British Defeat

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean in this sentence?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean in this sentence?

I would. But what do you think I meant?

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Capitaine,

If desired, one way to prevent the British movement to either Canada or Egypt is to disable this DECISION event in the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen. The event in question would be DE 105.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean in this sentence?

I would. But what do you think I meant?

warspite1

I would like to hear what you meant too Capitaine. I am simply at a loss where 'modern sensibilities' comes into this. World War II history is very well covered - sure there may be a few more revelations to come but we must be getting close to the point where the major documents have been released/uncovered, researched and reported on.

What that means is that WWII's stories are largely laid open for the world to read. The possibility that the UK could come to terms with Hitler is known about (e.g. the peace feelers put out by Lord Halifax who, remember, came within a gnats whisker of becoming Prime Minister instead of WSC). We know too of the deals made pre-WWII by Britain and France to try and avoid war. Yes, the deals with Hitler were made for the right reasons, and as leaders of democracies, Chamberlain and Daladier had one hand tied behind their backs, but nevertheless, in hindsight they were completely wrong and the carve up of Czechoslovakia is not a good thing to have on your CV. The fact that the Allies did not lift a finger to help the Poles is known, the fact that the Allies only failed to invade Norway because Germany got there first is known.

So exactly what 'sensibilities' do you think are being pandered to by having the UK not surrender in a war game? What is being 'hidden'?

WWII is a long time ago, we have long moved away from good guys = white hats and bad guys = black hats a la westerns of the 50's and 60's. Life is more complicated.

As per XXXCorps request, please let us know what you mean?

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Otherwise I sense that the Allied "cause" in the game is mostly informed by modern political sensibilities.

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean in this sentence?

I would. But what do you think I meant?

Then elaborate on it. What I think you meant is irrelevant.

[Capitaine]

I actually believe modern leftists have largely [tried to have] rewritten history of WWII and other conflicts to suit their political agenda and strategy. It's apparent from many modern interpretations. More than that I'll not go into due to Matrix/Slitherine's policy against political discussion. Back in the day, things were a lot less spun as they are now, and I believe perceptions back then were a lot closer to actual realistic consequences than they are today, at least when there isn't hard new evidence to the contrary. And this is usually true with all history: Source material from closer to the actual event is more reliable than those more distant.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps




Would you care to elaborate on what you mean in this sentence?

I would. But what do you think I meant?

Then elaborate on it. What I think you meant is irrelevant.

Yes, that's what I suspected of you.

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I actually believe modern leftists have largely [tried to have] rewritten history of WWII and other conflicts to suit their political agenda and strategy. It's apparent from many modern interpretations. More than that I'll not go into due to Matrix/Slitherine's policy against political discussion. Back in the day, things were a lot less spun as they are now, and I believe perceptions back then were a lot closer to actual realistic consequences than they are today, at least when there isn't hard new evidence to the contrary. And this is usually true with all history: Source material from closer to the actual event is more reliable than those more distant.

And that is what I suspected of you.

[Qwixt]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Capitaine,

If desired, one way to prevent the British movement to either Canada or Egypt is to disable this DECISION event in the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen. The event in question would be DE 105.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

Hey Capitaine,

Since it can be completely disabled, how does this now fit into your tin foil hat theory of "modern leftists have largely [tried to have] rewritten history of WWII"?

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Hi Capitaine,

If desired, one way to prevent the British movement to either Canada or Egypt is to disable this DECISION event in the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen. The event in question would be DE 105.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

Hey Capitaine,

Since it can be completely disabled, how does this now fit into your tin foil hat theory of "modern leftists have largely [tried to have] rewritten history of WWII"?

Lol, it's hardly "tin foil hat" theories, it's very real. Very much disinformation especially on the origins of WWII generally.

Yet I'm not interested in "completely disabling" the British conquest rubric. I find some of it quite meritorious. However, when (1) the British main isle has been completely occupied by German troops; (2) no British ground or air units remain there; (3) the RN Atlantic fleet has been completely destroyed with no loss of German capital ships; (4) the RN Med fleet has been completely destroyed with no loss of Italian capital ships; and Egypt has largely been overrun... I wonder why there has been no dialog for conquest or surrender.

I just checked my rulebook for GMT's "A World at War", the worldwide follow-on game to AH's "Third Reich", and they've revamped the conquest and surrender terms for Gt. Britain and the Soviets. They are now based on a resistance level computation taking into consideration of a number of factors bearing on the ability of those nations to wage war effectively. Given the circumstances in my game it is clear that under the AWAW terms a surrender by Britain would've been offered nonetheless.

This is why I suspect something else may be going on with the apparent "never surrender" stance in this game. I just don't understand why that is. It's not necessarily devious; but without some strong basis for not allowing for British surrender what is one to think?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater
If desired, one way to prevent the British movement to either Canada or Egypt is to disable this DECISION event in the OPTIONS->ADVANCED->SCRIPTS screen. The event in question would be DE 105.

Bingo, players have the option to toggle scripted events on/off as they desire, or easily edit such events to trigger with greater or lesser frequency. Not everyone is going to agree on everything in a game like this, but the great thing about this game is that it has great support to make some corrections as needed and a great Editor that allows players to make additional corrections as they see fit. Win-Win.

[warspite1]

Capitaine, your hypothesis falls short for a number of reasons:

1. If it was ‘modern leftists’ setting the agenda, then not only would Britain surrender, but chances are she would not even have fought. Why would any leftist – modern or otherwise – have any wish to make the United Kingdom – the United Kingdom with an imperial empire at that time - look good? Quite the reverse, sticking the boot in and devaluing said country is the stock in trade of 'modern lefties' (whatever they are).

2. The re-writing of history is being done by modern leftists? Really? Last year I read The Devils’ Alliance. This book had the, what was it? ‘modern lefty’ Guardian newspaper up in arms because it dared to suggest that maybe Stalin was a bad guy. If the historian who wrote that book is not a modern lefty, then how could it get published?

3. ‘Modern lefties’ is not particularly helpful in getting your actual point over. Its just a lazy catch-all to smear anyone you don't agree with. Who are these 'trendy lefties'? Hubert? Matrix? Who?

4.

without some strong basis for not allowing for British surrender what is one to think?

How many reasons do you want? You've had about a dozen.

5. In describing the United Kingdom as you do in your post I assume you are describing the state of the United Kingdom in your game. If that is the case perhaps you can explain this; you are up in arms because for reasons that you believe would be ahistorical, the British continue to oppose Hitler from the Dominions. And yet you have no issue with the Regia Marina destroying the Mediterranean Fleet – and with no loss to itself!! How the hell did that happen whilst in any way shape or form marrying up with history? And the RN's Atlantic Fleet (whatever that is) all destroyed for no loss of German ships!!!…. Ooookkkkaaaayyy….. That situation does not raise an eyebrow with you, but the UK carrying on the war (along with the other Governments in Exile) from one of the Dominions leaves you non-plussed……?

6. Out of interest, what do you believe to be the origins of WWII and what do 'modern lefties' believe?

[Moltke71]

Warspite,

Well said! Who wrote The Devil's Alliance?

[mbishop]

Thinking outside the box ...

Historically there was the German guy (I don't remember his name, but I believe he was in Hitler's inner circle)
that flew to Scotland and parachuted out and was captured. IIRC he was supposed to meet with the faction that
supported the King that recently abdicated to marry the American divorced lady in the '30's. The story I was
told or read was that the abdicated King would reassume the throne and would withdraw (ala Vichy?)from the war
so Hitler could turn east to USSR. This would have Churchill replaced and the Royal Navy would remain intact. The
reason that this could happen was that there was a percentage of Brits that quasi supported Hitler's strong
personality and were anti communist. There was also the faction that supported the recently abdicated King and
wanted to somehow have him reassert himself.

Now this could also be a lot of crap. I don't know ... I recently retired, have a lot of time on my hands...
and I think I should get my coupon next week ...

Hubert could you add an event decision, say if British morale drops to a certain level, or any combination of
negative events for Britain so that the British Isles go neutral(or Vichy) signifying regime change while having
another trigger for the dominions (Canada, India, Australia, ??)to either comply or continue to fight by declaring
independence or being absorbed into the US sphere of influence(supply and Logistics)

This would facilitate those who think Britain could or could not be defeated...

Hope I didn't muddle this up

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

Warspite,

Well said! Who wrote The Devil's Alliance?

warspite1

Roger Moorhouse

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Capitaine, your hypothesis falls short for a number of reasons:

1. If it was ‘modern leftists’ setting the agenda, then not only would Britain surrender, but chances are she would not even have fought. Why would any leftist – modern or otherwise – have any wish to make the United Kingdom – the United Kingdom with an imperial empire at that time - look good? Quite the reverse, sticking the boot in and devaluing said country is the stock in trade of 'modern lefties' (whatever they are).

Oh, it's modern leftists alright. The same ones behind the ban and censorship of swastikas in historical games and other merchandise. Most nonleftists have a higher respect for history than to allow such revisionism. Leftists are "ends justify the means" by doctrine, and that is what all this is.

2. The re-writing of history is being done by modern leftists? Really? Last year I read The Devils’ Alliance. This book had the, what was it? ‘modern lefty’ Guardian newspaper up in arms because it dared to suggest that maybe Stalin was a bad guy. If the historian who wrote that book is not a modern lefty, then how could it get published?

See above. I'm not familiar with the book, but what's your point? Is the author left or nonleft? Your Guardian paper being "up in arms" about a less than stellar portrayal of Stalin just makes the case for leftist historical revisionism.

3. ‘Modern lefties’ is not particularly helpful in getting your actual point over. Its just a lazy catch-all to smear anyone you don't agree with. Who are these 'trendy lefties'? Hubert? Matrix? Who?

Note well that I'm not really trying to engage with you or others in this kind of discussion, and I'm purposefully indulging in a bit of vagueness to avoid more politically inflammatory dialog.

4.

without some strong basis for not allowing for British surrender what is one to think?

How many reasons do you want? You've had about a dozen.

No, you're wrong. There can be no real reasons supporting this because it's all hypothetical anyway. It's my assertion that all European nations at war would surrender at some discrete level of conquest, and you say no... maybe others but not England!

Just curious, what reason that you believe was supplied do you think is dispositive on the issue?

5. In describing the United Kingdom as you do in your post I assume you are describing the state of the United Kingdom in your game. If that is the case perhaps you can explain this; you are up in arms because for reasons that you believe would be ahistorical, the British continue to oppose Hitler from the Dominions. And yet you have no issue with the Regia Marina destroying the Mediterranean Fleet – and with no loss to itself!! How the hell did that happen whilst in any way shape or form marrying up with history? And the RN's Atlantic Fleet (whatever that is) all destroyed for no loss of German ships!!!…. Ooookkkkaaaayyy….. That situation does not raise an eyebrow with you, but the UK carrying on the war (along with the other Governments in Exile) from one of the Dominions leaves you non-plussed……?

It's quite fine, actually. I used overwhelming air, subs and a very secure employment of surface fleets. I assure you it was all legit. I had to believe that the RN could be defeated by the Axis. After an initial advantage was achieved, the AI kept placing damaged units in harm's way, and I took advantage. I doubt this would work against a human opponent, but I was glad to learn there is a fighting chance to defeat the RN soundly. Laughably, your jingoistic pride makes you believe that is an historical impossibility.

But the important point is not the actual dispatch of the navy, but what happened to the British upon losing everything. Apparently nothing. Which is the genesis of this thread.

6. Out of interest, what do you believe to be the origins of WWII and what do 'modern lefties' believe?

Ah, that isn't really open for public discussion. Suffice it to say that it's not what people currently learn in leftist schoolrooms -- which you would apparently believe don't exist.

[warspite1]

I guess in terms of a sensible and interesting discussion this thread has long since ceased to be, but the last post just confirmed it.

Jingoistic pride? After everything I have said? You appear incapable of understanding simple facts and I think it obvious where your muddled world view leans in the direction of.

But in terms of military understanding - which after all is why most of us are here - the real doozy is your answer to point 5. You believe it is only jingoistic pride that makes me think that the complete destruction of the Royal Navy could not be achieved without any loss of capital ships for the Germans and Italians?

A pointless waste of time.

[Moltke71]

mbishop,

That was Rudolph Hess. Sure, Hubert could put in such an event...with .002 probability of it triggering. Not even the Nazis paid attention to him anymore. His claim to fame was taking Hitler's dictation of Mein Kampf in prison.

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I guess in terms of a sensible and interesting discussion this thread has long since ceased to be, but the last post just confirmed it.

Jingoistic pride? After everything I have said? You appear incapable of understanding simple facts and I think it obvious where your muddled world view leans in the direction of.

But in terms of military understanding - which after all is why most of us are here - the real doozy is your answer to point 5. You believe it is only jingoistic pride that makes me think that the complete destruction of the Royal Navy could not be achieved without any loss of capital ships for the Germans and Italians?

A pointless waste of time.

Warspite... your username, the fact you played as the allies instead of the default axis selection in your first play, and your continuous posting about how great the Royal Navy is or was precede you. If you think I ever considered your statements to be impartial you are sadly deluded.

Some of us are more impartial to fact than you are, and are willing to consider alternatives to prevailing "wisdom". Your own national blinders prevent you from looking at this question without preconceived notions so don't believe your own opinions carry any weight with me. You haven't answered the questions I posed to you above, so you betray your own [lack of] motivation to discuss honestly. Thanks for playing.

[ILCK]

Frankly surrender is a bit immaterial. If you can SeaLion the U.K. And sweep them from the ME they are functionally not doing much useful anyways because of the MPP losses.