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.
Capitaine you clearly have not read my comments regarding the Royal Navy, across many forums, or you couldn’t have honestly written what you wrote. I am under no illusions as to the RN in World War II – good and bad. “Continuous posting about how great the Royal Navy was”. Never read the Naval war day by day then? Never read my comments in WITP-AE about RN carrier operations? These, as well as countless others will confirm I am honest and objective when discussing the RN.
I chose HMS Warspite as the basis for my avatar, user name and sig line because I have deep affection for that ship. In the same way I can appreciate USS Enterprise - you know the latter’s not British right? I don't apologise for my choice of avatar and didn't realise that such a display of affection was a crime.
I chose to play the Allies partly because, from posts I see with these sorts of games, the majority of players it seems to me, play the Axis. I also happen to be British so I have a natural leaning to play ‘my side’ first. I wasn't aware that was a crime either.
But according to you, despite the honest comments I have made on this thread that do not always put my country in a good light, you say I cannot be impartial. You are wrong – and because there is documented evidence that your comments are false, you are bordering on trolling.
Because someone does not agree with you, you dismiss them as ‘modern leftists’, because I do not agree with you, you dismiss me as wearing national blinkers. You say my opinions do not carry any weight with you. No, they clearly don’t, and given your comments on this thread so far I would not expect them to - and that is fine.
But you say I haven’t answered your questions to post 56 and this betrays my motivation to discuss honestly. No Capitaine, there is nothing I like more than a good robust back and forth discussion on most matters pertaining to World War II. I find them stimulating and, through such interaction my knowledge of the subject grows. However, I ceased to respond to your points as it became clear they were not worthy of further discussion and entering into further dialogue with you only takes us further down.
There are two reasons (and post 59 added a third):
1. From what set out as a seemingly honest enquiry about an aspect of WWII and how it’s modelled in games (that was answered by many) the thread has descended into a rather nonsensical attack on ‘modern sensibilities’, 'British superiority', ‘modern lefties and leftwing schools’. You also make a rather embarrassing claim that "most nonleftists" "have a higher respect for history". What the hell does that mean? So David Irving (a "nonleftist") has a high respect for history does he? And that is a rhetorical question and I hope to goodness you wouldn't actually answer yes to that....
2. Most important to me is the military discussion. Your opinion on this became totally worthless in that regard as soon as you said that from an historical perspective you have no problem with the idea that the RN could have been wiped out without any loss of capital ship to the Axis. You ascribed my comment that it could not happen in real life to my ‘Jingoism’. I can picture having that sort of thought process as a 10-year old. But then I grew up, read books and educated myself on World War II history. Differences of opinion are great, they spark debate. But I am not debating with someone who has such a total lack of understanding about naval warfare.
3. The third I’ve touched upon. You claim my wish to play the Allies in a game, my deep affection for a battleship that has a proud war record, spread over two world wars, that is second to none, and the outright lies you have made about my view on the Royal Navy all conspire to prove that I am hopelessly biased in favour of my country and the only reason I cannot accept you are wrong about the UK surrendering is due to that bias.
So those are the real reasons I no longer wish to indulge in a "discussion" with you Capitaine.
< Message edited by warspite1 -- 12/1/2016 6:23:34 AM >
England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805