Why All The German/Nazi Threads?

[David Joston]

Is this a World War II newsgroup or what?

Why can't anyone talk about at least modern military aviation?

I, for one, would like to see more discussions on the F-22, F-35,
Eurofighter, Rafale, JAS 39 Gripen, Su-47, MiG MFI, or any other new
aircraft.

My son bought a toy Su-47 today and asked me if Russia will ever
accept it as their new air superiority fighter. I honestly don't know-
does anyone here?

That's what this newsgroup should be here for, not a trip down memory
road arguing with nazi sympathizers, apologists, and such.

I suggest we all ignore such posts and get back to our roots.

BGX

[PosterBoy]

"David Joston" > wrote in message
om...
> Is this a World War II newsgroup or what?
>
> Why can't anyone talk about at least modern military aviation?
>
> I, for one, would like to see more discussions on the F-22, F-35,
> Eurofighter, Rafale, JAS 39 Gripen, Su-47, MiG MFI, or any other new
> aircraft.
>
> My son bought a toy Su-47 today and asked me if Russia will ever
> accept it as their new air superiority fighter. I honestly don't know-
> does anyone here?
>
> That's what this newsgroup should be here for, not a trip down memory
> road arguing with nazi sympathizers, apologists, and such.

Ummmm........
Do you see the word "toy" in the name of this newsgroup?
Seriously...we even entertain the questions and comments of modelers, but
don't you think that military aviation of any era should take precedence
over toy airplanes? Think it over.

Cheers.

[Denyav]

>Is this a World War II newsgroup or what?
>
>Why can't anyone talk about at least modern military aviation?

The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments are
Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently during
discussions.

[Chad Irby]

(Denyav) wrote:

> The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments are
> Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently during
> discussions.

Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Why All The German/Nazi Threads?
>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 10/19/03 7:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(Denyav) wrote:
>
>> The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments
>are
>> Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently
>during
>> discussions.
>
>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
>
>--
Is that why the Russians stole the B-29 plans?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article <MCFkb.128605$9l5.112738@pd7tw2no>, "PosterBoy"
> wrote:

>
> Ummmm........
> Do you see the word "toy" in the name of this newsgroup?
> Seriously...we even entertain the questions and comments of modelers, but
> don't you think that military aviation of any era should take precedence
> over toy airplanes? Think it over.


it was my understanding that rec [as in rec.aviation.military] is an
abreviation of the word recreational. look at all the other groups in
the rec. heirarchy: sports, collectibles, etc.

this newgroup exists for the hobbyist: planespotting, restoring old
aircraft and attending airshows are all on topic, but the majority of
hobbyists build model airplanes.

[Chad Irby]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Why All The German/Nazi Threads?
>
> (Denyav) wrote:
> >
> > > The originators of the most of the modern military aviation
> > > developmentsare Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their
> > > names comes up frequently during discussions.
> >
> >Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
> >genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
>
> Is that why the Russians stole the B-29 plans?

Shhhh! Denyav doesn't know that!

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"David Joston" > wrote in message
om...
> Is this a World War II newsgroup or what?
>
> Why can't anyone talk about at least modern military aviation?
>

I dont recall the name of the newsgrooup including the word .modern

> I, for one, would like to see more discussions on the F-22, F-35,
> Eurofighter, Rafale, JAS 39 Gripen, Su-47, MiG MFI, or any other new
> aircraft.
>
There are number of such threads ongoing , fell free to contribute


> My son bought a toy Su-47 today and asked me if Russia will ever
> accept it as their new air superiority fighter. I honestly don't know-
> does anyone here?
>
> That's what this newsgroup should be here for, not a trip down memory
> road arguing with nazi sympathizers, apologists, and such.
>
> I suggest we all ignore such posts and get back to our roots.
>
> BGX

I suggest you stop playing netcop.

Keith

[Cub Driver]

>The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments are
>Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently during
>discussions.

There's also a subset of trolls who are interested in bashing the
U.S., and the best or only thing they can think of is to compare it to
the German military it defeated in the field. This originated with the
communists in the late 1940s / 1950s and soon acquired a life of its
own. You can see a bunch of such threads on this newsgroup at the
moment, unless you've been active with your troll-killing filters.

Sometimes they are even funny, as when a troll pointed out that the
current U.S. kevlar helmet resembles nothing more than a (gasp!)
German coal-scuttle helmet as it developed in WWI (not in the Nazi
era).

I'm pleased at least that someone finally thought to put the word
"German" in the thread. The notion that the German alliance of
1939-1945 was purely a Nazi phenomenon is as nutty as saying that they
were defeated by an alliance of Communists and Democrats.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[John Mullen]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments
are
> >Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently
during
> >discussions.
>
> There's also a subset of trolls who are interested in bashing the
> U.S., and the best or only thing they can think of is to compare it to
> the German military it defeated in the field. This originated with the
> communists in the late 1940s / 1950s and soon acquired a life of its
> own. You can see a bunch of such threads on this newsgroup at the
> moment, unless you've been active with your troll-killing filters.
>
> Sometimes they are even funny, as when a troll pointed out that the
> current U.S. kevlar helmet resembles nothing more than a (gasp!)
> German coal-scuttle helmet as it developed in WWI (not in the Nazi
> era).

That was probably me. The trouble is, there is a sizeable group of US
posters on this NG who seldom if ever have anything to say about military
aviation, contenting themselves with name-calling (your post here is an
example). According to them, anyone who doesn't repeat their 'Pledge of
Allegiance' daily is a 'troll'.

Just ask yourself, would you *honestly* prefer it if nobody ever posted any
kind of dissent about US foreign policy (as it relates to Military Aviation)
here? Wouldn't it be kind of boring? I sometimes think some of you would
prefer a moderated NG, where everything was nice and safe for your ignorant
preconceptions about your country's place in the world, its history and the
essential rightness of everything it has ever done, even on the occasions
when it was demonstrably wrong.

US patriotism can look somewhat quaint and simplistic from a European
perspective. Ironically, the preservation of freedom of expression is one of
the things you can justly be somewhat proud of. I just wonder how many
USAians actually understand what it means.

> I'm pleased at least that someone finally thought to put the word
> "German" in the thread. The notion that the German alliance of
> 1939-1945 was purely a Nazi phenomenon is as nutty as saying that they
> were defeated by an alliance of Communists and Democrats.

Quite right. Vice versa works as well; Nazism was far from being a purely
German phenomenon. Our own royal family had at least one closet Nazi, who no
doubt would have been the titular ruler if Germany had won the war.

John

[Yann D]

Can you give me an idea on why USA, Italy, France, Japan, USSR wouldn't have
played a significant role in those developements.
Maybe I do not understand your point of view, but, what about the Schneider
cup ? Just an example.
Another one : the P51 really became brilliant when fitted with the Merlin
engine, but the airframe was already excellent.
The Hispano engine (and guns) became really efficient later in the war (with
russian developement for the engine and british for the gun).
So ?

Regards
Yann

> >Is this a World War II newsgroup or what?
> >
> >Why can't anyone talk about at least modern military aviation?
>
> The originators of the most of the modern military aviation developments
are
> Germans and Brits,thats the reason why their names comes up frequently
during
> discussions.

[Cub Driver]

>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...

Bull!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
>
>>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
>>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
>
> Bull!

Much too subtle for those of us reading it early in the morning, Dan.
We'd need to Cart out a lot of coffee to keep up.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Denyav]

>Quite right. Vice versa works as well; Nazism was far from being a purely
>German phenomenon. Our own royal family had at least one closet Nazi, who no
>doubt would have been the titular ruler if Germany had won the wa

Right,for example Hitler expressed his admiration for US Blood laws of 20s
frequently and almost copied them during Nazi power.
I think without Lenin and his succesful Soviet revolution Nazis would remain as
a fringe group in German politics.
Soviet or Communism scare in German establishment and in corporate Germany
helped them a lot.

[Kirk Stant]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...

> Just ask yourself, would you *honestly* prefer it if nobody ever posted any
> kind of dissent about US foreign policy (as it relates to Military Aviation)
> here? Wouldn't it be kind of boring? I sometimes think some of you would
> prefer a moderated NG, where everything was nice and safe for your ignorant
> preconceptions about your country's place in the world, its history and the
> essential rightness of everything it has ever done, even on the occasions
> when it was demonstrably wrong.

Actually, John, yes I would - on this newsgroup, which is called
"rec.military.aviation", not "alt.politics.bashamerica" or whatever.
Nothing wrong with bashing America, mind you, if we deserve it (but
remember about glass houses and first stones, etc.) and if the bashing
is intelligent, thoughtful, and interesting. It's just that this forum
is about military aviation, and the last time I asked not one military
plane ever had an opinion on politics!

So I would prefer all the political commentary to stay on forums that
look for it, and leave this to us military aviation nuts.

Not that I think that is going to happen, hah!

BTW, our ignorant preconceptions are probably no worse that those of
most of the rest of the world, and probably a whole lot better than
99% of the middle/far east. We are just easy target right now, just
as the British were a few hundred years ago, and the Romans before.
And I can just see all the gloating about how the US is next to fall.

But what say we get back to bull****ting about interesting military
aviation issues - for example a Yugoslavian UTVA 4 seat observation
just showed up at the glider airport I fly out of in Arizona - nice
paint job, US registration, still has the mountings for weapon/fuel
pylons under each wing, and the sticks have weapons switches on them.
It also has a glider tow hook on it - so I wonder if it was surplussed
from the Yugoslavian Air Force recently? Any of those showing up in
Europe? Neat looking airplane (4-seat high wing tail-dragger, with a
Lycoming GSO-480 rated at 340 Hp installed).

Kirk

[redc1c4]

David Joston wrote:

> Why All The German/Nazi Threads?

because ve haf vays of making you talk...........

redc1c4,
sorry, but i couldn't resist. %-)
--
A Troop - 1st Squadron
404th Lemming Armored Cavalry

"Velox et Capillatus!"

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:09:45 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>
>>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
>>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
>
>Bull!
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

It is a joke, Dan. The Tu-4 was the Soviet B-29 copy.

Al Minyard

[Keith Willshaw]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:09:45 -0400, Cub Driver >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
> >>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
> >
> >Bull!
> >
> >all the best -- Dan Ford
> >email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
> >
> >see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> >and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
> It is a joke, Dan. The Tu-4 was the Soviet B-29 copy.
>

As the NATO code name for the Tu-4 was 'Bull' I suspect
he already knows

Keith

[John Mullen]

"Kirk Stant" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Mullen" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Just ask yourself, would you *honestly* prefer it if nobody ever posted
any
> > kind of dissent about US foreign policy (as it relates to Military
Aviation)
> > here? Wouldn't it be kind of boring? I sometimes think some of you would
> > prefer a moderated NG, where everything was nice and safe for your
ignorant
> > preconceptions about your country's place in the world, its history and
the
> > essential rightness of everything it has ever done, even on the
occasions
> > when it was demonstrably wrong.
>
> Actually, John, yes I would - on this newsgroup, which is called
> "rec.military.aviation", not "alt.politics.bashamerica" or whatever.
> Nothing wrong with bashing America, mind you, if we deserve it (but
> remember about glass houses and first stones, etc.) and if the bashing
> is intelligent, thoughtful, and interesting.

Well, that's a good aspiration for anyone tempted to post here!

>It's just that this forum
> is about military aviation, and the last time I asked not one military
> plane ever had an opinion on politics!

Nonetheless politicians decide whether they are procured in the first place,
where they are posted, and who if anyone they target. Whether you like it or
not.

> So I would prefer all the political commentary to stay on forums that
> look for it, and leave this to us military aviation nuts.

I would prefer Hibs to win the UEFA cup. Might be a while though.

> Not that I think that is going to happen, hah!

Like I say, freedom of speech is the bit of the US ideal I like.

> BTW, our ignorant preconceptions are probably no worse that those of
> most of the rest of the world, and probably a whole lot better than
> 99% of the middle/far east. We are just easy target right now, just
> as the British were a few hundred years ago, and the Romans before.
> And I can just see all the gloating about how the US is next to fall.

Us UKians are awfully lucky there was no Usenet in the 19th Century, you're
right there!

> But what say we get back to bull****ting about interesting military
> aviation issues - for example a Yugoslavian UTVA 4 seat observation
> just showed up at the glider airport I fly out of in Arizona - nice
> paint job, US registration, still has the mountings for weapon/fuel
> pylons under each wing, and the sticks have weapons switches on them.
> It also has a glider tow hook on it - so I wonder if it was surplussed
> from the Yugoslavian Air Force recently? Any of those showing up in
> Europe? Neat looking airplane (4-seat high wing tail-dragger, with a
> Lycoming GSO-480 rated at 340 Hp installed).

Never seen anything like that round here. Did see the BAE BAC 1-11 trialling
the radar for EF Typhoon the last time I flew out of Edinburgh, now that's
an ugly aeroplane!

John

[Mike Marron]

>"John Mullen" > wrote:

[snipola]

>Like I say, freedom of speech is the bit of the US ideal I like.

Ah, but freedom of speech truly is just a tiny "bit" of the U.S.
ideal. As I mentioned in a previous post, simply riding my ebike,
for example, is illegal in the U.K. -- as is commercial, single-pilot
IFR, flying single-engine A/C over densely populated urban areas,
flying homebuilt A/C in IMC, flying a microlight without a license,
flying a homebuilts at night (even VFR), performing basic
modifications to your own homebuilt A/C, etc. etc. etc....

With all your asinine laws and bureaucratic red tape not
to mention astronomically high cost of "petrol," taxes, insurance,
tariffs, landing fees etc. it's amazing that people are still flying
at all in the U.K. No wonder so many Brits and Europeans come
to the U.S. just to fly.

Got it, John? Now visualize the closing scene in the movie
"Braveheart" and hear me screaming....

FRRREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMMMmmmmmm!

[John Mullen]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"John Mullen" > wrote:
>
> [snipola]
>
> >Like I say, freedom of speech is the bit of the US ideal I like.
>
> Ah, but freedom of speech truly is just a tiny "bit" of the U.S.
> ideal. As I mentioned in a previous post, simply riding my ebike,
> for example, is illegal in the U.K. -- as is commercial, single-pilot
> IFR, flying single-engine A/C over densely populated urban areas,
> flying homebuilt A/C in IMC, flying a microlight without a license,
> flying a homebuilts at night (even VFR), performing basic
> modifications to your own homebuilt A/C, etc. etc. etc....
>
> With all your asinine laws and bureaucratic red tape not
> to mention astronomically high cost of "petrol," taxes, insurance,
> tariffs, landing fees etc. it's amazing that people are still flying
> at all in the U.K. No wonder so many Brits and Europeans come
> to the U.S. just to fly.

Actually aviation fuel isn't that much dearer over here. Suspect the
differences in price and ease of access between flying are mainly due to the
legal openness you describe above, better (and more reliable) weather, and
economies of scale resulting from the previous.

> Got it, John? Now visualize the closing scene in the movie
> "Braveheart" and hear me screaming....
>
> FRRREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOMMMMMMMMmmmmmm!

Now you're talking! Mel Gibson did quite a creditable impression of a Scots
accent I thought. Historically accurate it wasn't though...

John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Alan Minyard > writes:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:09:45 -0400, Cub Driver >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>Much as modern bombers are all based off of innovations first found in
>>>genius Soviet bomber Tu-4...
>>
>>Bull!
>>
>>all the best -- Dan Ford
>>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>>
>>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
>
> It is a joke, Dan. The Tu-4 was the Soviet B-29 copy.

I said that he was too subtle... Bull was the Air Standards
Coordinating Comittee codename for the Tu-4. (Cart was teh Tu-70
transport version)


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster