Were nazi-germans really superhumans ?

[Michael Kenny]

Does the Quote function also notify the addressee in some additional way?

The quote function allows you to click on the little arrow at far right (after 'wrote') to get back to the actual post being quoted. It is very easy to delete surplus text.

Failing that It would easier on the eye if you simply prefixed any cut-down text with

[qu*ote] and end it with this [/qu*ote]
. The * is just to stop it going 'live in my post.
Below is what it would look like 'live' on the forum:
.

and end it with this

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Richard,

I did say "I'll give it a go at some stage....." Pretty accommodating, I would have thought, given that, in some 20,000 posts on forums, yours was the first such complaint!

What does "...... neither can I be bothered to edit out your italicized passages" mean? From where? Why would you need to?

Cheers,

Sid

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the tutorial.

I had been having a few problems with my experiments.

Cheers,

Sid

[Topspeed]

Here is a claim that 1903 Wright s had flown first airplane: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/UEET/ ... light.html

[Richard Anderson]

Hi Richard,

I did say "I'll give it a go at some stage....." Pretty accommodating, I would have thought, given that, in some 20,000 posts on forums, yours was the first such complaint!

What does "...... neither can I be bothered to edit out your italicized passages" mean? From where? Why would you need to?

Cheers,

Sid

To make a sensible and truly understandable response I habitually place quoted material in quotes as in the above. The problem is, whose italics are whose?

"I'll give it a go at some stage....." is you, but "...... neither can I be bothered to edit out your italicized passages" is me. In an extended passage it becomes quite confusing. The only thing more irritating is the habit of so many "quoting" paragraph after paragraph of text back and forth in order to respond with a one line message such as "I quite agree".

You may be willing to ...give it a go at some stage.....", but I have been trying to respond clearly and concisely here for some years.Why should I be bothered when you can only be Pretty accommodating at some unknown point in the future?

Cheers!

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Richard,

You are free to dictate what you choose to respond to, but you can't reasonably expect to dictate how people reply. I have made some 20,000 posts on the internet thus far and yours is the first such complaint. You are asking me to make what is, for me, a major stylistic change at 65 just to accommodate you.

The Italics are almost always quotes. In this case, context is key.

1) The "I did say...." signifies that I posted the first part.

2) The second part is a question. As you were the addressee of the post, this indicates it was addressed to you.

However, I accept that, "In an extended passage it becomes quite confusing.". But then, so does a pile of quotes, within quotes, within quotes, etc., etc. using the Quote facility. No system is perfect.

Using the Quote facility, how would the following sentence from your last post look on the page distinguishing the quotes from the plain text. Would it not be broken up into four lines?:

"I'll give it a go at some stage....." is you, but "...... neither can I be bothered to edit out your italicized passages" is me.

If you can think of a significantly better way to convey assent than "I quite agree", I will happily consider it. (Not a few people might well wish that all my posts were so mercifully brief!)

You post, "I have been trying to respond clearly and concisely here for some years." Indeed you have and I have no complaints on that score.

You ask, "Why should I be bothered....?". Perhaps because the post might have content worth addressing, despite its mode of delivery?

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Whilst the term "superhumans" to describe an average German who was a Nazi supporter is hyperbole to say the least, does anyone deny that many members of the SS were very physically fit and passed some very strict requirements? Put the pseudo-scientific crap about proving "Aryan" descent to one side, what about the physical aspects of being a member of the SS? Considering the SS was created by ways and means of creating an organisation based on units of loyalty and protection it is hardly surprising. Discipline and loyalty to Adolf Hitler were key concepts of SS ideology. They were certainly more elitist than the average German who supported the Nazis.

[Harro]

Before the war, perhaps, but those physical and ideological aspects were dropped once the war started en were soon virtually non-existent.

[gebhk]

Hi Harro - very true with regard to the Waffen SS and its antecedents, but is that also true of the other branches? And where membership was voluntary, would that not translate into higher commitment, esprit de corps and morale?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

You ask, "And where membership was voluntary, would that not translate into higher commitment, esprit de corps and morale?"

All other things being equal, very probably yes.

The question is, what is best to do with this manpower?

General Slim in Burma thought that the creaming off of volunteer manpower might have been detrimental overall because it reduced the general quality of the rest of 14th Army, particularly regarding junior leadership. Albert Speer made almost exactly the same point about the 12th Hitler Jugend Division. He felt that the division contained a lot of junior leadership material that could have been better used elsewhere.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Topspeed]

So with respect, he did not build an aeroplane and therefore could not have been the first to build an aeroplane. Adding an engine and controls does not make Lillienthal's gliders less important (and the Wrights acknowledged this very generously) but it DID make the Wrights' machine an aeroplane rather than a glider and therefore a contender for first place in the race to build a functional aeroplane. If you wish to contest the American's claim to primacy on behalf of Germany, then Karl Jatho's or even Gustave Whitehead's are claims you could more realistically get behind.

The argument that the Wright's airplane could not have existed without Lillienthal, while true, does not wash. Equally Lillienthal could not have developed his glider without Caley. Just because the steam engine could not have been invented if Ugh hadn't discovered fire, it does not make Ugh the inventor of steam power!

Incidentally, to be fair, the Wright brothers were not just bicycle repairmen; they built a printing press, ran a printing shop and published a newspaper before turning to bicycle repair and eventually manufacturing their own brand of bicycles until they eventually turned all their attention to building airframes and engines.

How an earth would have Otto Lilienthal known about Cayley ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation

In my opinion first practical aeroplane was Bleriot XI.

First of all it had wheels...able to take off on its own power....and stick and rudder steering....plain one wing ( thus an aeroplane ).
More innovations than Wrights ever had.

[Harro]

Hi Harro - very true with regard to the Waffen SS and its antecedents, but is that also true of the other branches? And where membership was voluntary, would that not translate into higher commitment, esprit de corps and morale?

The Waffen-SS dropped the "volunteer" criteria in early 1943 with the influx of press-ganged Luftwaffe ground crews and after the Stauffenberg plot gained control over part of the conscripts. This besides the press-ganged Volksdeutschen.
As for the Allgemeine-SS, perhaps they were strict regarding Arian lineage but surely not when it came to fitness or other physical requirements.

[Topspeed]

It did not take off unassisted...it was launched with a catapult.

What was? None of the pioneering aircraft mentioned in your quotation used a catapult. Do you mean the Kingfisher? If so I don't see the connection to our discussions.

I agree that Wrights did motorize something that that stayed in the air...let's say it was a motorized big kite.

Call it what you like, mate. Doesn't change the fact that the Wright Flyer took off unassisted, performed controlled powered fight and landed whilst carrying a pilot which qualifies it as a functional airplane and, in the opinion of the vast majority of aeronautical historians, the first to do so successfully.

You actually may have a point here:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_aviation


Otto Lilienthal became known as the "Glider King" or "Flying Man" of Germany. He duplicated Wenham's work and greatly expanded on it in 1884, publishing his research in 1889 as Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation (Der Vogelflug als Grundlage der Fliegekunst). He also produced a series of hang gliders, including bat-wing, monoplane and biplane forms, such as the Derwitzer Glider and Normal soaring apparatus. Starting in 1891, he became the first person to make controlled untethered glides routinely, and the first to be photographed flying a heavier-than-air machine, stimulating interest around the world. He rigorously documented his work, including photographs, and for this reason is one of the best known of the early pioneers. Lilienthal made over 2,000 glides until his death in 1896 from injuries sustained in a glider crash.

Picking up where Lilienthal left off, Octave Chanute took up aircraft design after an early retirement, and funded the development of several gliders. In the summer of 1896, his team flew several of their designs eventually deciding that the best was a biplane design. Like Lilienthal, he documented and photographed his work.

In Britain Percy Pilcher, who had worked for Maxim, built and successfully flew several gliders during the mid to late 1890s.

The invention of the box kite during this period by the Australian Lawrence Hargrave would lead to the development of the practical biplane. In 1894, Hargrave linked four of his kites together, added a sling seat, and was the first to obtain lift with a heavier than air aircraft, when he flew up 16 feet (4.9 m). Later pioneers of manned kite flying included Samuel Franklin Cody in England and Captain Génie Saconney in France.



This is here to show that, man carrying air machine or aircraft have flown before Wrights.

About sustained flight part you seem to be right.

[George L Gregory]

Before the war, perhaps, but those physical and ideological aspects were dropped once the war started en were soon virtually non-existent.

For the Waffen-SS, yes. For the SS, no.

It is quite funny how the Nazis quickly dropped labelling Slavs as subhumans when they used and abused them for the war effort.

[Topspeed]

Before the war, perhaps, but those physical and ideological aspects were dropped once the war started en were soon virtually non-existent.

For the Waffen-SS, yes. For the SS, no.

It is quite funny how the Nazis quickly dropped labelling Slavs as subhumans when they used and abused them for the war effort.

Is there direct evidence for nazis labelling the slavs as subhumans ?