Incorrect. You have put forward the proposition that there is something inherent in Naziism that caused German technology to be more ‘clever’, in some as yet undefined manner, than non-Nazi technologies. Several posters have pointed out defects in your arguments, and I note that you have yet to address any of them directly, preferring instead to hijack your own thread into a discussion of the semantics of genocide, then pretending that someone else had brought up that subject. Refuting your poorly-presented arguments does not become “emotionalism” simply because you say it is.
You of course refer to the V1, not V2. What was the relative effectiveness of the V1, in your opinion; what was its benefit to the German people and how long, would you say, did it stave off Germany’s defeat?
Frankly, if we are simply considering technological inventiveness absent of any other consideration, then I agree; German aviation of the period is an excellent place to start. The V1, the V2, the Me 262 (its axial-flow turbojets became the dominant configuration over Whittle’s centrifugal-flow design) Messerschmidt’s swept-wing fighter designs that clearly inspired US and Soviet developments of the 1950s, Horten’s flying wings, the first practical helicopters, the undoubted cleverness of designs such as the He 162, which maximised performance despite an almost complete lack of strategic materials with which to build it; all quite clever, no doubt.
But how clever was it to use the Me 262 as a light bomber rather than in its natural role as a high-performance fighter? How clever was it, in a time of shortages of strategic materials, to commit to building thousands of turbojet engines with operating lifespans of less than 25 hours each? How clever was it to allow the simultaneous development of all these different, competing weapon designs, when what was needed were enormous numbers of standardized weapons if the Nazi regime were to have any hope of averting its downfall? Spreading out its limited assets in this way, and having no idea for the future, other than endless conquest, to prop up its economy, simply doesn’t seem all that clever to me.
Lastly, you persist in attempting to sweep aside the genocidal tendencies of the Nazis as if they are irrelevant to your premise, but the items you originally listed, as well as the ones I’ve just mentioned, were in fact developed to facilitate those genocidal tendencies and so they must be considered. Were the purposes these things were put to good or useful purposes, in your view? Yes or no?
Sorry, but in my opinion, you have put forward a rather poorly formulated premise and so far have not supported it very well.