Matrix Games Forums

Hi, I was under the impression SE Morison was a Harvard man appointed by FDR to write "The Offical History of the USN in WWII"
I only posted the "Offical USN History" to note it did not use the Morison number. I'm sure if I could go back 30-40 years and check the then current version of the "Offical USN History" it would indeed be SE Morison's. I wonder what they think they now know that you know they don't really know. (and who wrote 2003's version)
One thing I do know. (I've read the complete Morison I think I'd posted when and where) Many US military personal who engaged in combat did not correctly report what they had been in combat with. (All twin engine Japanese bombers became Betty bombers. All German tanks became Tigers, and every unit ever engaged was "the best the enemy has" Since Morison was a scholar and not a sailor I wonder how many sea bats made it into his work. (You don't want to get into a yarn spinning contest with sailors)

The Samual Eliot Morison FFG-13 (ex Samual E. Morison) is now the Turkish TCG GOKOVA (F-496).

"Congratulations on your victory over the Cretins at Sparta"

"Catton's somewhat lightweight but valuable nevertheless--about the same as Foote for the period. He's on my shelf, though. Barb was a good writer, maybe better than that. A former journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, someone with a similar background as my own, I just don't have a lot of interest in her stuff, mostly because of her subject materials, but yes, she qualifies as a very competent historian."

Hi, Lightweight?......You won a Pulitzer?.......She didn't do OOB stuff. She wrote excellent "why" books. (I loved "The March of Folly")
I also like Gibbon, I can't read Tacitus without spending the next several days feeling sorry for the daughter of Sejanus, Thucydides is really great. I think an epic 4 hour movie could be made. Has any human since lived a more interesting life then Alcibiades?

Mogami wrote:?

Actually I can only recall Morrison praising the IGN three times.
All the other times he is boosting the USN.

(quote)
---------------------------
I like you TIMJOT. You're a thinker, or at least you want to be thinker. And that counts with me. So consider this.
---------------------------

Tristanjohn, I would thank you for a little less condescension please. I believe I have at least afforded you that courtesy. I do not fancy myself to be either a great thinker or "unwashed". I do not purport to be anything other than an interested party,.



(quote)
-----------------------------
A larger issue down over the years has been Morison's scathing (there is no other word for it) review of Admiral Fletcher's actions. And on that score I happen to walk side by side with Morison. Fletcher was not only dumb in some respects but possibly a coward. I am the last person to cast that aspersion on anyone who wears or wore the uniform. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their countries in time of war. But really, Fletcher was a very strange man.

So what do you think about that?
--------------------------------



I do not have a definitive opinion on the man, but you might do well to consider this when formulating your opinion of his performance.



"'You will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidence of your force to attack by superior force without good prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy. This applies to a landing phase as well as during the peliminary attacks."

Nimitz; Special instructions governing future operations, issued prior to the Watchtower operation.





(quote)
-----------------------------
John Lundstrom wrote an article entitled "Frank Jack Fletcher Got a Bum Rap" in Naval History (Summer and Fall, 1992). He tries to make a case for the man by I'm tired out from authors rewriting history just for the sales and whatever notoriety it could bring. Still, the article's there for anyone with interest so I thought I'd mention it.[/QUOTE]
------------------------------


I believe I read that article in an issue last summer. They must have re-issued it or it may have been another mag.

Tristanjohn wrote:By the way, you use the term "fan" to depict my "ardor" for all things Morison and Turner. So let me say this.

I am not a "fan" of S. E. Morison any more than I am a "fan" of A. T. Mahan or Edwin B. Coddington. I am not a "fan" of Admiral Turner any more than I am a "fan" of Horatio Nelson or George Washington.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Since when does "Fan" have a negative connotation

I take it to mean "admirer". Are you not an admirer of Morison?

Tristanjohn wrote:. Check Vol. IV p295. Better still, get the index if it's available as then you'll have the whole road map.

Thanks

Tristanjohn wrote:Only if you died the right way. Example: the survivors from Guadacanal were dumped on some forgotten corner of Bougainville and left to die. Perhaps then they became "good" Japanese, but I don't know. What do you think?

Yup, they sure did, as long as they died they not only became "good" they became "great" They were not just left to to die they were left to die defending a sacred piece of the emperor's empire. They only came "bad" if they surrendered. Thats what I know.

TIMJOT wrote:Since when does "Fan" have a negative connotation

I take it to mean "admirer". Are you not an admirer of Morison?

I think so. I admire anyone who competently does anything. A butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, it's all the same to me. Do it well and you have my admiration.

TIMJOT wrote:(quote)
---------------------------
I like you TIMJOT. You're a thinker, or at least you want to be thinker. And that counts with me. So consider this.
---------------------------

Tristanjohn, I would thank you for a little less condescension please. I believe I have at least afforded you that courtesy. I do not fancy myself to be either a great thinker or "unwashed". I do not purport to be anything other than an interested party,.

This is a good example of picking trouble where there is none.

Why must you look at my remark as condescending? Has it come to the point where a man has to act just a little stupid in mixed company in order to get along?

You strike me as a thinker, I mention it. It is meant as a compliment, you ought to take it as such. There are worse possibilities in life than being branded a thinker. Very simple, no?

By hey, if you don't want to be mistaken for a thinker next time, would rather instead be mistaken for a general, there's a ready solution: walk slow, look dumb, act stupid.

Pop Quiz!

1) What film does that line come from?

2) What super star read that line, and to whom?

3) Which Sousa march did the band play?

Bonus question (10 points): Which one of the above stars played the heavy in a Spencer Tracy western having to do with a post-WWII issue?

TIMJOT wrote:A larger issue down over the years has been Morison's scathing (there is no other word for it) review of Admiral Fletcher's actions. And on that score I happen to walk side by side with Morison. Fletcher was not only dumb in some respects but possibly a coward. I am the last person to cast that aspersion on anyone who wears or wore the uniform. I have nothing but respect for those who serve their countries in time of war. But really, Fletcher was a very strange man.

So what do you think about that?
--------------------------------

I do not have a definitive opinion on the man, but you might do well to consider this when formulating your opinion of his performance.

That's both a stupid answer and one that wants to play to the audience. You're headed in the wrong direction, TIMJOT.

The logic is this: if you don't "know" a man then you shouldn't "judge" him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like my old man used to say, "Never judge a man 'til you've walked a mile in his moccasins."

But this is the real world, not the third grade, we're all men around here, and I can easily judge stuff without personal acquaintance to be good, bad or indifferent. Like Jack the Ripper. He was a bad man. But Superman, now was very very good. While I hold no opinion of all of Martha Stewart. (Actually I do but yoiu know what mean, right?)

Abe Lincoln, he was a good guy, too. Couldn't stand Charles de Gaulle, though I loved Audrey Hepburn, and how about . . . ?

See what I mean?

Come on TIMJOT, being a thinker doesn't imply you can think but suggests you want to think, and seriously, all the time.

TIMJOT wrote:"You will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you shall interpret to mean the avoidence of your force to attack by superior force without good prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy. This applies to a landing phase as well as during the peliminary attacks."

Nimitz; Special instructions governing future operations, issued prior to the Watchtower operation.

I'd like to discuss that more some time, and will if you're of a mind.

Meanwhile, what does that have to do with Wake?

Bushmaster wrote:Tristanjohn,

I have to say I agree with the way you approach a wargame. I can't say I've read everything you've posted here, and I may be wrong, but somewhere I got the impression you, just as I, play a wargame with emphasis on historical accuracy and realism. I think your focus should be more on the actual people who use game flaws just for the satisfaction of winning rather than the game design. UV is defiantly the best we have right now, and there is no doubt in my mind the creators had to make sacrifices here and there for whatever reason, or maybe some things are just impossible.

NOTE: The forum software (or server) is acting up again so I'll leave an abreviated response.

Basically you're saying it isn't perfect and never will be. I understand. But it isn't even especially functional within its own stated goals and context, and those are modest at best and pander to the wargame-lite side of the hobby like mad.

Generally we agree, though. Others do as well. The problem is those who do agree get (have gotten) tired fast of the mentality that prevails around here, the mentality that will shout down or ridicule any and all opposition to the idea the game isn't the best thing since sliced bread, that it would be improved if it was more forthright in its approach as to what went down in the Pacific.

Is UV the best game we have right now on the subject? It's the only game we have right now on the subject for my money. That's what upsets me so much. Were there an alternative none of this would be necessary.

I shake my head.

Bushmaster wrote:Aside from that, valid game flaws are, from what I’ve seen, encouraged here. And if you've found one, or some, then you have every right to point it out. Just don't react as if an explanation to your problem is a direct insult to your intelligence.

As if I did?

Look. You're already on record as having said you haven't bothered to read the entire thread, not to mention anything else I might have posted elsewhere. Yet you feel comfortable writing that?

Bushmaster wrote:I personally think you get off fancying " yourself a highbrow and continually deriding others as unwashed and stupid ", as Mike put it so well.

Mike hasn't put much of anything "so well" that I'm aware of for the simple reasons that Mike is: 1) out of control 2) not entirely in command of the English language 3) anti-intellectual in his approach.

I don't "fancy" myself a higbrow, I just am. Is there something wrong, in your view, with holding a highbrow's outlook on things overall? Also, I didn't bring it up; one of the cretins did as a means to ridicule my argument through yet more ad hominem usage.

Thanks for your close attention.

Bushmaster wrote:If you like conflict and are under constant pressure from your personality to try and make yourself look better than everyone else, I'm sure there are many other forums where attitudes like that are accepted if not welcomed. But here, and to me especially, you're just a punk. If I were somewhere having a discussion with people and you came up with that kind of attitude I’d want to punch you. I'm not trying to be a tough guy or get into it with you but your tone is that of a cocky punk who in grade school might have been something to admire, but around adults it's a character flaw and rather bothersome... which is why I'd probably punch you.

Let me get this straight.

Your contention is that I am under "constant pressure" and so an "adult" solution to this condition, in your view, would be to "punch" me?

Tristanjohn wrote:This is a good example of picking trouble where there is none.


You strike me as a thinker, I mention it. It is meant as a compliment, you ought to take it as such. There are worse possibilities in life than being branded a thinker. Very simple, no?

It was the "you want to be a thinker" remark that a took exception to. I took it as I had some ulterior motives. A "wanabe" so to speak.

If that wasnt your intent then fine, nuff said. It sort of like you taking exception being indentified as a fan.

Bushmaster wrote:Get it together man, I know what you're all about. You seem smart and educated yet you use it in such a childish manor. You HAD the opportunity to be well recieved, and your UV complaints, if they are genuine, could have been addressed seriously. Now you've lost credibility, as far as your intentions, so what's to come of it all? Whats the point Tristanjohn... maybe YOU should count to ten, sit back and realise how stupid and pointless what you're doing actually is.

You want me to "get it together"?

Well, you're right about one thing. In all likelihood my effort here is wasted. I doubt the company is moved and for sure and for certain the majority of this forum, to include you, sir, will march to its collective grave acting just the way it has all along. And be none the wiser at the end.

Thanks, but I think I can manage to do better than society's norm, and fully intend to.

Chiteng wrote:Actually I can only recall Morrison praising the IGN three times. All the other times he is boosting the USN.

I haven't kept count and I don't intend to, but it was more than that, Chiteng. And he hardly "boosts" the USN "all the other times." As a matter of fact Morison's view, on balance, represents one of the more scathing in terms of USN performance during the war, especially in the early going.

Tristanjohn wrote:I haven't kept count and I don't intend to, but it was more than that, Chiteng. And he hardly "boosts" the USN "all the other times." As a matter of fact Morison's view, on balance, represents one of the more scathing in terms of USN performance during the war, especially in the early going.

I recall three times. Doesnt mean there are not more.
Damning the early performnce of the USN isnt hard.

TIMJOT wrote:It was the "you want to be a thinker" remark that a took exception to. I took it as I had some ulterior motives. A "wanabe" so to speak.

If that wasnt your intent then fine, nuff said. It sort of like you taking exception being indentified as a fan.

Well, okay. I can see how you might misconstrue that. But a careful reading of me by someone of your capacity ought to indicate that I'm a man who writes with care, and if you've paid attention and have an open mind you'll also have to cede that I don't go out of my way to pick fights with anyone but merely reflect what's sent my way.

Bottom line: several times you've taken an argument down a new path on your own without agenda or rancor. The orginality of thought speaks to "thinker," the lack of emotion tells me you're without hurtful intent.

Period.

Chiteng wrote:I recall three times. Doesnt mean there are not more.

That was clearly the implication.

Damning the early performnce of the USN isnt hard.

It isn't? Did you go to school in the USA? Can you not recall the history books you were obliged to read?

Morison's work is more than a little unique. One's life work doesn't become a legend for nothing.