Hitler was not a Christian, he was an atheist; he was too bright to have been a Christian, anyway. He also expressed sentiments about the flabbiness of Christianity and how Islam was 'more compatible' with his goals; obviously, religion was a propaganda tool for him.
I'm not going to paste in all the evidence from that website. Folks can just go read it. However, I will offer some explanation of Hitler's ideals. See, Hitler believed in his own odd version of Hegel's philosophy of God. If God evolved as the universe and life evolved, and humans were at the pinnacle, and Germans were at the technological pinnacle (as they were), then that made Germans closest to God. That's the simple version of what Hitler believed. However, Hitler did not stick solely to Christian texts for his beliefs. He and his pals were also interested in the Mystery traditions (Freemasonry is a Mystery tradition, for example), which is why they also had mystical symbols all over the place, such as the black sun.
Which you don't appear to read. Do you have anything to support your contention other than blanket statements?
During the 1930s, Germany had the world's finest engineering and manufacturing. This was how they were able to develop such a powerful and effective military. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529548,00.html http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_had_the_better_technology_during_the_Second_World_War http://www.2worldwar2.com/german-secret-weapons.htm After WW2, science in Allied nations shot forward specifically due to the German scientists taken through Project Paperclip. Example: Werner Von Braun.
Ho ho ho. Yes the Go 229. Wasn't even in service. How did that help them? (And wasn't a war-winner even if it had entered service). Did you read this before linking it? I'll just italicise the comments that directly undermine your contention. Note: this is untrue: the Me 262's engines had a service life of around 20 hours. And the majority of that list were largely abortive or unworkable programmes, and didn't enter service. And were also mid-to-late-war developments: i.e. a consequence of the war itself, NOT a indicator that the Hitler believed Germans were superior because they had superior technology - that list is things developed to counter Allied superiority (and is also wonderfully incorrect on a number of counts). Science did? So Goddard didn't help? I wonder if the US had paid more attention to him where they'd have been. Ever thought how much German science/ technology would have advanced if they'd won and taken our developments?
Didn't say it was. I said they had the best technology. Pure conjecture. I certainly read it, but I know all this stuff anyway. Germany had superior technology, but orders from the command had them deploying basically units which were far from their best available technology. Again, you're complaining about what was used and how. More like 20 to 50 depending on the pilot and the action it saw, and that was just the jet engines, which were a new technology (created by the Germans). The aircraft's fuel capacity gave it a flight time of around an hour to an hour and a half, which means it could perform dozens of flights before needing the engines replaced, which could take from a few hours to half a day. 1. They were workable enough to be carried on by the victorious nations. 2. Again, you're complaining not about the technology, but about its deployment. The technology existed, and it was Germans that made it. No. It's the other way around. Early on, through the 1930s, the Germans had pretty much better everything. Very good manufacturing and engineering. At the start of the war, they had the best fighters by far. However, as we saw with attacking Britain, the Germans just didn't have the fuel and range advantage; the British did, which hampered the Germans a lot. Anyway, after an initial splurge on new technologies, Hitler stuck his stupid nose in and stopped a lot of the developments, which allowed other nations to leapfrog ahead a little in some areas. Then toward the end of the war Hitler encouraged new developments again. But they didn't. But that's an alternate history story that didn't happen.
And the example doesn't make your point. Nope. The sentences I italicised clearly show that German technology was inferior. Evidence? No it wasn't. Which made it inferior since the aircraft couldn't be used until the engines were overhauled. Oh yeah, we always use rocket-powered fighters. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for the others: if they were abortive or unworkable then they weren't a technology, they were experiments. See comment above: if it's not available it isn't a technology. Such as? Better tanks? Oh, not them. Better radar? Oh, not that either. Etc... Did they? But Goddard had the technology (the way the Germans had so much of the technology you claim they did). But it still highlights the fact that the Germans would also have leaped forward if it had happened: i.e. it wasn't better it was different technology/ ideas that swapped hands.
So... first jet fighters, first rocket fighters, first guided missiles, first assault rifles, best fighters at the start of the war, first nerve gas...? Actually yes. You posted pure conjecture. Here's what you said: That's conjecture. Playing dumb only makes you look dumb. Best avoid it. As I said, they deployed to the field some inferior tanks due to bad orders from above (a problem which plagued the Germans throughout the war). If you'd be so kind as to read the information provided, you'd learn all sorts of interesting things about the powerful German tanks and related technologies... which were not fielded. Again, that is a difference between developing the technologies and deploying them. What you are complaining about, without realising it, is the deployment of technologies. Panzer III was used. Panzer IV already existed. Easy. Well, it was the development of the first, which was the He178 (another German aircraft). The same applied to all aircraft. The same applies to all aircraft today. Obviously the plane couldn't fly while its engines were being repaired or replaced. Still, the Me262 could fly dozens of missions, and on those missions it rocked. It absolutely kicked arse. And it was the first fully operational jet fighter in the world, thanks to German engineering. It was one of the rocketry developments which heralded the space age. Good grief. So now we're into twisting English in an attempt to exclude those technological developments you'd rather not discuss? Ok. As demonstrated already. They had the Panzer IV but did not deploy it. Actually radar was developed by many different nations independently, including Germany. Britain was just the first to deploy it on a large scale. You wish there was an etc. Certainly. No. Goddard had bloody good ideas but never gained the support he needed to make anything of them. Even so, I obviously consider him one of the fathers of rocketry. Clever guy. It highlights the fact that you don't post information, only "Nope!" and so on, and also of course alternate histories which are irrelevant. Try what I do, and stick to facts.
In order: Built but not in service - He 178, No - Soviet BI-1, No - Kettering Bug, No - Soviet Federov Avtomat, No - Hurricane, Spitfire, Germany had Bf 109 Yes. Nope. It's backed by knowing the production capacities of the combatants. There's no way they could have built enough, fast enough to win the war. Quite, stop doing it. Evidence that this was the case? If you would care to read up on what the Allies had and didn't deploy you'd find that there's no real difference between them and us. So what? They weren't superior to, say, Char B1 bis, Matilda II, Somua S-35, T-34... Um, your statement was that the jet engine was created by the Germans. Which is not the case. And the technology was inferior to that of the engines in the Meteor. Meteor was the first operational jet fighter. Nope. Twisting? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/technology If it's in small numbers it's experiment/ prototype, not technology. Wrong: Pzkpfw IV (as you stated above) was deployed from the start. And it was still inferior to some foreign AFVs. I said "better" not first. I was sort of hoping you'd try some actual reading for yourself instead of being spoon fed. Nope. Bf 109 and... what other "better fighters by far" did they have? UK had Spitfire and Hurricane for comparison. In other words "high command didn't let him implement the technology"? Oh wait... Facts? I post "nope" because you make flat statements (which turn out to be false) without support. As for "irrelevant" I've already expanded on the point you seem to have missed. "Different", not "better".
Rocket planes. Soviet BI-1 first flight 1942. German Lippisch Ente, first flight 1928. Guided missiles. The 1918 (I'll skip over your objection about technologies being deployed...) Kettering Bug was not a guided missile. It was a winged torpedo. It had no guidance. The German missiles had quite fancy guidance systems. Assault rifles. There's a difference between a semi-automatic rifle and an assault rifle. Assault rifle refers to a specific type of rifle. There were obviously many self-loading and automatic weapons prior to the German Sturmgewehr, as automatic weapons were popular in WW1, but they were not assault rifles. Fighter aircraft. The 109 was superior to the Allied planes at the start of the war. Here's a page with critiques of all those aircraft during WW2: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html Note that the Germans were full of praise for the Spitfire, but after the new engines and such were added from 1940 onward. Just skip on down to the Conclusion if you want the words of the Germans from the time. Obviously they couldn't build enough to win the war. We know that, because they didn't win the war. However, that's not even slightly anything to do with this discussion. Here's what you said, regarding Germany's stealth fighter: For context, we are discussing the funky technologies Germany came up with. Not the quantity of units they could pump out per day. You failed to address the point this stems from. Read up on the Battle of France. They deployed the IIIs. Dude, I've read enough. You have comprehensively failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support anything you've said thus far. The Battle Of France was from May 1940. The T34 was fielded in September 1940. The Panzer IV was simply superior to the S-35, the Matilda II, and the B1 (which the Germans used as a training vehicle since they were useless as tanks). Sure, you can look back to ancient Rome for steam jets if you want. But the Germans created the first functioning turbojet engines, and the first turbojet fighter plane. But I do enjoy how your argument has morphed several times: first complaining about deployment rather than development, then about the operational lifetime of ME262s, and now this. Meteor's engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Welland Me262's engine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_004 He178: First flown in 1939. Did not enter service. Me262: Development began in 1939. First flew in April 1941. First Allied planes shot down by it in July 1944. Meteor: Development began in 1940. First prototype flew in May 1941. Entered service July 1944. If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something. 25 definitions of technology: http://onelook.com/?w=technology&ls=a So you're saying experimental nano-robots are not technology? You're going to need better reading and comprehension skills. The Battle Of France was the example used. The Germans had the Panzer IV, which as I said was better technology, but due to shitty orders deployed the Panzer III, which was a shitty tank. Hmm, we're discussing technological firsts... If you're going to reply with something as inane as that, go to a hip-hop forum or something. The Me109 was the superior at the start of the war, for obvious reasons. the Hurricane was limited by altitude, and the Spitfire stalled out in climbs. There were other problems, but those two were massively exploited by the 109 pilots. The Spitfire and Hurricane caught up after upgrading began in 1940. And? There were some brilliant guys everywhere. Germany had the best and the most, which is why the Allied forces nabbed them all. You have yet to post any facts, or any support of claims. At all.
And the Ente wasn't a rocket fighter. Keep trying. On the contrary the Bug was guided, and the V-1 had very similar guidance. Exactly: the Federov Avtomat was the first assault rifle. (Or if you want to really push the boat out, the Italian Cei-Rigotti of 1890, but that wasn't taken into service). No it wasn't. Explain how that page shows a superiority. AND Pzkpfw IV. The IVs were in service from the start of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV In other words you're ignoring facts. What's the Battle of France got to do with it? We're talking about the start of WWII. In what way? Generally thinner armour? Worse tank-killing gun? No they didn't, that was Whittle - the German types pre-Whittle were externally powered the same way Coanda's 1910 engine was. My argument? You're the one that claimed the Germans created the jet engine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Er, remember your own words? The 262 kills were made by a trials unit. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2433084&postcount=43 If you're going to post unsupported nonsense that's all the reply you should expect. An experimental technology isn't a technology since it isn't provably workable as a technology. The IV was used from the very start of the war. And the III was so "shitty" it was still in use in '44 (and variants, e.g. the StuG lasted throughout the war). Hmm, your original statement was "superior technology": that includes "better" or not. Why? Is that where you get your information? No thanks I'd rather stick with genuine stuff instead of false data. Any two competing aircraft will have a swings and roundabouts comparison, one is better at X, the other Y. A superiority as a fighter depends on many things: you still haven't shown the 109 was superior. Yet somehow you count the German undeveloped stuff and discount that of the Allies. Wrong and wrong.
Quite right for once, it was a rocket aircraft. No, the Kettering Bug essentially went in a straight line until it ran out of fuel. The V1 actually had relatively complex guidance to ensure it went in roughly a straight line before running out of fuel. The V2 was more complex again. It wasn't an assault rifle, it was a self-loading or semi-automatic rifle. There's a difference. You're going to have to start supporting your assertions some day. Otherwise you're just looking ridiculous. Start by reading that page I linked with comparisons of the Me109, the Hurricane, and the Spitfire. Read the assessments of the experts. Those being the professional fighter pilots who flew and fought with those aircraft. It's all on that page. I provided the information, and you chose to ignore it so you could simply continue arguing. Yes. It was. And the III was deployed for the Battle of France. Getting it yet? You haven't posted any yet. The Battle Of France was an early major campaign of WW2. Not the first action, but early, and showed how the German leadership was screwing things up for the military by giving dumb-arse orders. The Germans had the better technology, but did not employ it. Most of a tank's mass comes from its armour. Panzer IV: 25 tons, with armour up to 80mm. Matilda II: 25 tons with armour up to 78mm. Matilda II: 19.5 tons with armour up to 47mm. Main armament. Panzer IV main gun: 75mm. Matilda II: 40mm. S35: 47mm. Power to weight ratio. PIV: 12 hp/t. MII: 6.5 hp/t. S35: 9.7 hp/t. Speed. PIV: 42 km/h. MII: 25 km/h. S35: 41 km/h. But yeah, good work there on those claims... http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm Yeah, your post there is incorrect. The Me262s saw combat when I said they did. That's how they managed to shoot down enemy aircraft. You can't do that without combat. Those special forces guys were tasked with taking new equipment into active combat situations. That was their job, that's what they did, and that's why the Me262 saw action as early as it did in WW2. Dude, you haven't supported anything yet. Don't pretend otherwise. 25 definitions of technology: http://onelook.com/?w=technology&ls=a Each of the linked pages there contains multiple definitions. And they had the IV and ordered the III deployed for the BOF, showing how they tended to not use the best available technology even in major campaigns, due to shitty orders. Except no. Both England and Germany (and others) had radar. What Britain had was more of the same. More units in place. More units deployed. If you get around to posting facts rather than 'nope", let me know. Go to the page I linked which has many statements from experts. Not at all. I don't discount the atomic bomb or any such things. But feel free to make more such baseless assertions... ... Like that.
