NationStates Jolt Archive

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.
"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.
Have you read any of the Harry Turtledove Alternate history books? I read one and thought it had far too many characters and was much too slow progressing, but that was a WWI one where the USA was separate from the CSA, the CSA was allied with the UK, the US was allied with Germany and France were sort of both. I think. I got lost. Anyway, it wasn't too good, but apparently the colonisation ones were good, if you like your alternate history with a dash of Sci-fi and giant space lizards addicted to ginger

"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.
why is america obligated to help europe settle its internal swabbles? why did we need to attempt to maintain a colonial hold(both our own and western europe's) over southeast asia, only to see it end almost as soon as the war itself ended?

There's a difference between fighting in Europe's 'squabbles' and helping defeat a fascist, racist, anti-semitic bunch of nutcase wierdo lunatics.

There's a difference between fighting in Europe's 'squabbles' and helping defeat a fascist, racist, anti-semitic bunch of nutcase wierdo lunatics.
EXACTLY!

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.

The alternate history stories can make interesting reading.

Let's not forget what got the US involved in the war though. And that, quite simply, was Pearl Harbour.

Would Charles Lindberg been prepared to allow Japan a free hand in China, thereby giving the Japanese no reason to attack?

Or would such an attack been ignored?

Would the USSR been able to defeat Nazi Germany by itself? It very nearly did so.

Unless I've been misled, I believe that Lindbergh is essentially a Hitler puppet in the novel. I haven't read it, but I think you should take that into account....

The US didnt enter WWII to help europe, they entered when they were attacked by the axis powers in Pearl Harbor

"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.
That seems to be the premise of the book.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace190.html

Have you read any of the Harry Turtledove Alternate history books? I read one and thought it had far too many characters and was much too slow progressing, but that was a WWI one where the USA was separate from the CSA, the CSA was allied with the UK, the US was allied with Germany and France were sort of both. I think. I got lost. Anyway, it wasn't too good, but apparently the colonisation ones were good, if you like your alternate history with a dash of Sci-fi and giant space lizards addicted to ginger
That series is up to WWII now I don't now I enjoy his books because of teh number of characters.

"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.

Sort of I guess. The Americans and British didn't really invade Germany until Stalin had the Nazi's on the run. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, Hitler would have lost anyway.

As for the Pacific, the Allied countries' behaviour was pretty bad in that reigion for a long time. The US killed 200,000 philipinos following the US conquest of that country. Most of the European colonial powers had zones of influence in China where they behaved quite badly exploiting the Chinese and getting them hooked on opium and such, they really had no moral right to criticize the Japanese for their atrocious behaviour. They just didn't want to lose their precious colonies. Plus the whole fireboming tokyo and the a-boming Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pretty bad.

Sort of I guess. The Americans and British didn't really invade Germany until Stalin had the Nazi's on the run. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, Hitler would have lost anyway.

As for the Pacific, the Allied countries' behaviour was pretty bad in that reigion for a long time. The US killed 200,000 philipinos following the US conquest of that country. Most of the European colonial powers had zones of influence in China where they behaved quite badly exploiting the Chinese and getting them hooked on opium and such, they really had no moral right to criticize the Japanese for their atrocious behaviour. They just didn't want to lose their precious colonies. Plus the whole fireboming tokyo and the a-boming Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pretty bad.
Must resist urge to flame blatant falsehoods and distortions...must stay on topic...

Must resist urge to flame blatant falsehoods and distortions...must stay on topic...
Please point out a blatant falsehood.

theres also another book called "Lies my Teacher told/taught (not sure which) me" that does the same thing but I forgot the name of the author

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.
I'm reading that at the moment, although I've only just started.

Its shaping up to be very interesting.

"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.
I don't disagree, it would be bad, but its not technically indefensible, as people did defend it (and quite compellingly actually, the rabbi in chapter one makes a decent case based on pragmatism)

The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, Hitler would have lost anyway.
But you'd end up in a case where either Hitler managed to defend Germany, Italy and possibly France, or you'd have the whole of Europe under Soviet control.

Please point out a blatant falsehood.

So, we have the US staying out of World War Two then, do we? Well, in this situation...

The Soviets couldn't have been able to push across Europe, why? Here's why:

No lend-lease aid to the Soviets. This means $11 billion dollars worth of material that the USSR wouldn't have received. Further, the importance of Lend-Lease was stated outright by Marshal Zhukov, who said that without lend-lease, the USSR would have folded in 1943!
"The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military
Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV

No Bell Airacobras and Supercobras that were used to bust German tanks.

A vast portion of the fuel used by Russia would not have reached.

The Battle in North Africa was heavily distracting, it had one of the best German generals, Rommel tied up with western allied forces in what is often derided as a "insignifigant trifle."

The invasion of Sicily and Italy tied up several crack German divisions, such as the Hermann Goering armored division.

When the western allies invaded France once the initial problems in the Hedgerows were solved the Germans were in full retreat. Their forces were defeated or captured or were falling back all the way to the Rhine River.

The Battle of the Bulge was a last ditch effort to toss the western allies off of the continent. The forces used were Waffen SS divisions, some of the best in Germany, not the conscripts that were thrown against the Russians.

Do you know why the US was being tough on Japan before WWII? I can tell you, it's called the "Open Door Policy." Yeah, it was initially a reaction to the (notably bad) European attempts to carve China up. It stated that an independent and open China was in the best interests of the world, and the US was willing to back it up with force.

I am not going to excuse the US behavior in the Phillipines after the occupation following the Spanish-American War.

The bombing of Japan was the only way to destroy the Japanese war machine. If you think for a single minute that Japan would surrender nice and easy-like, you're crazy. If we had not have bombed their industry they would have kept fighting to the end.

And as for the Japanese surrender attempts, how about an explanation on those? You do realize that the Japanese were attempting to surrender to the US before the A-Bombs were dropped, but their message never got through to Truman? And do you know how they were sending the message? Through the USSR. And do you know what the USSR did with the surrender attempts? NOTHING. The USSR just sat there with the messages and let over a hundred thousand people die, just so they could get their forces in Manchuria and Korea.

Plus the fact that the Russians fought the war horribly!

The US and Great Britain fought the war smarter than the USSR.

The US and Great Britain equipped their troops sufficiently, as opposed to the USSR who sent unarmed troops to battle and told them to pick up the weapons of their dead comrades.

I mean, I really don't understand how you can believe that without the US the USSR would have won the second world war.

its "the plot against america" by phillip roth. its tells of the bright past we might have experienced if charles lindberg had been elected president in 1940 and had kept the us out of the second world war.
Soo, the world would be speaking German, Russian, or Mandarin and we'd be screwed. Real bright future there.

Sort of I guess. The Americans and British didn't really invade Germany until Stalin had the Nazi's on the run. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, Hitler would have lost anyway.

As for the Pacific, the Allied countries' behaviour was pretty bad in that reigion for a long time. The US killed 200,000 philipinos following the US conquest of that country. Most of the European colonial powers had zones of influence in China where they behaved quite badly exploiting the Chinese and getting them hooked on opium and such, they really had no moral right to criticize the Japanese for their atrocious behaviour. They just didn't want to lose their precious colonies. Plus the whole fireboming tokyo and the a-boming Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pretty bad.

Living in Australia I am eternally thankful that the USA joined in the war in the Pacific because I know Australia could not have defeated Japan on its own and Europe was occupied (in every sense). Right up until 1942 we were sending a majority of our troops to fight in Europe/Africa rather than participating in our own region. Do you think Japan would be the country it is today without USA money and rebuilding after WWII?

Plus the fact that the Russians fought the war horribly!

The US and Great Britain fought the war smarter than the USSR.

The US and Great Britain equipped their troops sufficiently, as opposed to the USSR who sent unarmed troops to battle and told them to pick up the weapons of their dead comrades.

I mean, I really don't understand how you can believe that without the US the USSR would have won the second world war.

Well the USSR made it to Berlin on their own. Personally I think Russian numbers and American money secured VE.

Most of the European colonial powers had zones of influence in China where they behaved quite badly exploiting the Chinese and getting them hooked on opium and such, they really had no moral right to criticize the Japanese for their atrocious behaviour. They just didn't want to lose their precious colonies. Plus the whole fireboming tokyo and the a-boming Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pretty bad.
The USA behaved far better than the Europeans in China. For example after the Boxer Rebellion, the Europeans looted Chinese treasures and forced the Chinese to pay a huge ransom. But the USA responded by helping China build its first two modern universities (which are still the top two colleges in CHina to this day).

You are looking at the history of the Pacific War from an outsider, Europe-centric perspective and you are ignorant of Asian WWII history as lived through by the Chinese, Koreans, and others victimized by Japanese imperialism. Because for the Chinese and Koreans, there definitely was a "good" side and a "bad" side in the war. The East Asians believe that the world must criticize Japan's conduct during WWII... Japanese atrocities in the Pacific War put all other war crimes to shame. All Japanese soldiers were taught that Koreans and Chinese were more worthless than vermin. The legacy of Japanese rape, genocide, chemical warfare, slavery, and their brutal, dehumanizing system of imperialism still lives on in many parts of Asia. THe Pacific War remains a touchy subject in Asia... in Europe the wounds of war have healed but in Asia there still exists a fierce resentment of Japanese people (who are often stereotyped in China and Korea as cruel and remorseless). The US is widely seen among Chinese and Koreans as saviors of Asia from Japanese tyranny. In fact, many Chinese and Koreans are still so moved by the unspeakable crimes committed by Japan that the nuking of Hiroshima/Nagasaki is widely seen in East Asia as necessary punishment for Japan's heinous actions during the Pacific War. Personally I think the nuke strikes were needless and cruel but my point is that the Pacific War remains a traumatic experience for Asia, and you shouldn't be so confident that you can pass moral judgment on this situation so easily. The experiences and history of the Pacific war is far too complex for you to oversimplify as you have done.

So, we have the US staying out of World War Two then, do we? Well, in this situation...


Wow that was propbably the best responses to one of my inflamatory posts ever. Having someone debate me who knows way more than me is fun.

First of all I was talking about what it would be like if the US never got involved, I didn't say anything about britian. North Africa WAS a diversion for Germany, but it was the british who were doing the fighting there for the most part not the Americans.

Well yes, the Russians did use some Bell AirCobras it wasn't like they didn't know how to kill german tanks on their own. The allies only gave the Russians aircobras because they didn't want them. The Russians also had their own airplanes like the yak fighters and the illuyshin bombers which weren't half bad, and they had competent pilots to fly them as well, including women pilots which was cool. Anyway it was way more of a tank war, and the soviets had the mighty t-34 which was very capable of killing panzers, and was produced in huge numbers.

I don't know a whole lot about the Japanese surrender attempts I never said Stalin wasn't a psychopath so I really can't comment on your claims the japanese wanted to surrender. It wouldn't suprise me though, the Japanese were pretty afraid of the Soviets after they beat the crap out of them in 1938. As for the bombings, the US you have to admit went a little overboard. Everybody knows the Nagasaki bombing was just an attempt to intimidate the USSR, and the Tokyo bombing was pretty horrible as well. The Robert McNamara documentary "fog of war" has some cool stuff about that bombing which turned all of Tokyo into a firestorm killing a shitload of people.

Well the USSR made it to Berlin on their own. Personally I think Russian numbers and American money secured VE.

What and the British/Canadians/Indians/Anzacs did nothing towards and allied victory?

What would have happened if Britain fell in 1940?

A good book on this subject is R,A,C Parker's The Strugle for survival.

The US is widely seen among Chinese and Koreans as saviors of Asia from Japanese tyranny
and we wonder why terrorists would bomb us...
what universe are you living in?
asians are skeptical towards westerners at best
while the us has treated east asia better than certain european powers, it has certainly not been a model to live up to
the army that crushed the boxer rebellion included us troops
and i dont recall the chinese immigrants being welcomed with open arms during the 18th-20th centuries
the us was very cold to communist china for twenty years, essentially ignoring them
even today the us provides massive military aid to taiwan, which pisses off many chinese people
i dont know as much about koreans for they are a little more obscure, but the ones i know seem pretty congenial to the us, but not as "saviors"

What and the British/Canadians/Indians/Anzacs did nothing towards and allied victory?

What would have happened if Britain fell in 1940?

A good book on this subject is R,A,C Parker's The Strugle for survival.


Of course we/they contributed, but as it was we were only holding them at bay, without the USA and USSR for victory to be possible it would have taken years longer, possibly even decades.

BTW, ANZAC should be capitalised because it is an acronym.

Wow that was propbably the best responses to one of my inflamatory posts ever. Having someone debate me who knows way more than me is fun.

First of all I was talking about what it would be like if the US never got involved, I didn't say anything about britian. North Africa WAS a diversion for Germany, but it was the british who were doing the fighting there for the most part not the Americans.

Well yes, the Russians did use some Bell AirCobras it wasn't like they didn't know how to kill german tanks on their own. The allies only gave the Russians aircobras because they didn't want them. The Russians also had their own airplanes like the yak fighters and the illuyshin bombers which weren't half bad, and they had competent pilots to fly them as well, including women pilots which was cool. Anyway it was way more of a tank war, and the soviets had the mighty t-34 which was very capable of killing panzers, and was produced in huge numbers.

I don't know a whole lot about the Japanese surrender attempts I never said Stalin wasn't a psychopath so I really can't comment on your claims the japanese wanted to surrender. It wouldn't suprise me though, the Japanese were pretty afraid of the Soviets after they beat the crap out of them in 1938. As for the bombings, the US you have to admit went a little overboard. Everybody knows the Nagasaki bombing was just an attempt to intimidate the USSR, and the Tokyo bombing was pretty horrible as well. The Robert McNamara documentary "fog of war" has some cool stuff about that bombing which turned all of Tokyo into a firestorm killing a shitload of people.

I agree that the Soviets were capable and had some first rate equipment, but I truly do not believe that without the US the war could have been won.

I admit that the Airacobra wasn't the only tank buster the Russians used, but it was the most common, if I remember correctly the Russians deployed some 10-15,000 of the planes, all made in the US. And although the IL-2 was an excellent plane, it wasn't produced in the quantities of the Cobras.

The T-34 was a remakable tank, but as a counter to it the Germans had the Tiger. Which in my opinion results in a stalemate, espescially if the Germans don't deploy their Tigers to the western front. (Part of Hitler's problem was the he couldn't believe that the Russians could produce weapons on the same scale as the western nations, so he sent his newest weapons westward, and the older stuff to the east. When in reality the more agile older tanks would have done better in the west and the more powerful Tigers would have been best in the east.)

Basically what I'm saying is that even though the soviets had some superb equipment, they couldn't have won the war without the US, and espescially without the western powers combo.

Some more random thoughts.

Well the USSR made it to Berlin on their own. Personally I think Russian numbers and American money secured VE.
Actually, the US could have driven on Berlin AND taken Czechoslovakia AND all of Austria if we'd have decided to go against our various treaties. If you read up on the subject, the US reached it's maximum line of advance (the Oder river I believe) and stopped some time before the USSR took Berlin, and the western approach was less heavily defended than the eastern approach at the time. So, yeah.

BTW, ANZAC should be capitalised because it is an acronym.

It is 2 in the morning here! I do apoligise if my spelling and English becomes slack at this time of the morning.

The alternate history stories can make interesting reading.

Let's not forget what got the US involved in the war though. And that, quite simply, was Pearl Harbour.

Would Charles Lindberg been prepared to allow Japan a free hand in China, thereby giving the Japanese no reason to attack?

Or would such an attack been ignored?

Would the USSR been able to defeat Nazi Germany by itself? It very nearly did so.lindberg negotiated a treaty with hitler and japan allowing the us to retain its far eastern possession and hitler promising not to launch a gound invasion of england in return for a free hand with the soviet union and china and no us aid for any combatants. i actually haven't finished the book so i don't know how it comes out.

The US didnt enter WWII to help europe, they entered when they were attacked by the axis powers in Pearl Harbor

but the us was already giving serious aid to the allies and had the flying tigers in china before this happened, there was no doubt in anyones mind which side the us was on, only if it would actually officially join in the fighting on the allied side.

Let's not forget what got the US involved in the war though. And that, quite simply, was Pearl Harbour.

This is getting pretty high on my list of 'frequently aired falsehoods or msirepresentations on NS' (along with 'everybody prior to Columbus believed the Earth was flat').

It is true to say that Pearl Harbour is what got the US officially involved in WWII, but it was very clearly working on the Allied side prior to that: not only was the lend lease act already in operation, but the US navy were escorting Atlantic convoys to Great Britain and the USSR in the western half of the Ocean. The US may not have been at war prior to the incidents of Pearl Harbour and the declarations from Germany and Japan, but it was definitely heavily involved before that point. My only surprise it that the sinking of the Ruben James didn't force the Americans' hands into an even earlier official entry.

hail bwo! for articulating my point with much greater clarity. the us could have avoided ww2(certainly the european part) if it had really wanted too. a pro german us president certainly could have come to terms with hitler who had no real interest in a war with the united states. japan's only real sticking point would probably have been the phillipines, but a firm commitment to recognize their claims over the rest of east asia probably would have appeased them.

There's a difference between fighting in Europe's 'squabbles' and helping defeat a fascist, racist, anti-semitic bunch of nutcase wierdo lunatics.

Too bad that wasn't the reason we fought.

hail bwo! for articulating my point with much greater clarity.

Ta. I left out the 'e' in Reuben James though.

the us could have avoided ww2(certainly the european part) if it had really wanted too.


If it had done so then it would have missed out on the massive boost to its ecconomy that it underwent as a result of participating in the war, it would also probably not have made the leap into being a superpower. The participation not only in the European theatre but also the Pacific left it with a wide array of pro-American nations and governments and basically its pick of military base locations. As to why this didn't also happen to the same extent in North Africa is an interesting question.

a pro german us president certainly could have come to terms with hitler who had no real interest in a war with the united states.

Agreed, but it was shown prior to Pearl Harbour that such a man was not in the white house. If that old fascist Lyndberg had come to power then it could have been a possibility, but I think the death camps may have eventually dragged the US into the war, or at least lead to great unrest in certain quarters of the nation.

japan's only real sticking point would probably have been the phillipines, but a firm commitment to recognize their claims over the rest of east asia probably would have appeased them.

I don't think Japan would have been happy seeing the US remain as a dominant sea power in the Pacific, I believe that the conflict between the two had would have been pretty much inevitable.

Soo, the world would be speaking German, Russian, or Mandarin and we'd be screwed.


You say that as if there is something inherently bad in speaking German, Russian or Mandarin.

americans still get all irate and slightly hurt when they talk about pearl harbor, but in an alternative history that is a real bitch to logically not have happened. the average american in the 30s never saw the pacific war coming but in hindsight it was virtually inevitable(something the japanese always knew).

bwo may be right, short of a unilateral withdrawl from at least the phillipines and possibly guam and hawaii i'm not sure the war could really be avoided. perhaps if japan's claims to australia and india were ceded and a treaty of alliance was formed, but that seems far fetched on both sides.

This is getting pretty high on my list of 'frequently aired falsehoods or msirepresentations on NS' (along with 'everybody prior to Columbus believed the Earth was flat').

It is true to say that Pearl Harbour is what got the US officially involved in WWII, but it was very clearly working on the Allied side prior to that: not only was the lend lease act already in operation, but the US navy were escorting Atlantic convoys to Great Britain and the USSR in the western half of the Ocean. The US may not have been at war prior to the incidents of Pearl Harbour and the declarations from Germany and Japan, but it was definitely heavily involved before that point. My only surprise it that the sinking of the Ruben James didn't force the Americans' hands into an even earlier official entry.

What you have said is, of course, quite accurate.

The official "neutrality" of the US was heavily in favour of the British, and lend-lease was proving a godsend to Britain at the time.

Whether an isolationist US would have eventually been dragged into a belligerent role though is questionable.

The Rueben James or other incidents may have eventually led to outright hostilities.

I think that it is important to note that the US, even after Pearl, did not declare war on Nazi Germany. Hitler, instead, (foolishly with hindsight) declared war on the US.

bwo may be right, short of a unilateral withdrawl from at least the phillipines and possibly guam and hawaii i'm not sure the war could really be avoided. perhaps if japan's claims to australia and india were ceded and a treaty of alliance was formed, but that seems far fetched on both sides.

Unless, of course, the Japanese and the US found a way to set up a mutually beneficial trading system between the pair of them and got down together to the serious business of raping the Pacific like the earlier Colonials had done...

Soo, the world would be speaking German, Russian, or Mandarin and we'd be screwed. Real bright future there.

why russian and mandarin, either the axis wins and we speak german and japanese or the soviet union wins and become the lone superpower and we speak russian and maybe mandarin, i don't follow the scenario where all three become dominant.

Unless, of course, the Japanese and the US found a way to set up a mutually beneficial trading system between the pair of them and got down together to the serious business of raping the Pacific like the earlier Colonials had done...
i'm not sure they could have as equals, with japan as a junior partner until the late 70s early 80s sure but...

What you have said is, of course, quite accurate.

The official "neutrality" of the US was heavily in favour of the British, and lend-lease was proving a godsend to Britain at the time.

Yeah, sorry for picking on you when it appears that you were just using shorthand, rather than not being familiar with the actual interesting details.

Yeah, sorry for picking on you when it appears that you were just using shorthand, rather than not being familiar with the actual interesting details.

Not a problem.

Good to encounter someone with an in-depth knowledge.

Cheers.

You say that as if there is something inherently bad in speaking German, Russian or Mandarin.
well if you are gonna speak german to someone who only understands russian (or other combo) that could be inherently bad(unless your objective is not to be understood in which case its a kickass plan with no flaws)

Unless I've been misled, I believe that Lindbergh is essentially a Hitler puppet in the novel. I haven't read it, but I think you should take that into account....

you haven't been mislead.... I read it last week. Lindbergh historically was either dangerously naive or worse believed what the Nazis were selling (at least in part).

The book shows that aspect well....although its more complex than that.

The US would have had to get involved in Europe eventually, even without Pearl Harbor. Setting aside the nasty racism that was the Nazi creed, the simple fact was that the vital strategic interest of the United States is to ensure no power so dominates Europe as to pose a danger to North America (in other words, gets big enough to build a bigger navy than we can)

Nazi Germany was approaching that point very rapidly if the UK or Soviet Union fell. Without the US, both probably would have.

Have you read any of the Harry Turtledove Alternate history books? I read one and thought it had far too many characters and was much too slow progressing, but that was a WWI one where the USA was separate from the CSA, the CSA was allied with the UK, the US was allied with Germany and France were sort of both. I think. I got lost. Anyway, it wasn't too good, but apparently the colonisation ones were good, if you like your alternate history with a dash of Sci-fi and giant space lizards addicted to ginger


Also if you like a fantasy version of the civil war see the War Between The Provinces series By Harry Turtledove

"Staying out of WWII" was a morally indefensible option.

Here, here.

Lindbergh was an anti-semetic dickhead anyway.

Here, here.

Lindbergh was an anti-semetic dickhead anyway.

he had a jew as his secretary of assimilation(or whatever, i can remember the exact title)

he had a jew as his secretary of assimilation(or whatever, i can remember the exact title)
Lindbergh was borg?

Lindbergh was borg?
they were patterned after him, or the EU or both... i'm not quite sure.

they were patterned after him, or the EU or both... i'm not quite sure.
Was that sarcasm?
I hope?

But you'd end up in a case where either Hitler managed to defend Germany, Italy and possibly France, or you'd have the whole of Europe under Soviet control.
Not necessarily. As empires expand they become more and more difficult to control. I would be willing to be that if the Soviet Union had gained control of the bulk of mainland wester Europe, it only wouldn't have lasted 10 years.

Lindbergh was borg?
they were patterned after him, or the EU or both... i'm not quite sure.

And here was me thinking they were a rip-off of the cybermen. Silly me.

And here was me thinking they were a rip-off of the cybermen. Silly me.

or dr. who's darleks, or fred saberhagen's bezerkers or even jack williamson's humaniods... but no it was lindy and the eu.

or dr. who's darleks, or fred saberhagen's bezerkers or even jack williamson's humaniods... but no it was lindy and the eu.

Nah: the Daleks were based on the Nazis and had no interest in assimilation, just extermination. The Bezerkers had no care for assimilation either - just destruction. The Humanoids I will have to pass on as I haven't read that much Williamson.

What age is Williamson these days - 96 and still writing?

Nah: the Daleks were based on the Nazis and had no interest in assimilation, just extermination. The Bezerkers had no care for assimilation either - just destruction. The Humanoids I will have to pass on as I haven't read that much Williamson.

What age is Williamson these days - 96 and still writing?
the humaniods were interested in protecting people from all harm, whether they wanted it or not. ultimately ending up with people suspended in womb like vats their entire lives much like the matrix except the humaniods gained no benefit from it aside from fufilling their prime directive with ultimate effectiveness.