History myths you cant stand

>USSR was the main aggressor in the cold war
>Rome was founded as a republic
>greeks were the good guys, persians - the bad
>colonialism was bad

>Tigers and Panthers were the best tanks of the war. When they worked, which they didn't often do.
That's an interesting definition of best.

>greeks were the good guys, persians - the bad
They sorta were, though.

Yeah, yeah, I know, the Persians were objectively better people. Slavery, women's rights, and so on. They were still the aggressors. And the Greeks stood at the forefront of an intellectual tradition that, eventually, would do a lot of good for a lot of people, even though by today's standards they were assholes.

>history has good guys and bad guys

They're kind of like Closing Pitchers in Baseball.

They can pitch really well, for about 1-3 innings. Then they go to shit.

>cultural relativism

this really gets my goat

Funny thats how bmws are

Shut up ahmed.

Well said.

>racism is a bad thing
>xenophobia is a bad thing

Except for the part of fighting well, or pitching in your metaphor. The Big Cats have decidedly unimpressive combat records when they did get into firefights.

When they did well, they did so mostly from firing from ambush. Protip: any tank did well when firing from ambsuh.

dont forget that French tanks had more reverse gears than forward gears, and were inferior to German Panzers

>Abraham Lincoln was an anti-racist

wat, who says this? dude wrote about his racism in his own fucking book.

>Germans invented RAM for their submarines during ww2.

so did the us

>The Horten's had less RCS than a conventional fighter.

very debatable

the formation of the CSA is one of the most misunderstood things in history, and it annoys me that people either pigeon hole them as "le bad guys" or "le good guys" without realizing their motives were more complex than just "muh slavery" or "muh states rights"

Who the fuck actually reads that shit, we're talking about society at large, not historians or people interested in history.

burger-tier funny

>white genocide is a bad thing
>Implying cumskins deserve to live

>shitskins this mad

kys nig nog tig tog your mother takes white dick

>56%

>Native Americans were genocided
Indian Removal Act

(You)

>internment and subjugation are the same thing as genocide

Ask the Serbs.

Finally someone giving credit to the geo-strategical thoughts behind the domino theory.

Its obvious that communist states destabilzed surrounding regions and acted as bases for UDSSR influence. The problem in Vietnam was that the US-leadership completely lost sight of the cost-benefit ratio and that they overprioterized Vietnam which was far to deep in the commie influence zone. Also they failed in stabilizing and shaping a government that the broad population could percieve as legitimate while completely underestimating the mobilization potential communist groups had.

Another historical misconception which really Bugs me:

>MUH Operation Barbarossa the Nazi Invasion of Russia was a huge strategic mistake.

No. Given the geo-strategical situation it actually made a lot of sense.

After sealion failed it was obvious that the only way to win against GB was a war off attrition.

Given the totalitarian society the third reich was it was actually better suited for the task than the democratic GB.

BUT the SU was a factor that completely changed the equation:

1) The Reich was highly dependant on the ressources the SU provided. The Realpolitik that motivated the MR-Pact couldn't really hide the huge ideological differences and the overlapping spheres of interest both SU and the 3 Reich had. Thus it wasn't unlikely that in a strategic moment (when GB was weakened enough) the SU could stop the flow off ressources.

2) Given the pragmatism of the SU at the time there was nothing stopping them from backstabbing germany and allying with the capitalist nations. Rushing in when the majority of german forces is engaged elswhere.

3) Even if they don't ally with the capitalist nations they could wait until both NS-germany and GB are exhausted, further expanding their army and attacking in a convenient moment.

This combined with missconceptions about the war waging abilities of the SU which stemmed from WW1 it was actually a decent strategic choice.

2/2

A strategy that wasn't influenced by hybris and ideology could have been successfull.

Basic conceptions:
-not alienating the ethnic groups of the SU, instead motivating them to overthrow soviet rule
-not blitzkrieg strategy which isn't viable given russias size and mobilization potential
-instead a sustained strategy that aims to cut off lend and lease and utilize the (at least before lend and lease mass arrived) greater german logistical and tactical capabilities.

41:
-stopping earlier (high german losses in the last drive to moscow)
-instead securing logistics and fortifying defensive positions

42:
-no drive towards stalingrad so relying on unreliable auxiliary troops isn't necessary
-a focus on capturing murmansk
-diplomatic efforts to cut off lend and lease through vladivostok
-repelling soviet counteroffensives

42-43:
-offensive in the center towards moscow
-the higher losses (soviets expected this)
are affordable because lower losses in 41 and 42

After that it isn't really predictable what happens.

>The Gauls were barbaric and primitive beyond belief and got generously civilized by the Romans
And
>the Gauls had a just and sophisticated culture that was sadly wiped out by the 'civilized' evil Romans.

You rarely see a middle ground

So basically side line hitler and the Nazis stand a better chance of winning

Hitler and most of the leading establishment.

With a more market-oriented and conservative leadership a realpolitik approach is at least somewhat possible.

>The 95th Rifles were the first military unit in the world to use rifled firearms
Fuckin' Sharpe.

From the Mississippi Declaration of Causes:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."

Slavery was the factor for secession and the formation of the Confederacy. All other excuses came after the war was over.

>America is evenly split between slave and free states, so everything works out for the most part. nice balance
>Mexican-American war happens.
>all this new territory
>government decides "ok, all these new places are free no matter what
>slave states get no say in the matter, even though they fought and died in that war of conquest as well
>realize they will soon be completely out numbered by free states
>"fuck it, lets just leave and make our own country"

They were even willing to abolish slavery in order to get help from Britain and/or France because it benefited the CSA.

A British woman was the first Computer programmer.

Yhe she sucked..........

and don't forget immigration into the north along with industrialization was shifting the balance of power.

northern free states produced more food and goods. they had more people and they were citizens. the northern city dwellers were becoming the rich people.

while slavery was a part of it. it was the anglos and celts that set up in the South and became part of America's elite and were losing their social status, that drove the war. If they weren't going to lose their status and face ruination. they might as well try to make their own nation first.

who is Charles Babbage?

though i'm sure some Classical Era Greek man was actually the first. He made the Antikythera.

>They were still the aggressors.

I think you're forgetting that it was Athens that struck first by aiding an internal revolt against the Persian empire. Furthermore the 'Greeks' may have provided some of the foundations for western civilization but that says nothing of what would've or even [i]was[/i] going on in Persia.

>columbus discovered america

" the RAM coating" source?

This is the good ol history channel meme afaik.

>-not blitzkrieg strategy which isn't viable given russias size and mobilization potential
Crap idea
Blitzing was awesome in Russia during the first three months.
41:
Just make warm winter clothing in sufficient numbers
42:
Are you arguing it's best to stay on the defensive in 42? That's a bad idea. The push for Stalingrad wasn't that bad of an idea in theory. The USSR feared an attack on Moscow and thought it was the main target for attack and defended it appropriately. Therefore other fronts were left in bad shape and the push for Stalingrad and the caucasus was made possible. A good idea here is not to fuck your allies who will perform admirably in defense if not overstretched, which they were in the late autumn and winter of '42. Also, don't give a fuck about Stalingrad, surround it if possible but don't grind it down. Focus instead on closing the lid on the caucasus and eliminate the threat there.

>Blitzkrieg was awesome in the first months

True but after that casualties started to really hamper the german potential. What i meant was starting with the initial strike like it happened IRL but stopping earlier. What i meant with no Blitzkrieg was the realization that russia will not fall in one quick operation. The massive casualties in the later phase of Barbarossa were not worth the gains. Reaching good defensive positions after conquering the key areas in the Ukraine and causing massive casualties makes more sense to me given the fact that better prepared defensive positions, more rest and reorganozation and a less drastic overextension would have spared a lot of warmaterial and lives. These lives were lost in the late stages of Barbarossa and in the first soviet winter offensive due to hastily prepared defensive position.

My Vision for a more successfull 42:
-more troops available due to reduced losses in 41
-early soviet counteroffensives were such debacles that they freed troops for Fall blau (especially rundstedt in charkov)
-such a more (not completely) defensive stance in 42 is not an entirely Bad ideal
-the first important target is cutting of murmansk at the northern front to reduce the flow of lend and lease
-after that a renewed offensive against moscow (likely stopping in winter and continuing in 43) makes more sense to me because an offensive towards stalingrad leaves to many vulnerable spots for counteroffensives and leads to drastic overextension

>Given the totalitarian society the third reich was it was actually better suited for the task than the democratic GB.

[citation needed]

I mean, let's look to inspiration from WW1. Surely, it was the democratic nations that cracked first from the horrors and cost and bloodshed of industrial war. Oh wait, no, it wasn't, it was the autocracies that threw in the towel, one after another.

That's not even getting into the fact that the only means the British Commonwealth and Nazi Germany had of hitting each other was through aerial bombardment, something the RAF was far more geared for than the Luftwaffe.

>The Realpolitik that motivated the MR-Pact couldn't really hide the huge ideological differences and the overlapping spheres of interest both SU and the 3 Reich had.

Which were what exactly?

> Given the pragmatism of the SU at the time there was nothing stopping them from backstabbing germany and allying with the capitalist nations. Rushing in when the majority of german forces is engaged elswhere.

Given the pragmatism of the SU, the backstab would not happen unless Germany was sufficiently weakened to make the strike successful and obviously so. As long as Hitler doesn't start losing the war against the Brits, this shouldn't happen.

> Even if they don't ally with the capitalist nations they could wait until both NS-germany and GB are exhausted, further expanding their army and attacking in a convenient moment.

Except of course, that there was no particular Soviet buildup of military force outside of what was more or less normal for a country with their population and economy. It was only after the invasion that the Soviets went into crazy armament mode.

You're only positing it not being retarded by literally making up strategic issues to justify it; none of these factors existed in reality.

>slave states get no say in the matter, even though they fought and died in that war of conquest as well
>what was the Kansas-Nebraska Act
>what was the Missouri Compromise

Slave states in the antebellum period were often over-represented and tried their hardest to dictate as much policy as possible, especially regarding the West. To say otherwise is blatant revisionism.

Looking back, slavery was just a raw deal for everybody in the south who wasn't a land-owner. It kept down poor whites just as much as it did blacks since the plentiful supply of cheap labor kept wages low.

None of that makes up for the fact that 90% of the Nazis logistics train was horse-drawn.

Logistics wins wars.

>Just make warm winter clothing in sufficient numbers

Meme answer. What really happened in winter of 41/42 was that the Soviets finally were able to get their shit together in the north and halt the German advance, with aid of winter hindering German offensive maneuvers. The Soviets launched a series of counter attacks around Moscow and made substantial gains. There is a very good reason the Germans shift there offensives in 42/42 to the south.

Down south in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators

It's almost as bad as the "Nazis invented the flying wing" meme.

It's like they don't know about Jack Northrup's work.

>>Native Americans were genocided
how else do you describe generations of deliberate massacre, forced migrations and general abuse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions
most of those seem to fit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth
the germans lost the war on the battlefield and had a revolution as a result, they didnt have a revolution that led to defeat on the battlefield

I would call it exactly what Native Americans did to each other for centuries beforehand.

>implying the soviet logistic system was better without lend and lease

>just handwaving away the fact that none of the autocracies in WW1 was totalitarian
>just equating autocracies with totalitarian nations
>ignoring the mutinies of the french army in WW1 and the fact that they weren't able to truly mobilize for another fullscale war afterwards

>muh moral bombing
>proven to be uneffective in forcing surrender

>what were the ideological differences between natsoc and commies

Oh gee idk the fact that they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum? The first thing the nazis did was purging moscow aligned commies. Ofc both societes were totalitarian and had certain similiarities but no one at the time would have denied full on antagonism.

>spheres of interest

Oh gee eastern europe maybe? Lebensraum vs. Panslavism

Hitler was worried about the possibility of a 2 front war. He wanted operational freedom by eradicating the possibility of a 2 front war AND ganining full control over war critical ressources.

>muh no military build up

You realize i made no case of defensive war. Also what stopped the SU from starting a military build up in 42, 43 etc

>None of that makes up for the fact that 90% of the Nazis logistics train was horse-drawn.

So was pretty much everyone else except the Americans. The Nazis weren't really at a disadvantage over anyone else, although logistical problems usually do affect the attacker more than the defender.

>the germans invented flying wings!

on a far larger scale and with far more ruthlessness.

most of the indian tribes fought with neighbours certainly but they didnt generally wipe out whole villages or force tribes to migrate to the shittiest land, hell some of their warfare was so ritualised that the highest achievement was to not kill
anyone at all

The civil war was not about slavery and youre a sheeple if you think it was. (always accompanied by smug sense of being the smartest person in the vicinity)

>Not proving your central point that democracies are inherently more vulnerable to war weariness than other regimes.
>Ignoring that the mutinies of the French army weren't exactly crippling and nor were they confined to the French.

>muh moral bombing
>proven to be uneffective in forcing surrender

Then why do you think it would knock out the UK?

>Oh gee idk the fact that they are on opposite ends of the political spectrum?

No they aren't. They're both intellectually dishonest totalitarian autocracies that would bend themselves over backwards to justify whatever move they just made.

>The first thing the nazis did was purging moscow aligned commies.

They also purged everyone else they thought could challenge their power base.

> but no one at the time would have denied full on antagonism.

Except say, Stalin in the mid 30s when they were each other's biggest trading partner and he was hosting the camps to train the Wehrmacht.

>Oh gee eastern europe maybe? Lebensraum vs. Panslavism

Which they carved up very nicely and neatly. The Soviets had abandoned Panslavism some time ago, given their actions in 1939 of attacking other Slavic nations but also non-Slavs such as the Finns.

>Hitler was worried about the possibility of a 2 front war.

Hitler, as far as can be reconstructed, really believed that the Germans were winning the Western Front in 1918 and were brought down from the home front in the form of a cabal of Jewish bankers. His strategic judgment is enormously questionable.

>He wanted operational freedom by eradicating the possibility of a 2 front war AND ganining full control over war critical ressources.

And given that he had no indication that they were going to be suddenly withheld, or attacked form that direction absent his own aggression, assuming that a war would break out is fucking retarded.

>You realize i made no case of defensive war. Also what stopped the SU from starting a military build up in 42, 43 etc

Are you stupid? You're asserting that the Soviets displayed aggressive, expansionistic intent by the size of their army, which was actually not all out of line with another power of their general economic strength; you have nothing to justify said fear of the USSR, who had a rather short history of aggression with Stalin at the helm, and preferred to pick on small and helpless targets.

"They might change their minds and attack us unexpectedly despite no indications that they're considering that" can be applied to anyone. Why not justify a necessary invasion of Spain? Or the U.S., on those same grounds?

>[i]was[/i]

The fact that Americans think they've invented everything.

slaves were expensive. costs as much as a small tractor does now.

what slaves were, was guaranteed labor and you knew the cost of operating them. which is important when you are running a cash crop plantation.

slavery was almost out of existence in the USA a few decades earlier. though the invention of the cotton gin helped keep it going until the 1860s.

>huehuehue monkeys think they invented powered flight

to be fair one yuro wrote on a piece of paper gee i wish there was a world wide web with hyperlinks and then the continent took a few decades off while america implemented that and everything else.

>>Ignoring that the mutinies of the French army weren't exactly crippling and nor were they confined to the French.

citation needed

>Then why do you think it would knock out the UK?

I never made that claim. What about secondary fronts like afrika etc. ?

>No they aren't. They're both intellectually dishonest totalitarian autocracies that would bend themselves over backwards to justify whatever move they just made.

Utter horseshit. Just because they both displayed signs of totalitarian regimes they are not the same thing. Both regimes derieved a massive part of their legitimacy in antagonizing the other ideology.

>They also purged everyone else they thought could challenge their power base.

Yet they purged the commies first and hardest.

>Except say, Stalin in the mid 30s when they were each other's biggest trading partner and he was hosting the camps to train the Wehrmacht.

Propaganda was reduced when both regimes traded and cooperated out of necessity but no one in their right mind would have denied a fundamental antagonism between communism and nazism.

>Which they carved up very nicely and neatly.

Read a book. There were several overlapping spheres of interest especially on the balkan.

>Hitler, as far as can be reconstructed, really believed that the Germans were winning the Western Front in 1918 and were brought down from the home front in the form of a cabal of Jewish bankers. His strategic judgment is enormously questionable.

I never denied that. That doesn't mean that hitlers strategic thoughts were only motivated by his delusions.

Also note that the other leaders had varying degrees of delusions aswell. Especially Stalin.

2/2

>And given that he had no indication that they were going to be suddenly withheld, or attacked form that direction absent his own aggression, assuming that a war would break out is fucking retarded.

No sure the soviets had no reason to stop the flow off ressources at the very least. You completely underestimate the degree of ideological hostility that was only masked by necessity and realpolitik.

>Are you stupid? You're asserting that the Soviets displayed aggressive, expansionistic intent by the size of their army

Which was constantly expanded. The armaments were modernized and you ignore several aggressive acts against Finnland, the baltikum etc.

>citation needed

Uh, France stayed in the war, they weren't crippled. They went on the Hundred Days offensive, were the prime attackers in it, they could still fight.

As for other mutinies.

sunnycv.com/steve/ww1/mutinies.html

I see mutinies among the Austro-Hungarians, the Russians, the British, Italians, and Turks, all in 1917.

>I never made that claim.

>After sealion failed it was obvious that the only way to win against GB was a war off attrition.

>Given the totalitarian society the third reich was it was actually better suited for the task than the democratic GB.

>What about secondary fronts like afrika etc. ?

The ones the UK was winning?

> Both regimes derieved a massive part of their legitimacy in antagonizing the other ideology.

After the war for the Commies. I don't remember anything about them demonizing nazism before it. And Hitler had an actual socialist wing that he didn't purge until over a year after taking power, and more because of party politics between different wings than that they "needed" to get rid of them.

>Yet they purged the commies first and hardest.

Dachau's first inmates were a mix of Communists, Reichsbanner and Social Democratic people. They purged Commies because Commies had power and competing voices, not because anything intrinsic to communists.

>Read a book. There were several overlapping spheres of interest especially on the balkan.

No there weren't. The Germans signed over Bessarabia, and that was that. Show me a conflict over the Balkans the Germans and soviets had before Barbarossa.

>That doesn't mean that hitlers strategic thoughts were only motivated by his delusions.

It also doesn't mean that you can simply cite to Hitler's thinking as proof of an actual strategic threat. You haven't actually posted anything indicating Stalin was having any thoughts about attacking Germany, just Hitler's beliefs as such.

>You completely underestimate the degree of ideological hostility that was only masked by necessity and realpolitik.

Because there's no evidence for it until after they started shooting each other. Because intellectually bankrupt regimes do put realpolitik first. I mean for fuck's sake, Nazi Germany was able to put ideology to one side where Romania and Hungary were concerned, and Stalin hadn't expanded anywhere until he struck the MR pact in 17 years of power.

Why would it suddenly erupt then when it hadn't for 8 years in Germany's case and decades in the USSR's?

>Which was constantly expanded.

So was everyone else's. Was Britain planning to conquer the world? By 1939, they had more planes by weight than the Soviets did, and a smaller economy to support building them? France had its millions of men in reserve, a much higher percentage of its population than the Russians did. Clearly they were planning on conquering I dunno, Spain.

The USSR's armament level was literally nothing special.

>The armaments were modernized

Everybody fucking modernized. Most governments literally had departments in the Navy specifically devoted to modernization of equipment.

>gnore several aggressive acts against Finnland, the baltikum etc.

You mean, the ones they didn't start doing until they entered into an agreement with the Germans? Clearly, right thinking German statesmen would be terrified of the Soviets occupying the areas you encouraged them to occupy.

Santos Dumont flew his plane in the middle of Paris and was recognized by France:
On 23 October 1906 he flew this to make the first powered heavier-than-air flight in Europe to be certified by the Aéro Club de France and the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI).

here is the footage:
youtube.com/watch?v=ZqfP7nvY5zw

now it's your turn to show me the bicycle mechanic brothers flying their glider with the help of a catapult. Oh that's right there isn't any..

>Turks are responsible for the Armenian genocide

>The Tiger II could take on ten Shermans
>The V2 was a good idea
>Germany was close to having an atomic bomb
>Nazi Germany was technologically unmatched by any other nation
>Russia is unconquerable
>The Southern US only seceded because of Abe Lincoln and his stance on slaves
>The world was peaceful before the Europeans colonized it
>Every socialist nation was a puppet of the USSR
>The USA is militarily incompetent
>The French can't win a war
These are the ones that really piss me off.

3 years after the Wright Flyer 1, 2, and 3 had flown hundreds of times.

>>Every socialist nation was a puppet of the USSR.

Besides China and Yugoslavia, what others weren't?

Well some were Chinese puppets or just batshit.

pic related was taken in 1904

the first wright brother flights didnt use a catapult

They had some kind of nigger rigged RAM based on coal dust.

Yeah the flying wing was a pretty well known concept before the hortens

>They had some kind of nigger rigged RAM based on coal dust.

no they didnt

Post war the horten brothers and all their other engineers were interrogated by the us and england. They didnt mention a single thing about coat dust being added to the glue for purposes of absorbing radar.

But by the 80s the horten brothers started to claim that the 229 was designed to be stealthy, and that they added charcoal to the glue to make it radar absorbent - the latter being a claim that doesnt make much sense.

The smithsonian did testing on the black specks in the glue of the surviving plane, and what did their spectrographic analysis find?

>The FTIR spectrum suggests that rather than discrete particles of charcoal within the adhesive matrix we are finding oxidized, or very aged wood.

airandspace.si.edu/collections/horten-ho-229-v3/about/is-it-stealth.cfm

"Muskets were inaccurate."
youtube.com/watch?v=1Xu4QQnUJRI

And some Indian tribes, such as the Apache, Comanche, and Sioux, did genocide entire tribes. Stop group peaceful native Americans with violent ones.

and yet most did not, and all were genocided

>and yet most did not

How do you know this?

Thousands of years of history but no written records to speak of. Yet you are sure most did not engage in that sort of behavior?

>The U.S. dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to stop the Soviets from invading the islands and taking half of them.

I mean it doesn't even make any goddamn sense. The Soviet plans for invasion involved begging the U.S. for some ships. If they were really trying to pre-empt the Russians, they could just not give them the boats.

fuck off

>slaves were expensive

Only ones you bought, which could have a high upfront cost depending on their health. Even then, they'd still be less expensive over time than paying a regular wage to a worker. Slaves who were born in your ownership were basically just free labor, aside from the small cost of food and the like. Also, you need to factor in the money that could be made from selling slaves, and that you could trade slaves like any other commodity. Slaves were just more cost efficient, and as a result wages were kept low in the south, which meant poor whites and other non-enslaved but still poor people were stuck in a perpetual cycle of poverty that was only exasperated from the downfall of the slave-driven economy.

>V1 and V2 were revolutionary
The V1 was a blatant rip off of Goddard's patents and even the Germans stated as such. The V2, being a derivative, was just as much of a rip off. They weren't revolutionary by any means.

I just quickly read the wiki page about him, but there is no mention of the V1

>The V2, being a derivative (of the V1)
this is completely wrong and you now it. A V1 is basically an unmanned aircraft with a pulse jet strapped to it, it has nothing to do with rocketry
About the V2 it's mentioned that his research saved "years of work" which might as well be true, but still

>As an instrument for reaching extreme altitudes, Goddard's rockets were not very successful; they did not achieve an altitude greater than 2.7 km in 1937, while a balloon sonde had already reached 35 km in 1921.[27]:456 By contrast, German rocket scientists had achieved an altitude of 2.4 km with the A-2 rocket in 1934,[29]:138 8 km by 1939 with the A-5,[65]:39 and 196 km in 1942 with the A-4 (V-2) launched vertically, reaching the outer limits of the atmosphere and into space

>They weren't revolutionary by any means.
I believe that's open for interpretation, pic somewhat related

>implying negros post on 4chins
did you post that from a mudhut

>At the time, Germany was highly interested in American physicist Robert H. Goddard's research. Before 1939, German scientists occasionally contacted Goddard directly with technical questions. Wernher von Braun used Goddard's plans from various journals and incorporated them into the building of the Aggregat (A) series of rockets. The A-4 rocket would become well known as the V-2.[27] In 1963, von Braun reflected on the history of rocketry, and said of Goddard's work: "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles."[10]

Goddard confirmed his work was used by von Braun in 1944, shortly before the Nazis began firing V-2s at England. A V-2 crashed in Sweden and some parts were sent to an Annapolis lab where Goddard was doing research for the Navy. If this was the so-called Bäckebo Bomb, it had been procured by the British in exchange for Spitfires; Annapolis would have received some parts from them. Goddard is reported to have recognized components he had invented, and inferred that his brainchild had been turned into a weapon.[28] Later, von Braun would comment: “I have very deep and sincere regret for the victims of the V-2 rockets, but there were victims on both sides... A war is a war, and when my country is at war, my duty is to help win that war.”

Goddard and von Braun both admitted that the V2* (my mistake I thought it was the V1) was built almost entirely on Goddard's patents.

Another quote about Goddard from von Braun after the war:

>Don't you know about your own rocket pioneer? Dr. Goddard was ahead of us all.

Even so, i would dare to say the V2 was revolutionary for rocketry even if it's partially based on the work of others.
There's a large difference between reaching 3km of height and going into space

>even if it's partially based on the work of others
Primarily* based on the work of others.

>There's a large difference between reaching 3km of height and going into space
I understand what you're getting at here, but it's kind of a false equivalence. Goddard had to cease the majority of his testing and move onto theory during the war due to rationing and budgets during the war while German rocketry (based almost entirely on Goddard's work) was heavily encouraged by Hitler because Goddard's work made it seem feasible (even though it wasn't which is why the U.S. government halted most of the testing).