Neutral Party

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also everyone is on about withdrawing - lol I'd like to see someone manage to get all their froces out of town WITHOUT getting shot to **** in LD - especially when the KRAUTS are in teh center or town on turn 3 Come on !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Consider the situation you're in. Your infantry has been almost annihilated. They are trapped and outnumbered in a town controlled by the enemy. They have seen most of their buddies killed or wounded and are either scared ****less or in shock (global morale =13). You have one open-topped tank destroyer left. If it comes into town without infantry support it's scrap metal. OK the TD has a full complement of HE ammo but this ain't much (IIRC) compared to its AP which is less useful in these circumstances. What should happen - the choices are: (a) infantry surrenders - TD bugs out ( infantry surrenders - TD fires off its ammo then bugs out © infantry fights to the last man because the major wants to improve his cv IMHO (a) is most likely, ( could happen, © is unlikely So I think your infantry will/should surrender whether you want it to or not in reality/game worlds. The TD is harder to call. I think in reality it would withdraw. In game life there is no enforced withdrawal AFAIK so what are the options: (a) enforced surrender ( annoying perpetual check-like endgame that pisses opponent off. Got to go for (a) here. Moral(e) to the story There is a significant benefit to a timely withdrawal rather than total surrender in reality. This will, of course, come out in the campaign game and perhaps should be reflected in scenario scoring too. Then possibility of enforced surrender provides a positive incentive to "play for real" when you play CM. Joe P.S. just read Ron's post So the reinforcements weren't actually in the town but were still up the hill. In that case, they could have tried to withdraw. However if they were taking heavy fire and caualties, surrender would still make the most sense - especially if the Germans were coming to get them. [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 04-19-2000).]

From the point of view of "realism" as opposed to "game-iness" I agree with Scott C on this one. No way your little virtual soldiers are all going to commit suicide just because you stamp your feet Otherwise you are like the black knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who had both legs and both arms cut off - "Come back and fight you bastard, I'll bite your legs off" Joe

Just having a laugh at the idea of the CM gold demo being out there just waiting to be downloaded and me saying "no I'm going to wait 3 weeks for the full version" haha very funny I've been off cigarettes for 9 months but I couldn't do that - talk about electronic crack Joe P.S. I'm also keeping my virginity until I meet the right sheep

Good points by Schrullenhaft Well it's easy to trash the French isn't it But when you look at the record of most nations in WWII it is always possible to paint a less than rosy picture. Let's see - who had a good war ? The Norwegians - not really, the nation got off relatively lightly and had an active resistance but they also had Quisling. The Dutch or Belgians or Danes - not really. Resistance was pretty ineffectual - but the Dutch helped hide their Jewish fellow citizens. The Poles - nope. Very brave resistance, Warsaw uprising, Polish exile armies - but also rampant anti-semitism even after the war was over. The British - not really they were just as shafted by the Germans as the French were but had one thing the French didn't - the English Channel. If it wasn't for the English Channel the UK would have been overrun had Hitler wished to do so. There would also have been no shortage of collaborationists who would have formed a government similar to Vichy. Over time as the oppresive nature of Nazi rule became manifest I'm sure resistance would have become stronger, similar to what occurred in France. The Russians - no way. Very brave defense of the motherland, masters of the operational art - but gross military incompetence at the start, institutional reign of terror - Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler. The North Americans (US/Canada) - pretty good but not threatened by invasion. On the question of "resistance", it's all very well talking about how "I" would never surrender and would join the resistance and other assorted bull**** but for people with families (especially children) the most important motivation, at least initially, would be survival. Weighing up the circumstances and making the decision to actively resist requires a lot of soul-searching. On a personal level you have to think about what would happen to your family if you were killed - including whether they would be the victims of reprisals. Where should your primary loyalties lie ? You have to decide whether to participate in acts of terrorism and murder both against the occupying power and also against your collaborationist fellow citizens. You have to think about what would you do if you participated in some act of resistance and the occupying power said "Right if you don't give up and turn yourself in we'll take every man, woman and child in this village and execute them". Then you've got to ask yourself why you are doing all this resisting, what are your aims, how can these aims come to pass. It is not fair to take a "snapshot" at one historical point and say "This is the French". Twenty five years earlier the French fought very bravely against the Germans. I think a lot of the anti-French sentiment displayed here is unjustified and essentially racist. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Joe

Sometimes it is inevitable that you will lose the scenario given its unbalanced nature. The question then is how badly will you lose it. Will you conduct a well-organized fighting retreat or will you just get stomped into little pieces of poop and giblets. Star Trek fans think Kobayashi maru - losing with style can be a good thing. Joe

This must have been one of famous "good ole" King Tigers. These featured a special modification to the KT. All the hatches were welded shut but they cut a rectangular panel out of the turret side armor (i.e., the good 'ole") so the crew could jump in for quick getaway. First after action reports were disappointing

There is no doubt that it was of some benefit to Germany and Japan to lose the war. IMHO this is because the outcome of war generally means no fundamental change for the "victors" but the possibility of radical change for the "losers". Let's take the example of Great Britain which hasn't been conquered ever (actually) - southern Britain was conquered by the Normans in 1066. What is the end result of having a state persist for such a long time without any radical change in its system of government. You end up with a set of anachronistic institutions based on "tradition", no written constitution - which basically means rule by a "nod and a wink" and a fundamentally corrupt system based on class and hereditary privilege that has its root in the Monarchy. In fact not too dissimilar to pre-war Japan. Losing the war means there is the opportunity to wipe the slate clean and start again with a modern political constitution. This is what happened in post-war Germany and also in Japan (although it retained its Monarchy). Due to a number of factors including the beginning of the cold war and the belief that punitive reparation were counter-productive, the only economic superpower left in the aftermath of ww2 (i.e., the USA) came to the conclusion that it was a good idea to help rebuild the nations that had been devastated by war and were in its sphere of influence. Contrast this with the behaviour of the USSR that basically nicked everything that wasn't nailed down (and most things that were nailed down) from the nations in its sphere of influence. When people discussed the German economic miracle in the 80's they sure weren't talking about the DDR. So when you say that Germany (or Japan) won the war what you really mean is that losing the war and a fortuitous set of circumstance forced a radical change in the political and economic systems of these countries which proved to be of some benefit in the medium term. In the long term, of course, we are all dead - as John Maynard Keynes pointed out. Joe

Hi Steve DO NOT FEED THE TROLL! I thought you knew that. Joe

Hey Bazooka The book is bit like the curate's egg - "good in parts". There were definitely bits that I found very dull and skipped over, such as some of the economic analyses, graphs etc., Other bits were very good. The chapter on why men fought discusses the question you raise about why didn't they all mutiny or desert. The answer includes some of the things you would expect - cameraderie, esprit de corps etc., but he also focuses on other factors like the perception that one's own chances of survival were acceptable, the actual enjoyment of the war experience and an almost pornographic fascination with death. His discussion of the act of surrendering is also very good. The bits on the origins of the war are pretty controversial as described above. If he posted this stuff on usenet I think you would call it troll-bait. However as nothing gives an academic such a boner as a response (any response) let him have his "happy time". For a sample go to http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/boo ksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=4CRC3IC32U&mscssid=R4R01CGD06SR2GS8001PQU6AVEU22HBF&srefer=&isbn=0465057128 where you can read a bit of a chapter. If I was to hazard a guess I would say that 25% of this forum would like it and 75% would hate it. However these figures could be wrong by somewhere between 25 and 75% Joe [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 03-30-2000).]

I read this book some time ago and found it to be very interesting and thought-provoking. Fergusson's thesis is that it was the intervention of the British that turned a potentially "local" problem into a world war. He contends that without the presence of the BEF the German armies would probably have defeated the French and established some sort of economic hegemony in continental Europe - eventually stabilizing into a system similar to the EU. As with all alternate histories, it is impossible to say whether this would have actually happened. In economic terms it's possible. Militarily I think it's been shown that the Schlieffen plan was fundamentally flawed - it was just not possible to get forces sufficient to take Paris into the right wheel due to the inadequacies of the French road network. Harder to say if the French would have fought so hard if they did not have the psychological crutch of British support. Especially since their military strategy (the infamous plan XVII) was more akin to a long suicide note than a rational defense plan. Fergusson goes very deeply into casualty figures and the economics of killing. He contends that the Germans were much more effective in killing Entente troops than vice-versa. This was primarily due to the strategic defence adopted by the Germans on the Western front. Only for a very short time in 1918 when the Germans went on the strategic offence was the situation reversed. Even towards the end of the war when the German armies were retreating they were still better at killing entente troops. The big difference at this stage in the war was that the Germans were much more likely to surrender. Fergusson goes into great detail about the psychology of surrender. I would recommend the book if you are interested in an unusual take on the Great War. Just remember it is not a conventional military history so don't buy it if you want to read about great battles. Joe

oops! double post - the excitement is too much for me. Need to change underwear now Joe [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 03-28-2000).]

Mark IV I use NT at work and have just watched the trailer. All you need is the windows media player. DirectX6/7 is not required. Joe

The technical term is "vvvvVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE -SHBOOOOOMMMM- *pitter patter*" In contrast the phrase "Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaabuuuuuuuuummmmmmm" is what you say when you are naked and then put your head between your legs and look in a mirror. Joe

Nice pic of the Frost brucke (brug?) at Arnhem. I was there last month and was lucky enough to get to visit the Airborne museum in Oosterbeek nr Arnhem. check it out http://www.airbornemuseum.com/engels/index_eng.htm They have done a really excellent job of presenting the history of Market Garden along with wider historical aspects of the German occupation in the Netherlands. The museum building itself was Urquhart's HQ. There is also a very fine display of WWII small arms including panzerschreck (first one I'd seen in the flesh). Altogether excellent, if you ever get the chance - go!. I also got to visit the liberation museum at Grossbeek nr Nijmegen which was also v. interesting but a bit of a construction site when I was there. Joe

You can't take computer to the can guys - come on Don't know about the rest of you but that's the only place I get to read these days. At least without a two and a half-year old jumping on my gonads. Too bad about the ring-bound idea getting the boot. However I'm now at the stage where I would accept just about anything. So print it on whatever you like and bind it however you like. Just stuff it into a big envelope, put a functioning game CD in too and then just send it to me - c/o the nut house. Joe

Fionn Can you post the corrected version of your formula. Thanks Joe

In my experience it is very important when getting into a discussion of Irish history and politics to tread warily because there are many highly sensitive toes just dying to be trod on. This is of particular relevance in a bulletin board format where disagreements have a tendency to go nuclear at an early stage. So take deep breaths everyone. The chances of more than 300 years of highly complex and highly charged multi-cultural interaction being adequately summarized to everyone's satisfaction are slim. Although history is an endlessly fascinating subject for study, as a recipe for living it is a damn heavy ball and chain to carry around. Nevertheless it's important to realise that there are as many ways of being Irish as there are of being human. There is no Platonic ideal Irishman sitting in a vacuum chamber somewhere in France (well maybe there is - but its not a particularly rewarding lifestyle). If the last thirty years have tought us anything it is that there is no politically-acceptable military solution to this problem (puerile fantasies about Canadian invasions notwithstanding). Eventually it seems inevitable that Ireland will become a unitary state for demographic if no other reason. Maybe then Irelands gift to the world will be to show how different traditions can live together in peace and justice. Tomorrow in New York (where I find myself at the moment) St. Patrick's day will be pushing the concept of Irishness to the limit. Scottish tartans and bagpipes playing Scotland the brave (Americans can't tell the difference), mariachi bands with green white and gold sombrerros, NYPD on parade and gay and lesbian trying to get in. Maybe there's hope for multiculturism yet. In the words of some African-American bum who I gave a buck to last year "God bless Ireland and I hope you get laid." Joe

Damn! I was wanting to get all my guys to polish up their tanks and line up just on the edge of a ravine facing the rising or setting sun then when the baddies come charging in they get blinded by the reflected sunlight and all fall into the ravine and die - "and that's how I won the Iron Cross" Incidently, this was also the method employed by the Cork Militia in their famous defeat of the Turks at Waterloo or maybe it was King Solomon who defeated his evil brother Shere Khan. It's all a bit hazy. Joe

Fionn <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The congenitally idiotic need very little encouragement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that's just not fair. Why should the non-idotic get all the encouragement - and what about those who become idiotic by choice - don't they need some encouragement. Unfortunately, congenital idiocy will always be with us. If you don't encourage these individuals you will drive them underground. This would be vastly more damaging for society as a whole (think Ukrainian nuclear power plant here). for and on behalf of the Federated Union of Congenital and Kleptomaniacal Idiots (Trotskyist) [This message has been edited by Neutral Party (edited 02-09-2000).]

Yeah fighting ferrets of fury, hamsters from hell, the screaming budgies, the small pink one (oops! that could be misconstrued) Maybe BTS should also change the weather system so that when it is raining cats and dogs .. Mad, mad I tell you I can't take it any more Joe

rdreyer I'm sure the RN commander was satisfied of the best intentions of the French Admiral. Unfortunately, irrespective of the content of the secret documents, it was judged that the risk was too great. For all the British knew there could be another set of secret documents shown to the Germans letting them know that the French fleet would never be used against them. Alternatively the Germans could have held the French government to ransom until the fleet was delivered. You say as much yourself <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The French commander at the fleet at Mers El Kebir was willing to set sail and join the British, but couldn't because he didn't want to be responsible for giving a pretext to the German for taking over the free zone in France.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These are all what-ifs - nobody knew what would happen. I agree that the Torch landings put the Vichy forces in a difficult position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What would you expect those warships to do when an uninvited and unanounced invasion force suddenly arrived at their doorstep. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well this is the point - nobody knew what to expect. Just like they didn't know what to expect from the French fleet had it been left alone. Maybe some people expected the French to lay down their arms - like they did when the Japanese entered Indo-China. Babra I think you have identified a very important aspect of this problem. There was a deep distrust between the French and British - still is (British beef anyone ?). They had been enemies for so long that the folk memory of both nations still considered each other as the real enemy. The entante cordiale was really driven by the fear of Germany and its expanding militarism rather than any genuine affection. There is absolutely no doubt (or argument) that the attack on the French fleet at Mers el Kebir was a terrible tragedy and certainly the most odius task that the Royal Navy performed in the course of the war. All the British sailors involved were sickened and disgusted by the affair. Was it a crime ? I don't think so. Joe

Reality break. Freedom without responsibility is the law of the jungle. Maybe this is what some people want, but many others consider themselves part of a larger society - where it makes sense to get along with your fellows. If your expression of your absolute freedom is to burn crosses while wearing your white hoods, or banging your lambeg drum while passing a catholic church, or shaving your head and shouting seig heil at soccer matches - you can be sure some poor schmuck is scared ****less because your "freedom" is his terror and oppression. If some person was let's say Jewish and let's say his neighbour displayed the swastika and this Jewish guy felt no difference then he would either be **** scared to start with or dead. Joe

Along with rum, sodomy and the lash, the destruction of a potential enemy's fleet while they were tied up was one of the time-honoured traditions of the Royal Navy (see Copenhagen, Nile). The RN would have been in very deep **** had the French Navy become allied with the Kreigsmarine or Italian Navy against it. It was, IMHO, correctly decided that that the risk of (1) neutralization of the RN (2) invasion of the UK and (3) possible German conquest was too great to take. Unfortunately the British had been burned once too often by "a piece of paper" guaranteeing "peace in our time". The later behaviour of the French Navy, while no doubt related to being attacked by the RN, can hardly be interpreted as pro-allied. Remember Richelieu (or was it Jean Bart) fired at US warships during the Torch landings. Joe

"Those who forget the past are condemned to relive it" hmm.. This should be the motto of this bulletin board Joe

Germany's biggest blunders weren't military but political-strategic. Failing to realise that they had actually lost WW1 was the root cause of all of their problems. The myth grew up (fanned by the nazis) that the unvanquished imperial German army was "stabbed in the back" by those cowardly unpatriotic communists (identified as the Jews) or those cowardly unpatriotic capitalist money-grabbers (also identified as the Jews). Someone (I can't remember who) once defined a nation as "a group of people held together by a common misunderstanding of the past and an intense hatred of their neighbours". Of course the allies (esp. French) worsened things enormously by imposing the very harsh punitive reparations which drove Germany into economic collapse and made moderate politics untenable. So nazi Germany's attitude was a mixture of "we woz robbed" and "bet you couldn't do that again". Next problem was the "we can beat you with one-hand tied behind our back" syndrome. The practice of total-war was never really put into practice until it was too late. Women were excluded from the workforce in very distinct contrast to UK & USA. The purpose of women was, of course, to produce lots of perfect little aryans who would be used to colonize the empty spaces where the slavs used to live. Large portions of German industry continued to produce consumer goods until relatively late in the war. Moreover, there was no supreme national power structure - various organizations (Todt, party, SS, wehrmacht, etc.,) spent too much energy on turf wars rather than on the shooting war. With the possible exceptions of Goebbels and Speer, the nazi hierarchy was pretty dumb (Goering anyone ?). Rather than the reality of the war, they were more interested in establishing some idealogical fantasy island based on their warped visions of aryan supermen, Teutonic Knights, sub-human slavs and rat-like Jews - hello is there a psychiatrist in the house? The Germans in WWII proved, in a similar fashion to WWI, that they were good at fighting but bloody useless at war. Joe