Hortlund

Send me my turns you lazy sods.

Examples?

So, "doing the right thing" in your world means that anyone wanting to research world war two must rely on secondary sources or worse. Because reading a book written by someone fighting on the German side would be wrong. And apparently, so would reading a book written by someone fighting on the Soviet side (Stalin ruled the Soviet union back then). Lets just say that we have different approaches to historical research you and me, and leave it at that.

Hmmm... let's see, Guderian, Manstein, Galland and Dönitz didn't change their names and lie about their background. Seems to me that their credability is a bit less tarnished than Carell's</font>

Yes, I agree. Not to say that I think every book about ww2 written by a German must have a chapter on the Holocaust or warcrimes, but I do agree that given his background one should be careful with any comments from him trying to justify the war or whatever. I cant remember reading any comments from Carell about politics or "the war in general" like that though. Hence my question.

Ahh thanks. I find it peculiar that the city wasnt destroyed since it was the scene of such heavy fighting for the better part of two weeks. Do you have more information about the town? All I have to go on is two old black and white photos that doesnt really show that much of the town.

PUNT

Have you actually read any of Carells books? What in your opinion is the worst lies he writes in his books? What is falsified? What is propaganda? Exactly what in his texts is it you object to? Where do you draw the line between, oh I dunno Carell and Guderian? Is Guderians book ok to read? If yes, then why? Because Guderian said after the war that he was not a nazi and he was against Hitler all the time? Did Guderian say that btw? What about Manstein? Is it ok to read his books? Galland? Dönitz? Who is ok and who is not ok? If I say "Carells book is really interesting and it gives a good view of the German perspective of Operation Barbarossa" does that mean that I'm endorsing a "high ranking nazi"? Even though there is not a hint in Carells book that would lead the reader to believe that he is "endorsing nazism" or whatever? Please explain what you mean, because Im not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

Anyone have the pre war population of this little town? Or better yet, a city map or something like that? Im talking about the small village on the Smolensk-Moscow highway of 1941 fame.

I think he's hiding because of the thorough spanking Im giving him in our battle. Yes, young mr Goodale needs to learn not to roll his T-34s and KV-1s in a straight line towards big cats. Btw mr Gay, you're up.

You remember Carrells (real name Schmidt) lie correctly. In fact he never came near the frontline, and was the Chief press spokesman for the German foreign ministry, and controlled Signal. He also joined the SA, and NSDAP in 1932, before it was required to do so for a career in civil service. When it became opportune, he joined the SS instead of the SA and rose to Sturmbannfuehrer. How much anyone wants to trust someone who lied about his previous career to such a degree I leave open to the critical facilities (or otherwise) of the readers. I think it is a fair judgement to say that Schmidts post-war career continued his Nazi career, in spewing propaganda about the "clean" war of the Wehrmacht (hey, we all know the SS were the only baddies) and later how poor Adolf just acted in self-defence when he attacked the nasty Josef in 1941.</font>

My reccomendation: Start with Paul Carell, Hitlers war on Russia. That book gives an excellent view of the first year of the war from the German side. If covers Barbarossa to Stalingrad. Carell manages to mix the perspectives of individual soldiers with that of the field marshals, making the book an extremely interesting read. Also, Carell was (if I remember correctly) a German war correspondent or something, he was working for Signal magazine, the German propaganda paper, so he met several of the persons in his books. His book will give you a great overview, combined with detailed personal accounts. His style of writing makes it very "personal", it is very very good. After that one, move on to the "classics" Guderians Panzer leader, Mansteins lost victories for a more detailed view of the German perspective. Then, time for the individual soldiers perspective, Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. [ December 29, 2002, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Uhh...you are aware that YOU are the Russians in our battle MG? That means that YOUR troops are red, and MY troops are blue. The Tigers belong to me, and the burning hulks of red ex-tanks belong to you.

wow, that one is beautiful.

Not unless you send out the turns you own...

ok ok, in the spirit of the season I will give him to Abbot.

I dont want you as my wife or my bitch. When I win, I'm gonna sell you to Abbot.

Its a blanket.

I dunno, that doesnt sound right, Himmler was never head of the Gestapo. Göring was at one time, but I cant remember for how long though. Himmler was the boss over SS, Gestapo was never a part of the SS. Gestapo was the "secret police" of the police force. SS had its own "secret police" but that was called the Sicherheitsdienst, or the SD for short. Then you had the RSHA, somehow merging these two units together but the chains of command for that organization is way to complicated to understand.

Who, Himmler?

Whoever wrote that disqualified himself right there. If he cant keep track of very simple basic historical facts, why listen to the rest of what he has to say?

heh, that reminded me of an old friend. Back in...93-something I think it was. I had bought myself a brand new 486 PC with a whopping 8 meg ram. Anyway, this was about the time when Aces of the deep and Panzer General were the best games known to mankind, and naturally I played those games as often as I could (=6-8 hours everyday). I was in school back then, so I spent the days at school and the evenings playing. Then my computerless friend would come over at around 2100-2200, we would hang out a bit, then he would play until the wee hours in the morning while I was sleeping. Heh, those were the days.

I disagree. Encirclements come in all sizes. Lets take Stalingrad as an example. More specifically the "to the Volga" operation. In real life there were dozens of pockets in that area in that operation. And in real life, creating such pockets were the only way to drive the Russians out of some points of resistance. These pockets could be as small as the top level of a building, or as large as a factory hall. In ASL, this was simulated, where you could have pockets as small as the top floor of a building. This is lacking in BB, and it is a shortcoming. If you feel Stalingrad is a bad example of these "mini-encirclements" I can name hundreds of other such pockets, both from city battles, but also from other battles, which would fit in very well on the BB scale.

Mike, I thought the dogs were fed underneath fully functioning tanks with running engines (otherwise you'd have a hard time getting a dog to run under a moving tank), and when they were released they ran towards the soviet tanks, because they recognized the sound/smell/whatever of the soviet engines.

Stop making out you two, MG owes me a turn.