Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discovery)   Did you ever wonder if World War II had gone differently, would the Nazis have gone to the moon? No? Well, here is the answer anyway   (news.discovery.com) divider line 127
    More: Interesting, Nazis, World War II, Wernher von Braun, Science and technology in Germany, United States Fleet, militarization, staging areas, artificial gravity  
•       •       •

11488 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Aug 2013 at 10:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-14 10:34:41 AM  
Let me consult the I Ching before I open that link.
 
2013-08-14 10:36:10 AM  
They'd have probably skipped past the moon part and gone straight to ICBMs.  They're Nazi's, what do they need pretense for?
 
2013-08-14 10:37:21 AM  
Seriously who cares?  And who cares that the US went there?  A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing.

And before you jump in saying "oh, but we got some tech out of it", put those same billions into R&D and you will get a bunch of tech anyway.
 
2013-08-14 10:37:30 AM  
Would they have brought wine?
 
2013-08-14 10:37:46 AM  
Oh just fark off Discovery. You used to be about science, the natural world and history, now it's a bunch of "what if" speculative bullshiat and Pawn Wars or whatever.
 
2013-08-14 10:38:38 AM  
Iron Sky is on Netflix.
 
2013-08-14 10:38:39 AM  

xalres: Oh just fark off Discovery. You used to be about science, the natural world and history, now it's a bunch of "what if" speculative bullshiat and Pawn Wars or whatever.


Pawn Stars is on History Channel.....
 
2013-08-14 10:40:05 AM  
The nazis were already using advanced alien technologies, such as the Foo Fighters and the time-traveling bell.

Ancient aliens told me so.
 
2013-08-14 10:43:36 AM  
Hitler was a known anti-futurist and this is one of the reasons there was never a Nazi Germany Pavilion at the 1939 New York World's Fair. His vision of a thousand year Reich would have been locked in a never-changing time bubble that would have been the same in 2933 as it was in 1933.
 
2013-08-14 10:43:46 AM  
Well Im like Adolf's Aryan wet dream,so Id be alright if that one had went the other way.
 
2013-08-14 10:43:51 AM  

ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing


People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow
 
2013-08-14 10:48:04 AM  
America is finally forced to enter the war following the fall of Great Britain. But it's too late. The Nazis have had time to perfect rocket-propelled intercontinental bombers among other super-weapons.

No, no, no; With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.
thehidalgograincompany.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-14 10:48:20 AM  
static.ddmcdn.com

Phil Mickelson would have been the first man in space?
 
2013-08-14 10:48:27 AM  

mediablitz: ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing

People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow


Say it again!
 
2013-08-14 10:48:46 AM  
Jesus Christ what schlock.
 
2013-08-14 10:49:15 AM  
It still amazes me that we sent people to the moon and back numerous times with computers that were equivalent to the Atari 2600.
 
2013-08-14 10:49:43 AM  

mediablitz: ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing

People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow


Don't worry- only the very stupid and the willingly obtuse think that.
 
2013-08-14 10:51:20 AM  

mediablitz: ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing

People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow


At least they acknowledge we went to the moon.
 
2013-08-14 10:52:51 AM  
"In my time-warped universe, President Franklin Roosevelt does not run for a third term in 1940. Republican Senator Robert Taft wins the White House. Because Taft is a staunch isolationist, the Japanese decide against doing a reckless, preemptive attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor."

A. Why wouldn't FDR run?
B. Taft wasn't the Republican nominee in 1940.
C. Why would Japan care about respecting an isolationist policy?
 
2013-08-14 10:53:14 AM  

ggecko: Seriously who cares?  And who cares that the US went there?  A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing.

And before you jump in saying "oh, but we got some tech out of it", put those same billions into R&D and you will get a bunch of tech anyway.


"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "

Humans are competitive, and that shows in our research.  It was a challenge, one that combined physics, chemistry, biology, and various other scientific disciplines.  I have no doubt that we would have got to the tech eventually, but not as fast as we did with landing on the moon as a goal.

We are also explorers.  If everybody throughout history had the attitude you displayed above, we would still be in caves trying not to get eaten by bears.

/basically, we do things to see if we can
 
2013-08-14 10:54:26 AM  

dascott: They'd have probably skipped past the moon part and gone straight to ICBMs.  They're Nazi's, what do they need pretense for?




They loved symbolism and the practicality of basing missiles on the moon wouldn't have Gone unnoticed.
Especially if they had nukes and were the only ones with the technology to go there (the allies were decades behind).

They'd have played MAD like champs and most of us would probably be dead or subjugated by now.
 
2013-08-14 10:55:59 AM  
So you're telling me Iron Sky wasn't a documentary?
 
2013-08-14 10:56:09 AM  

ABQGOD: "In my time-warped universe, President Franklin Roosevelt does not run for a third term in 1940. Republican Senator Robert Taft wins the White House. Because Taft is a staunch isolationist, the Japanese decide against doing a reckless, preemptive attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor."

A. Why wouldn't FDR run?
B. Taft wasn't the Republican nominee in 1940.
C. Why would Japan care about respecting an isolationist policy?


A better scenario would be FDR never getting elected in the first place and the Republicans push a strict isolationist approach to foreign affairs, resulting in no embargo against Japan pre-WWII.  This allows the Japanese to get the resources they need for their military and they no longer feel the need to attack Pearl Harbor to neutralize the American fleet.
 
2013-08-14 10:56:11 AM  

mediablitz: ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing

People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow


Yes, outside of "we went there first" or "we did it because it is there", please explain to me what use it is that we have been on the moon.

And as I already stated, if you took all the money and effort it took to go there and just put it in to R&D you would get more tech than what we got.

So please enlighten me as to what useful purpose it was that we went to the moon.
 
2013-08-14 10:58:26 AM  
regmedia.co.uk

Captain....Sensors detect an approaching temporal punctuation mark.
 
2013-08-14 10:59:13 AM  

Burr: ggecko: Seriously who cares?  And who cares that the US went there?  A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing.

And before you jump in saying "oh, but we got some tech out of it", put those same billions into R&D and you will get a bunch of tech anyway.

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "

Humans are competitive, and that shows in our research.  It was a challenge, one that combined physics, chemistry, biology, and various other scientific disciplines.  I have no doubt that we would have got to the tech eventually, but not as fast as we did with landing on the moon as a goal.

We are also explorers.  If everybody throughout history had the attitude you displayed above, we would still be in caves trying not to get eaten by bears.

/basically, we do things to see if we can


Doing something to saw "we did it" or to "see if we can" is fine, but not when it is funded by billions of dollars of tax money.  I have no problem if a private entity wants to spend all that money just to say "lookie what I did".

And before you attack me, I have two different engineering degrees and I drool over technology.  That is my point, take all the money wasted going to walk on a remote rock and put it in to R&D we can use here.  Yes, we got some tech out of it but we would get MUCH MORE tech spending the money here.

Then again, Ron Howard did make millions making a movie on the subject.  And I do like Ron Howard.
 
2013-08-14 10:59:45 AM  

ABQGOD: "In my time-warped universe, President Franklin Roosevelt does not run for a third term in 1940. Republican Senator Robert Taft wins the White House. Because Taft is a staunch isolationist, the Japanese decide against doing a reckless, preemptive attack on the U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor."

A. Why wouldn't FDR run?
B. Taft wasn't the Republican nominee in 1940.
C. Why would Japan care about respecting an isolationist policy?


A) Declining health.  Precedent (already served 2 terms).  Tired of fighting Republicans (look at Obama).  It's plausible.
B) With FDR out of the race, it follows that more Republican heavy hitters would have gotten in (again, see 2012 - more serious candidates like Chris Christie opted to wait to 2016 for a presumably easier path)
C) The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor when they did with the intent of knocking out the U.S. Navy before America entered the war on its own.  If America is known to be isolationist, there's no reason to open up another front while you're already at war with China and Russia.
 
2013-08-14 11:00:36 AM  
I think they would have gone to the moon.  They were already working on rocketry during the Second World War, so it's not impossible to assume that had they won, they would have looked to the moon next.  It would have been rather unlikely that it would have been done prior to the year 2000.  The landing on the moon was done at the behest of JFK, a space race that was pretty much a pissing contest between the USSR and the US.  The USSR launches the first satellite into space then the first man into space, so the U.S. puts several men on the moon of the course of a few years.

Now, assume that WW2 would not have involved the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S.'s involvement in the war might have been too little too late since it was being debated if we should even join the war.  That would have given Hitler time enough to conquer Europe and stop, giving him time to build up his military before taking on the U.S.  With the fall of Europe, Hitler would then be fighting only Russia, and with Japan within range, it's not impossible to assume that Russia would have been fighting Axis powers on two fronts, with the result being Russia having to fight an island nation as well as an entire continent.  Russia would have surrendered eventually stretching Hitler's empire from from western Europe to the eastern most tip of Russia, giving Hitler access to Alaska, and since Alaska wasn't a U.S. state during WW2, and assuming Japan never bothered with the U.S. at all, there would have been no U.S. military build up in Alaska until the fall of Russia, which at that point, Hitler would have to declare peace with the U.S. and build up his military base in Europe, as well as quell any and all rebellions in Europe and Russia.

In this scenario, no space race, but rocketry still takes off and we still get satellites, but the moon wouldn't be considered a goal since the two biggest powers would be the U.S. and the Third Reich, and the Reich's concern wouldn't be goading the U.S., but dealing with the consequences of taking an entire continent via military power.

/just speculation
//and I know I've probably over looked a few things
 
2013-08-14 11:01:36 AM  
Since Iron Sky was already mentioned, I'll just post pics of the lead actress, Julia Dietze.

www.sceglilfilm.it
 
2013-08-14 11:01:46 AM  

ggecko: That is my point, take all the money wasted going to walk on a remote rock and put it in to R&D we can use here.


OK fine, but what are they working on? When does it have to be completed?  R&D without a purpose and a deadline is a waste of money.
 
2013-08-14 11:04:33 AM  

ggecko: Doing something to saw "we did it" or to "see if we can" is fine, but not when it is funded by billions of dollars of tax money. I have no problem if a private entity wants to spend all that money just to say "lookie what I did".

And before you attack me, I have two different engineering degrees and I drool over technology. That is my point, take all the money wasted going to walk on a remote rock and put it in to R&D we can use here. Yes, we got some tech out of it but we would get MUCH MORE tech spending the money here.


Where the hell do you think all that money went?  Into a crater on the moon?  It WAS spent on R&D.  What are you arguing for, exactly?  The federal government to spend billions on R&D, just so long as it doesn't lead to any demonstrable end purpose?
 
2013-08-14 11:10:06 AM  

ggecko: Seriously who cares?  And who cares that the US went there?  A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing.

And before you jump in saying "oh, but we got some tech out of it", put those same billions into R&D and you will get a bunch of tech anyway.


Do you think that it's possible, even slightly possible, that we gained some scientific knowledge from all the moon rocks we brought back?

One thing that I will envy about my parents is that they got to witness that time period from the first Mercury mission to Gemini and then finally Apollo.  Me, space shuttles and the space station.  No where near the excitement of the 1960s era space program.
 
2013-08-14 11:11:46 AM  

ggecko: mediablitz: ggecko: Seriously who cares? And who cares that the US went there? A floating rock, us visiting it has done absolutely nothing

People still think our moon trip has done "absolutely nothing"?

wow

Yes, outside of "we went there first" or "we did it because it is there", please explain to me what use it is that we have been on the moon.

And as I already stated, if you took all the money and effort it took to go there and just put it in to R&D you would get more tech than what we got.

So please enlighten me as to what useful purpose it was that we went to the moon.


You obviously have zero clue as to how much technology NASA has provided us.

Also, Tang.
 
2013-08-14 11:12:20 AM  

Great Janitor: I think they would have gone to the moon.  They were already working on rocketry during the Second World War, so it's not impossible to assume that had they won, they would have looked to the moon next.  It would have been rather unlikely that it would have been done prior to the year 2000.  The landing on the moon was done at the behest of JFK, a space race that was pretty much a pissing contest between the USSR and the US.  The USSR launches the first satellite into space then the first man into space, so the U.S. puts several men on the moon of the course of a few years.

Now, assume that WW2 would not have involved the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the U.S.'s involvement in the war might have been too little too late since it was being debated if we should even join the war.  That would have given Hitler time enough to conquer Europe and stop, giving him time to build up his military before taking on the U.S.  With the fall of Europe, Hitler would then be fighting only Russia, and with Japan within range, it's not impossible to assume that Russia would have been fighting Axis powers on two fronts, with the result being Russia having to fight an island nation as well as an entire continent.  Russia would have surrendered eventually stretching Hitler's empire from from western Europe to the eastern most tip of Russia, giving Hitler access to Alaska, and since Alaska wasn't a U.S. state during WW2, and assuming Japan never bothered with the U.S. at all, there would have been no U.S. military build up in Alaska until the fall of Russia, which at that point, Hitler would have to declare peace with the U.S. and build up his military base in Europe, as well as quell any and all rebellions in Europe and Russia.

In this scenario, no space race, but rocketry still takes off and we still get satellites, but the moon wouldn't be considered a goal since the two biggest powers would be the U.S. and the Third Reich, and the Reich's concern wouldn't be goading the U.S., but dealing with the consequences of taking an entire continent via military power.

/just speculation
//and I know I've probably over looked a few things


The biggest thing to remember is the US captured the scientists who built the entire German rocket program. Those scientists are the reason the US reached the moon at all. Those guys did their work only because they wanted to reach the moon, so I would say it is plausible that Germany would've went for it. May would've took a little longer to convince Hitler but it would've happened.
 
2013-08-14 11:14:10 AM  
For pity's sake 'Discovery' - the Nazis did go to the Moon. Don't any of you yobs read History? As in our Nazi scientists are better than your Nazi scientists?

Operation Paperclip™
 
2013-08-14 11:14:13 AM  
Been there, done that, and saw the movie

/srsly, watch Iron Sky...
 
2013-08-14 11:14:33 AM  
Nazi Germany made significant advances in cinematic technology, so they could have faked the moon landing years before NASA.
 
2013-08-14 11:15:51 AM  
If the Japanese had won the Battles of Khalkin Gol, they might have attempted to push on to Lake Baikal. Assuming they were able to hold it, and Hitler still carried out  Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Japanese may have been tempted to further their invasion of the Soviet Union to capture more resources in Asia, rather than attacking Pearl Harbor. With attacks on two flanks and no U.S. in the war, Russia would have been pushed even closer to defeat than it was.

Whether that would have been enough for an Axis victory is unknown, though it would have been a close thing. We might have had B-29's fly from Reykjavík to Berlin rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
2013-08-14 11:15:57 AM  

ggecko: And before you attack me, I have two different engineering degrees and I drool over technology.  That is my point, take all the money wasted going to walk on a remote rock and put it in to R&D we can use here.  Yes, we got some tech out of it but we would get MUCH MORE tech spending the money here.


Just "some tech," eh?

Tom_Slick: OK fine, but what are they working on? When does it have to be completed?  R&D without a purpose and a deadline is a waste of money.


Absolutely. Having the Moon as a goal provided a framework for the kinds of work that needed to be funded, and in particular provided something obvious that the public could lend their support to. I understand the value of basic research, but a lot of people want to be able to say that their tax dollars went to THIS or THAT; just telling the country we'd like to faff around and see what comes of it wouldn't get very far.
 
2013-08-14 11:20:02 AM  
I would think Hitler would of attacked Japan which we won't know who won until another article comes out.
 
2013-08-14 11:20:06 AM  
What would have gone differently?
For one , had it gone badly,
instead of the doomed crew swallowing a black capsule
The black capsule would have  swallowed the crew...
 
2013-08-14 11:24:38 AM  

skinink: Since Iron Sky was already mentioned, I'll just post pics of the lead actress, Julia Dietze.


This thread needs even more pics of her.
 
2013-08-14 11:29:20 AM  
If I found a genie my first wish before more money than gawd or some such would be for a "what if machine" from Futurama to see what would have happened if we just tweeked this or that in history.
 
2013-08-14 11:29:44 AM  

Snarfangel: If the Japanese had won the Battles of Khalkin Gol, they might have attempted to push on to Lake Baikal. Assuming they were able to hold it, and Hitler still carried out  Operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Japanese may have been tempted to further their invasion of the Soviet Union to capture more resources in Asia, rather than attacking Pearl Harbor. With attacks on two flanks and no U.S. in the war, Russia would have been pushed even closer to defeat than it was.

Whether that would have been enough for an Axis victory is unknown, though it would have been a close thing. We might have had B-29's fly from Reykjavík to Berlin rather than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Berlin?

shiat man first we would have had to nuke London and Glasgow, possibly Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Liverpool and Dunlop to keep the dam Germans from using them. Then we would have had to nuke our way through central France, including Paris, just to clear a path through the air defense to get to Germany.  Finally we would have to nuke Frankfort, Cologne, Brunswick, and Magdeburg just to get to Berlin. That is if the Germans didn't give up.

I mean if the US delays entry into the war, the Germans still won't win as the US gets the A-Bomb first, but the US might have to nuke the shiat out of central Europe to end the war.
 
2013-08-14 11:31:48 AM  

Lydia_C: ggecko: And before you attack me, I have two different engineering degrees and I drool over technology.  That is my point, take all the money wasted going to walk on a remote rock and put it in to R&D we can use here.  Yes, we got some tech out of it but we would get MUCH MORE tech spending the money here.

Just "some tech," eh?

Tom_Slick: OK fine, but what are they working on? When does it have to be completed?  R&D without a purpose and a deadline is a waste of money.

Absolutely. Having the Moon as a goal provided a framework for the kinds of work that needed to be funded, and in particular provided something obvious that the public could lend their support to. I understand the value of basic research, but a lot of people want to be able to say that their tax dollars went to THIS or THAT; just telling the country we'd like to faff around and see what comes of it wouldn't get very far.


Good post.

Sadly, a lot of people seem to think that billions of dollars were shot into space. That money was spent on Earth to pay people and to create the new technologies that were required to get to the Moon. Sure, some material was sent off-planet, but the value of that is pretty small compared to the overall spending.

Maybe we would have created the technologies eventually, but I'm sure the road to them would have been a lot longer.

Not only did we create new technologies, we had to create processes for integrating new technologies. A lot more than technology was gained from the Moon program.
 
2013-08-14 11:32:55 AM  

Oldiron_79: If I found a genie my first wish before more money than gawd or some such would be for a "what if machine" from Futurama to see what would have happened if we just tweeked this or that in history.



Personally I'd go for a finglonger.  The what if machine is great and all, it's just not very long.
 
2013-08-14 11:33:49 AM  
they wouldn't have won so it's a moot point and best left to Harry Turtlehead novels.
 
2013-08-14 11:34:57 AM  

lack of warmth: The biggest thing to remember is the US captured the scientists who built the entire German rocket program. Those scientists are the reason the US reached the moon at all. Those guys did their work only because they wanted to reach the moon, so I would say it is plausible that Germany would've went for it. May would've took a little longer to convince Hitler but it would've happened.


Well, in my scenario, assuming those scientists stayed with the Germans, and the Axis conquered all of Europe and took all of Russia, I don't think the Reich would have had the resources to go to the moon.  Now, if the rocket scientists would have defected to the U.S. on their own, the U.S. could have developed their own moon mission, but without the need to 1up the USSR, a moon mission wouldn't have been thought possible until at least the year 2000 since the U.S. would have been eyeing a weak Reich Empire and possibly using the CIA to cause what ever problems they could while funding resistance movements where it could in Europe.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I honestly don't think there would have been a moon mission without an international space race, and without the strong sense of national pride that JFK inspired to make the U.S. the first nation to reach the moon, I think the first moon manned moon mission would have been an international moon mission.
 
2013-08-14 11:35:11 AM  
It has been theorized that had Hitler had the V2 rocket just six months earlier the D Day invasion would have been impossible to pull off. Suppose the V2 was deployed a year or so earlier? Britain is out of the war either defeated or a new government comes in and settles for a peace treaty that allows limited British autonomy. With his rocket scientists playing such a "heroic" role in the Nazi victory, Hitler may well have given them a free hand and a virtually unlimited budget. First they develop the ICBM and can start hitting targets all over Europe and North America. Now even if we develop the A Bomb the Nazis can attack virtually any target in America. By the late 1950's the Germans are on the moon. The propaganda value of a Nazi moon landing can't be underestimated. By now the Germans would have been to Mars and there would probably be a permanent base on the moon.
 
2013-08-14 11:36:23 AM  
The author's scenario for the first Nazi landing on the moon seems wildly implausible:
In his writings von Braun envisioned a major sortie to the moon that would land 50 astronauts for an initial six-week stay. They would live inside a five-floor sphere atop a cluster of fuel tanks. This was simply enormous by Apollo standards - no man in a can!
A huge remote controlled cargo vessel would accompany the manned vehicle to a landing site near the moon's north pole. It would carry rovers with a 250-mile range capability.  There would be construction supplies to build an Antarctic-style scientific outpost.

Even with a space station as theorized,  the cost of doing this would have been simply prohibitive. von Braun may have envisioned this but a Nazi effort would have likely resembled the American one in the end.
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report