Myths of American Armor (food for thought)

You know how to argue, i give you that, but youre argument about my proof doesnt hold up. If you had spent five minutes actually googling the "Jäger Rapport" you would have found that i wasnt talking about a wikipedia page. I talk about the Report itself. A report which, as i guess you think, wasnt made by Allies, but was one of the only remaining evidences of the SS killing partisans and jews. It is a Report written by Karl Jäger and is a systematic collection on data about how many and where the people were killed. In his afterthoughts it shows him proud for doing this work, and often, which was my point with it, they masqueraded murders by saying they were partisans.
I am sorry if i didnt get my point out.
And no, i do not know alot of the structure of the Military, my studies focused on Holocaust and Medizin/Racial Hygiene. For the last part i di learn a lot about the SS though, not as an organisational structure, but the people that were allowed in it.
My point being, even though you can say they fought partisans, the Nazis were excellent in masquerading they´re horrible war crimes by calling it that. The Wehrmacht did it too, but the SS was specialised in it.
And sorry, the Allies do hold the Morale High Ground. They did not kill 6 Million jews in Concentration Camps.

The problem with sherman was not that its armour was too thin, so it couldn't bounce (it is not true as stated in video) but that it 'had' to bounce because its high silhouette made it so easy to spot and hit. Every other country tried to make their tanks as small and low as possible to prevent it but shermans basic engine design made it impossible. Look on p4 or crommwell, not to mention vehicles without the turret like su-85, jp4, hetzer, or any version of semovente. On contrary to those vehicles shermans frontal silhouette is almost as big as the one of IS-2! So despite americans worked really hard and actually managed to make it usefull to some extend it was a bad project from very beginning and if they put as much resources in the improvement of another one they could make really brilliant tank.

If you had spent five minutes actually googling the "Jäger Rapport"

This should be moved to a thread of its own, but as you've kicked this ball into the court, other people need to be aware of how you've been wilingly deceived before it is.

Google the "Jaeger Report" document. Actually sighted a full hard copy of the alleged original have you? As for that drivel presented in English on the JVL site, the report would not have been written in the English. Daniel Keren's 'fingerprint' is so many Googled prioritised hit results. Look at the quoted sources. You can't truly be serious can you?

Now a few inconvenient truths. This is what real research will reveal.

Your alleged evidence the Jaeger Report is held in the closed archives in Federal Germany which has laws banning investigation or acceptance of other than their fairytale version of events. They imprison for long terms anyone questioning their version of truth events. So does Austria. Starting to smell a rat?

The so called Jaeger Report has been there since 1963, four years after it was suddenly "discovered" by the Soviets in their archives at the height of the Cold War in 1959. Karl Jaeger 'committed suicide' on 22 June 1959. Do the arithmetic. How convenient. The "Jaeger Report" is tainted with all the tells of yet another Soviet forgery for which the regime was reknown.

No mass graves have been shown to support the 'Jaeger Report'.

It's just another forgery, a lie perpetuated as truth for the gullible to gobble up, lacking any actual substantive evidentiary support. It'd be thrown out of any court, except perhaps a German, Austrian or Israeli one. If you consider that evidence, you probably also still believe concentration camp inmates were rendered into soap too.

Ultimately, ask yourself cui bono?

I talk about the Report itself.

So am I. Have you actually sighted it yourself? No. I haven't either, which in any case would be moot as Jaeger is dead and made no admissions prior to his timely or coincidental alleged suicide TMK?

was one of the only remaining evidences of the SS killing partisans and jews.

Now there's a clue Sherlock. Given the meticulous record keepers the Germans were that doesn't quite fit right does it?

No, it's not "evidence". What it actually is is typed document whose provenance is highly questionable alleged to have been attributable to Jaeger.

It is a Report written by Karl Jäger

So you keep saying. Have you asked him if he wrote it? Has anyone?

Actually, Jaeger said nothing. He was dead. The proponents alleging it a true record attributing him authorship have a gaping plot hole in their story. As I said, cui bono.

and often, which was my point with it, they masqueraded murders by saying they were partisans.

And your evidence affording this statement actual credibility in other than your own preferred belief system is?

The German soldier generally was much more disciplined than the soldiers of any other nation. Evidence abound for this. Gehorsham. It's inculcated. If you do some original research, it will quickly be revealed who committed the more indescribable atrocities. Don't kid yourself it was only the other side. I personally knew many soldiers and airmen from that period who told me things they did or experienced first hand.

Allied moral high ground? Let me see now.

Night area terror bombing of the children and women of the Reich and Japan, Atomic bomb cities annihilated X2 to show the Soviets US power, US massacre of surrendered guards at numerous KZ camps, killing of Japanese and surrendered German prisoners out of hand -a song and dance was made of of Malmedy and Peiper copped the rap, but never tried US Commanders who did the same and worse, US deliberate mass starvation and mistreatment of German POWs, the Morganthau plan, murder and rape of the Reich by the Soviets, and plunder by the Western powers with qite a bit of raping themselves - yes our Allies in a deal withthe devil, but how about Stalin's 'activities' excluding those of the war, 15 million dead, but who really knows?

They did not kill 6 Million jews in Concentration Camps.

Neither did the Germans. Even the most fanatical believer has to and do admit that endlessly propogated figure is a figment of imagination constantly revised down as each fallacy is revealed. Nice and neat easy to remember figure for peperpetuation of the lie to simpletons though.

Anyway, we're done here. Let talk armour. Ordinary Americans died in rubbish Shermans when they shouldn't have. The casualty rates were dreadful. I would never detract from the bravery of any tanker on any side.

Neither did the Germans. Even the most fanatical believer has to and do admit that endlessly propogated figure is a figment of imagination constantly revised down as each fallacy is revealed. Nice and neat easy to remember figure for peperpetuation of the lie to simpletons though.

Anyway, we're done here. Let talk armour. Ordinary Americans died in rubbish Shermans when they shouldn't have. The casualty rates were dreadful. I would never detract from the bravery of any tanker on any side.

Talk about Nazis fanboy... you seem to be the real deal.

You conveniently stopped just before you reached outright Holocaust denial phase.

"...endlessly propogated figure is a figment of imagination constantly revised down..." To what? The lowest figure I have ever seen is 4.5 million. True, not all were in death camps. But the enormity of the horror is even greater when you take into account all the experimentation with, and the evolution of, extermination apparati and programs. They really REALLY wanted to finish the job. And all of it is well documented by both victim and perpetrator alike.

I think this dicussion should be ended here, not because i find you stupid or anything, you are great at discussion and argumentation, but it will lead into nowhere. My proof for my arguments is your proof against it. Since you think it is a forgery, and i think it isnt, this dicussion will be about exactly this, and no one has certain proof that the other doesnt have, this is belief against belief!
But great argumentation, if it wasnt such a sensibel topic, this could have been a lot of fun

Double post

Graf Winterfeld, glad you've calmed down. Lets keep it like that.

Werwolf (ähem), I fully understand the difference between Allgemeine SS, Waffen-SS, SiPo, SD, what have you, I've actually been at Ludwigsburg, Freiburg too, and while we can argue all day about ie. the numbers of Jewish Holocaust victims ("only" 5,2 millions might come closest to a scholarly consensus these days) I can tell you for a fact that the Einsatzgruppen were not a figment of anyones imagination, and neither was their work, if you want to call it that. The documentation of the Ulmer Einsatzgruppenprozeß is open source, I suggest you take a look, starting here...:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/german-trials/einsatz-ulm.shtml

Werwolf (ähem), I fully understand the difference between Allgemeine SS, Waffen-SS, SiPo, SD, what have you, I've actually been at Ludwigsburg, Freiburg too, and while we can argue all day about ie. the numbers of Jewish Holocaust victims ("only" 5,2 millions might come closest to a scholarly consensus these days) I can tell you for a fact that the Einsatzgruppen were not a figment of anyones imagination, and neither was their work, if you want to call it that. The documentation of the Ulmer Einsatzgruppenprozeß is open source, I suggest you take a look, starting here...:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/german-trials/einsatz-ulm.shtml

LeYawn - Not sure if you are interested in how these things propagate, but this I found this an interesting (long) thread on how denier operate, how they use legitimate sources out of context (like Werewolf used the historical discussions of how the number was never 6 million, but stopped after the implication that the holocaust was just some hysterical exaggeration) and how such "big lies" actually take a lot of effort to counter.

If you have any questions about the thread, I know participants personally.

http://www.nizkor.com/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.cgi?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.0296

LeYawn - Not sure if you are interested in how these things propagate, but this I found this an interesting (long) thread on how denier operate, how they use legitimate sources out of context (like Werewolf used the historical discussions of how the number was never 6 million, but stopped after the implication that the holocaust was just some hysterical exaggeration) and how such "big lies" actually take a lot of effort to counter.

If you have any questions about the thread, I know participants personally.

http://www.nizkor.com/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.cgi?people//k/koch.manfred/1996/koch.0296

Avny, I've had conversations with a few people of that persuasion before (really just a handful). When you tell them you're a historian this usually brings out a veritable deluge of talking points to challenge the supposed mainstream narrative on the matter (and you as their agent or representative of sorts), and then you better bring alot of time, if you actually feel like engaging in that sort of exchange.
Now in my experience, for some its an idée fixe really and as such borders on the psychopathological, and there is very little one can actually do discoursively, as they will just fundamentally distrust the alleged comprehensive propaganda apparatus/scholarship on the matter. Mind you, there is not even primarily necessarily a conscious effort or anything of the sort at play, ie. an underlying desire to marginalise the extent of the Shoah or cast the Nazis in a more favourable light (even though it usually is), at least in one case it was definetly a honestly held conviction that the historical profession at large including yours truly is being duped by a gigantic falsification set in motion to smear the reputation of the German people and thereby keep them in subservience in perpetuity.
The "common sense" approach, occams razor etc., ie. my pointing out that there were dozens of archival meters documenting the KL/VL infrastructure, deportations and murders etc, that I had actually seen them and worked with them, and that it appears implausible for all of them to be falsified simply falls on deaf ears, as this has become an article of faith. Even the really obvious empirical indicators, such as a large part of the Jewish demographics being, well, gone after the war, is quite simply dismissed.

With actual antisemites of the more rabid kind/Nazis, Holocaust denial of course appears fairly amusing if not schizophrenic. After all, why would an individual of that persuasion not embrace such a course of action? An optimist might think that at least at a subconscious level, the enormity of the matter is somehow understood regardless.

Anyways, the point of my suada, you cannot, and will not convince some people as they lack the state of mind to engage in rational discourse in the first place, and this cannot and should not be the task of historiography anyways. I sure as hell would not even try unless I liked the individual in question.

Thank you for remaining civil Winterfeld. That does you credit.

A couple of things salient.

1. The onus of proof is always upon the claimant to prove and substantiate their claim. In criminal law, which isn't either just or truth but fallible, the degree of proof required is usually defined as beyond reasonable doubt. Logic imposes a far harsher requirement for a finding of = true, if not = false.

The endlessly perpetuated mythology fails both of these prerequisites when put to the acid test, which is why repressive laws have been enacted to protect the liars. Truth has nothing to fear from scrutiny or in allowing the opposing argument to be heard.

2. Note well how the barking seal's arguments are invariably ad hominem. Seen the same circus act so many times before when the Ringmeister focuses upon attacking the individual whilst ignoring the actual argument or supporting their own with credible facts or impartial original verifiable reference sources. Then the annointed clown chorus chimes in on queue as if an incidental bystander.

The moment anyone starts quoting Nikzor, JVL and other obvious biased sites which have a clear conflict of interest in any truth being revealed which doesn't benefit their agenda, they shoot their own credibility to pieces with any person capable of rational independent thought.

Just think for youself, clearly, and don't allow youself to be coerced either by peer pressure nor persuaded by a need to fit with 'approved history'. Ultimately, the only thing we can possess are our thoughts, and those too are impermanent.

Cheers!

The problem with sherman was not that its armour was too thin, so it couldn't bounce (it is not true as stated in video) but that it 'had' to bounce because its high silhouette made it so easy to spot and hit. Every other country tried to make their tanks as small and low as possible to prevent it but shermans basic engine design made it impossible. Look on p4 or crommwell, not to mention vehicles without the turret like su-85, jp4, hetzer, or any version of semovente. On contrary to those vehicles shermans frontal silhouette is almost as big as the one of IS-2! So despite americans worked really hard and actually managed to make it usefull to some extend it was a bad project from very beginning and if they put as much resources in the improvement of another one they could make really brilliant tank.

A Sherman is 10cm taller than a Panzer IV.

My grandparents' town situated topgraphically at a point of defensive tactical significance was bravely defended by what remained of 5th SS in March of 1945, and I can tell you who the definitive barbarians were, and who committed and what gross atrocities first hand. It was not 5th SS.

The problem with the Germans staged a massacre that is very simple: the Wehrmacht and the SS would be wonderful, kind and generous people. The problem was the fact that all these good qualities were not extended to Untermenschs. Germans and they ally did not see in Jews and Soviet citizens humans.
Rather, something like humanoid animals. Which can and should rob, rape and kill. From all of these mattresses with human hair, lampshade from human lskin and other achievements of German industry.

Losses civilians most obvious indicator who is butcher and monster. The number of soldiers who died in prison are also good.

The problem with the Germans staged a massacre that is very simple: the Wehrmacht and the SS would be wonderful, kind and generous people. The problem was the fact that all these good qualities were not extended to Untermenschs. Germans and they ally did not see in Jews and Soviet citizens humans.
Rather, something like humanoid animals. Which can and should rob, rape and kill. From all of these mattresses with human hair, lampshade from human lskin and other achievements of German industry.

Losses civilians most obvious indicator who is butcher and monster. The number of soldiers who died in prison are also good.

Not every Wehrmacht or SS soldier was the definition of pure evil. If people still can't see that nowadays,I don't know what to tell them

Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)

I did. An entertaining speaker. You got the subject header right, "food for thought". It's certainly invited me to revisit the topic.

But that said, whilst I take on board facts that to the average GI, quite understandably every German tank was a 'Tiger' just as to every English civilian and average schoolboy, every British fighter was a 'Spitfire' and anything seen going down or crashing had to be a Messerschmitt or Heinkel. e.g. There are two hackneyed pieces of Brit original footage -included in the World at War series DVDs, where the narrator's enthusiastic voiceover is celebrating the downing of German aircraft where in fact they are respectively a Spitfire (into the sea) and a Hurricane (plummeting vertically into the ground) subsequently exploding in a gigantic fireball.

There are just too many anecdotal accounts of tank vs tank engagements from personnel in the field which suggest the historical revision through researching statistics doesn't quite reveal the whole story here. However, the official casualty statistics the speaker presents, if they are to be believed accurate, do warrant closer inspection of the 'death trap' and ineffiacy of the Sherman's gun hearsay.

Different story at engagement ranges in the East vs bocage however, where the advantage of the Panther's LL and Tiger's 88 could be used of advantage, especially in defence as is evidenced both by anecdotal and statistical evidence. Lots there to review.

Thanks for posting the link.

A Sherman is 10cm taller than a Panzer IV.

Different sources give nubers from 274cm to 3m, so it varies from 10 to 30 cm giving about 10% more height. Also p4 is shaped prism-like while sherman is shaped more cube-like and thus much easier to spot and hit. Mind that for example t-34 was onlt 245cm heigh while stug less than 2 meters in smallest versions.

Different sources give nubers from 274cm to 3m, so it varies from 10 to 30 cm giving about 10% more height. Also p4 is shaped prism-like while sherman is shaped more cube-like and thus much easier to spot and hit. Mind that for example t-34 was onlt 245cm heigh while stug less than 2 meters in smallest versions.

I recall that one of the differences is aspect ratio. The Sherman is narrower, particularly in relation to its height, than the German tanks. So it LOOKS higher than it is.

There are just too many anecdotal accounts of tank vs tank engagements from personnel in the field which suggest the historical revision through researching statistics doesn't quite reveal the whole story here. However, the official casualty statistics the speaker presents, if they are to be believed accurate, do warrant closer inspection of the 'death trap' and ineffiacy of the Sherman's gun hearsay.

Different story at engagement ranges in the East vs bocage however, where the advantage of the Panther's LL and Tiger's 88 could be used of advantage, especially in defence as is evidenced both by anecdotal and statistical evidence. Lots there to review.

Thanks for posting the link.

The problem of anecdotal evidence is the very reason that the statistical studies were done by the various militaries during and after the war. That the Shermans were "deficient" was already a story reported on by the New York papers in Dec. 1944 (or thereabouts).

Also remember that every serviceman has a bias when it comes to equipment. To a GI he Germans tanks are obviously good mechanically, but then he only saw the ones he was fighting, and and he is fighting them because they were operational. A GI is not auditing the operational percentages of a Panzer divisions motorpool. Likewise, they remember each shell that they see bounce off its target much much better than the one that actually penetrated (as they believed it should). That isn't unlike our own experiences with RNG when playing COH. We remember the detrimental RNG far better than the helpful RNG. That is just human nature.

Avny, I've had conversations with a few people of that persuasion before (really just a handful). When you tell them you're a historian this usually brings out a veritable deluge of talking points to challenge the supposed mainstream narrative on the matter (and you as their agent or representative of sorts), and then you better bring alot of time, if you actually feel like engaging in that sort of exchange.
Now in my experience, for some its an idée fixe really and as such borders on the psychopathological, and there is very little one can actually do discoursively, as they will just fundamentally distrust the alleged comprehensive propaganda apparatus/scholarship on the matter. Mind you, there is not even primarily necessarily a conscious effort or anything of the sort at play, ie. an underlying desire to marginalise the extent of the Shoah or cast the Nazis in a more favourable light (even though it usually is), at least in one case it was definetly a honestly held conviction that the historical profession at large including yours truly is being duped by a gigantic falsification set in motion to smear the reputation of the German people and thereby keep them in subservience in perpetuity.
The "common sense" approach, occams razor etc., ie. my pointing out that there were dozens of archival meters documenting the KL/VL infrastructure, deportations and murders etc, that I had actually seen them and worked with them, and that it appears implausible for all of them to be falsified simply falls on deaf ears, as this has become an article of faith. Even the really obvious empirical indicators, such as a large part of the Jewish demographics being, well, gone after the war, is quite simply dismissed.

With actual antisemites of the more rabid kind/Nazis, Holocaust denial of course appears fairly amusing if not schizophrenic. After all, why would an individual of that persuasion not embrace such a course of action? An optimist might think that at least at a subconscious level, the enormity of the matter is somehow understood regardless.

Anyways, the point of my suada, you cannot, and will not convince some people as they lack the state of mind to engage in rational discourse in the first place, and this cannot and should not be the task of historiography anyways. I sure as hell would not even try unless I liked the individual in question.

You are right in everything you say with one caveat.... I still think it is important to take the time to counter the arguments. Not because you will change their mind. You won't. But because of the unseen and unheard from audience that might be reading the exchange.

Different sources give nubers from 274cm to 3m, so it varies from 10 to 30 cm giving about 10% more height. Also p4 is shaped prism-like while sherman is shaped more cube-like and thus much easier to spot and hit. Mind that for example t-34 was onlt 245cm heigh while stug less than 2 meters in smallest versions.

Im not really sure what you are on about regarding the shapes. The Panzer IV is just marginally smaller that it really wouldnt make all of a difference.

What i think would however is the German excellent choices in camo painting.