Holocaust Denial

[LastPoet]

let's not beat around the bush.  You are a neo-Nazi looking for mainstream acceptance.

I smell that too. stinky.

[Rev. Rye]

It's a very strange thing. CD acknowledges that the Holocaust happened, and that it's a bad thing (he's actually made this clear multiple times throughot this thread), and yet he's somehow so ill-informed that, while stopping short of denial, he still repeats many of the same red herrings denialists latch onto completely uncritically. You see why I still occasionally try to talk with him like he should have some degree of common sense.

[Anomalocaris]

It's a very strange thing. CD acknowledges that the Holocaust happened, and that it's a bad thing (he's actually made this clear multiple times throughot this thread), and yet he's somehow so ill-informed that, while stopping short of denial, he still repeats many of the same red herrings denialists latch onto completely uncritically. You see why I still occasionally try to talk with  him like he should have some degree of common sense.

Not surprising or strange at all.  Real Neo-Nazis are glad and proud of the holocaust.  They will only deny it or half heartedly admit it might be seen as wrong, when embracing that size of that crime makes it difficult to justify themselves to real people.

His main thrusts are:

1. Nazis are not that bad, liberals ought to sympathize.

2. Attacking commies makes the nazis heroic.

3. Let's say for the sake of argument holocaust happened and is technically wrong,  doesn't the sympathy hogging of the Jews afterwards mean they deserved it in the first place?

[Rev. Rye]

That actually seems to be exaggerating what he said. To be fair, it's not hard to see the subtext of what you said, but the actual text of his posts at least acknowledges the Nazis are bad guys, even if he still hates the Jews and Communists. And I don't think he's ever tried to minimse the number who died (except maybe to blame the Allied bombing campaigns for some.) Perhaps he's having some trouble acknowledging that both sides in a given geopolitical conflict can be horrible (see Israel-Palestine and the Algerian War of Independence), and knowing how fixated Catholicism is on moral absolutism, it seems a distinct possibility.

[Thumpalumpacus]

His posts have more than a touch of concern troll about them in this thread, and strike me as a weaselly attempt to make those points without having to defend them.

[Pat Mustard]

Well, if Call of Duty 2 has taught me anything, it's because of the PPSh-41 that Russia kicked butt

The T-34 tank helped too, and quarter million American lend lease cross country trucks, these let the Soviet armies advance in the face of German rear guard defenses literally faster than the main body of the German army can run away, thus exposing 2 myths:

Myth 1. The panzer were good,   in some ways, very.  But not overall.  Panzers won battles.  Russian tanks beat the stuffing out of them in terms of winning the war

Myth 2.  The german army was fast and mechanized,  only the panzer arm, and they became less fast and less mobile as the war went on.  The rest of the german army, that is 80% of the german army, relied on horses and feet, and can't march faster than napoleon or Caesar.

---

Is there some reason that the Holocaust is commemorated so darn much in this country, but Stalin's purges, Holodomor, and Gulag archipelago get a pass?

Is it because of all the liberal, atheist jews who dominate our media and public schools?

let's not beat around the bush.  You are a neo-Nazi looking for mainstream acceptance.

Three problems with Panzers:
They were overengineered and complicated to make and repair so numbers were always going to be low.
Hitler had an obsession with superweapons no less so than with other weapons. So no sooner than was Model A in shape to be produced in numbers the Germans were diverting mechanics and materials to Model B. The best example of this was the Tiger.
And because of those two, three reared its ugly head, when Panzers broke down they were out (especially after the Wehrmacht were forced into retreating). The difficulty with repairs and lack of materiel or replacements meant Panzer units lost effectiveness quickly.

Thanks with a potential to be great lost out to tanks that were good enough for what they needed to do. The T-34s were not spectacular in any area, but they were solid, dependable, had decent firepower and most importsntly easily built & repaired.

[Anomalocaris]

Beg to disagree, the T-34 was the single most spectacular tank design of WWII era, and second most spectacular tank design in the entire history of tank warfare, after French Renault FT that crystallized the modern tank from the British tracked armored box with guns.

It was wildly spectacular in all three area that define basic tank design - fire power, mobility, and protection - when it was first introduced in 1940.  It achieved this right off the bat in a package that is economic to produce. It retained its comprehensive superiority for 3 years until 43, when Germans introduced the much hyped panther.  The panther initial far surpassed the t34 in firepower, but only marginally in protection, and never really matched the t-34 in mobility even on paper.  But t-34, despite by then being a 4 year old design, was still able to be rapidly upgraded to restore near firepower parity with the panther.  The war ended with t-34 being a five year old design that still has near parity in fire power and protection, and a considerable superiority in tactical mobility and a huge superiority in strategic mobility compared to the latest versions of the 2 year old German panther were specifically designed to best it.  Furthermore despite German efforts to simplify the panther, the t-34 remained far more economic to produce.

Sorry, as a example of tank designer's art and weapon to win wars, it beats the best German effort hands down.

[Amarok]

The T34 is my favorite tank of all time

[Cyberman]

[Thumpalumpacus]

But it did have for the most part ease of construction and robust field performance. The wide tracks meant fewer were abandoned during raspusitsa, the sloped armor allowed for lighter weight on those track and the rest of the chassis.

The 500-hp aluminum-block engine was the single best armored powerplant of its era. It burned diesel, reducing flammability, and that aluminum block meant a weight-to-HP unbeat for a long time to come -- especially when you consider that it wasn't lugged into a monster. Thought the 88 could penetrate the T-34's frontal armor at 100 meters or more, the fact is that speed is sometimes armor -- especially on the offensive, as they were after 1943.

It did, though, have weaknesses. But I'm willing to bet we all understand the armored tripod of firepower, armor, and mobility, and without a doubt the T-34 maximized the balance of those factors, while at the same time being much simpler to build than a Panther, more reliable than a Tiger or a Panther, and easily able to defeat a PzKpfw IV.

I guess I'm saying that you two both have fair points.