(March 9, 2016 at 7:44 am)Rhythm Wrote: The B-29 ran over time and over budget, the USAAF had requested nearly 200 be combat ready by 1944, but they weren't.  They sat in depots in Kansas and the plants in Georgia and Nebraska awaiting refits and modifications required to declare them combat ready.  Notably, they had engine trouble and pressurization issues.  Further complications arose in poor weather conditions that stalled their modifications (they sat in open air).   After the first clutch was finally made combat ready near the middle of 44 the decision was made to deploy them to the pacific  due to their unique capability with regards to high altitude long distance pressurized flight and payload (these things were the first of their kind, not at all comparable to b-17's, for example - which helps to explain the production delay....there weren't enough specialized tools, even, to complete their manufacture and modification at first).  Previous deployment of other bombers was also a factor, particularly in regards to the european theater.  What we had in the sky over europe was working, and we already had alot in the sky.  Initially, we'd planned to use them against germany and then move them into place in China and India only after we'd defeated the Reich.  We did end up sending some b-29s to europe..but they sat in the uk (and after d-day in france, by some reports..a milk run) awaiting further, theater specific modification.  

The first sortie they flew on was a combat readiness test against forward bases in Thailand .  We lost five, all to mechanical failures/pilot error.  They were grounded for further modification to address those issues made clear in that raid.  10 days later they officially entered duty, declared as combat tested and ready.  They hit steelworks on mainland japan.  Initially, they were designed to have two small bays, further modification was made to the most famous b-29's (Enola Gay, Bockscar, Death and Taxes, Necessary Evil) to allow them to carry the atomic bombs.

The idea that we had them ready, or that we intended to use them against japan, or even to deliver a-bombs, for that matter...is fantastically misinformed.

The B29 idea was started in 1938.  We weren't sitting on our asses thinking about it in the 40s.  Of course we only allowed white people to build airplanes and other military equipment.

"Boeing began work on pressurized long-range bombers in 1938, in response to a United States Army Air Corps request. Boeing's design study for the Model 334 was a pressurized derivative of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress with nosewheel undercarriage. Although the Air Corps did not have money to pursue the design, Boeing continued development with its own funds as a private venture.[4] In April 1939, Charles Lindbergh convinced general Henry H. Arnold to produce a new bomber in large numbers to counter the Nazi production.[5] The Air Corps issued a formal specification for a so-called "superbomber", capable of delivering 20,000 lb (9,100 kg) of bombs to a target 2,667 mi (4,290 km) away and capable of flying at a speed of 400 mph (640 km/h) in December 1939. Boeing's previous private venture studies formed the starting point for its response to this specification.[6]

Boeing submitted its Model 345 on 11 May 1940,[7] in competition with designs from Consolidated Aircraft (the Model 33, later to become the B-32),[8] Lockheed (the Lockheed XB-30),[9] and Douglas (the Douglas XB-31).[10] Douglas and Lockheed soon abandoned work on their projects, but Boeing received an order for two flying prototypes, given the designation XB-29, and an airframe for static testing on 24 August 1940, with the order being revised to add a third flying aircraft on 14 December. Consolidated continued to work on its Model 33 as it was seen by the Air Corps as a backup in case of problems with Boeing's design.[11] Boeing received an initial production order for 14 service test aircraft and 250 production bombers in May 1941,[12] this being increased to 500 aircraft in January 1942.[7] The B-29 featured a fuselage design with circular cross-section for strength. The need for pressurization in the cockpit area also led to the B-29 being one of very few American combat aircraft of World War II to have a stepless cockpit design, without a separate windscreen for the pilots."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress

Not a word of that contradicts the quoted portion above, or supports your previous claims.  Gratz on the copy paste, I guess...but.....to what end? It wasn't wiki that foisted such a transparently false claim on the boards to begin with.

(March 9, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 6:26 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Another incorrect statement.  The B-29 didn't enter service until 1943.  WWII started in 1939.

I trust you're smart enough to do the math.

Wait, I'm not.  WWII started four years before the B-29 was, to use your own phrase, "ready to go".

I'm pretty sure you said something earlier in the thread about "blowing off your own legs". Is this something you specialize in?

The US entered WWII as a combatant on December 7, 1941.  

"Historical Snapshot

B-29 Superfortress
Boeing submitted the proposal for the B-29 long-range heavy bomber to the Army in 1940, before the United States entered World War II."
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/b...tress.page

Franklin D. Roosevelt 49 - Message to Congress on Appropriations for National Defense. May 16, 1940

"At this time I am asking the Congress immediately to appropriate a large sum of money for four primary purposes:

First, to procure the essential equipment of all kinds for a larger and thoroughly rounded-out Army;

Second, to replace or modernize all old Army and Navy equipment with the latest type of equipment;

Third, to increase production facilities for everything needed for the Army and Navy for national defense. For it is clear that we require the ability to turn out quickly infinitely greater supplies;

Fourth, to speed up to a twenty-four hour basis all existing Army and Navy contracts, and all new contracts to be awarded.

I ask for an immediate appropriation of $896,000,000. And may I say that I hope there will be speed in giving the appropriation.

That sum of $896,000,000 of appropriation I should divide approximately as follows:

1. For the Army $546,000,000
2. For the Navy and Marine Corps 250,000,000
3. To the President to provide for emergencies
affecting the national security and defense 100,000,000
In addition to the above sum of appropriations, I ask for authorizations for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps to make contract obligations in the further sum of $186,000,000.
And to the President an additional authorization to make contract obligations $100,000,000
The total of authorizations is, therefore $286,000,000

It is my belief that a large part of the requested appropriation of $100,000,000 and the requested authorization of $100,000,000 to the President will be used principally for the increase of production of airplanes, anti-aircraft guns, and the training of additional personnel for these weapons. These requests for appropriations and authorizations would, of course, be in addition to the direct estimates for these purposes in the other items that are requested.

The proposed details of the appropriations and authorizations asked for will be given to the Committees of the Congress."

Of course, Einstein -- revolutionary planes took, and take, a long time to design, test, and deploy. Saying that the fact an order was placed before our entry into the war -- which had been raging for nine months when the plane was ordered -- is evidence that it was planned to deliver the A-bomb at that time is silly.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: Your same Wikipedia link CLEARLY says "Leader of the Nazi Party: In office 29 June 1921 – 30 April 1945". You've brought me no evidence that he didn't have a seat in parliament until 1933. You've shown me NO information that says that Hitler didn't hold a parliamentary seat. You fucking moron.

Actually, I have. You clearly didn't bother to read the links I presented. You want a source saying "Adolf Hitler was never a member of Parliament"? I'd be surprised if there is one, because no one except you seems to think he ever sat in such a position. But I did show that your claim that he was in the Reichstag in 1925 was false; I will presently demonstrate that your claim that he presided as NaZi leader over the Reichstag is false; I've demonstrated that he was indeed appointed to the office of Chancellor.

How about you bring evidence for your claim that he did get elected to any state office at all, while we're at it? Your posts have been entirely devoid of supporting material, probably because you cannot find one single source that supports your incorrect claim. You're clearly unaware that the NaZis were unable to select the Reichstag president until 1932, and when they did, they selected Hermann Goering. *snort* How many false claims are you going to make before you realize you don't know your ass from your elbow about this topic?

Now, I want you to support your claim.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: But that's besides the point anyway. You seem to forget that your little claim that he was not elected. No one gets elected into the position of Chancellor so that point is moot, and only parliamentarians can be appointed Chancellor, obviously, unless you have evidence otherwise?

If no one gets elected to the Chancellorship, why did you claim that Hitler was elected? You certainly didn't try to claim he was elected to Parliament until I called you on your mistake which you haven't the integrity to admit. Additionally, there is no requirement in the Weimar Constitution that the Chancellor be drawn from Parliament. Here's what that Constitution has to say about the office of Chancellor:

Quote:Article 52
The Reich government consists of the chancellor and the Reich ministers.

Article 53
The Reich chancellor, and, at his request, the Reich ministers, are appointed and dismissed by the Reich President.

Article 54
The Reich chancellor and the Reich ministers, in order to exercise their mandates, require the confidence of Reichstag. Any one of them has to resign, if Reichstag votes by explicit decision to withdraw its confidence.

Article 55
The Reich chancellor presides the Reich government and conducts its affairs according to the rules of procedure, to be decided upon by Reich government and to be approved by the Reich president.

Article 56
The Reich chancellor determines the political guidelines and is responsible for them to Reichstag. Within these guidelines every Reich minister leads his portfolio independently, and is responsible to Reichstag.

Now you need to link to any state election held where Hitler won any position. Here's your chance to prove me wrong. Get digging.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: I'll wait for you to actually research the topic, learn a little about it, and link to your sources for the incorrect claims.

... says the guy who assumes that the German governmental system of the 1920s runs on the same basis as the present-day Australian system.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: You do realise that the President (Hindenburg) was directly elected into office by the people, right (in fact he was also re-elected in 1932 TWICE!)? And as you said it was his responsibility to appoint the Chancellor. Hitler won three straight elections - that is to say that the NAZI party held the largest number of seats.

Hitler did not win a single election. 288 NaZis did in March 1932, and Hitler wasn't one of them, because he didn't run for a seat. That was their high-water mark in terms of seats held, by the way. Their numbers shrank in the autumn elections, and the two elections in one year damned near bankrupted the party -- further evidence that they were losing favor in the public eye -- higher expenditures still not gaining votes.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:18 am)Aractus Wrote: Before Hitler the other Chancellors had also routinely issued rule by decree, so that wasn't anything new either. And they had also been granted emergency powers, so even that wasn't new. Abaris claimed that "virtually every other party was opposed to him" - that's just not true. Firstly, the NAZI's formed a coalition with the German National People's Party, and that did give them an outright majority of 52% in the parliament. Then they went about freeing themselves from negotiations with their coalition partner by passing the Enabling Act 1933 which allowed the NAZI's to bypass parliament entirely. And that was passed into law by a parliamentary vote. Yes the President bent the rules to allow an easier passing, but it didn't matter anyway since it passed easily with 444 votes in favour and 94 against - which was more than the 2/3rd majority required (before any rule bending). It passed with an 83% vote and only needed 67% (2/3rds). If the SPD parliamentarians had been allowed to vote then the result would have been 79% in favour - which is still way more than the votes required (see Wikipedia). I am aware that some people have pointed out the law was unconstitutional, but that's largely irrelevant also since the constitution could have been amended with the same requirement for quorum (67%), therefore had they taken the time to make a constitutional amendment at the same time that made this law legally sound it also would have passed, easily.

None of this -- and more to the point, none, not one, of those links, supports your contention that Hitler was elected to any office at all.

I will respond when you have the courtesy and integrity to support this claim of yours. All the rest is smoke and mirrors in an ironically transparent attempt to avoid admitting error.

Remember, your next post needs to have a source citing one -- just one -- state election that Hitler won. Not the NaZi Reichstag members, not the party as a whole; you will stop moving goalposts and support your incorrect claim that Hitler was elected.

He wasn't elected. He was appointed. I've demonstrated my assertion.

Now it's your turn. Get to work.

(March 9, 2016 at 4:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Not a word of that contradicts the quoted portion above, or supports your previous claims.  Gratz on the copy paste, I guess...but.....to what end?  It wasn't wiki that foisted such a transparently false claim on the boards to begin with.

I said that the B29 was ready to go when the war started.  It was.  Move on.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Actually, I have.  You clearly didn't bother to read the links I presented. You want a source saying "Adolf Hitler was never a member of Parliament"? I'd be surprised if there is one, because no one except you seems to think he ever sat in such a position. But I did show that your claim that he was in the Reichstag in 1925 was false; I will presently demonstrate that your claim that he presided as NaZi leader over the Reichstag is false; I've demonstrated that he was indeed appointed to the office of Chancellor.

That's not true. I did ask a history professor and he said "yes, Hitler was the leader of the party and would have held a seat". Again, if you can show me a list of the members of parliament that does not include Hitler I will accept it, otherwise you have no evidence for your disingenuous claim.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:11 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: If no one gets elected to the Chancellorship, why did you claim that Hitler was elected?

Oh my god. I said he was elected, I didn't dispute that the chancellorship was appointed. Those are two different things.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:43 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not true. I did ask a history professor and he said "yes, Hitler was the leader of the party and would have held a seat".

Would being the operative word. He never ran for the Reichstag out of principle, since he despised the instruments of democracy. He never ran for any office apart from the presidential elections in 1932 where he got 32 percent of the votes. Hindenburg won with 49 percent. There were only four candidates. Thälmann, the communist leader, and some DNVP man were to othere.

The reason for running for the presidency was simple. According to the constitution, it was the more powerful office than the chancellory. Similar to the French president of this day and age.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:59 am)abaris Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 3:43 am)Aractus Wrote: That's not true. I did ask a history professor and he said "yes, Hitler was the leader of the party and would have held a seat".

Would being the operative word. He never ran for the Reichstag out of principle, since he despised the instruments of democracy. He never ran for any office apart from the presidential elections in 1932 where he got 32 percent of the votes. Hindenburg won with 49 percent. There were only four candidates. Thälmann, the communist leader, and some DNVP man were to othere.

The reason for running for the presidency was simple. According to the constitution, it was the more powerful office than the chancellory. Similar to the French president of this day and age.

 Why would a guy run for a legislative office if he wanted to head the executive branch of government?  Did George Washington run for a legislative office?  Of course not, because then he wouldn't have become President.

(March 10, 2016 at 3:59 am)abaris Wrote: Would being the operative word. He never ran for the Reichstag out of principle, since he despised the instruments of democracy. He never ran for any office apart from the presidential elections in 1932 where he got 32 percent of the votes. Hindenburg won with 49 percent. There were only four candidates. Thälmann, the communist leader, and some DNVP man were to othere.

The reason for running for the presidency was simple. According to the constitution, it was the more powerful office than the chancellory. Similar to the French president of this day and age.

As I said, show me that he didn't have a seat at the time he was appointed chancellor? It's very simple all you need is a list of MPs as of January 1933.

(March 10, 2016 at 5:08 am)Aractus Wrote: As I said, show me that he didn't have a seat at the time he was appointed chancellor? It's very simple all you need is a list of MPs as of January 1933.

Don't know why I have to do your homework before making false claims, but here goes. Look at 1932. The void you should be looking for is under the letter H. If you're so inclined, you can look at the letter H all the way back to the year 1920.

It's filled after the elections of march '33, since Hitler already was chancellor at that time.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_...r_Republik