Ju-88, Volume One

[Jukka Juutinen]

There was no such thing as a "Rooseveltian ideology"? Of course there was: it was called the "One World" ideology, an ideology that aimed at world domination in co-operation with the USSR. Good reading on the topic includes Thomas B. Fleming's "New Dealer's War" and Herbert Hoover's "Freedom Betrayed". As for "militarisation" of an entire society, so what? The most brutal practitioners of war have always been civilians either in the form of scientists, politicians or religious fundamentalists. Plus, e.g. in the current Middle East the most militarised society is also the most orderly (Israel). Another good book: Martin van Creveld's Culture of war, a healthy antidote to quasi-pacifism.

[FalkeEins]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

There was no such thing as a "Rooseveltian ideology"? Of course there was: it was called the "One World" ideology.

that's hardly an 'ideology' on a par with Fascism. You're talking about a set of ideas applied to public policy, like "Thatcherism" - for argument's sake - accepted consensually by a majority of society. It is hardly an explicit system of thought, it is no more than pragmatism...'regime' implies no alternative or alternance, not a word you can use with 'democrat' ..capital 'D' or not...

[Nick Beale]

To argue that the few surviving democracies were "ideological" in the same terms as the Soviet and Nazi regimes, you'd need to demonstrate convincingly that any of them had in their constitution or laws something directly comparable to the USSR's "leading role of the Communist Party" or the "Führerprinzip" under National Socialism in Germany.

Certainly Britain and France (for example) have had elected leaders who tended to delusions of personally embodying the nation (too much power for too long will do that to a person, apparently) but they never entrenched those delusions in law, I'm delighted to say.

[Jukka Juutinen]

According to Hoover Crooksevelt's power grab was in practice a coup d'état that breached everything that was hold dear.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

According to Hoover Crooksevelt's power grab was in practice a coup d'état that breached everything that was hold dear.

If this was the same Herbert Hoover who was Roosevelt's defeated Republican opponent in the 1932 election, should we take his impartiality for granted?

[edwest]

Originally Posted by FalkeEins

of course not, because there was no such thing as a "Rooseveltian ideology". Nor did the "democrat regime" (again a complete non sequitur in English) launch a war of aggrandisement on the back of the militarisation of an entire society, that led to the violent deaths of millions. The Nazis did and German industry developed the Ju 88 family (along with much else) to help them do it... I don't think Medcalf is writing sloppy journalese there, but he is stating the obvious! Looks like it needs re-stating too (Hitler as "wild spokesman" ? a mere 'tool' of Germany's big industrial concerns? C'mon Ed! )

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0945001533

Who was Allen Dulles? What was he doing in "neutral" Switzerland during the war? Who negotiated the surrender of German troops in Italy?


http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic...tion?format=PB


Hitler paid for the war out of his own pocket?



Regards,
Ed

[Jukka Juutinen]

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

If this was the same Herbert Hoover who was Roosevelt's defeated Republican opponent in the 1932 election, should we take his impartiality for granted?

Hoover's thesis is quite well supported by many other authors to whom the Constitution was/is their guiding principle.

And by the way, do read Hoover's book in conjunction with Fleming and Vasili Mitrohin to see how thoroughly FDR's administration was infiltrated by Soviet spies and moles.

[Peter Achs]

Apart from the bad text here another aspect:
My friend Hans-Jürgen posted this on a board for Illustrators.
Mr Noszczak copied my drawing of the Ju 288 almost 1 to 1, of course with my mistakes. (Mr Noszczak's drawing is black, my drawing is red, see p.158) And he didn’t ask me. That is dishonest, but it fits the rest of the book. Mr Noszczak also works for the trash publisher Kagero from Eastern Europe. That explains it - I think.

Regards
Peter

[ChrisS]

I've personally found Artie Bob's book very good and would like to congratulate him on a very readable account. In the same vein I greatly look forward to Volume 2 and hope that such a negative review has not dissuaded him from continuing. I want to particularily congratulate Artie for having the courage to publish his book in the face of a worldwide recession (except in Germany) and in English a far more accessable language to the vast majority of the world than in German, a minority language.

I cannot comment on the books accuracy as I am not an Ju 88 expert, but I greatly look forward to Peter Achs' publishing his own book on the Ju 88 which, of course, will be 100% accurate and in splended German. Easy to write a review, not so easy to write a book, so Herr Achs if you are a Junkers Ju 88 expert, how about your own book on the '88?

[Nick Beale]

Why is it still necessary to ask people not to use TOCH to pursue feuds begun in other forums?

Discussion and criticism of the book is fine, but Peter if you genuinely think your own work has been misused then take it up directly with the person you believe is at fault. I have no doubt that the publisher will pass your letter on to him.

If, on the other hand you want to publicise your own planned work, it would be much easier — and altogether more positive — to announce and give progress reports it in a new thread, as other authors have done. The quality of your work on the Ju 288 has been referred to and I am sure that many people will look forward to your studies of other members of the '88 family.