V
-
Posts
705 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by V
-
-
Originally posted by Seanachai:
The fact is, some of these topics have been discussed so often and so much that when they're brought up for the nth time (and often not as thoughtfully as you attempted), the only people still happy to throw themselves into the discussion are usually those who, like V, want to go off on their own little diatribes that are only marginally related to the original topic, or are too new to the Forum to have seen any of the previous discussions. Others are simply silly or flippant.
I was responding to some very questionable posts. I have been in this exact thread probably a dozen other times on this and other forums, I should have known better, but I'm prone to acting on impulse at times.
I don't quite see how you can define my posts in this thread as a "diatribe." I don't think the definition fits, but to each his own. Maybe there was a dash of bitterness in there...
Glad you enjoyed that. Just had my fangs sharpened to a fine point, its nice to show them off.This thread was worthwhile simply for the enjoyment of watching V and Grog Dorosh show each other their teeth while snarling 'Oh yeah?! Well that's what I think too, you swine!', as well as their sheepish foot shuffling while they decided whether they should hug after realizing they were in agreement.
Can I use that as my sig? I like the way it flows.Kudos to V for the most pointless use of a graphic to not really make a point about something that had almost nothing to do with the original topic. Lest we forget.
You are right though, it was pretty pointless, I'll use the "acting on impulse" defense again on that one.
One thing I can say about that picture is that at least its not a pile of corpses.
-
I really like your captured T-34/76 M43. Thats a great looking mod.
The 25 Pounder is really nice as well...
-
Umm. Put that way, I say no. He was not.Originally posted by Runyan99:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
Now, much as I like talking about myself, maybe we can drop that, and get back to the question on whether Schmidt was a serious historian?
I have two of Carell's major works, 'Foxes of the Desert' and 'Hitler Moves East', and have read parts of 'Scorched Earth'.
Carell reminds me of ancient historians, such as Livy, who were more interested in telling a story than finding truth. I would not put it past Carell to invent facts or details if it added to his narritive. Just as Livy did.
But his books were among the earliest accounts of the war from the German perspective. And they make good reads. Like it or not, Carell is an important part of the WW2 historiography. </font>
-
I wasn't meaning to compare what happened in Dresden with Pearl. But when thinking about the bombings which the Japanese suffered, it helps to remember the state of mind of the men who were carrying out and ordering those bombings, and the major events which put them into the position to have to do those terrible deeds. I am sure not many of them were sitting at home on December 6th, dreaming of the day they would get to drop bombs on the Japanese. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
Then we agree.
I am not sure I see the correlation between Old Glory flying over Pearl Harbor and Dresden, though, but that is usually the nature of these types of discussions. I think the roasting alive of tens of thousands of men, women and children in Hamburg (or Dresden) is of the same order of tragedy as the loss of 3,000 servicemen at Pearl Harbor. Certainly the victims were equally unwitting in both instances.
Had Japan submitted their declaration of intention to the US government on schedule, perhaps the latter would not have been seen as treachery. We'll never know. Both Dresden and Pearl Harbor have taken on monstrous overtones due to their execution. Both could be justified at the time, and could still be justified depending on interpretation, as legitimate acts of war.
-
Those are some very fine points. Thanks for getting the thread back on topic.Originally posted by WWB:Back to the main subject. I think civilians should generally not be included. The examples of them clogging roads highlights alot:
1) That is not in the zone CM simulates. That would be the very sharp end. You want to simulate a traffic jam? Simple, make reinforcements show up late and spariodically.
2) Those civilians were fleeing the zone CM simulates. That is why they were clogging the highways. Unlike in the US, where warfare around one's home was a very rare thing, europeans were somewhat used to seeing fighting about. They understood what reasonable people did. Hide valuables too big to carry, grab the rest and flee to the countryside. Failing that hide in a basement until the shooting stopped. Except for the largest cities, warfare was generally civilian free because they (rather intelligently) got the hell out of the way.
WWB
-
I wasn't meaning to compare what happened in Dresden with Pearl. But when thinking about the bombings which the Japanese suffered, it helps to remember the state of mind of the men who were carrying out and ordering those bombings, and the major events which put them into the position to have to do those terrible deeds. I am sure not many of them were sitting at home on December 6th, dreaming of the day they would get to drop bombs on the Japanese.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Then we agree.
I am not sure I see the correlation between Old Glory flying over Pearl Harbor and Dresden, though, but that is usually the nature of these types of discussions. I think the roasting alive of tens of thousands of men, women and children in Hamburg (or Dresden) is of the same order of tragedy as the loss of 3,000 servicemen at Pearl Harbor. Certainly the victims were equally unwitting in both instances.
Had Japan submitted their declaration of intention to the US government on schedule, perhaps the latter would not have been seen as treachery. We'll never know. Both Dresden and Pearl Harbor have taken on monstrous overtones due to their execution. Both could be justified at the time, and could still be justified depending on interpretation, as legitimate acts of war.
-
Originally posted by Panther Commander:
But his Nazi politics and work do certainly give rise to these kinds of questions. I think that it is reasonable to question his motives as a historian. But I have not read enough of his work to say that I can judge the man's writing based soley on that.Gold Standard, to me, implies that he would be what all other WW2 historians are to be compared to. I think the level of his involvement in the war and wartime activities makes you read his work and take it with a grain of salt. Not a good attribute for a Gold Standard writer of World War Two history.
IMHO, as always.
-
You have yet to provide documentary evidence of this. In a court of law, you would need to demonstrate motive and means. So what is your evidence? And your own thoughts and perceptions are rather irrelevant; you must demonstrate that the USAAF and RAF ordered the bombing solely to kill enemy civilians. I doubt you will be able to provide that sort of proof, frankly, but am willing to listen.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:
I disagree with anyone who attempts to imply that the Allied objective in the Dresden raid was nothing but cold blooded murder.
Contemporary sources are best, naturally, as hindsight can only cloud the issue. What were they thinking at the time? </font>
-
They can, of course, close or move the thread as they see fit. But I disagree with anyone who attempts to imply that the Allied objective in the Dresden raid was nothing but cold blooded murder.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:All you newer guys need to realize that this subject is generally off topic, and will either get locked or moved to the general forum. If you really want to discuss bombing without reference to CM, best to start a topic in the GF - but be advised they tend not to last long. There have been exceptions and a search of the GF archives may net you some interesting viewpoints.
From my perspective, the conversation seems a little silly. The quotes from Harris have been provided. Civilians were considered legitimate targets and no airmen were tried for war crimes - German and Japanese included - after the war.
If anyone is seriously contending that the western Allies were either
a) guiltless, or,
"as bad as" the Germans or Russians for promoting mistreatment of enemy civiliansthey have no leg to stand on.
That would be a good point to end the conversation.
-
We won't...Originally posted by Dave H:Don't forget Japan.
-
And if NAZI Germany had had access to the bomber force which the US and UK commanded....Originally posted by Joachim:Nuts.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, any other German city.
vs.
Coventry, Rotterdam, numerous other cities.
-
I saw an interview recently with men who had served in both RAF bomber command and the US 8th AF in WW2. One guy who had been a bombardier on a B17 said that by the last year of the war any German town that had so much as a road running through it was regarded as a military target.Originally posted by Dave H:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What miltary targets exactly? Unless you consider the targeting of fleeing refugees to cause the choking of roads used by miltary vehicles to be a "military target" I tend to disagree.
So yes, at the time, Dresden was regarded by the allies as a military target.</font>
-
There was a Zeiss-Ikon facility and a Siemens glass facility which developed and produced optics and gun sights for the German army. There were factories in and around Dresden which created gas masks, fuses, radar and electronics components, engines for Junkers and cockpit parts for Messerchmitts.Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:What miltary targets exactly? Unless you consider the targeting of fleeing refugees to cause the choking of roads used by miltary vehicles to be a "military target" I tend to disagree.
Dresden was also a major rail hub which the Germans used to shift troops between fronts.
-
There were military targets in Dresden, breaking morale of the civilian population was not the sole cause of the Dresden raid.Originally posted by Stavka_lite:Now I may be wrong but I think that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo targeted the civilian populations in order to break their morale and stop supporting the war. Like I said I could be wrong but I don't think so.
-
I don't think civilians should be involved in CM.
-
A chilling endorsement from the SS...Originally posted by Schutzstaffel:I love that game to death.
-
Well said...Originally posted by Martyr:I'm still in favor of limiting the title for the sake of clarity. I only consider someone a "historian" who researches and writes history to an acceptable standard of integrity. Given the high standards currently imposed by the academy upon itself, I see no reason not to let universities and their associated institutions define those standards. The fact that some historians do not think well of some other historians, and vice versa, does not undermine the structure of peer review. In fact it validates it. (On an analogous note, I can believe that some doctors are quacks while still respecting the judgement of medical schools in awarding M.D.'s.)
After all, it's not as if this denies anyone some reward that they would otherwise gain. You don't get rich practicing history, y'know.
In any case, there is (or should be) no shame in being an amateur or an enthusiast as opposed to a professional historian.One thing visible in the publishing world today is the blurring of the lines between journalists (who create records of current events), historians (who evaluate past events as well as the records of past events), and pundits (who spin events by masquerading as either of the above).
-
To take this further, there are a few series of scenario at the depot which can be played in order as a sort of campaign. One that comes to mind is the Vuosalmi Campaign series.Originally posted by Little Pete:The best i can advise is to get a variety of scenarios in roughly date order and play through them (hopefully getting the feel of working through the various parts of the war).
-
Who gave you that idea?Originally posted by cef71:thanks. i gotta be honest though. this game was much more attractive when i thought it was one large campaign with stats tracked throughout the whole thing. playing single battles just isn't as motivating knowing that once this battle is over, it's over. i would much rather play a game in which your actions in the current battle decide the setup for the second...and third...and so on. much more motivated when i know i am slowly (throughout the course of many battles). just my 2cents:)
-
Thanks for the info...Originally posted by Trommelfeuer:My grandfather encountered "Seydlitz-troops" in the end of March 1945 while being with the 10. SS Panzerdivision Frundsberg. They had raised giant-loudspeakers on the other side of the Oder, and played the song "Heimat deine Sterne..." ( Homeland your stars.. ) afterwards, there was the scournful call "Die seht ihr nie wieder!" ( You won't see them anymore...), and then followed a heavy artillery strike....
The second encounter was a firefight in the middle of the night with Seydlitz-troops (near the town "Hosena" ), those Seydlitz-troops who were killed that night wore german uniforms and Seydlitz-Cuff Titles....( on April 23 1945 ).
Regards, Sven
Very interesting
-
Well, unless you are Kellen Winslow Jr.Originally posted by Sycander:I wonder if we would be having this discussion if the question was 'do you consider yourself to be a soldier?' Considering that both 'soldier' and 'historian' are professional positions requiring a year or more of rather specific training, there could be very clear lines drawn around those categories. But I think most people would say that one has either is/has been a soldier, or one is/has not. Certainly it would be difficult to imagine someone who devoted many, many hours to playing CM and learning all he could about wars past, present and future, claiming that on the basis of that he was a soldier. I don't bring this up in an attempt to enforce professional boundaries--we can all be historians for all I care (and I could abandon my dissertation research and start applying for jobs). But the comparison says something about the relative uniqueness and status (on these boards, anyway) of the two professions.
-
Captain Crank, your singer is hot!Originally posted by Crank_GS:Good stuff here. I appreciate hearing from so many people. I especially liked hearing about the origin of "grognard" from JasonC. I suppose I would rather have a grog in front of me than a grognard beside me... but maybe not - the conversation would be good.
OK, so I thought Michael's point was well made - certainly from one who had a degree in history. And with all due respect to Mr. Tittles opinion on degrees and doctorates and such, I believe that attaining a degree is well worthy of respect: much work, time and study goes into getting one, and a degree is a formal acknowledgement of achievement. Upon further thought, and after reading the various positions on what makes an historian, I believe that I would be more aptly named a "history enthusiast". I am comfortable with that. I think I like the idea best that historians record. I do not do that... well, accurately I do not record history. I DO record rock and roll music. (here is my band's site www.loriwyatt.com My singer is way hot, and I am the bass player. Shameless plug
)I am not all about assigning labels to myself or others; that is not my intention with this thread. After all, I will do what I will do; you will do what you will do - all regardless of labels. I was just interested in hearing some other opinions. While we all enjoy the fun of playing the various CM games offered by BTS, I think that an extraordinary group has gravitated to these forums. I have learned an amazing amount of info - on an amazing number of topics. Aw heck, I like you guys.
On a side note... Michael, I have the ASL boards, the scenarios from Doomed Battalions, as well as all the rest of the scenarios in a box. Email me your address and all I will need to do then is drop them at UPS
I am currently working on my BA in history from Iowa State, and after that I will go to graduate school (somewhere) for a Masters and then eventually a Doctorate. I think that the term historian, according to dictionary, can be either a professional, a student or a writer of history. But I have also seen definitions which include people who just have a genuine love for history.
But, I think that considering that some people devote much of their lives to history and base their living on work in history, the title of historian should be reserved for them.
I mean, just because someone might have an interest in science, that alone cannot make them a scientist. Maybe the same thing should apply to the history field. I don't know, its a free country.
-
I knew that. But the definition of "grognard" refused to come up on dictionary.com. So I tried grog and got what I got.Originally posted by JasonC:Intoxicating liquor is not what "grog" means applied to wargamers. It is short for "grognard", which means "grumbler", and was Napoleon's affectionate term for the members (and especially the NCOs) of his Old Guard. By it he meant they were always complaining about something, a tweak at their (legendary) fortitude in adverse conditions.
-
I'm not sure that this recipe was the only one followed. Another that I have heard of was one part rum (up to 150 proof :eek: ) to three or four parts water. To this was added lemon juice (often previously concentrated) and sugar. In other words, the Royal Navy was very much into serving and consuming cocktails!Originally posted by Michael Emrys:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by V:
from dictionary.com:
grog ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grg)
n.
An alcoholic liquor, especially rum diluted with water.
grog
\Grog\, n. [so named from ``Old Grog'' a nickname given to Admiral Vernon, in allusion to his wearing a grogram cloak in foul weather. He is said to have been the first to dilute the rum of the sailors (about 1745).] A mixture of spirit and water not sweetened; hence, any intoxicating liquor.
Michael </font>
"as bad as" the Germans or Russians for promoting mistreatment of enemy civilians
In any case, there is (or should be) no shame in being an amateur or an enthusiast as opposed to a professional historian.
OT: Check out these models...
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
http://davidlevinthal.com/works.html
especially the "Hitler Moves East" section.
Sorry if this has been posted before. I stumbled across it while looking for info on the book "Hitler Moves East."