Chupacabra

Howdy. Remember why that thread was locked? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

One point - How would CM "know" which game you were playing? I'd imagine that, to CM, one PBEM file is the same as any other. Input file, make orders/watch movie, output file. I think a standard Windows "save as" dialog box would fit the bill nicely. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Please lock this up. Londoner - I'm happy you agree with me, but this kind of vitriol isn't exactly conducive to an intelligent discussion. Incidentally, I'm American, and glad to be so. I do believe that victory in WW2 required a combined effort, and I stick to that belief. I will also be the first to admit that many Americans can be patriotic to the point of jingoism. But to characterize and stereotype Americans the way you are is mildly insulting. I say mildly because I get it all the time, and I'm used to it, and that's a shame. And before the rest of you start jumping up and shouting USA! USA! (yes, Major Bosco, this means you), the "America is the best at everything just 'cuz we rock like that" attitude isn't any better. There's a lot more to the world than just one's own country. There is no one country that is "the best" at anything. Oh, and did I mention, please lock this up? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-11-2000).]

Guh, a Monday? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dick Reece: Fair enough,but what about the movie files generated,what do you name them,the idea being to keep everything sequential? Dick <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doesn't matter if it's an orders file or a movie file, each successive file is just +1. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I use MynameOtherguysnameFilenumber. For example, if I was playing Bobo, the first file would be ChupBobo01. When Bobo returns the file, he'll rename it ChupBobo02. Makes things fairly simple. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zaraath: Is it considered gamey to use crews to hold captured flags? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Use of crews in general is a pretty contentious topic I don't think you'll be able to get a straight answer on this one, honestly. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

I think that one of the first rules of CM historical scenarios is: Don't expect 'em to play out the same way they did IRL. Many, many threads about the Villers-Bocage op. prove this ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Disregarding intelligence information from Dutch partisans, disregarding the advice of Dutch military officers, paratrooping the Poles into a kill zone... ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Chup, For PR purposes and because Britain proved to be a useful ally. That the US could defeat Germany and most of the rest of the world all by its lonesome does not contradict the fact that allies help share the cost. Also, your plea to not spin off into the A-Bomb is a strange one. If you are offended by the fact that this was an American invention than that is too bad. If you feel it is not a significant invention, you are wrong. If you feel it does not serve a social and military purpose, you are still wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where did I imply that the a-bomb offends me, or that I feel it's insignificant? I asked you to answer my question without going off onto tangents, that's all. Regarding your answer: What can I say. Your viewpoint is much more simplistic and cynical than my own. Since I cannot convince you that you're wrong, I see no reason to go on trying. Cheers. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Chup, if the whole of Europe fortified for five years and stood united against the might of the USA, it would fall. The unmolested Luftewaffe would have been molested, heavily. Its forces would have, like those of the Japanese, been destroyed while the US built up the American Air Force. Could the US have invaded a fortified Africa? Most assuredly, that barren, fractured continent could have been invaded at any point. Could the US have defeated a united German and Italian army with strong Luftwaffe and Italian air support? Of course. You seem to be missing the point here so I will state it clearly: The United States of America has a greater industrial, social and political might than any other nation or any conglomeration of nations on Earth. There is no way that Germany could have stood against them, Germany, where mass production hadn't taken hold. Germany, with the industrial might of the STATE of New York. What naval cooperation would the US need? How could any nation stand before the US at that time? Chup, what group of nations could have held back their might? Do you realize the size difference between the two? The industrial difference? The resource difference? In every measure, the US is at least twice the size of Germany and often many times that. Finally, only one nation had access to nuclear weaponry during that war and it was not Russia, Britain, France or Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We are now officially at an impasse. Your position seems to be that the US is big and buff and can do whatever it wants. Mine is that the US could not have fought in a geopolitcal vaccuum. No nation could. I will ask you one final question. Do me a favor, answer it simply, don't spin off into the a-bomb, don't sidestep the question. If the US could have won the war by itself, why did Eisenhower allow himself to take so much flak from the American generals and public for attempting to compromise with Britain? It wasn't because Monty was a dashingly persuasive fellow. I submit that it was because Eisenhower could not allow the alliance between the US and Britain to fracture. Just answer the question. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Mauldin: Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany? I thougt the question was whether the USA or Germany would win in a straight up fight, not specifically how it could be accomplished. You could argue that till the cows come home. This discussion seems to be going nowhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I repeat: you cannot ask this question without qualifying it. To do so is meaningless. I agree that this discussion is going nowhere, but for different reasons than you are implying. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Again, assuming the US could have carrier launched a bomber capable of dropping a bomb on Berlin, how could it carrier launch enough fighters to protect the bomber from an undefeated Luftwaffe? You are sidestepping the questions you don't want to answer. Assuming the question is US v. Axis (which, in fact, the original question was not. It was the US v. Germany), from where does the US launch an invasion of Africa? Can it do so without British naval cooperation? Can it do so against an undefeated German and Italian military, which have been unmolested by Britain, and which has had time to fortify Africa against invasion? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Mmm. Well, personally, I would be very suspicious of any group in modern Germany which claims a connection with the SS. My guess is that either the company is a fraud, or the videos are propaganda. However, I have no specific knowledge of the videos or the company which produces them, so this is pure speculation. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: and have even toyed with finding out how much the asking price is for one that is on the market (I estimate about $50,000 at the very least) Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to the absolutely bonkers custodian at the Imperial War Museum, you could actually pick one up fairly cheaply ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: All ready answered (Oops, dropping the bomb, that is), Chup, but, for the sake of brevity: Aircraft Carrier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The B-29 bombers which were used to drop the bombs on Japan were not, IIRC, able to be launched from a carrier. Also, can one carrier provide enough fighter support to allow a bomber to reach Berlin through the air defenses of an undefeated Luftwaffe? No. Could all the carriers in the US fleet do so? Again, no. Could the US build more carriers? Yes, but Germany could have also built more fighters and AA defenses, and fighters are cheaper than carriers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sicily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sicily's Italian, the last time I checked. Assuming for the moment that Italy wasn't allied with Germany, the US would have either been required to A) obtain Italian cooperation to station bombers or soldiers on Sicily or attack Italy as well. A) proves your argument wrong, as in that case the US victory would have still been dependent on another nation. invalidates the question, as, in that case, it would no longer be the US vs. Germany one-on-one. Or should we assume that Sicily was uninhabited? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ireland.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same objection as with Sicily. Either the US obtains permission to station units there, or it attacks Ireland. Again, either way invalidates the argument. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Any Small Island Around Europe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any Small Island Around Europe would not be large enough to contain an invasion force large enough to take a foothold in Europe away from an undefeated Germany. As for launching bombers, again, how do you provide fighter support? The P-51 was, AFAIK, the longest range fighter which the US fielded during the war. To fly from England to Berlin, P-51s required supplemental fuel tanks. In the event that they were attacked, the P-51s would drop those supplemental tanks to be better able to maneuver. An undefeated Luftwaffe certainly would have attacked any American planes it saw. The P-51s could not have reached Berlin without the supplemental tanks. Therefore, the bomber would have to go unescorted. The US found out early in the air war what happens to unescorted bombers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for invasion, Africa to Southern Europe. Norway. France. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I object to all of these for the same reasons that I object to Sicily and Ireland. Either the US requires cooperation, or they invade. Either invalidates the argument. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).] [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Like I said, "One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs". It is a "what if" but a much simpler one than "what if" Germany took out the UK, Russia and everyone else but the US. I am trying to avoid those who seem to keep wanting to add more and more pieces to Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You absolutely cannot answer this question without introducing parameters. You might as well fight your CM battles by having all the units line up facing each other in the middle of an open field and have them shoot until one side's gone. This is no way to fight a battle, or pose a question. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Double post. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

To both CavScout and Elijah - Assuming that England and Russia were either conquered or neutral, from where could the US either launch an invasion of Germany or base bombers with which they could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: The simple question is who would win, America or Germany in a straight up fight? One on one, no other meaningless "what ifs".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, this question in and of itself is an enormous what if. If you don't qualify it somehow, it becomes useless. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: So, answer the question. Why do you believe that the US would be unwilling to kill 100K or so Germans with an A-Bomb when they amde it abundantly clear they were willing to kill 100K Germans with fire bombs? Jeff Heidman <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wrote a few posts back, that I have read sources which state that Roosevelt would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany unless the threat existed that Germany would use atomic weapons of its own on the Allies. As I wrote, I will attempt to provide information on these sources if I can find them. As I wrote, I make no promise of being able to do so. One of three things, therefore, is possible. 1) My sources are wrong. Fair enough, sources can be wrong. As my field of study is not American foreign policy during the Second World War, I cannot even claim that I have made an attempt to verify these sources. I don't have the time or the inclination. 2) If my sources were correct, then Roosevelt was irrational. Fair enough, as I say, people are irrational. 3) I'm lying and fabricating sources. If this is what you think, come out and say it. At which point I will stop replying both to this thread and to you. Jeff - Like CavScout, you have spend an extraordinary amount of time trying to discredit my position and no time whatsoever trying to prove yours. I'm willing to admit that my sources might be incorrect. But you'll still have to demonstrate them to be so before I give. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: History is *not* full of paradoxes. Some people's illogical and irrational view of what history is is full of paradox, and this is an exmple of that. You cannot escape the irrationaility of your position by waving it away as a "paradox".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Erm. I have several pieces of paper which say that I do, in fact, know something about history. You seem to be contending that history is logical and rational. I contend that, if this were so, we would have no reason to study history. Why bother? It would all be common sense. Was Hitler logical and rational? Was Stalin? People are illogical and irrational. History is a study of people. If you believe that history is perfectly rational, then yes, I can see how my position would come across as irrational. However, there's nothing I can do to disabuse you of that opinion, so there's really no reason for me to try. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Moreover (doncha love it when someone starts with a moreover), I think the atomic bomb question is a digression. CavScout, I think again that you are spending more time trying to pull me down than trying to pull yourself up. You are the one who is arguing that the US could have won the war on its own, an opinion which flies in the face of some of the most eminent politicians and historians of both then and now. I ask you therefore to prove it. Let me ask you a few questions, and I ask that you respond to the questions rather than attacking my position. 1) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Britain? If so, how? 2) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Russia? If so, how? 3) Allowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, if Britain and Russia had been defeated, or had been non-combattants, from where would the US have based bombers with which they could have dropped atomic bombs on Germany? As I said, please answer the questions. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Anyone who thinks the US would not have used the A-Bomb on Germany is living in some other world. The burden of proof is NOT on CavScout, it is on someone who is claiming something directly at odds with both what actually occurred, and stated US policy. The A-bomb was developed with the intention of using it on Germany. Roosevelt said he would use it on Berlin at the first opportunity. The US participated in the bombing of Dresden wchich resulted in the deaths of more Germans civilians than were killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and more than both of them put together if you believe the German post-war casualty estimates. Why would you think that the US would suddenly have a fit of conscience over the Germans when it came to nuking them, but be perfectly willing to fire-bomb them back to the stone-age? Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff - your sources are at odds with mine. I've read that Roosevelt stated that he would not use the atomic bomb against Germany unless there was a threat of Germany using an atomic bomb of its own. Again, I make no promises about finding this source, as my books and I are separated by an ocean. I will, however, try to find it. I contend that the burden of proof is on anyone who would state that the US would have dropped the bomb on Germany for a simple reason: because we did not. You point out the paradox between being willing to conventionally bomb Germany's civilian population and being willing to use atomic weapons against it. I don't deny the paradox. Why did we treat German POWs relatively well while dropping bombs on their wives and children? History is full of paradoxes, if you try to resolve them all, you'll burst. Cheers ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

Cav, I think you're spending a lot of time batting back other people's arguments and not a lot supporting your own A) I'm not saying the war in Europe wasn't awful and brutal. I'm saying that the war in Japan was moreso. Can you deny that racial prejudice did not play a part in how the US fought the Pacific war? Consider this: during World War Two, a bit over 10,000 Americans of European descent were interned in internment camps. Over 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned. Can this be explained in anything other than racial terms? This racism absolutely did extend to the soldiers in the field. As I pointed out, studies showed that a smaller percentage of American soldiers felt a moral compunction against killing Japanese soldiers as compared with killing European soldiers. This study is not on the web AFAIK so I cannot provide a link, but if I can dig up the reference I will post it. C) My contention that the US would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany is based on my understanding of world history and personal conjecture. What is your contention that we would have dropped the bomb on Germany based on? We did not, so I think the burden of proof rests on you. D) Gee, we can drag out Churchill quotes all day, but where did I say that America's contribution wasn't vital to winning the war? What I'm saying is that all of the Allies' contributions to the war effort were vital. You seem to be saying that the US could have won the war on its own. I disagree. Edited for grammar, spelling, and added emphasis ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. [This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]