easy to destroy Germany from the air.

And what about the German newest Jet fighters that can easy intercept B-36 and crushed few dozen of them ( because it was so super-expensive) down?
Or do you think the technical progress was going ONLY in USA :);)?
Yankees have entered in mass production ( if we can call "mass" the production of tens of B-36 per year ) only in 1949-1950. At this time Germany shall get the new king of Jet fighters.
BTW are you sure the BRitain would still resist in the 1949?

pdf27

08-19-2008, 07:49 AM

And what about the German newest Jet fighters that can easy intercept B-36 and crushed few dozen of them ( because it was so super-expensive) down?
The Germans never built a jet fighter capable of even getting close to a B-36, and indeed it wasn't until the MiG-17 came into service that anyone could reliably intercept it. Prior to that, the only thing which could theoretically get up high enough to destroy one was the Me-163, and this had such a short range that the B-36 would have to practically overfly the airfield to be at risk. Going by recently declassified documents (and NOT what was released at the time) the altitude of the B-36 over target with a full bomb load was around 50,000ft. During WW2 "extremely high altitude" was around 40,000ft, and this was only achieved very rarely indeed by some highly specialised aircraft.

Or do you think the technical progress was going ONLY in USA :);)?
Not at all. However, unless the Americans went around telling all and sundry about the capabilities of the B-36 (and why should they) nobody will know about the high altitude capabilities until a bunch of them appear over Germany delivering a few buckets of instant sunrise.

Yankees have entered in mass production ( if we can call "mass" the production of tens of B-36 per year ) only in 1949-1950. At this time Germany shall get the new king of Jet fighters.
Highly unlikely. Firstly, the B-36 was produced in peacetime not wartime, and shelved during the war as it was not required - so in wartime it would have been available in mass a couple of years earlier if desired. Secondly, the "high tech" German jet fighters of 1945 were truly dire - the only jet fighter to descend from one of those was the Argentinian Pulqui, and even that used a British engine and was scrapped as a complete dog shortly after it's first flight.

BTW are you sure the BRitain would still resist in the 1949?
Unless the UK received masses of cash from the US by 1942, it would have been bankrupt and would have had to sue for peace.

Krad42

08-19-2008, 03:51 PM

There is one critical difference however. Germany was an expansive, empire-building regime which invaded and occupied a significant number of other countries (and furthermore, declared war on the US - the US did not declare war on Germany until after the Germans declared war on the US). The Soviet Union did none of these things, and US aid during WW2 to the Soviets was overwhelmingly military in nature and aimed at ensuring the Soviets continued to kill Germans.

I don't remember challenging the fact that Germany declared war on the US. However, I would hardly call the Russian invasion of Poland non expansive and non empire-building. I suppose that we can blame the Germans for that one as well, but nobody forced the Soviets to invade Poland, divide it up with the Germans and kill a whole bunch of Poles for measure. I think that what they did in Poland in 1939 and 1940 was a good indication about Stalin's plans. The only difference here is that Hitler was an impatient fool who couldn't wait for the Russians to attack first. It would have happened in a matter of a couple of years, while the Russians gave themselves enough time to strengthen their armed forces.
And I have difficulty believing that the US stayed in Europe for so many years after the war because the US thought that the Russians were nice neighbors. They knew that they wouldn't be from the beginning and even Patton had misgivings about having them as allies. The alliance with Russia so that they could just "kill Germans" was short sighted and narrow minded. The tactic of "let's obliterate one enemy while stengthening another enemy that will eventually become a thorn on our sides" is kind of dumb.
Regardless of that, my initial point was that the abuses of other countries, including Russia, have never been given much importance while the Holocaust is brought up over and over and given a good lengthy piece in most history books. Those abuses should be treated as what they are, atrocities against humanity. And wanting to bring them to light doesn't make people like me anti semitic or pro Nazi. The fact that the Germans drew first blood doesn't exonerate the Russians from what they did and the US should have had the gonadal fortitude to bring those events to light just like they did with the Germans and with the same strength of conviction. Instead, we let them have half of Germany.

sceadugenga

08-20-2008, 01:33 AM

The Germans were making enormous technical progress. If their industrial centers had been left unbombed they may have very well acquired nuclear technology before the US and were much closer to an ICBM.
I doubt Germany would have invaded the East by land, with the Suez Canal and the Black Sea available to them a seaborne attack would have been more likely.

Chevan

08-20-2008, 02:55 AM

I don't remember challenging the fact that Germany declared war on the US. However, I would hardly call the Russian invasion of Poland non expansive and non empire-building. I suppose that we can blame the Germans for that one as well, but nobody forced the Soviets to invade Poland,.

But you forget to add something.
Nobody invaided Polan in 1939:)
The Western Ukraine and Belorussian was just a part of Ukrainian and belorussian land , that have been cuptured by the Poles in 1920.
The Poles was developing IMPERIAL-bulding plans very well. They even cuptured the good piece of Chehoslovakia in 1938 themself:)
Of course it was soviet agression, but harly the POOR pols can hope to be "innocent victims" of this agression.If not polish militarists attack on Ukraine- the Poland 1939 would never happend.
They pretty grabed their neiighbours themsel.

pdf27

08-20-2008, 03:04 AM

The Germans were making enormous technical progress. If their industrial centers had been left unbombed they may have very well acquired nuclear technology before the US
No way on earth. They couldn't even calculate critical mass correctly and didn't realise that Graphite could be used as a moderator!

I doubt Germany would have invaded the East by land, with the Suez Canal and the Black Sea available to them a seaborne attack would have been more likely.
Not while the RN was still in existence. After the Norwegian campaign, the German navy was virtually exterminated. It's a land campaign or nothing.

Ashes

08-20-2008, 04:24 AM

In any case, the US did not have to invade, it had to beat Germany. The combination of the B-36 and nuclear weapons make it relatively easy to destroy Germany from the air.

Or B-29's, if the Soviets were out of the picture, it becomes an air war of attrition, and looking at the figures, the British/American combination have a massive superiority in men and material, [total production 436,000 aircraft] and could hit German production, while the Germans, [with Italy 130,000 aircraft, plus Japan 70,000] had no way of touching the prodigious American production centres.

Could Germany ramp up their production to defeat the British/American combination under the strategic bombing. No doubt they would still be fighting on past the historical May surrender date, which in the end could be very unfortunate, because come August.........Armageddon.

pdf27

08-20-2008, 07:43 AM

Or B-29's, if the Soviets were out of the picture, it becomes an air war of attrition, and looking at the figures, the British/American combination have a massive superiority in men and material
Depends if the UK was still in the war. The B-29 would have relied on bases in the UK to hit Germany, and was always very marginal for delivering nuclear weapons. The B-36 was much more suitable and could hit Germany from bases in the continental US.

No doubt they would still be fighting on past the historical May surrender date, which in the end could be very unfortunate, because come August.........Armageddon.
Depends on the decision the US make. If they go for 1-2 weapons then August it is - but that isn't Armageddon for Germany. If they make the decision to destroy Germany, it'll be 1947 before they have enough weapons for the job (150 or so).

Chevan

08-20-2008, 08:04 AM

The Germans never built a jet fighter capable of even getting close to a B-36, and indeed it wasn't until the MiG-17 came into service that anyone could reliably intercept it. Prior to that, the only thing which could theoretically get up high enough to destroy one was the Me-163, and this had such a short range that the B-36 would have to practically overfly the airfield to be at risk. Going by recently declassified documents (and NOT what was released at the time) the altitude of the B-36 over target with a full bomb load was around 50,000ft. During WW2 "extremely high altitude" was around 40,000ft, and this was only achieved very rarely indeed by some highly specialised aircraft.

GErmans have enough time till the 1949 to develop their newest Jet progects.
Besides you are forgetting - the Germans have the supetiority in Rocketry.in 1945 they were close to build enough reliable A4. Plus the perspective subcontinental A-9 were in progress.

Not at all. However, unless the Americans went around telling all and sundry about the capabilities of the B-36 (and why should they) nobody will know about the high altitude capabilities until a bunch of them appear over Germany delivering a few buckets of instant sunrise.

You remind me a Hitler, with his "secret SuperWearpom" that shall defeat all the enemies armies exaclty in first time it would have been used in front.The Tiger 2 was also a secret untill the most his first battle in Poland in august 1944..

Highly unlikely. Firstly, the B-36 was produced in peacetime not wartime, and shelved during the war as it was not required - so in wartime it would have been available in mass a couple of years earlier if desired. Secondly, the "high tech" German jet fighters of 1945 were truly dire - the only jet fighter to descend from one of those was the Argentinian Pulqui, and even that used a British engine and was scrapped as a complete dog shortly after it's first flight.

But the "dire" Me-262 has a maximum speed 100+ km/h ( about 800km/h) more then Meteor already in 1944 :)
And its 4x30 mm were deadly effective against the B-29, plus rockets RM4.
Besides the new modification of Me-262 ( as i remember it was GIII) should be ready in 1946.
So i would not like to bet on the B-36 :)

pdf27

08-20-2008, 02:10 PM

Besides you are forgetting - the Germans have the supetiority in Rocketry.in 1945 they were close to build enough reliable A4. Plus the perspective subcontinental A-9 were in progress.
So what? The explosive warheads they used in our WW2 were pretty ineffective (caused a fair few civilian casualties, but didn't affect the course of the war at all). If they had used Nerve Gas warheads (Tabun) it might have made a difference, but they elected not to.

You remind me a Hitler, with his "secret SuperWearpom" that shall defeat all the enemies armies exaclty in first time it would have been used in front.The Tiger 2 was also a secret untill the most his first battle in Poland in august 1944..
The difference here is that looking back we know exactly how the Tiger 2 and Nuclear Weapons performed in combat, and how the B-36 performed in peacetime. Therefore we can tell that it is indeed a superweapon.

But the "dire" Me-262 has a maximum speed 100+ km/h ( about 800km/h) more then Meteor already in 1944 :)
And its 4x30 mm were deadly effective against the B-29, plus rockets RM4.
Besides the new modification of Me-262 ( as i remember it was GIII) should be ready in 1946.
So i would not like to bet on the B-36 :)
http://i33.tinypic.com/4uxlic.gif
That's the internal USAF publication on the B-36. The values below the line give the service ceiling (defined as the altitude at which rate of climb drops to 100 feet per minute. For an empty aircraft, that altitude is 49,100 ft. For the "High Altitude" mission with 10,000 lbs of bombs (i.e. one nuclear weapon) the service ceiling is 44,600 ft. After a long flight, the aircraft will probably drift up to ~46,000 ft.

The "service ceiling" of the Me-262 is ~37,500 ft, meaning that the Me-262 will be unable to get within 3km vertically of the B-36.
The speed advantage isn't even all that big (730 km/hr versus 870 km/hr) meaning that the Me-262 can only realistically attack from behind, and even then has to get reasonably close for a successful intercept. Maximum range of the Me-262 is ~1000km, but that is at cruising speed. Allowing for fuel burn in the climb and the higher fuel burn at high speed, that means that even if a B-36 was dumb enough (or has a mechanical issue - loss of pressurisation for instance) to descend into intercept range the Me-262 needs to be based within ~100km of the B-36 flightpath to have a hope of intercepting it.

Librarian

08-20-2008, 05:40 PM

Excuse me for my impertinence, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but have you checked recently those planned ceilings for the Messerschmitt Me 262 C-3a Heimatschützer III? Alternatively, perhaps the top ceiling for the Heinkel He 162 C? Or - God forbid! - those figures for the Ho 229 A-1 or Ho 229 B-1? No? Well, as far as I know, they fluctuated between 14.300 and 16.000 meters. It seems to me that employment of the favored Jagdflieger tactics described in brief by those immortal words "Nach unten vereisen!" – at least theoretically! - is possible. :)

But never mind that – we will discuss these highly intriguing questions in our suitable threads.;)

pdf27

08-20-2008, 06:04 PM

Are these theoretical or achieved ceilings? The two are very different things, as while an aircraft may have appropriate power and wing loading to reach the altitude in question but will still be totally uncontrollable at that height. The fact that the US themselves were unable to intercept the B-36 for some years (as indeed were the Soviets unable to do anything about RB-36 aircraft flying over them in broad daylight) strongly points towards these aircraft being little beyond Napkinwaffe...

Ashes

08-21-2008, 04:26 AM

Depends if the UK was still in the war. The B-29 would have relied on bases in the UK to hit Germany, and was always very marginal for delivering nuclear weapons. The B-36 was much more suitable and could hit Germany from bases in the continental US.

Depends on the decision the US make. If they go for 1-2 weapons then August it is - but that isn't Armageddon for Germany. If they make the decision to destroy Germany, it'll be 1947 before they have enough weapons for the job (150 or so).

The UK could probably hang on until the Americans arrived in force, why not use the three bombs before the end of August '45, with three more in September and a further three in October, IIRC 9 Fat Man bombs were ready by June '46, you don't think those, plus the bombing offensive, would be enough?

Librarian

08-21-2008, 07:45 AM

Chevan

08-21-2008, 08:36 AM

So what? The explosive warheads they used in our WW2 were pretty ineffective (caused a fair few civilian casualties, but didn't affect the course of the war at all). If they had used Nerve Gas warheads (Tabun) it might have made a difference, but they elected not to.

True
But the A-4 was an excellent basis for perspectiev AA-missels that , leading by a radar ray , can hit any Bomber on any possible for aircraft altitude up to 40 km.
You probably know about Germans designs in that field ( AA-rocketry) Thay also own an absolute leadership in this field in 1945..

The difference here is that looking back we know exactly how the Tiger 2 and Nuclear Weapons performed in combat, and how the B-36 performed in peacetime. Therefore we can tell that it is indeed a superweapon.

True
But we also saw a Me-262 in combat.It was mortal for B-29 formations, keep in mind that the its speed was far out of speed of escorts fighters like P-51/47.
The ONLY way to shot it dowm was to catch it on the taking off or landing.

That's the internal USAF publication on the B-36. The values below the line give the service ceiling (defined as the altitude at which rate of climb drops to 100 feet per minute. For an empty aircraft, that altitude is 49,100 ft. For the "High Altitude" mission with 10,000 lbs of bombs (i.e. one nuclear weapon) the service ceiling is 44,600 ft. After a long flight, the aircraft will probably drift up to ~46,000 ft.

Its maximum dry top was 15 500 meters.
Exactly as much as Mig-15.
But problam that the dry B-36 would not fly for bomb mission. SO the Real altitude during the bombing raids would be much lesser , no more 10-11000 meters.
So even Me-262 HGIII can intercept if effectively for sure.

The "service ceiling" of the Me-262 is ~37,500 ft, meaning that the Me-262 will be unable to get within 3km vertically of the B-36.
The speed advantage isn't even all that big (730 km/hr versus 870 km/hr) meaning that the Me-262 can only realistically attack from behind, and even then has to get reasonably close for a successful intercept. Maximum range of the Me-262 is ~1000km, but that is at cruising speed. Allowing for fuel burn in the climb and the higher fuel burn at high speed, that means that even if a B-36 was dumb enough (or has a mechanical issue - loss of pressurisation for instance) to descend into intercept range the Me-262 needs to be based within ~100km of the B-36 flightpath to have a hope of intercepting it.
But you are forgetting the few things.
Firstly the ONE B-36 costs as much as probably 20 Me-262. SO Even if germans would have build the 5 Me-262 per one single American B-36 - is have no much a chances to reach the Targets over GErmany.
Secondary- although the American would start to use the B-36 since 1947-48, they STILL would HAVE NO proper long range Jet fighters that can escort the B-36 amrades in such altitude so long time:)
This is mean that the B-36 would have meet the armades of Germans Jet fighters ALONE.
What can happend we saw in Korea in 1951.
Germans can distribute the thousands of jet fighters along possble ways of Bombers- thay can prepare a hundreds excellent airfield on its territory for it.

Chevan

08-21-2008, 08:45 AM

.... The fact that the US themselves were unable to intercept the B-36 for some years (as indeed were the Soviets unable to do anything about RB-36 aircraft flying over them in broad daylight) strongly points towards these aircraft being little beyond Napkinwaffe...

There is just a suggestion that the RB-36 just a few times has reach the Soviet territory( probably over far areas of Syberia) . No facts , however , of it have not been founded. Even in Wiki.
It was probably just Recognision modification of B-36 that carry nothing more heavy than the hight-resolution Photo-Camera.
Indeed the Bomb loaded B-36 can be intercepted even by the Mig-15.
Anyway its service time was VERY short- already in the mid 1951 the Mig-17 is going on the serial production. So any fly on the B-36 to the Soviet territory since 1951 were very danger for the crew.
S

Nickdfresh

08-21-2008, 09:23 AM

pdf27

08-21-2008, 01:51 PM

Oh, as always- they are completely theoretical, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. :)

Unfortunately, the single prototype of the rocket-boosted interceptor Me 262 C-3a Heimatschützer III was completed in March of 1945, but never test-flown, while work on Ho 229 V8 – the third pattern aircraft for the Ho 229 A-1 airplane – barely started in February of 1945.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere - it was a hybrid jet-rocket interceptor, meaning it will have a lower ceiling than the normal jet powered version and will be a bitch to control when above this altitude with the rocket off.
Given that this is an adaptation of what was already a fairly short legged aircraft, I think the following assumptions are reasonable:
1) The total range on jets would be very poor due to the additional weight, space and drag penalties of the rocket motor.
2) Burn time on the rocket motor would be very poor - 5 minutes maximum?
3) The radius about the point rocket motor burn started from which it can make an intercept at 45-50,000ft will not be very high. Indeed, it may be possible for an aircraft of relatively slow performance to get completely out of this circle if it is quick on the uptake as the aircraft will take a minute or two to climb to intercept altitude.

Even with an incorporated combat ceiling restriction of cca. 1.500 – 2000 meters (theoretically completely sufficient as a restricting compensation for the fully operative aerodynamic controllability of the airplane) the German machine still has a decisive advantage in combat ceiling. :D
Errr.... not exactly. An awful lot depends on the exact aerodynamics, wing loading, etc. but it is entirely possible for an aircraft in that condition to have only 5 km/hr difference between stall speed and Vne (Velocity Never Exceed - i.e. the speed at which bits start falling off). While it is possible to control an aircraft in these conditions, fighting it is something entirely different - turns will be very restricted indeed as any sharp turns will put you in a spin, and as soon as the rocket motor fuel runs out you will stall pretty much immediately.

Of course, numerous additional, more exotic German designs (like Messerschmitt P.1106 R, with a theoretical service ceiling of 20.000 meters) were completely excluded from our tiny theoretical observation.
I'd have to say that such a service ceiling is HIGHLY improbable. That aircraft relied on an engine nobody ever got working properly (the HeS 011), swept wings which in practice turned out to require a huge amount of effort to make flyable (wing fences, turbulators, kuchemann tips, custom-twisting of wings, etc. - none of which the Germans had a clue about) and at 12kN thrust had just over a third of the power of the MiG-17 which incidentally had a much lower service ceiling and substantially bigger wings. The only way the pilot of an P.1106 would reach 20km altitude would be if his aircraft blew up inder him!

BTW – have you checked those factual, measured combat-ceiling results for the completely forgotten Soviet machine, Yak 23 Flora, my dear Mr. Pdf 27? You know, for some unknown reasons Americans were highly interested for that tiny and completely unappealing airplane. Unbelievably, back there in 1953 they were willing to pay certain amount of solid gold + a long term friendship with all subsequent material and moral advantages to us (I mean Yugoslavia!) for a… basically stolen merchandise, purchased accidentally by the YAF on the 23rd of July, 1953, which was efficiently transferred back there to the good ole US of A.
There's a rather interesting USAF video of it on YouTube here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXAdrJoQl0), which gives a service ceiling of ~35,000 ft (limited by a lack of cockpit pressurisation). Controllability at high altitudes (by implication around 35,000 ft) is also assessed as poor.

pdf27

08-21-2008, 02:13 PM

True
But the A-4 was an excellent basis for perspectiev AA-missels that , leading by a radar ray , can hit any Bomber on any possible for aircraft altitude up to 40 km.
You probably know about Germans designs in that field ( AA-rocketry) Thay also own an absolute leadership in this field in 1945..
Almost - the Germans did indeed produce the first SAMs in the world (Wasserfall), but they weren't very good and the guidance systems were flaming awful. Essentially it consisted of a guy with a joystick steering the rocket so it went in a straight line between his eyes and the target. This, of course, is both a very inefficient intercept solution, easy to jam/confuse and totally dependent on clear weather. There was a very similar system that essentially provided a radar picture the operator could use instead of his eyes, but that was little better. Finally, a semi-automated system was being developed which could have made life a bit easier for the operator (they would have had to track the aircraft with a radar, rather than do this as well as steering the rocket with a joystick) but this was never fielded and would have been childishly easy to jam in any case.
Incidentally, by 1944 the US had produced fully automated radar guided anti-aircraft guns using a far better guidance system which was adapted postwar for all early SAMs. The Germans never had anything similar.

But we also saw a Me-262 in combat.It was mortal for B-29 formations, keep in mind that the its speed was far out of speed of escorts fighters like P-51/47.
Err... I think you mean B-17/B-24. The B-29s were only ever used against Japan and were capable of flying far higher and far faster, with intercepts being consequently much harder.

The ONLY way to shot it dowm was to catch it on the taking off or landing.
Uh huh. So that's why Adolf Galland (arguably one of the very best pilots of the war) was shot down by a P-47 while attacking a bomber formation? They were certainly easier to shoot down on takeoff/landing due to their very poor acceleration (which is why the allies attacked them then - they weren't fools) but they were by no means invulnerable at other times.

But problam that the dry B-36 would not fly for bomb mission. SO the Real altitude during the bombing raids would be much lesser , no more 10-11000 meters.
Did you even read the table I posted? Service ceiling at maximum take-off weight is 10,000 metres, and typical over-target altitude (i.e. having burned off half the fuel) is 14,000 metres. Absolute ceiling (i.e. dry and zero climb rate) is around 16,000 metres.

But you are forgetting the few things.
Firstly the ONE B-36 costs as much as probably 20 Me-262. SO Even if germans would have build the 5 Me-262 per one single American B-36 - is have no much a chances to reach the Targets over GErmany.
They can build as many as they like, the only way they're going to reach 14,000 metres is if they stack them one on top of the other!

Secondary- although the American would start to use the B-36 since 1947-48, they STILL would HAVE NO proper long range Jet fighters that can escort the B-36 amrades in such altitude so long time:)
Correct. However, that isn't a major issue as there weren't any other fighters which could reach them either!

This is mean that the B-36 would have meet the armades of Germans Jet fighters ALONE.
What can happend we saw in Korea in 1951.
Germans can distribute the thousands of jet fighters along possble ways of Bombers- thay can prepare a hundreds excellent airfield on its territory for it.
Sure they can - but why would they? Remember that the Germans thought nuclear weapons to be a theoretical impossibility, and so have no reason to understand the absolutely critical need for a watertight air defence. If the USAAF were to hold the B-36s back as nuclear bombers (and this is probable if that is how they plan to end the war) then the first the Germans will know that such a high altitude aircraft exists is when it flies over them and burns their country to cinders. Hence, unless the Germans had implausibly good intelligence about the B-36 and the Manhattan Project (and remember that in WW2 the Allied intelligence services ran rings around them) they won't build up the airfields, radar stations and high altitude fighters needed to defend against it.

pdf27

08-21-2008, 02:17 PM

It was probably just Recognision modification of B-36 that carry nothing more heavy than the hight-resolution Photo-Camera.
More than that - just about all the spare wiring, gun turrets, bunks, kitchen, crew members, paint, etc. were stripped out to reduce weight. These really were ultra-lightweight aircraft which explains why they reached such high altitudes.

Indeed the Bomb loaded B-36 can be intercepted even by the Mig-15.
Marginally, but it was very vulnerable indeed to the MiG-17 and was accordingly retired almost immediately after the MiG-17 came into service.

So any fly on the B-36 to the Soviet territory since 1951 were very danger for the crew.
Yep. It might have got away with it for a bit - it had very long range, and the Soviet radar systems were initially very poor in places so if it got in without detection it would be unlikely to be intercepted - but certainly by the early 1950s it was obselete.

Librarian

08-22-2008, 04:31 AM

Indeed, excellent scientific dialogue, honorable ladies and gentlemen! So let’s continue the exploration! :)

It was a hybrid jet-rocket interceptor, meaning it will have a lower ceiling than the normal jet powered version and will be a bitch to control when above this altitude with the rocket off.

Excuse me, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but that is a direct example of the so-called linear extrapolation. Planned ceiling (yes, completely anticipated value!) for the Me 262 C-3a Heimatschützer III was 14.300 meters, and that numerical value is clearly superior than 11.560 meters, presented as a maximum service ceiling for the Me 262 A-1a variant. The key role factor for this obvious discrepancy is the thrust/weight ratio, which is greatly improved in this case we have here.

The total range on jets would be very poor due to the additional weight, space and drag penalties of the rocket motor.

Not necesssarily, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Implementation of the additional drop tanks, as well as of a new completely new, innovative towed winged fuel tank system called Deichselschlepp (actually tested with the prototype Me 262 V 10 – VI+AE, W.Nr. 130005) would be a completely acceptable solution for this problem.

Burn time on the rocket motor would be very poor - 5 minutes maximum?

Yet again theoretically - fifteen minutes (+/- 3 minutes), to be more exact.

The radius about the point rocket motor burn started from which it can make an intercept at 45-50,000ft will not be very high.

Theoretically correct conclusion, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but the real question in this issue is the factual capacity of the internal, fuselage tanks. For example, by inserting a new 1,15 meters long section in the centerplane, additional 1635 liters of rocket would have been completely available.

turns will be very restricted indeed as any sharp turns will put you in a spin, and as soon as the rocket motor fuel runs out you will stall pretty much immediately.

Theoretically, blown flaps are still available as an aerodynamically completely acceptable solution in this case, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Furthermore – Ho 229 A1 is a pure jet airplane, therefore termination of the thrust provided by the rocket engine is not a problem in this case. :)

That aircraft relied on an engine nobody ever got working properly (the HeS 011)

Excuse me, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but I have a minor impression that we are not talking about the same aeroplane. The Messerschmitt P. 1106 R was a pure rocket-fighter, which had Walter HWK 109-509 S2 rocket engine with a static thrust of 19,3 kN, mounted in the frontal part of the fuselage (thus equipped with a low-drag solid nose). That engine represented an improved variant of the rocket motor envisioned for the legendary DFS 228 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft designed by the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug, which had the envisioned service ceiling of 25,000 m. And I am assuring you that Dr. Felix Kracht was a very well educated and completely sane aeronautical engineer, and not an insane crackpot-scientist.

which gives a service ceiling of ~35,000 ft (limited by a lack of cockpit pressurisation). Controllability at high altitudes (by implication around 35,000 ft) is also assessed as poor.

Soviet results, confirmed by Yugoslav comparative examinations (oh, yes – we have tested that cute little thing too!) are indicating 14.758 meters as a completely accessible value. On the other hand, absence of the pressurized cockpit has certain advantages – absolute nonappearance of the explosive decompression, potentially highly probable in air combat.

pdf27

08-22-2008, 10:49 AM

Excuse me, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but that is a direct example of the so-called linear extrapolation. Planned ceiling (yes, completely anticipated value!) for the Me 262 C-3a Heimatschützer III was 14.300 meters, and that numerical value is clearly superior than 11.560 meters, presented as a maximum service ceiling for the Me 262 A-1a variant. The key role factor for this obvious discrepancy is the thrust/weight ratio, which is greatly improved in this case we have here.
So the absolute ceiling is improved. What about controllability, stall margin (i.e. gap between Vne and stall speed), etc.? A big engine will get you to very high altitudes, but it takes a great deal more than just power to do anything useful up there. The other issue is pilot skill - many aircraft require extremely accurate flying at or close to their ceiling, and most pilots aren't capable of this. Something as simple as firing guns can cause the aircraft to lose control and stall severely.

Not necesssarily, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. Implementation of the additional drop tanks, as well as of a new completely new, innovative towed winged fuel tank system called Deichselschlepp (actually tested with the prototype Me 262 V 10 – VI+AE, W.Nr. 130005) would be a completely acceptable solution for this problem.
Err... sort of. They increase the fuel tankage, but they also either increase the wing loading (drop tanks) or total drag (towed wing tank). Either will reduce the service ceiling radically until dropped, and marginally afterwards (additional plumbing, etc.) The towed tanks in particular would be a major handicap if the aircraft suddenly came under attack...

Yet again theoretically - fifteen minutes (+/- 3 minutes), to be more exact.
Quite impressive actually - that's a longer burn time than the Me-262.

Theoretically correct conclusion, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but the real question in this issue is the factual capacity of the internal, fuselage tanks. For example, by inserting a new 1,15 meters long section in the centerplane, additional 1635 liters of rocket would have been completely available.
Was this an actually planned mod? What does it do to the empty weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft? Any increase in empty weight will translate directly into a lower ceiling and make controllability harder at any given height.

Theoretically, blown flaps are still available as an aerodynamically completely acceptable solution in this case, my dear Mr. Pdf 27.
At altitude??? I'm not aware of ANY aircraft using these for anything other than takeoff/landing, so if you are aware of any I'd love to see them. I'd be rather surprised if they were used though - they increase drag coefficient faster than lift coefficient (or else they would be used in the cruise condition) and aircraft close to their ceiling need every drop of power they can get.
<spot the frustrated aerodynamicist!>

Furthermore – Ho 229 A1 is a pure jet airplane, therefore termination of the thrust provided by the rocket engine is not a problem in this case. :)
It is also by far the best bet of the German WW2 aircraft to be able to reach the altitudes required - relatively high power to weight, not reliant on an engine that never worked and a big wing. So far as I'm aware nobody ever tested one at reasonably high altitude however, and until they do I'm going to reserve judgement about exactly how manouverable/controllable it would be. There are some very good reasons flying wing designs haven't proved popular despite their advantages for the internal volume/wetted area ratio.

Excuse me, my dear Mr. Pdf 27, but I have a minor impression that we are not talking about the same aeroplane. The Messerschmitt P. 1106 R was a pure rocket-fighter, which had Walter HWK 109-509 S2 rocket engine with a static thrust of 19,3 kN, mounted in the frontal part of the fuselage (thus equipped with a low-drag solid nose).
Quite right -I was thinking of the standard P.1160!

That engine represented an improved variant of the rocket motor envisioned for the legendary DFS 228 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft designed by the Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Segelflug, which had the envisioned service ceiling of 25,000 m. And I am assuring you that Dr. Felix Kracht was a very well educated and completely sane aeronautical engineer, and not an insane crackpot-scientist.
The problem with WW2 Germany is that the line between the two often became surprisingly blurred, particularly when it came to late-war designs. An awful lot of the German designs of the time were full of advanced concepts - and full of bugs in the advanced concepts that the Germans simply didn't know existed.
Swept wings are an ideal example of this - the Germans (and indeed everyone else for that matter - the original research into them was published before the outbreak of war) knew that they reduced transonic drag substantially and enabled the use of a thicker wing section. Great! What they didn't realise - and what caused the US, UK, Soviet Union, etc. so many headaches postwar - was how badly this affected the stall performance of the wing. To this day the Hawker Hunter is the ONLY swept wing aircraft which can safely be spun and recovered (which is why the ETPS at Boscome Down is the only place on earth to teach it). Just to fly a swept wing aircraft safely requires a whole pile of aerodynamic fixes - wing fences, turbulators, wing twist/aero-isoclonic wings, fly by wire, etc. It took several years postwar to work out what the problem was and come up with the appropriate fixes - time the Germans both didn't have and weren't planning on needing.

Soviet results, confirmed by Yugoslav comparative examinations (oh, yes – we have tested that cute little thing too!) are indicating 14.758 meters as a completely accessible value. On the other hand, absence of the pressurized cockpit has certain advantages – absolute nonappearance of the explosive decompression, potentially highly probable in air combat.
Oh, I'm not doubting at all that a suitably equipped test pilot (in a pressure suit, having been pre-breathing a pure oxygen atmosphere for some time) can get an aircraft like that to such a height - it's got thin, straight wings and a fairly high power:weight ratio with a low wing loading, so is an ideal candidate. That isn't the same as being of any use in combat at that height however - the US report makes it fairly clear that the manouverability margin at that altitude will be very small making fighting it hard, particularly for a less experienced pilot. The requirement for a pressure suit - particularly if you need to pre-breathe oxygen - makes scrambling it in the face of an attack a very slow process. All in all I have doubts as to exactly how effective an aircraft like that would be against the B-36 - an intercept is theoretically possible, but in the face of an aircraft trying not to be intercepted/shot down...?
Of course, if you offered me a free one as a toy I wouldn't say no ;)

BZikica

08-23-2008, 02:03 PM

If you have a basis knowledge of math look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor, and discussion so you can figure out yourself. Margolis' figures are ridiculous, it's really complicated matter to comment.
For me each human life is equally important, but using figures in this way is really painful.

Librarian

08-23-2008, 11:33 PM

What about controllability, stall margin (i.e. gap between Vne and stall speed), etc.? A big engine will get you to very high altitudes, but it takes a great deal more than just power to do anything useful up there.

With appropriate tactics that is not a problem, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – the only thing we have to do in this case is to apply the good old advantages of the so called vertical plane maneuvers, directly dependable by our speed. For example, we are starting our attack in ordinary level flight, at cca 6.000 meters, being directly under the bomber formation, with no less then 650 km/h of airspeed. In that moment we are dropping all our additional tanks, we are activating our rocket booster and we are pulling back the stick. All our engines are at maximum and our machine is now getting almost a 90 degree nose-up pitch attitude (meaning we are pointing straight up in the enemy formation!). If enemy formation is passing above us, or already is above and in front of us the only thing we have to do is to stop pulling the stick! After that we are already inside the effective range, and we are capable to fire our salvo of R4M rockets. If something is directly in front of us it will be blown to the Kingdom Come - if not our speed is high enough to bring us above our slower enemies. Arriving at circa12.500 meters, and still with great reserve of speed we are commanding a simple 180-degree roll. In addition, this time, when we are at the top, we have gravity’s help on our side! :D

Err... sort of. They increase the fuel tankage, but they also either increase the wing loading (drop tanks) or total drag (towed wing tank). Either will reduce the service ceiling radically until dropped, and marginally afterwards (additional plumbing, etc.)

Absolutely, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. But aforementioned facts never represented some kind of a impenetrable barrier for numerous other airplanes in the WW2. Why our unfortunate Me 262 should raise an exception? By my personal opinion, those tanks are representing an completely realistic technical opportunity, and not an impenetrable restriction.

The towed tanks in particular would be a major handicap if the aircraft suddenly came under attack...

Oh, dont worry, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – our brand new, freshly installed air defense system "Egerland", built by renowned Telefunken, with panoramic aquisition radar "Kulmbach" and the agile gun laying radar "Marbach" capable to achieve semi-automatic homing on the chosen target, will prevent those attacks! :D

Was this an actually planned mod? What does it do to the empty weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft?

Yes, actually it was! As early as October 8th, 1944 Messerschmitt design bureau presented the calculation for a new version, designated Me 262B-2a. That airplane had a extended fuselage by means of inserting that previously mentioned 1.15 meters long section in the centerplane, with fuel housed in six interconnected tanks. This innovation allowed an increase in the available amount of jet fuel to 3170 liters, allowing the airplane to fly continuously with internal reservoirs only for 130 – 145 minutes.

At altitude??? I'm not aware of ANY aircraft using these for anything other than takeoff/landing, so if you are aware of any I'd love to see them. I'd be rather surprised if they were used though - they increase drag coefficient faster than lift coefficient (or else they would be used in the cruise condition) and aircraft close to their ceiling need every drop of power they can get.
<spot the frustrated aerodynamicist!>

With pleasure, my esteemed colleague! You see, during the last fifty years fluid dynamics has become indispensable in the solution of numerous problems associated with aviation. However, a regrettable consequence of this is that numerous advances in the field of aerodynamic have become too numerous for one person to be able to survey them. I think that there is a pressing need for surveys of the forgotten branches, and as a scientific librarian I am completely willing to help with that knotty issue. :)

So sorry, honorable ladies and gentlemen – that annoying message is here again: The text that you have entered is too long (11446 characters). Please shorten it to 10000 characters long. Oh, well… :roll:

Librarian

08-23-2008, 11:35 PM

As you know, my dear Mr. Pdf, the simplest method of increasing the maximum lift of a given surface is to increase the profile camber by deflection of a flap. The possible ways of fitting a flap on to a profile are numerous, and the effects on the profile properties are extraordinary varied. The principal arrangements are:

- plain flaps
- split flaps
- slotted and multi-slotted flaps, and
- nose flaps

In addition, the most diverse combinations of these arrangements were and still are used for numerous, different purposes.

The maximum lift of plain flaps depends essentially upon the ratio of the flap chord cη to the profile chord c, as well as the flap deflection η. Ratios cη/c that lie in the range 0.2 to 0.25 are favorable when η is about 60 degree, and the increased maximum lift rises with thickness. For laminar profiles the range of Cl in which the drag is small can be displaced to higher Cl values by small flap-deflections (a small camber has the same effect). But as with a ll flaps it is essential that the unavoidable gap between wing and flap be kept as small as possible – otherwise losses in lift cannot be avoided, and drag will be increased too!

But why is this so important? Because the increase in the moment coefficient ΔCm (usable for maneuvering!) is directly proportional to the increase in the lift coefficient ΔClmax.

With a split flaps the suction side of the profile remains unaltered, but on the pressure side a downward flap-deflection is possible at the rear. The effect is similar to that of a plain flap, but considerably more marked.

A still higher lift-coefficient can be obtained by the use of the slotted flaps, but the geometrical shape of the slot must be carefully considered if the desired increase in lift is to be realized. For this reason sharp edges at the beginning of the slot are to be avoided as much as possible on relatively thick profiles, like in this case with our dearly beloved Ho 229 (thin profiles are less sensitive in this respect).

German engineers were well aware that only a limited increase in lift without a drag can be obtained by arrangements of flaps. Their conclusion was that to gain a further increase the distribution of energy in the boundary layer must be controlled by suitable means – either by sucking away the fluid in the boundary layer near the wall (that fluid is deficient in energy) or by blowing out compressed air in the direction of flow – that is, by bringing in additional energy!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BF-2.jpg

Impact of blowing upon aerodynamic characteristics of a wing with double-slotted flaps

The German war experiments with blowing as a mean of increasing the lift, started in 1938 and were concerned with the generation of a high lift utilizable with different transonic profiles toward enhancement of maneuverability in critical flight paths (Schwier, W. : Versuche tur Auftriebssteigerung durch Ausblassen von Luft an einem symmetrischen profil mit Wölbungsklappe groβer Tiefe, FB 1462 – 1941). Schwier has investigated an arrangement for blowing, which was fitted to a profile with a slotted flap. Air was blown out over the flap through a slot at the trailing edge. The results were better than those obtained with the corresponding arrangement using suction and a plain flaps.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/BF-1.jpg

Different variants of the compressed air streaming over flapses

In his capital work W. Krüger (Rechnerische und experimentelle Untersuchung zur Frage der Förderleistungsbedarfes von Flugzeugen mit Grenzschichtbeeinflussung, FB 1618 – 1942) proved with his measurements for small values of the volume-flow rate that there is only a tiny change in lift (assuming the angle of incidence is kept constant), but also that lift increases rapidly if the air blown out has approximately the same speed as the flow, and that the narrower the slot – the more effective the blowing is. Additional gain is achieved in drag reducing.

Another form of blowing that results in an increase in CLmax, but which does not directly influence the boundary layer, is the blowing of a jet of air out of the profile on the pressure side (a proposal of Betz, 1943). This produces an effect similar to that of split flaps, ut without a significant increase in drag as well.

Other significant German works in this domain are:

"Ausblaseversuche zur Auftriebsteigerung an einem Querruder geringer Tiefe", FB 1579 – 1941
"Ausblaseversuche zur Auftriebssteigerung an einem Flügel von 9% Dicke mit Vorflügel und Klappe" , FB 1622 – 1942
"Versuche über Wiederstandsänderungeneines Tragflügels beim Ausblasen von erwärmter Luft", FB 1783 – 1943
"Blaswersuche zur Auftriebssteigerung am Profil 23015 mit verschidenen Klappenformen" FB 1865 – 1943
"Auftriebsänderung durch einen auf der Flügeldruckseite ausgeblasenen Luftstrahl", UM 3192 – 1944.

And that’s only the beginning of the story, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – American experiences from mid-fifties are much more remarkable! For example, those connected with a legendary machine, indeed one and only North American RA 5 C Vigilante. Just ask our American colleagues here – they surely do have much more materials! In the mantime I shall try to prepare something about Soviet developments!;)

It is also by far the best bet of the German WW2 aircraft to be able to reach the altitudes required - relatively high power to weight, not reliant on an engine that never worked and a big wing.
Absolutely agreed, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – that airplane is my machine of choice as well!

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a137/Langnasen/Horten229-1.jpg

Ho 229 – data table

That isn't the same as being of any use in combat at that height however - the US report makes it fairly clear that the manouverability margin at that altitude will be very small making fighting it hard, particularly for a less experienced pilot.

The main question in this case is what kind of a maneuverability actually is needed, My dear Mr. Pdf 27. Are you suggesting that a fully loaded B36-A Peacemaker is capable to perform a Hammerhead or the Cuban Eight up there at 11.500 meters? :D

The requirement for a pressure suit - particularly if you need to pre-breathe oxygen - makes scrambling it in the face of an attack a very slow process.

Oh, not at all if your forces are equipped with a mobile, reliable, 260 kg heavy, 2,2 meters long, single-person hyperbaric chamber, with internal diameter of 0,65 meters – otherwise completely transportable by a standard 1,5-ton army truck and completely independent from outer electric power sources. And we still do have those remarkable Soviet things here. ;)

Of course, if you offered me a free one as a toy I wouldn't say no.

Good, my dear Mr. Pdf 27 – but please remember that I am a really playful personality as well! Therefore please moderate yourself: you have only three circles for free! ;)

pdf27

08-25-2008, 06:50 AM

Absolutely, my dear Mr. Pdf 27. But aforementioned facts never represented some kind of a impenetrable barrier for numerous other airplanes in the WW2. Why our unfortunate Me 262 should raise an exception? By my personal opinion, those tanks are representing an completely realistic technical opportunity, and not an impenetrable restriction.
It's hardly anything unique to the -262, rather it's generic to all aircraft close to their ceiling - additional weight or drag cause major handling/ceiling problems.

Yes, actually it was! As early as October 8th, 1944 Messerschmitt design bureau presented the calculation for a new version, designated Me 262B-2a. That airplane had a extended fuselage by means of inserting that previously mentioned 1.15 meters long section in the centerplane, with fuel housed in six interconnected tanks. This innovation allowed an increase in the available amount of jet fuel to 3170 liters, allowing the airplane to fly continuously with internal reservoirs only for 130 – 145 minutes.
OK, in that case they probably did a halfway decent job of it. Rather a lot of the late war German designs were very much "back of a fag packet" designs whcih were taken seriously due to the desperate situation Germany was in by then.

German engineers were well aware that only a limited increase in lift without a drag can be obtained by arrangements of flaps. Their conclusion was that to gain a further increase the distribution of energy in the boundary layer must be controlled by suitable means – either by sucking away the fluid in the boundary layer near the wall (that fluid is deficient in energy) or by blowing out compressed air in the direction of flow – that is, by bringing in additional energy!
To be exact, for any sensible wing design NO increase in lift can be gained without an increase in drag, and the L/D ratio will always get worse when you deploy flaps. If it didn't, then the aircraft would have the flaps deployed permanently as it would allow the generation of the same amount of lift from either a smaller wing (hence less wetted area) or at a lower AOA (hence bigger manouver margin). Blown flaps **sometimes** improve the L/D, but that is if you ignore the effective loss in engine power caused by the blowing system. If you add this in (and you can easily be taking 10% of the air from the HP compressor to run the blowing system) your effective drag goes way up. Essentially, blown flaps are NOT a solution to improving the absolute ceiling of an aircraft due to the engine power loss, which makes the effective L/D worse and hence reduces the ceiling. You could add an engine specifically to provide this air (indeed, there were proposals for a pressurised variant of the Avro Lancaster with a fifth engine in the bomb bay to drive a supercharger to feed air to the engines - very similar to this in concept, and probably intended as a nuclear bomb carrier if the Tube Alloys project ever came to fruition) but this adds a substantial amount of weight and the benefits probably aren't big enough to be of any use.
At this point it's worth looking at what worked postwar for getting to extreme altitudes - essentially you have to go very fast and have very high specific power. You can compensate to an extent by using very big wings and light weight (e.g. the U-2 spyplane, B-36, English-Electric Canberra, etc.) but to get to very great heights you need extremely high specific power and to get there in a zoom climb at supersonic speeds.

The main question in this case is what kind of a maneuverability actually is needed, My dear Mr. Pdf 27. Are you suggesting that a fully loaded B36-A Peacemaker is capable to perform a Hammerhead or the Cuban Eight up there at 11.500 meters?
Hardly - but given that it had very big wings, a lot of fuel and high specific power it may have been able to turn inside a fighter aircraft. For instance, the Avro Vulcan (while it looked very different, it had the same advantages - big wing and high power) was quoted by the RAF on entering service as "being able to out-fly and out-turn any operational fighter on earth at it's operating altitude", or words to that effect. The point I'm trying to make is that at very high altitudes your manouverability is very, very limited indeed - and that big aircraft don't suffer quite as badly from this.

Oh, not at all if your forces are equipped with a mobile, reliable, 260 kg heavy, 2,2 meters long, single-person hyperbaric chamber, with internal diameter of 0,65 meters – otherwise completely transportable by a standard 1,5-ton army truck and completely independent from outer electric power sources. And we still do have those remarkable Soviet things here.
Are you serious? The Soviets seriously expected their pilots to try and make an intercept while suffering from the Bends, and were going to treat them when they got back down again? Jeepers!

Chevan

08-25-2008, 08:58 AM

German engineers were well aware that only a limited increase in lift without a drag can be obtained by arrangements of flaps. Their conclusion was that to gain a further increase the distribution of energy in the boundary layer must be controlled by suitable means – either by sucking away the fluid in the boundary layer near the wall (that fluid is deficient in energy) or by blowing out compressed air in the direction of flow – that is, by bringing in additional energy!

The German war experiments with blowing as a mean of increasing the lift, started in 1938 and were concerned with the generation of a high lift utilizable with different transonic profiles toward enhancement of maneuverability in critical flight paths (Schwier, W. : Versuche tur Auftriebssteigerung durch Ausblassen von Luft an einem symmetrischen profil mit Wölbungsklappe groβer Tiefe, FB 1462 – 1941). Schwier has investigated an arrangement for blowing, which was fitted to a profile with a slotted flap. Air was blown out over the flap through a slot at the trailing edge. The results were better than those obtained with the corresponding arrangement using suction and a plain flaps.

In his capital work W. Krüger (Rechnerische und experimentelle Untersuchung zur Frage der Förderleistungsbedarfes von Flugzeugen mit Grenzschichtbeeinflussung, FB 1618 – 1942) proved with his measurements for small values of the volume-flow rate that there is only a tiny change in lift (assuming the angle of incidence is kept constant), but also that lift increases rapidly if the air blown out has approximately the same speed as the flow, and that the narrower the slot – the more effective the blowing is. Additional gain is achieved in drag reducing.

Oh this is whole scientific article you have wroet dear Labrarian.
I'm wondering of your ability to find and expound the matter.
This is so amazing for humble labrarian:)
As Rising Sun said , you know TOO much , my dear friend:)

The main question in this case is what kind of a maneuverability actually is needed, My dear Mr. Pdf 27. Are you suggesting that a fully loaded B36-A Peacemaker is capable to perform a Hammerhead or the Cuban Eight up there at 11.500 meters? :D

He he
You are right mr Librarian ( as alwyas, well most of times)
Strange but our friend PDF has an very jealous relation toward the GErmans military/technological/science achievements. Why is so i don't know
We both ( Russian and UK) fought with GErmans, but our british friend seems has tend to underestimate the GErman ability to creat the hight-tech vechicles.
This is probably of matter of their European national proudness - to competite with GErmans?French in every field, even in forums battals..
But who know, may be PDF is right.( i mean to be hard in technical disputes)

Oh, not at all if your forces are equipped with a mobile, reliable, 260 kg heavy, 2,2 meters long, single-person hyperbaric chamber, with internal diameter of 0,