This is topic Communism and USA in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=041348

Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
I've seen recently the Georges Clooney's movie Good bye, and good luck, about the MacCartism.
And as an ignorant and disinformated European i am, I'd like to know how is viewed the communism in USA. How does a common American react if somebody said he likes the idea of communism ?
I'm currious.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Depends on the "common American", what the speaker means by "Communism", etc., etc.

Personally, I think communism at its most basic is a good idea. However, I think that in the world we live in, it just won't work. I look forward to the day when it will (which, to me, is tied to the Second Coming.)
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
In another age, you will be in jail for such words, no ? [Wink]
I agree with your opinion. I think mankind is not so "good" and "disciplinated" to live in such a society.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
In another age, I would probably be smart enough to keep my words to myself. [Wink]

My dad grew up in the early 60's, and went to Catholic school. They were taught to hide under their desks in case of a nuclear attack ( [ROFL] ) and that Communists were servants of Satan. He tells a story of what happened when he was picking at his lunch one day. One of the nuns came up to him and said, "You'd better eat that. There are starving children in China who would be glad of that food, you know!" My dad looked at her and said, (knowing him, very innocently but with an ironic gleam in his eyes and a twitch around the mouth) "The Chinese are Red Commies and deserve to die anyway, right?"

He got smacked with a ruler for that one. Three raps across both knuckles. *giggles*
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Communism is now seen as something quaint and passe. China is embracing capitalism, the USSR broke apart and Russia has gone capitalistic, too. There is no more "Communist Threat", and the United States won the cold war.

So if someone says they like the idea of communism, they are patted on the head, like a naive child, and pretty much ignored.
 
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
[Big Grin] Amen, Tante
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
Tante Shvester in France, Communism (and assimilated to) represent between 10 and 15 % of people... Do you really think they are all naïve ?
I'm not sure... Adding to that, I believe it's real chance to have them for political discution sometime.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
In America, the Communist party is small and not well organized. It's just not a "player" on the national scene.

I know some people who are Communists. One worked in the defense industry building top secret planes. Seriously, nobody cares. It's not like the guy was going to sell secrets. He just liked a different system of government. (He was a big fan of Fidel, basically.)

Ultimately, the worst thing possible has happened to communists in this country -- they are basically irrelevant.

I suppose that could change if we start seeing our own brand of leftist insurgents, but for now, it's just not an issue most people think of as important inside America.

There are, of course, lots of people who grew up during the cold war and get very upset about various communist dictatorships of the past & present.

I think you'd get a bigger reaction asking about "socialism" which carries with it the spectre of government takeover of private property/investment, etc.

Some use "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably, I realize, but I think there's a distinction in most people's minds here in the US. I could be wrong, though. I often am when it comes to understanding what my fellow citizens think.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I certainly think French Communists are naive, yes. Bob's analysis is largely correct. Most Americans don't really have an opinion on Communism, except that the Russians used it, and we beat them, and Communism is silly and irrelevant.
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
I like your wise way of thinking Bob. I understand what you explain. I agree with you about Socialism and Communism. I just want to notice that in France, the Socialists is a less lefted political party than the Communists. François Mitterand was a socialist and the president of France between 1981 and 1995.
So your point of view is very interesting.

Rakeesh, You said that you (The USA) Beat them. I'd like you add details to your sentences by some facts. What is for you the most important attack from USA to Communism ?
 
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Bob, many people see the difference between socialism and communism. Some socialist policies I actually like.

I'm not commenting on the general thoughts about what french people are, naive or no [Wink]
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
[Smile]
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
I worked with a personell manager who claimed to be a Communist. His job was to make sure people were not paid to much. He fired the workers to improve the profits of the owners.

I asked him how that worked with his philosophy. His response helped me to create the following mantra.

"Communism is the best of all political systems...
As long as its Stalinist Communism...
And as long as you are Stalin."
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
Héhéhéhéhéhéhé [Big Grin]

It's paradoxal ! He really claim to be a communist ?
I think communism got down because of such person. Maybe he say that to have a rebel image...
 
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
[Smile] About right
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Well to be specific Choobak, I said that is what most Americans think, not me specifically. I would've been more detailed.

I'd say opposing the USSR for fifty years and forcing them into an arms and technology race they could not possibly win, thus leading to their collapse, was probably the two biggest factors.
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
Oh ! Sorry, Rakeesh. My ugly english let me misunderstood your post. You say that this is the arms and technology race the reason of USSR disparition. You are right, but USSR won the race (more nuclear missile, more submarines, more weapons... The fact is they get too far... They want more and more arms. This is their economy who destroy them. They spend more money for this race and forget USSR population. That why people wanted go to the West side.

In a sens, USA well played by letting USSR to win the race. They protect their economy and offer a better material life to their population. USSR population became envious...
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
What you're forgetting is that in order for the Soviets to "stay ahead" in the arms race they had to divert massive funds from domestic spending.

The reason the Soviets were so worried about SDI is because they knew they would have to try and match or beat the amount we were spending on it, and they knew they couldn't afford to do so.

quote:
Personally, I think communism at its most basic is a good idea. However, I think that in the world we live in, it just won't work. I look forward to the day when it will (which, to me, is tied to the Second Coming.)
I'm probably not the "average" American, but my stance is exactly 180 degrees from this. At its most basic, communism is the involuntary theft of mine. It places everybody but Stalin and Mao in slavery.

So it's fair to say that I find the very idea of communism (by force) morally repugnant.

If you want to start commune and pool all your resources and such voluntarily, that's fine because it will be by choice. But I think if you look at history, the voluntary communes usually collapsed even faster than the forced communes.

edit to add:

Look at how fast the USSR fell apart once the subjugated states realized that the Soviet Union would no longer use force to keep them within the fold.
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
Just had another thought. Is "voluntary communism" actually capitalsim in reality?
 
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Choobak:
In another age, you will be in jail for such words, no ? [Wink]

Is this really true? It seems unlikely to me, but no one called it out. From what I know, high profile Communists (a la Rosenbergs, Debs, etc.) were not jailed because of their political beliefs, but because of illegal activities motivated by their beliefs. Run of the mill communists could expect to lose jobs and opportunities, but not freedoms. Is that an accurate assessment, according to any early 20th century Hatrack historians?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
We're pretty sure the Soviets lost the race; propaganda saying you have more is not equivalent to actually having more, and in particular not to having more effective, long-range capabilities.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Avatar,

kq was talking about a voluntary system from what I understand of it.
 
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
 
Yeah, and tied to the Second Coming. Compeletely different from any form of Communism as we know it.
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Avatar,

kq was talking about a voluntary system from what I understand of it.

I spoke to that, too.
 
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Yes, well I don't think that you can come up with an example in your history book that parallels what kq was referring to.
 
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
We're pretty sure the Soviets lost the race; propaganda saying you have more is not equivalent to actually having more, and in particular not to having more effective, long-range capabilities.

I seem to remember that after the USSR collapsed and we got to see what they actually *had*, it turned out they were much further behind than we'd feared during the Cold War.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Oh yes. Even a lot of what they "had" was in decrepit state and unlikely to actually work.

Now, one area they were ahead was biological warfare. Of course, they also used human subjects, which accelerated their development.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
I know some people who are Communists. . . . He just liked a different system of government. (He was a big fan of Fidel, basically.)

Oh! An idiot! [Razz]

-o-

I was going to say what SenojRetep already said. Macarthyism was a very bad thing, and people were hassled or lost opportunities, yadda yadda, but people weren't generally thrown in jail for this.

-o-

Socialism is very different from Communism. Socialist governments don't generally commit atrocities like communist ones always do.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
The common American has very negative reactions to the word, more as a result of years of government propaganda than anything else. Even left-wing American intellectuals (yes, they do exist!) prefer to use almost any term other than communism. Keep in mind that no socialist has ever held high office in the U.S. and that both major political parties in the U.S. are conservative by global standards.
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
My negative reactions are not the result of government propaganda.

Actually, I'm trying to figure out what you even mean by government propaganda. The atrocities and human rights violations committed by communist countries are documented and virtually indisputed.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
quote:
The atrocities and human rights violations committed by communist countries are documented and virtually indisputed.
So are the ones committed by lots of non-communist countries, including the American government.
 
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
 
Well ! All of that post is begining to give me a point of view about USA and the communism currently.

About the race, i'd like to say that just before the collapse, USSR weapon works. And Unfortunnately, too many of them are used in conflicts in Africa or Asia.
And don't think russians were bad to build or design technology. Actually, their methods are the best in innovation (search about the TRIZ method). And In my enginering school, we learn some.
No, USSR really won the race and that was its lost.

And About Jail, It was a joke. [Wink]
 
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
ketchupqueen, do you seriously contend that atrocities committed by the US even begin to rival those of, say, the USSR? Do you want to compare Britain's human rights record to Cuba's? Canada's to China's? Sweden's to North Korea's?

I know there are human rights violations committed by lots of other countries, and my post did not imply otherwise. My post was specifically a response to the statement that the main reason Americans have a dim view of communism is because American government propaganda. On the contrary, we have a dim view because a) they don't work, and b) they brutalize and steal from their people. Sure, Fascism and Islamic theocracy both have a terrible record in modern times as well. But to say that communism has a terrible record does not imply that fascism and Islamic theocracy do not.

I've always been quick to acknowledge and denounce US moral failings when it comes to international affairs. (Just ask Storm Saxon. [Smile] ) But I think that if you seriously intend to say that American atrocities compare to Soviet ones, than this discussion has just descended into silliness.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Sure, they had more -- but we let them get ahead (take a look at this graph: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/dafig11.asp ). Both sides had overkill, and for the more important number, strategic nuclear weapons, we were ahead.

Near the end, they kept eleven to twelve thousand strategic weapons on hand: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab10.asp

We kept fourteen thousand strategic weapons around: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab9.asp

We had more of one of the most important strategic weapons, carriers.

There is significant doubt as to how many Russian nuclear submarines were actually in service. They built a few over 240, but estimates for how many they actually were running by the end range as low as 150.

Yes, lots of Russian weapons work well. But their arms buildup didn't compare to ours technologically (take a look at the tank we had at the end, the M1A1 Abrams, which was generally superior to the nearest russian model).
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
quote:
ketchupqueen, do you seriously contend that atrocities committed by the US even begin to rival those of, say, the USSR? Do you want to compare Britain's human rights record to Cuba's? Canada's to China's? Sweden's to North Korea's?

No.

But there are other countries whose records compare to those of those countries, which are not communist. And our hands are not clean. That was my only point.

I don't blame communism for those atrocities-- I blame the leaders who committed the atrocities. I don't blame the concept of communism for the poverty and starvation of people in communist countries, I blame the imperfect conception of communism and how it was implicated that was used to victimize those people. I've already said I don't think it can work in the world we live in. I'm just saying that because the people lived in a communist country, we don't all blame the concept of communism itself for their deaths, some of us blame the leaders who perpetrated said atrocities, no matter what form of government they purported to serve.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
(Not that I'm discounting the many atrocities the U.S. government has perpetrated over the course of its history-- I'm thinking of the Trail of Tears, for one...)
 
Posted by AYC (Member # 8859) on :
 
My personal view on communism is that it is bad, even if man could live it in its ideal form. I believe in a meritocracy where people get what they earn, no more, no less. Though, this is also somewhat idealistic, I much preffer this meritocracy to communism, if i had to choose between ideal worlds.
 
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Imagine no possessions . . . I don't think you could . . .

Communism, if you really let the ideal fill your mind, is almost impossible to concieve. Can you imagine a world where anything you have isn't really yours, and you gladly give it up to anyone else who needed it without a moments thought? Gee.

On the other hand, it tends to be awful in practice.
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AYC:
My personal view on communism is that it is bad, even if man could live it in its ideal form. I believe in a meritocracy where people get what they earn, no more, no less. Though, this is also somewhat idealistic, I much preffer this meritocracy to communism, if i had to choose between ideal worlds.

I agree. I have never understood the view that it its perfect form communism is great, but it just hasn't worked out.

I personally think communism is wrong even in its perfect form. You are enslaving the people who are productive to those who are not as productive.

But, I guess I just don't have a collectivist mentality.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
In its perfect form, everyone would be productive to the best of their abilities.
 
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Icarus, Hitler was an anti-Communist. Pinochet was a U.S.-suported anti-communist, who, with the help of the U.S., overthrew a democratic government and then proceeded to massacre opponents.

But the overwhelming effect of U.S. government propaganda was to equate the word "communism" with the atrocities of Stalinists. And I say this as one who does not believe Communism to be a viable economic system.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I'm not sure where your comment is coming from, Pelegius; Icarus didn't bring up Hitler or Pinochet.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
I just don't see people being productive without some incentive for themselves. I really don't.

And I don't think I've ever heard ANY "government propaganda" against communism, unless it was a history lesson about "This is what happened in the era of McCartney. McCartneyism is bad." And so forth.

-pH
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
Hitler was anti-communist because the base of the fascist parties is the same as that of communist parties. They were competing for members.

In reality, there is little difference between fascism and communism.

edited to fix two certain spelling errors. King of Men is right, however, facism is just as evil as fascism, and should not be tolerated.

[ February 13, 2006, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Avatar300 ]
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
In its perfect form, everyone would be productive to the best of their abilities.

What about those who have little material ambition and only wish to work enough to support themselves with their "basic" needs. Wouldn't they be shirking their responsibilities within a communist system?
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I like competition. I think that there is a nobility in competiton among free and equal people, and that capitalism is a fine economic system even in the best of all possible worlds. There is a dignity in winning, and there is a dignity in losing. The Olympics is a physical testament to the virtue of competition. The problem, of course, is that people are rarely free and equal in the economic market, so the government regulates with subsidies and credits and bankruptcies. The second problem is that the muscular forces of competition burst out of their proper realm and start effecting the basic standards of living, and start meddling in an untoward manner with a person's self-respect.

For example, I haven't seen any surveys to bolster my claim, but I imagine that the median US Olympic households, that is the parents of these athletes, is markedly higher than the national average, and further, that state by state, the parents will make more than the state average. The basic needs of these athletes were met, so they had the ability to begin to engage in this virtuous competiton.

Competition is not bad, it just ought to be carefully watched, especially when the basic needs of an individual are at play.

[ February 11, 2006, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
 
quote:
I don't blame communism for those atrocities-- I blame the leaders who committed the atrocities.
While I agree that some blame has to be attributed to the leaders of these governments, shouldn't some blame fall on the system of government that allows these leaders the power to commit said atrocities?
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
quote:
What about those who have little material ambition and only wish to work enough to support themselves with their "basic" needs. Wouldn't they be shirking their responsibilities within a communist system?

As I have said before and others have pointed out, my conception of Communism is quite different from the one you're thinking of.

quote:
While I agree that some blame has to be attributed to the leaders of these governments, shouldn't some blame fall on the system of government that allows these leaders the power to commit said atrocities?
But many of these leaders seize power not specifically allowed by the system of government. And as I said before, there are many kinds of governments that these atrocities have been committed in the name of, including "democracies". Obviously, when a system of government allows a leader or citizens this kind of power to destroy others, something is wrong. It could be in the way the ideal of the government is implemented. It could be corruption within a purportedly humane system of government. It could be any number of things. It's probably usually many more than one of those. To blame the ideal of communism for acts commited by a corrupt leader doesn't make sense to me.
 
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
In its perfect form, everyone would be productive to the best of their abilities.

but, if you have better abilities, your abilties require more work to keep up, or your ablities are more valuable to society, shouldn't you be rewarded more?
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Not if everyone shares out of love and concern for the welfare of everyone else. [Smile]
 
Posted by clod (Member # 9084) on :
 
Communism is a failed idea for much the same reasons that economic theories fail (and why the stock-market can't be predicted) - they rest on the assumption of rational individuals acting to optimize their own self-interests.
 
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
adam,
I think that's an oversimplification of America's tendency to oversimplify. [Wink]
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Agreed. I was taught that people who tested their products on animals were evil when I was growing up...
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
Communism is a failed idea for much the same reasons that economic theories fail (and why the stock-market can't be predicted) - they rest on the assumption of rational individuals acting to optimize their own self-interests.
I agree. I'll add that the term "self-interest" is tricky.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
quote:
The second problem is that the muscular forces of competition burst out of their proper realm and start effecting the basic standards of living, and start meddling in an untoward manner with a person's self-respect.
This is a curious statement. Obviously I agree that it can startto 'burst out' into standards of living, but self-respect?

Unless you're arguing that there is just as much nobility and worthiness in winning as losing, shouldn't winning in this noble competition result in at least a little more self-respect for the victor, without disgrace for the vanquished?
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Avatar300:
Hitler was anti-communist because the base of the facist parties is the same as that of communist parties. They were competing for members.

In reality, there is little difference between facism and communism.

Damn those facists! How dare they judge on the basis of someone's facial features!
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'd be interested to hear about how fascism and communism are similar. While in practice they are certainly known for being similarly repressive and totalitarian, in theory they have many important differences.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
In Facism corporations were given many favors and the government deliberate helps large corporations thrive by contributing to the enviroment.

In a sense Facism doesn't mean Central Planning, since they can operate in market systems, however it can be considered planning when the government pushes forward with many projects meant for prestige and national health etc.

Socialist Totalitarianism is basically heavy handed centralized planning and forced communalization. Also, extremely heavy arms spending in theory accompanies Stalinism.
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I'd be interested to hear about how fascism and communism are similar. While in practice they are certainly known for being similarly repressive and totalitarian, in theory they have many important differences.

Read the Road to Serfdom.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
How about you break it down there for me, buddy?
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
What's funny about the Road to Serfdom is it has never really happened that way. You'd think he'd have come up with an argument with a better basis in history.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
ketchupqueen, I know where you are coming from, but I don't think you understand the system you are getting the ideas from well enough. The United Order was such that it could thrive in all kinds of political conditions. It depended as much on interpretation as participation on how it ran. There have been anywhere from Communist, Socialist, and Capitalist models used. B.Y. was probably the most Communist interpreting of the system. J.S. seemed to be a more socialist leaning governor. There were smaller groups who used it as a suppliment to Capitalist economics - verging on socialism.

In the end all of them failed because of human selfishness and the political reality surrounding them. It doesn't work well with a still developing urban industrial society. Secondly, there wasn't enough isolation for a maturing of the system. Finally, participation was disproportionatly made up of those who needed help compared to those who could help.
 
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Occasional, I wasn't thinking of the United Order. At all.

And this is an idea I've had as an ideal since I was a teenager. Long before I joined the Church. So I don't really know much about the United Order at all, although I've always been fascinated by the Mennonite communities in central CA (and their kin back east.) Also the Shakers, the Amish, and various degrees of communality all over the world.

Out of curiosity, why did you assume that's what I was thinking of?
 
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
How about you break it down there for me, buddy?

How about no? Since the book can explain it a lot better than I can, and I'm not your buddy.
 
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Yeah, I thought so. If you can't explain it or it doesn't hold up, just say so. I'm not going to read an entire book just because you say it illustrates how communism and fascism are alike and can't even tell me a little bit about how that is.

Stand on your own two feet. Don't make a book do it for you.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
There are few if ANY things in common with theotetical communism and facsism. However how they were utilizaed in practice might tend to be similar.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Both emphasise group rather than individual loyalty; strong state control of the economy (in communism, it's true, this is supposed to wither away to control at the grassroots level, but it's hardly market capitalism); strong, state-enforced morality.
 
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
Gahhhhhh. I just wrote an eight-page essay for a midterm on why centralized, authoritarian governments hinder the progress of humanity toward the improvement of the technological project.

After my brain rests, perhaps I shall express some of it here.

-pH

Edit: To clarify, it was in-class. So I wrote the eight pages in a forty-minute frenzy.

I sleep now.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Not quite Germany was a centralized dictatorship and they were quite advanced and is commonly believed that they would've had many achievements in aerospace had they won the war.

It depends from country to country.
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
You are quite right, it is 'commonly believed'. It is also commonly believed that the Germans had better and more tanks than the French, that the Wehrmacht was completely mechanised, and that the Rjukan raid prevented Hitler from getting nuclear weapons. (Well, the last is kinda-sorta true, if the war had lasted until 1955.)

Sure, the Germans were quite advanced in specific, specialised fields that Hitler poured a lot of resources into. The result was wonder weapons that could be produced in extremely small quantities. It is a damn good thing, for example, that the money spent on the highly unreliable V-2 wasn't instead poured into mass-producing the V-1. Massive cruise missile launches at London, with chemical warheads - brrrr. Even late in the war that might have been very nasty indeed. Or better still, stop improving the Mark IV (ye gods, the thing had 10 different production runs, each requiring a retooling of the factories) and just pour out several thousand of some model that actually worked.

Meanwhile, the first real electronic computers were being built in a grad student's cellar and completely starved of funds.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2