quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

That's intriguing. Which seats in B.C. do you attribute to Layton's "leadership"?

Anyway, I've decided to start campaigning now (see my Location line).

If Mulcair says, "I'm running for Prime Minister", it may sound more credible.

---

Bringing in Mulcair at this point would be very risky and I don't support it. For one, Mulcair was elected to Parliament in September 2007. Second, he was a minister in the nasty Charest Liberal government. His reputation is as a tenacious attack dog in opposition. In this last election La Presse and the Liberals pulled out items from his past to attack him. In short, Mulcair has still not passed his vetting as an NDP leader.

Another problem I have with Mulcair is that he is an anglophone that speaks French very well (hardly a diss on him). For me what is most conspicuously absent for the NDP in Quebec is the presence of high profile NDP francophone stars. If you look at where the NDP vote panned out in Quebec this time (outside of Westmount and Gatineau/Hull), it looks to me very vaguely like election 2000 Liberal voters who switched their vote to Bloc and now are voting NDP. According to the polls, the NDP needs to draw down more core Bloc support (based on 2nd ballot preferences) to enter into competition in Quebec. For this task I think an actual francophone would have it much easier. Handing Mulcair a team of Quebec MPs to run with as a potential leader would also ultimately make a lot more sense than asking the poor man to charge boldly forth into the wilderness as a one man pioneer.

I also don't think Mulcair would play that well out West- at least yet. His tough guy style on the talking heads shows is great, but he needs more opportunities to break out of the Western Canadian stereotype of Central Canadians as brash, aggressive, and loud people. In other words, he should be raising his profile as a sensible, somewhat down to earth, and wickedly intelligent person out West. Not that he couldn't do that as leader.

At this point, if there had to be a successor to Layton I would be seriously considering Yvon Godin as my first choice. He performs well in English, is a no-ifs-ands-or-buts francophone, has proven himself over the years on the EI file, racks up massive wins in the NDP-dead zone of New Brunswick, and would have the advantage of appealing to both Quebec and Atlantic Canadians. His "average guy" or "blue collar" look could actually help him a bit out West (and maybe in non-GTA Ontario for all I know) and Westerners would not be intimidated by him as a Maritimer (e.g. will Westerners lose influence in the party? will their ideas/desires be forgotten?). He would have to prove that he "gets it" when it comes to the interests of the West and that might be enough to keep the party more or less at the status quo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
That's intriguing. Which seats in B.C. do you attribute to Layton's "leadership"?

---

quote:

---

Anyway, I've decided to start campaigning now (see my Location line).

---

quote:

---

If Mulcair says, "I'm running for Prime Minister", it may sound more credible.

---

Federal party leaders are supposed to say they are running for the top spot for people to see them that way.

There is no way NDP people in BC will accept Mulclair as leader at this point in time. People would walk. And there is no way the swing votes would even consider him for at least 2-3 election cycles, they don't know who the hell he is. Huge amounts of ground would be lost. VJara is correct, he has not passed his vetting process within the ranks of the NDP yet, say nothing of his low profile(read non-existent) with the rest of the people out here.

With Martin, we had “Team Martin” in 2004 and “Paul Martin’s Liberals” in 2006.

With Layton, it was “Jack Layton and the NDP”.

Jack Layton and the NDP makes as much sense as “Paul McCartney and the Beatles”, “Mick Jagger and the Rolling Stones”, “Freddie Mercury and Queen” or “Tommy Douglas and the CCF.”

And it wasn’t just the slogan. It was the whole personalized approach to the campaign.

“I am applying for the job of Prime Minister.”

Where did that leave the NDP team? Were they add-ons?

Even Trudeau, after getting his ass kicked by Bob Stanfield in the 1972 campaign, quickly learned the benefits of running as the leader of a team.

At campaign stop after campaign stop in 1974, Trudeau would say something like: “What team? What group of men and women have shown by their record that they can deal with the problems? That they can come up with solutions to the problems? What team?”

And, in the 1993 campaign, Jean Chretien had the political sense to run on the team theme. Time and time again, he would point to the strength of his team.

But not Martin. And not Jack.

They both ran under the mistaken impression that they were better than their team.

They weren’t.

The NDP will have to move more to the center if they want to attract enough voters to either make them the opposition or even gov't.

The mantra that Layton kept spouting $50 Billion in tax cuts to the banks and oil companies was pretty weak. Those same tax cuts included all the manufacturers and all the small companies (mom and Pop businesses that were incorporated). Alot of those businesses employ the very people who support the NDP.

That truck plant that just resently announced that it was pulling up stakes and heading to Mexico goes to show that business will migrate to where they can reduce costs. The employee per hour cost of running that plant in Canada was $80, in Mexico it is $20. We can not reduce the wages and benefits enough in Canada to retain the jobs, the only thing we can control is the taxes that companies pay. It was obvious that the tax cuts were not enough to keep the jobs here and if those taxes are raised how does that impact the other companies willingness to stay here.

The solutions are very complex and instead of mantras, solutions and ulternatives clearly articulated to the voters of how it will directly impact their pocket books is a better way to win voter confidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by adma:
I'll reiterate the case for Charlie Angus, then, as a best-of-all-worlds someone who combines many of Layton's hip/artsy/urban-compatible virtues with a solid base (electoral and otherwise) in mythic "non-urban" heartland Canada--now bolstered, of course, by an increased Northern Ontario caucus. And he's less, er, "smug" than Layton. Indeed, an NDP under Charlie Angus could well reclaim big chunks of Tommy Douglas country and perhaps unexpected analogues elsewhere. Dunno about Quebec, though (though Mulcair could back him up there), or "ethnic Canada"...

---

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: adma ]

quote:

---

The employee per hour cost of running that plant in Canada was $80, in Mexico it is $20.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
In order for the NDP to become relevant it has to better represent the middle class. Not everyone is a union worker. Not everyone wants subsidized daycare. Not everone wants what the current Dippers are peddling. You have to give people what they want, their own money to make their own choices.

The NDP will have to move more to the center if they want to attract enough voters to either make them the opposition or even gov't.
The mantra that Layton kept spouting $50 Billion in tax cuts to the banks and oil companies was pretty weak. Those same tax cuts included all the manufacturers and all the small companies (mom and Pop businesses that were incorporated). Alot of those businesses employ the very people who support the NDP.

That truck plant that just resently announced that it was pulling up stakes and heading to Mexico goes to show that business will migrate to where they can reduce costs. The employee per hour cost of running that plant in Canada was $80, in Mexico it is $20. We can not reduce the wages and benefits enough in Canada to retain the jobs, the only thing we can control is the taxes that companies pay. It was obvious that the tax cuts were not enough to keep the jobs here and if those taxes are raised how does that impact the other companies willingness to stay here.

The solutions are very complex and instead of mantras, solutions and ulternatives clearly articulated to the voters of how it will directly impact their pocket books is a better way to win voter confidence.

JMO Cheers

---

One area of opportunity is IT and office workers (speaking as one).

In the environment I work in, we face many of the challenges that face factory workers - outsourcing is used as a club to keep us in line.

Unpaid overtime is also becoming more common place, thanks to the Ontario Labour standards act, introduced by Harris, and maintained by Dalton McGinty, (although he rolled it back for everyone but IT workers). By unpaid ovetime, I am not talking about no time and a half, I'm talking UNPAID - 0$ per hour. This has no limits. If you work your IT people into a sick bed and they run out of sick days, too bad for them. If I didn't actually love programming, I'd quit.

CIBC did get tagged for giving the same treatment to its staff (banks are federally regulated), but only through the civil courts.

I know a lot of IT workers who would consider unionizing, but generally greed stops them, because unions put a cap on wages.

And what is an IT worker anyway? In my company I have seen people designated as IT because they work with spreadsheets.

Not that other office professions get paid for OT either, but it's not supposed to be a regular feature of their jobs. Although, that too is changing.

You want a hit with the middle class? Address those concerns, and there you go.

Regards day care - it seems like a good idea, but here's the thing - day care is for when both parents are working, or one in the case f single parent families. Further to that, when I speak of this to others, they object that the babysitter who has no license but is REALLY GOOD WITH KIDS will get left out in the cold.

I think that there is a lack of recognition of child-rearing as legitimate work. I think the parent who stays home should get a stipend for that time spent, regardless.

Certainly this is a plank the NDP could use, and the CPC counter argument will be conjuring up welfare-taking baby factories, which is a hoary myth, easily debunked. Just run stories on real people.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Frankly, I would see such a push now as wanting the destruction of the NDP.

---

Well, my goodness, I didn't realize that the party had become so dependent upon the leadership of Jack Layton that suggesting a change would be tantamount to advocating its "destruction".

So, in deference to your statement that all of BC would desert the NDP, I will stop questioning Mr. Layton's bid to be "prime minister" right this very minute. I've amended my "location" statement accordingly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Birch in the first thread:

Ed Broadbent would not have taken the "fuck the arts" position that you take.

Or made your assumption that working-class people are always anti-art and anti-creativity.

---

Do you mind explaining why expecting the arts to actually be able to pay their way like most other people have to do in life is anti-arts and anti-creativity? I suspect Ed Broadbent would have said something along the lines of we will try to do what we can but when there are x number of children living in poverty in this country it can't be anywhere even close to our top priority. Something tactful that would have resonated at the kitchen tables of the NDP's traditional core demographic in other words.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: longtime lurker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by longtime lurker:

Do you mind explaining why expecting the arts to actually be able to pay their way like most other people have to do in life is anti-arts and anti-creativity? I suspect Ed Broadbent would have said something along the lines of we will try to do what we can but when there are x number of children living in poverty in this country it can't be anywhere even close to our top priority. Something tactful that would have resonated at the kitchen tables of the NDP's traditional core demographic in other words.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: longtime lurker ]

---

quote:

---

You have to give people what they want, their own money to make their own choices.

---

quote:

---

Do you mind explaining why expecting the arts to actually be able to pay their way like most other people have to do in life is anti-arts and anti-creativity?

---

So who is doing it for themselves? Besides sisters, I mean.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by longtime lurker:

Do you mind explaining why expecting the arts to actually be able to pay their way like most other people have to do in life is anti-arts and anti-creativity? I suspect Ed Broadbent would have said something along the lines of we will try to do what we can but when there are x number of children living in poverty in this country it can't be anywhere even close to our top priority. Something tactful that would have resonated at the kitchen tables of the NDP's traditional core demographic in other words.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: longtime lurker ]

---

There seems to be this assumption floating around that arts funding only goes to hoi polloi arts institutions. If people only knew how much money the Tragically Hip took from the Canadian tax payers to get off the ground, and how much money is routinely sunk into the careers of already successful artists like Blue Rodeo and Alanis Morisette, they might be a little less reticent about paving the way for the arts.

Arts funding is not a "free gift" handed out to artists, but is part of the backdrop of equalizing the economic terrain, so that the Canadian market is not swamped by foreign artists. The investment is not intended to promote a specific aesthetic, but to act as a bankroll for promotion and development of artists as viable financial commodities, just like funding to industries and businesses.

My experience is that the last thing any arts funding institution in this country wants to see is some kind of justification for the artistic merit of your creation. Good reviews help, but mostly, they want to know exactly what evidence there is that your material can be economically viable in the local and international market, and that your organization is a stable, responsible and well run business institution. For example, a lot of money given to Canadian musicians is given out to promote them abroad, so that they can develop new markets for their product.

There is only one funding organization I know that really operates on the basis of funding arts on its cultural merits and that is the Canada Council for the Arts the rest are mostly interested in the business aspects of your creative activities.

Canadian artist operate in a very disadvantaged position in comparison to those that operate in the giant and almost inaccessible market to the south of us. Inaccessible that is until an artist has established themselves as being market viable, here. Without arts funding, Canadian artist, would be severely disadvantaged when trying to establish themselves not only elsewhere, but here in the difficult early days of their career. So a lot of arts funding basically compensates for that disadvantage.

And, in point of fact many of these artists are not just the sons and daughters of well to do aesthetes, but actually those from families that would have no opportunity to pursue their real ambitions without this kind of funding. Eliminating arts funding would have the reverse effect of what you intend. The arts would again become the sole preserve of the wealthy.

The opera, the ballet and the symphoney would not disappear, it would just become so insanely expensive that no one other than the very wealthy could attend. The arts would in fact become entirely elitist.

This does not mean that a lot of shit does go out under the wire, but as with advertising, you know that at least half of your advertising dollar is wasted, the problem is that you don't know which half.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chester Drawers:
The NDP will have to move more to the center if they want to attract enough voters to either make them the opposition or even gov't.

---

The NDP is the centre-left party. Liberals vacated the title in 1994 with the very neoliberal NAFTA sellout, and confirmed it with a terrible, terrible federal budget handed down in 1995.

quote:

---

The mantra that Layton kept spouting $50 Billion in tax cuts to the banks and oil companies was pretty weak. Those same tax cuts included all the manufacturers and all the small companies (mom and Pop businesses that were incorporated). Alot of those businesses employ the very people who support the NDP.

---

Which is why smaller companies like John Deere took Harper's tax cut and moved of Canada. We've been hemorrhaging jobs since turn of the decade, and Harper wants to pay them to leave. That's what's so weak about our two old line party governments - they have no idea how to govern a mixed capitalist economy if it's not driven by cold war spending levels south of us. They're incompetent, and "fiscal Frankensteins" both since at least the 1980's.

No, the $50 billion dollar tax giveaway did nothing for productivity or innovation or even new business investment in Canada. Our banks will take the tax cut and help finance(with Canadian's money) the American takeover of what's left of Canada after 12,000 Canadian corporations and valuable crown assets were scooped up by rich and powerful U.S. corporations since 1985.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

You do know that Hitler was very disappointed that he didn't get to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 and start the war a year earlier?

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Not really on topic, but I get tired of the thoughtless metaphors.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
The outcome of the war could have been different if started in 1938.

---

The T-34 would not likely been as sucessful because German intentions would have been focused on Russia in 1939.

The Panzer mark 3/4s would have had an easier time in Russia.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by NorthReport:
My understanding is that Chamberlain wanted peace, however you have to stand up to bullies. This is something the Liberal Party of Canada fails to understand and the main reason they are in such dissaray. The next session of Parliament is going to pathetic while the disintegrating Liberal party tragedy continues to play on to its Canadian audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NorthReport:
My understanding is that Chamberlain wanted peace, however you have to stand up to bullies. This is something the Liberal Party of Canada fails to understand and the main reason they are in such dissaray. The next session of Parliament is going to pathetic while the disintegrating Liberal party tragedy continues to play on to its Canadian audience.

---

You also have to know when to pick you fights. Standing up to bullies does know good to anyone if they roll over you. Regardless, the mythology of Chamberlain's "appeasement" is largely overstated. It was Chamberlain who signed the mutal protection pact with Poland, (immediatly after Munich) and Chamberlain who declared was on Germany when Poland was attacked.

Chamberlain was picking his battles, not sucking up to Hitler.

No one accuses Roosevelt of being an "appeaser" for not joining the war against Germany in 1939, instead of 1941. Or, for that matter, Churchill for opposing sanctions against Italy when they invaded Abyssinia in 1936. Chamberlain, like Roosevelt wanted to have the optimum military conditions, and public opinion on his side when war was declared.

Wether he was right or not, is a matter for debate. It was not some kind of moral flaw that haunted Chamberlain, at worst a strategic error.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Plus look at the series of tanks that began production in late 1939/40.

The T-34 would not likely been as sucessful because German intentions would have focused on Russia in 1939.

---

They would have invaded Russia several weeks earlier had it not been for Tito's guerilla fighters interfering with with supply lines in the Balkans. Hitler devoted significant resources to try and crush the guerilla fighters in Yugoslavia. In the end, the Panzers ran out of guzzoline and the corporate-sponsored humungous was stopped.

quote:

---

The Panzer mark 3/4s would have had an easier time in Russia.

---

Many Germans were on horseback in the end. Panzers were no good in the mud anyway. "Stalin's organs" and Red Army did the rest.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Plus look at the series of tanks that began production in late 1939/40.

The T-34 would not likely been as sucessful because German intentions would have been focused on Russia in 1939.

The Panzer mark 3/4s would have had an easier time in Russia.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

They would have invaded Russia several weeks earlier had it not been for Tito's guerilla fighters interfering with with supply lines in the Baulkans. Hitler devoted significant resources to try and crush the guerilla fighters in Yugoslavia. In the end, the Panzers ran out of guzzoline and the corporate-sponsored humungous was stopped.

---

Preposterous. Tito was not even made commander of the armed forces of the Communist Pary of Yugoslavia until after the invasion of Russia had begun. The first Parisan Battlion raised after that point. The insurrection did not exist, in other words, until after Hitler invaded Russia.

The Germans were delayed by having to drive through Yugoslavia, so they could fight the Greeks and British in Greece.

The Germans had serval large Cavary divisions at the start of the War.

quote:

---

Originally posted by laine lowe:
It's not some lone hippy poet writing haikus that was effected by these cuts but working professionals in a specialized industry. Why should arts and culture be treated differently from resource industries or construction?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

The Germans were delayed by having to drive through Yugoslavia, so they could fight the Greeks and British in Greece.

Make up storied for you grand children if you like, but try and stay close to the facts.

---

quote:

---

Prior to deploying this massive force, military events in the Balkans delayed 'Barbarossa' by five weeks. It is now widely agreed that this delay proved fatal to Hitler's conquest plans of Russia but, at the time it did not seem important.

---

Have you ever read any articles on the final days of the Fall of Berlin?

The German military was still more capable than the Russian Army in April 1945.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Actually the Germans used more horses than anything else.

The Germans had serval large Cavary divisions at the start of the War.

GERMAN HORSE CAVALRY AND TRANSPORT

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

The corporate-sponsored military machine was desperate for gasoline by the time Panzers were parked a dozen or so miles outside of Moscow. I think had the madman listened to his own experienced field Generals, it might have turned out differently. They had a plan that might have worked. But Hitler fancied himself a Roman battle line tactician and intervened to the point of hopelessly sabotaging the German effort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
The German army may have had over stretch supply lines however desperation for gasoline was not a major concern in 1941.

If this was the case how did they continue fighting for 4 more years?

---

They were trying to secure oil supply routes through the Balkans to oil fields in the Caucusus, Ukraine, and eventually Iran from the onset. Oil was crucial to the military machine as is evidenced by U.S. oil company handing technology for extraction of gasoline from coal. IG Farben operated such a manufacturing plant in the viscinity of Kracow, Poland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

Have you ever read any articles on the final days of the Fall of Berlin?

The German military was still more capable than the Russian Army in April 1945.

There are stories of SS companies (100 man units) stopping entire Russian Divisions. These soldiers killed over 300 tanks in the last days of the war alone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Look it up yourself this time, dingaling

---

I dont have to look it up. I know this stuff but rather than making you look something up, which you wont because doing so might upset your personal mythologies, I will do the work for you.

Soviet T-34 outclassed every German tank on the battlefield in 1941, this why the Germans built the Mark V Panther, basing it on the Soviet design.

quote:

---

The Panther was a direct response to the Soviet T-34. First encountered on 23 June 1941, the T-34 decisively outclassed the existing Panzer IV and Panzer III. At the insistence of General Heinz Guderian a team was dispatched to the Eastern Front to assess the T-34. Among the features of the Soviet tank considered most significant were the sloping armor, which gave much improved shot deflection and also increased the effective armor thickness against penetration, the wide track and large road wheels which improved mobility over soft ground, and the 76.2 mm gun, which had good armour penetration and fired an effective high-explosive round. Daimler-Benz (DB) and Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg AG (MAN) were tasked with designing a new thirty to thirty-five-ton tank, designated VK3002, by April 1942 (apparently in time to be shown to Hitler for his birthday).

---

This tank did not become the standard in German medium tanks until 1943.

That is just one example. Here is another:

quote:

---

Tanks played a huge role in World War II. The tank reached new heights of capability and sophistication. The early tanks of Germany were technologically inferior to many of their opponents' tanks in the areas of armour and firepower. It was in their tactical employment that German tanks dominated all rivals early in the war. German doctrine stressed the use of combined-arms involving mobile infantry and air support, and, after its surprising success during the execution of Fall Gelb, the tactic of the Blitzkrieg (lightning warfare). This doctrine required the Germans to equip their tanks with radios, which provided unmatched command and control. In contrast, almost all light French tanks lacked radios, essentially because their battle doctrine was based on a more slow-paced, deliberate conformance to planned movements. This required fewer radios at all levels. French tanks generally outclassed German tanks in firepower and armour in the 1940 campaign, but their poor command and control doctrine made these advantages irrelevant to the final outcome.

---

Tanks in World War II

The article continues:

quote:

---

Germany's armoured Panzer force was not especially impressive at the start of the war. Plans called for two main tanks: the Panzer III medium tank and the Panzer IV infantry tank. However, by the beginning of the invasion of Poland, only a few vehicles were available. As a result, the invasions of Poland and France were carried out primarily with the inferior Panzer I and Panzer II light tanks, with some cannon-armed light tanks from Czechoslovakia. As the war proceeded, production of the heavier tanks increased.

During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it was discovered that the Soviet T-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks. The Panzer III, which was intended to be the main medium tank, was upgraded to a longer, higher-velocity 50 mm gun. Even this was only marginally effective. Thus the Panzer IV, originally intended to be a support tank, became the de facto main medium tank re-armed with a long-barrelled, high velocity 75 mm gun. A new tank, the Panzer V Panther, was developed, incorporating lessons learned from the T-34. The Germans' traumatic experiences against the Soviet heavy tanks, with cases of single KV tanks holding up entire German tank units, spurred them to develop ever heavier designs including the Tiger and Tiger II Königstiger ("King Tiger").

---

The only reason I am bothering to deal with this silly distraction is demonstrate how often you talk about things with confidence that you know nothing about.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Amazing truly amazing, Neville Chamberlain gets mentioned by Fidel, and we now have a dissection of WWII and Hitler's actions with calls to look up the history even.

---

Fidel and Northreport are one in the same now? Northreport decided to talk about Chamberlian.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Hitler decided that Panzers took too long to build and too many resources. They watered-down Panzer divisions with lesser tanks which weren't as effective.

---

Find me one competent source that asserts that German AFV's were superior to those of their opponents in 1939-1941. You will fing no military historian who will say anything like that at all. In fact, the german designed superior AFV's in reaction to the superior equipment the German army faced.

[ 18 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Now this thread truly breaks the bounds of surrealness.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Find me one competent source that asserts that German AFV's were superior to those of their opponents in 1939-1941

---

Kursk: "A dust up."

Anyways, sorry for the intrusion folks, you can continue with the real thread topic anytime.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I've got a secret yoooou do' know!

Honestly, you'll learn the truth in good time, kid. Your Adolf was a real fuckup.

---

Yesterday I was a Liberal, today I am a Nazi. Will it never end? If that wasn't so stupid I would make a complaint, but since its so funny, I think I will just quote it and laugh.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Yesterday I was a Liberal, today I am a Nazi. Will it never end? If that wasn't so stupid I would make a complaint, but since its so funny, I think I will just quote it and laugh.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Oh i could have complained a number of times about your insulting and offensive personal attacks against me and several other paying members. But I'm not a crybaby like you, kid. I've always fought my own battles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
The biggest problem with them was the fact that their design were too complex for German mass production abilities at the time so they took a long time to build and were expensive. They did not become less effective, but more effective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Well, at least I can rest assured you would never call me a commie.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Well now you've moved toward both agreeing with what I said and contradicting yourself at the same time. They didn't just build panzers and heavy tanks in the last half of the war. Doing so really would have been expensive and cost them the war even sooner than it did.

---

Wrong. They focussed production on building heavier tanks with superior fire power, as opposed to the US which produced lots of really shitty tanks. The Soviets stuck to simple designs using high velocity recoiless cannons mated to hulls created using drop molding metal casting techniques, rather than welded joints.

So, for example, even though the Mark V panther looks like it has sloped armour like the T-34, it is not the same, since the Panther was made from flat welded armour pieces. On the other hand the turret of the T-34 is all one single piece drop molded. The advantage being that there is no joint. The joint being a weakness where the armour can be penetrated.

Still the Mark V Panther is far superior to the Mark III's and IV's which used welded flat plates, but also had no sloping. Sloping being an important factor in causing armour piercing shells to deflect, as opposed to penetrate.

The problem was that the Germans had not perfected the kind of drop molding techniques available to the Russians. The US also used drop molding, but followed an inferior design patern that made their weapons really vulenrable. The Sherman was very tall for example, which meant it was an easy target. It also had a low velocity 75mm gun, which was basically useless against German armour.

The US army wanted the low velocity gun because they already produced ammo for such a gun, and they were concerned about production efficiency and availability of anti-infantry High Explosive ordinance for their MBT. Patton agreed to all this and supported it. But still, Shermans were fairly easy to build, and so they built lots of them, which also has some advantages.

Anyway, this is really not about the NDP.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Germany built fewer, better AFV's as the war went on.

---

No, the alloy used in German steel became shoddier and shoddier as the war progressed and as German resources and supplies dwindled.

quote:

---

By 1941, 462 Panzer IV Ausf. Fs had been assembled, and the up-gunned Ausf. F2 was entering production.[41] The yearly production total had more than quadrupled since the start of the war

---

Production of the crappy panzer IV more than quadrupling from start of the war forward, and adding to the total number of inferior tanks, doesn't seem to corroborate your claim that the Nazis and their opportunistic industrialist friends favoured quality over quantity. If they did produce fewer Panzer V's and Tigers and elephant class tanks than were actually needed, it wasn't due to Hitler's demands for fewer and "better quality" tanks to attack Russia with. That's corporatism/fascism 101: profits take precedent over workers and country always.

It didn't matter how many tanks with shoddy armour and underpowered engines they produced in the end, because they were also running out of oil and gasoline. In the end the paperhanger blamed the German people for losing the war. In fact, it was Hitler's monumental fuckups and refusals to listen to his field Generals cost Germany the war.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

I derailed it? I just wanted to make a simple point about Neville Chamberlain and appeasement, since I am pretty tired of all that simplistic Guff. You decided to launch into your version of what really happened at the "dust up" at Kursk (acutally Operation Citdatel) and what not.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

%0 posts on what did or did not happen in WWII.

How about starting your own thread?

Cueball on the dramatically increasing NDP totals of first plus seconds:

quote:

---

Its the favourable vote splits again. The Greens eating away at the Liberal vote.

---

It would take some moderately extensive statistical analysis to demonstrate this. And it doesn't really make intuitive sense. Not to mention that I believe the NDP 1st + 2nd totals also went up from 2000 to 2004, despite splits cutting worse last election compared to this, and more close losses.

Without having minutely parsed the numbers, it seems to me that the NDP vote fell off substantially in much of rural Onario and the City of Toronto. But it increased substantially in areas of regional strength. For example two of the Hamilton seats as well as london fanshaw chaned from knifeedge victories to substantial majoritites. Perhaps this was tactical voting at play.

Vote splitting helped the party mostly in BC where a number of incumbents sqeaked through with votes in the mis 30% range. otherwise the NDP really earned its wins by increasing it's vote.

The advance from 17.6 to 18.2 disgises the fact that losses in many ridings were offset by significant gains in others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
A number of women actually piloted T-34's at the battle of Kursk as well.

---

You do not pilot a tank, you drive a tank.

quote:

---

As an aside, unions don't ever put a limit on how much a worker can make. There are some pretty highly paid union people i different trades and such you can make over 100 grand a year. Not sure where you got that information from.

---

I'll assume this was directed at me. I'm relating the common perception here.

But, I also got some anecdotal evidence from my wife in the CAW. She started out reaching her salary cap, which is lower than where she left. It's not all bad - she gets paid for OT so they don't abuse her, she gets a pension, although they were trying to link it to the stock market (!) instead of leaving it as a defined benefit, and she doesn't have to take shit from anyone as far as doing stuff that's not in her job description. There is no super QA making a lot more than other QA's getting a raise or bonus based on performance (that would be her if there was one). Management dangles the carrot of a new non-management (so she can stay union) QA position, but that's all it's been.

Now, when some IT professionals banded together and confronted Harper about outsourcing and unpaid OT some years ago, his vague stuttering answer was they should form a "guild" or something. Of course I would expect nothing less from anti-labour, do-nothing-for-plebes Harper. It's his political philosophy, after all. But I would think an NDP government would have more to offer, and I think Layton could speak to that, and make some gains.

Christ, I was talking to this youngun in my department who thinks CPC is less oppressive than Libs because they lowered the GST 1 percent. He's not even thinking of the government as having a role in worker rights.

[ 19 October 2008: Message edited by: djelimon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel: (reffering to Cueball)

I think you're a snot-nosed, wet behind the ears kid who likes to insult people from a safe distance. That's what I think.

---