To be fair, he spent a good portion of the book relating Britain's war with Germany so I'm not surprised he spent most of the book demonising you guys
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Not much will be happening.
I do not really care what Easy-Kill writes and cannot see what he writes, but if tries to flog that horrible book to somebody...
Brrr...
It is not even bad bad, it is just lazy, shallow and toading to its presumed audience.
It is the book equivalent of empty calories... or 'diet' water.
If anybody feels the need to read, buy it used...
I think I paid something like 2 Euros for the book and 3 for the packaging and I still feel I overpaid on the book.
Granted, Easy-Kill is so focused on the glory of the British Empire he has trouble seeing its flaws. I live in Texas, I'm used to dealing with people who have home-base myopia. Over the years I have grown to like it when people contradict me. It makes me think.
But, EK is an amusing fellow and when called on it easily laughs at himself; I can't imagine muting him would enhance the forum experience. The thing that makes this forum interesting is you have relatively intelligent people from around the globe providing differing opinions on the same event.
Besides, if someone wanted to demonize the Nazi's, wouldn't they go straight to RHSA's Sonderkommando-H in the Occult thread?
IIRC Germany actually gets away pretty well in that umentionable tome.
The one thing I remember, the thing that I found really distasteful was that the author, having to write about Britains behavior in Ireland then put in the story about an (allegedly) IRA-ish priest who had a collection of pictures of women with little samples of pubic hair.
That story added nothing. It was not sourced, it was at best hearsay, and more importantly, it had no bearing on the point he was going to make. It was empty calories purely put in for the sake of 'All IRA's are perverts'.
I also don't get why the Brits do not shoot as a traitor everybody defending Douglas 'The Donkey Butcher' Haig .
The one thing I remember, the thing that I found really distasteful was that the author, having to write about Britains behavior in Ireland then put in the story about an (allegedly) IRA-ish priest who had a collection of pictures of women with little samples of pubic hair.
That story added nothing. It was not sourced, it was at best hearsay, and more importantly, it had no bearing on the point he was going to make. It was empty calories purely put in for the sake of 'All IRA's are perverts'.
I also don't get why the Brits do not shoot as a traitor everybody defending Douglas 'The Donkey Butcher' Haig .
Last edited:
Just want to add here that despite my constant clashes with Easy Kill I like him and enjoy his presence in this forum. I think I insult him for 10 years or more constanty now and he still stays nice. That has to count for something
Perhaps because you have only a simple understanding of military operations on the western front in WW1
Another book (that you will probably disparage too) is the 'The Great War Generals on the Western Front , 1914-1918' by Robin Neillands. He takes great effort to point out where different generals really were callous and incompetent, and most interestingly where they were not. He also links the development of tactics (mainly at the battalion level) and development of combined arms approaches. His conclusion is generally that most of the generals, Haig included, were very far from the Blackadder caricature that dominates the modern perception of ww1 era generals.
I do indeed appreciate that my view of the. British Empire is perhaps slightly favourably tinted.
Just want to add here that despite my constant clashes with Easy Kill I like him and enjoy his presence in this forum. I think I insult him for 10 years or more constanty now and he still stays nice. That has to count for something
I often wonder how this forum has changed my opinion and perception of things over those 10 years.
I wish both of you a 'Holly Jolly Christmas' and look forward to disagreeing with you more in 2018!
Last edited:
I am amazed at the number of people I am rather fond of when our relationship began over a bitter dispute. It's at least a dozen, and you're on the list.
Merry Christmas
Fröhliche Weihnachten!!!
If you are looking for others with the same interest, then there's a thoughtful NCO who's just got an Army scholarship at RUSI to research adaptability. I think he plans to cover similar areas to you, but obviously with a focus on winning wars in the near future. He organizes a talk series (in Aldershot???) too. I think linking to Twitter is verboten, so PM me if you want his handle.
I would very much like that. I teach at the defence academy so there could be a professional collaboration there. Could you PM it to me? I am on my phone and don't know how to access PMs (ROFL).
To the origianl question? Yes. The forces involved were so relatively small that even minor mistakes could have radically shifted the balance, and I doubt anyone would have been interested in an actual total war.
Bomber Harris should do it again but in Buenos Aires this time. We all know that Argentina is the only remaining Nazi holdout this side of the moon anyways.
I've never understood why British generals in WWI get so slated for being careless with their soldiers' lives, but not the Roman Generals in the Punic wars. The 2nd century BC Roman Republic is almost deified.
Send the bomber stream over La Cumbrecita and let Evita cry a few more crocodile tears.
If Carthage had won, methinks you'd have said how much you wanted Rome to win.
As I see it, the UK would have committed more resources to the fight if it had to, such as utilizing an increased quantity of less-optimal tools for the task if the few fairly optimal ones they managed to gather hadn't been sufficient. They had a lot more to lose in the war, politically, than Argentina had to gain, and would probably have been willing to crank it up a notch if necessary. Argentina basically had nothing more that it could realistically commit.
I think history might have worked out very differently if Rome had come out with a narrow win and a slightly favorable diplomatic settlement, rather than erasing Carthage. Of course, that might just have led to a Third Punic War. As it turned out, the complete demolition of Carthage was the second time Rome had totally obliterated a city, the Etruscan city of Veii (only somewhere around 11-12 miles from Rome) having been the first (and we're still not entirely certain where the center of the city had been, it was so thoroughly erased).
Last edited: