Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread

[JohnOfNottingham]

Interesting.

That last paragraph seems to indicate that with it being developed against a different enemy, the nuclear project is no less and maybe even more controversial (among scientists, that is, I'm sure military appreciation will be absolutely high in any human timeline).

 

[carlton_bach]

Interesting.

That last paragraph seems to indicate that with it being developed against a different enemy, the nuclear project is no less and maybe even more controversial (among scientists, that is, I'm sure military appreciation will be absolutely high in any human timeline).

Part of it is based on political conviction - Fermi had severe misgivings helping a potential enemy of his birth country develop a weapon like that, Einstein, Bohr and Jolliot basically opposed the idea on principle, and Kurchatov actually sabotaged the Russian effort (not that it was going anywhere productive anyway). Another part is rooted in the disdain theoretical physicists can feel for brute engineering "It'll never work". The fact that the Germans can get it to work is actually a rude surprise to half the faculty at the Einstein institute who thought it an interesting exercise in theory, the mathematical equivalent of jogging round the park to keep in shape.

The militaries want atomic bombs (which incidentally stay fission bombs for almost two decades before the Germans and French demonstrate thermonuclear detonations in 1965). But in a world without the devastation of WWII, it is not a matter of two superpowers amassing vast arsenals. The weapons are basically invasion insurance - you attack me, there go your population centres. By 1950, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France and the United States will be in the nuclear club shortly to be joined by Japan, Italy, Sweden, and later on China, India, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Iran. These countries have independent manufacturing capacities (though in many cases they are not very impressive or very independent). A number of others acquire nukes from other states, through outright purchase (from the United States) or a form of lease treaty (from Britain, France, and Germany). As a result, the late twentieth century divides the world into countries which may be invaded and those which cannot be. It makes diplomacy very complex sometimes.

 

[haider najib]

devastation of WWII, it is not a matter of two superpowers amassing vast arsenals. The weapons are basically invasion insurance - you attack me, there go your population centres. By 1950, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Britain, France and the United States will be in the nuclear club shortly to be joined by Japan, Italy, Sweden, and later on China, India, Russia, Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Iran

I don't see the ottomans on the list surely the caliphate will want nukes after all its had a literal century of getting bullied.

 

[carlton_bach]

I don't see the ottomans on the list surely the caliphate will want nukes after all its had a literal century of getting bullied.

They will be among the first countries with access to German ones. That is the reason Iran builds its own - the British don't trust the Shah anywhere near as much as Berlin does the Sultan.

 

[haider najib]

They will be among the first countries with access to German ones. That is the reason Iran builds its own - the British don't trust the Shah anywhere near as much as Berlin does the Sultan.

sorry im an idiot do you mean they are protected by the german umbrella or they buy them from germany?

 

[carlton_bach]

sorry im an idiot do you mean they are protected by the german umbrella or they buy them from germany?

It evolves. initially, they are protected as allies. Then, German nukes are based in country. Then, Ottoman troops are trained in their use and the weapons 'leased' to them (like a sale, but theoretically reversible).

 

[haider najib]

It evolves. initially, they are protected as allies. Then, German nukes are based in country. Then, Ottoman troops are trained in their use and the weapons 'leased' to them (like a sale, but theoretically reversible).

apologies does this mean germany can just take back the nukes back when they want?

 

[CountofDooku]

apologies does this mean germany can just take back the nukes back when they want?

Kind of like Soviet ones in Cuba OTL then?

 

[carlton_bach]

apologies does this mean germany can just take back the nukes back when they want?

In theory, yes. It is the kind of legal security that the government wants. In practice - by the 1960s, Germany needs the Ottoman alliance as much as the Ottomans need Germany. If Berlin decided they wanted their bombs back, they would at the very least have to tread carefully. These are not weapons 'based' in a foreign country (like US nukes in West Germany or Soviet ones in Cuba). They are integrated into the Ottoman military, crewed by Ottoman troops and commanded by Ottoman forces. There is the usual legal boilerplate in the lease agreement that they are for defensive use, not to be uased without provocation and so forth, but basically, they exist for the purpose of making the Ottoman Empire the equal of other great powers. It's similar to how South Africa, Canada and Australia got theirs from Britain (though it was much more controversial in the European press, naturally, because they were given to nonwhites).

 

[Tibi088]

In theory, yes. It is the kind of legal security that the government wants. In practice - by the 1960s, Germany needs the Ottoman alliance as much as the Ottomans need Germany. If Berlin decided they wanted their bombs back, they would at the very least have to tread carefully. These are not weapons 'based' in a foreign country (like US nukes in West Germany or Soviet ones in Cuba). They are integrated into the Ottoman military, crewed by Ottoman troops and commanded by Ottoman forces. There is the usual legal boilerplate in the lease agreement that they are for defensive use, not to be uased without provocation and so forth, but basically, they exist for the purpose of making the Ottoman Empire the equal of other great powers. It's similar to how South Africa, Canada and Australia got theirs from Britain (though it was much more controversial in the European press, naturally, because they were given to nonwhites).

Are the turks considered nonwhites? Because the few I met I could not tell apart from any hungarian based on skin color. I mean non christian and maybe non European yes but I dont see a difference in skin color.

 

[altamiro]

Are the turks considered nonwhites? Because the few I met I could not tell apart from any hungarian based on skin color. I mean non christian and maybe non European yes but I dont see a difference in skin color.

I think "non-whites" is referencing "a group of people you like to turn up your nose at" rather than skin color or looks.
To Benjamin Franklin of US Founding Fathers fame, immigrating Germans at least from the southern Germany were "non-white" and therefore not fit to become a part of the grand new nation of USA, though he grudgingly made an exception for Germans from Saxony, among others.

 

[NotBigBrother]

I think "non-whites" is referencing "a group of people you like to turn up your nose at" rather than skin color or looks.
To Benjamin Franklin of US Founding Fathers fame, immigrating Germans at least from the southern Germany were "non-white" and therefore not fit to become a part of the grand new nation of USA, though he grudgingly made an exception for Germans from Saxony, among others.

And don't make me tell you about treatment of Irish and Sami.

 

[carlton_bach]

Are the turks considered nonwhites? Because the few I met I could not tell apart from any hungarian based on skin color. I mean non christian and maybe non European yes but I dont see a difference in skin color.

"White" has relatively little to do with skin colour. Turks are definitely not considered "white" in the mid-20th century. I mean, Bulgarians and Romanians barely are. It's a system of hierarchy that puts Western Europeans at the top (unless they're Irish or Basque or something) and Africans at the bottom. The rest is completely open to interpretation.

 

[Tibi088]

I think "non-whites" is referencing "a group of people you like to turn up your nose at" rather than skin color or looks.
To Benjamin Franklin of US Founding Fathers fame, immigrating Germans at least from the southern Germany were "non-white" and therefore not fit to become a part of the grand new nation of USA, though he grudgingly made an exception for Germans from Saxony, among others.

Definately but nonwhites to describe such a group feels like an american term to me. When the british turned up their noses on the russians the term mostly used was I think that they were not europeans, but asiatic - I never read nonwhites in that regard. I read the same in regards of hungarians from a british source just before WWI (not real europeans, asiatic). Same for the turks: they were labeled orientals, asiatic, decidedly non european (the Balkan was termed the Near East at the time) and all kind of other derogatives but I never read non-white in this regards. But Im not an expert of the question so I might be wrong.

 

[altamiro]

Definately but nonwhites to describe such a group feels like an american term to me. When the british turned up their noses on the russians the term mostly used was I think that they were not europeans, but asiatic - I never read nonwhites in that regard. I read the same in regards of hungarians from a british source just before WWI (not real europeans, asiatic). Same for the turks: they were labeled orientals, asiatic, decidedly non european (the Balkan was termed the Near East at the time) and all kind of other derogatives but I never read non-white in this regards. But Im not an expert of the question so I might be wrong.

White/non-white dichotomy is indeed an almost purely US usage except in the last years where the European Left has taken over this wording from the US in line with the global rise of left-wing identitarism; however, the same sort of hierarchy ("we" being the best and the "others over there" being inferior for this or that made-up reason), just using different words to describe "inferiors", exists in pretty any other culture as well.

 

[carlton_bach]

Definately but nonwhites to describe such a group feels like an american term to me. When the british turned up their noses on the russians the term mostly used was I think that they were not europeans, but asiatic - I never read nonwhites in that regard. I read the same in regards of hungarians from a british source just before WWI (not real europeans, asiatic). Same for the turks: they were labeled orientals, asiatic, decidedly non european (the Balkan was termed the Near East at the time) and all kind of other derogatives but I never read non-white in this regards. But Im not an expert of the question so I might be wrong.

'nonwhite' is modern parlance, but 'Asiatic' is exactly that concept.

 

[Jürgen]

The popular racial theory pre-WWII was Europeans being split in three races; Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean.

 

[carlton_bach]

The popular racial theory pre-WWII was Europeans being split in three races; Nordic, Alpine and Mediterranean.

Not to forget the 'Einschläge' - dinarischer Typ, fälischer Typ, westischer Typ, keltischer Typ... Science that does not depend on actual evidence can get very creative.

 

[haider najib]

here is the usual legal boilerplate in the lease agreement that they are for defensive use, not to be uased without provocation and so forth, but basically, they exist for the purpose of making the Ottoman Empire the equal of other great powers. It's similar to how South Africa, Canada and Australia got theirs from Britain (though it was much more controversial in the European press, naturally, because they were given to nonwhites).

not gonna lie im stll not smart enough to understand this. So the germans just sold nukes to ottomans then, with a sticky note saying take backs allowed? so how can the ottomans use them? Could someone give me a example if the balkan nations launch hypotheically a 5th balkan war could and can the ottomans nuke them? If russia invades etc? someone plz explain to this idiot what it means, Canada and Australia don't have nukes they are protected by other nation nukes.

Also surely the ottomans themselves would want their own nukes still europe is racist and they have their own interests surely having a independent nuclear program makes more sense than leasing nukes Pakistan did having the oil wealth of the middle east should surely be able to that. Maybe im looking too much into turkish european relations in real lifem, but still

 

[Stendhal]

Switzerland hard-wired a cobalt bomb to their gold reserves ?