ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags adolf hitler , alternate history , political speculation , World War II history

Reply
Old 7th September 2003, 02:41 AM   #41
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally posted by shemp


OK, I posted it there, under one of my other nicks, "The Dirty Vicar." I don't think they knew that I was kidding. This is one of the responses I got.

"Assuming Jesus had a tactical nuclear device, as opposed to the strategic ones our GWBush has today, then he might threaten several provinces in the Roman Empire, if not the Empire itself.

Maybe Mary Magdalen does more than attempt to seduce him and someone, prolly Judas, catches him unaware, or while sleeping, and knifes him.

One question, if it was a strategic nuclear weapon, what would be the delivery system and then how or where would Jesus store it, or carry it with him?"

Yeah, if I was Jesus and I had a nuke, my biggest concern would be that Judas would knife me and steal it. Yeah, sure!
Wait a minute.

Jesus knew that he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The reason he didn't do anything about it is that he knew it was his destiny, and there was nothing he could do to change it. So he could never have a nuke because that was never his destiny. Paradox. Paradox. Nnnnggghh!
Mr Manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2003, 02:54 AM   #42
Brian the Snail
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 962
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Wait a minute.

Jesus knew that he was going to be betrayed by Judas. The reason he didn't do anything about it is that he knew it was his destiny, and there was nothing he could do to change it. So he could never have a nuke because that was never his destiny. Paradox. Paradox. Nnnnggghh!
Welcome to Christianity.
Brian the Snail is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2003, 11:57 AM   #43
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,325
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Nnnnggghh!
You are not *campers*. Time to *dance*

wondering if anyone will get this
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2003, 03:57 PM   #44
sorgoth
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 977
There would be mass propaganda(And for anyone who says we have it today...well, not to nearly the same extent. We're still aware of the failings of our government.) Everyone would be convinced everyone WANTED Hitler to win. Racism would be at an all time high. Slavery would be implemented. Hitler would be up there with Jesus as 'savior' of the world.

If Jesus had a nuke...well, it would get stolen by God, then used to threaten Jesus into child killing and the stoning of the nonchristian, all the while yelling 'Who's your daddy?"
__________________
L'univers et moi, nous sommes seuls ensemble.
sorgoth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 01:13 AM   #45
Abdul Alhazred
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,022
Re: What would the world be like today if Hitler had won?

Quote:
Originally posted by plindboe
I often hear people say that we would all speak German today if we hadn't won in the 2nd world war. How much did Hitler plan to occupy? What did he plan to do with the occupied countries? Maybe someone here has read "Mein kampf" and have an idea on what went on in his mind? Thanks for any replies.

Peter
See "The Man in the High Castle" by Philip K. Dick. It is the ultimate "what if Hitler won" book.
Abdul Alhazred is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 05:40 AM   #46
Mr Manifesto
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,815
Quote:
Originally posted by gnome


You are not *campers*. Time to *dance*

wondering if anyone will get this
This isn't a line from "But I'm a Cheerleader", is it?
Mr Manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 11:55 AM   #47
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,325
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This isn't a line from "But I'm a Cheerleader", is it?
X

Bzzzzt. Nope. I'll hint, it's from a video game.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 01:51 PM   #48
Soapy Sam
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 28,749
I suspect the middle east situation would be rather different.
Soapy Sam is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 03:01 PM   #49
Ed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,658
Quote:
Originally posted by Ove


Sounds perfectly plausible considering that Hitler would have had Nukes too in 1945.

Fortunately he was obsessed with his own genius and that brought him down in the end.
Was he buying the uranium from Nigerea?
Ed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2003, 04:52 PM   #50
JAR
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally posted by Ove
[b]Sounds perfectly plausible considering that Hitler would have had Nukes too in 1945.
[snip][b]
Albert Speer claimed something to the effect in his memoirs called "Inside the Third Reich" that when nuclear weapons were brought up in a meeting, Hitler said that he didn't want to have any nuclear weapons made because too many Jews had been involved in research on nuclear power.
JAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2003, 11:10 AM   #51
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 23,768
From JAR:
Quote:
Albert Speer claimed ...
No claim or statement of Albert Speer's can be considered as evidence. Just thought I'd point that out.

The Nazis did, of course, drive out many of their best scientists because they were Jews or socialists. There were a number of reports that the Nazi hierarchy regarded nuclear physics as "Jewish science" and therefore somehow invalid, but work on a bomb was still done. If they'd won the war they'd have had it pretty soon. So would the Americans (assuming the "winning" didn't include the actual conquest of the USA, which seems a bit far-fetched).
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2003, 07:56 PM   #52
QuarkChild
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally posted by CapelDodger

No claim or statement of Albert Speer's can be considered as evidence. Just thought I'd point that out.
Care to elaborate?

Speer portrayed Hitler as being, to some extant, an obstacle in weapons production due in part to his tendency to slant armaments in favor of heavier, clumsier designs. He also referred to Hitler's low prioritizing of the atomic weaponry project. Do you think that those portrayals were inaccurate?

I'm curious because I've read Inside the Third Reich a bunch of times but I never know how much weight to give his memory and opinions. For someone so inexperienced he certainly had a lot of opinions on the mistakes Hitler made, for example.
__________________
Veni, vidi, integrati per partum. I came, I saw, I integrated by parts.
QuarkChild is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th September 2003, 08:11 PM   #53
JAR
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally posted by QuarkChild

Care to elaborate?

Speer portrayed Hitler as being, to some extant, an obstacle in weapons production due in part to his tendency to slant armaments in favor of heavier, clumsier designs. He also referred to Hitler's low prioritizing of the atomic weaponry project. Do you think that those portrayals were inaccurate?

I'm curious because I've read Inside the Third Reich a bunch of times but I never know how much weight to give his memory and opinions. For someone so inexperienced he certainly had a lot of opinions on the mistakes Hitler made, for example.
That's what I was telling my father.

One thing Speer does not do in the book "Inside the Third Reich" is try to clear Hitler's name. He tries to clear his own name, but not Hitler's.
JAR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2003, 11:16 AM   #54
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 23,768
From QuarkChild:
Quote:
Do you think that those portrayals were inaccurate?
I don't have any doubt that Speer was totally amoral, and quite possibly sociopathic. He attempted - fairly successfully - to distance himself from the use of slave-labour and the things that were done to achieve his production "miracles". He really isn't a worthwhile source, since any of his statements will be self-serving, true or not.

In regard to Hitler's interference, this covers Speer's own failures and boosts his vanity. Not that it isn't true - given the well-documented experience of Hitler's generals it probably was - but I wouldn't take Speer's word for it.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2003, 11:39 AM   #55
Mike B.
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,186
Quote:
Originally posted by CapelDodger
From QuarkChild:

I don't have any doubt that Speer was totally amoral, and quite possibly sociopathic. He attempted - fairly successfully - to distance himself from the use of slave-labour and the things that were done to achieve his production "miracles". He really isn't a worthwhile source, since any of his statements will be self-serving, true or not.

In regard to Hitler's interference, this covers Speer's own failures and boosts his vanity. Not that it isn't true - given the well-documented experience of Hitler's generals it probably was - but I wouldn't take Speer's word for it.
I think that is exactly right.

It is interesting too the way the generals tried to cover their tracks.

British historian Allan Clark wrote a general histroy of Operation Barborossa. He tried to stress the point that sometimes Hitler was right as far as military strategy and tactics were concerned and his generals were wrong.

Clark wrote the book in 1965 and was reacting to the many self-serving Whermacht general's books that constatnly had the theme, "We would have won if it wasn't for Hitler..."

I tend to agree with Clark, Case Yellow (attack in the West 1940) Case Blue (counterattack against Russians in early 1942) were all considered too risky by the generals, when they turned out to be quite successful. Hitler of course made mistakes too, like Operation Citadel. However, I think that it would have been very hard to win at that point even if he did everything the generals said.
Mike B. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2003, 11:54 AM   #56
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 23,768
Why did Germany lose? Different answers to that would imply different outcomes of them winning. My opinion is that Germany simply didn't have the industrial and manpower resources to defeat the USSR. That may be because they didn't have the capacity or it may be because what they had wasn't efficiently used. The Nazis weren't actually very efficient, and their ideology prevented them from mobilising their women into the workforce (as the British did to great effect). In 1942, Britain out-produced Germany in war-materiel. To overcome this limitation a different sort of leadership would be required. And that wasn't about to happen.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.