Help support TMP


"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic


614 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board


Areas of Interest

Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article

28mm Captain Boel Umfrage

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian returns to Flintloque to paint an Ogre.


Featured Workbench Article

Painting 1:700 Black Seas French Brigs

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian paints his first three ships from the starter set.


Featured Profile Article

The Gates of Old Jerusalem

The gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.


Featured Book Review


35,953 hits since 31 Dec 2010
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 

XV Brigada24 Jan 2011 11:55 a.m. PST

Dear Pat,

An understandable reaction but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The 'hideous bile' is a feature of forums in general from Amazon to YouTube rather than people interested in the Napoleonic period. It is unfortunate that the internet provides platforms for these peoples' inexcusable abuse and ill manners. One can only guess what motivates them. Never allow them to spoil your day.

Bill

dogsbody24 Jan 2011 12:28 p.m. PST

Pat,

Take my advice forget the Napoleonic period far to much bitching I came on this forum a few days ago to try and learn something about the period all I have learned is how far people will go to annoy each other.

Gazzola24 Jan 2011 1:09 p.m. PST

Dear Rambling Bob & Imperiale

Just ignore the clowns on this site and read the threads of those who really have something to say and connected to the period. Sadly, there are those who jump and cling like leeches as soon as a decent posting is made. But true enthusiasts just generally ignore them and certainly do not take all the bitching and abuse seriously.

Khevenhuller24 Jan 2011 1:57 p.m. PST

Pat

Reading back, I cannot blame you in the slightest

K

Arteis24 Jan 2011 3:55 p.m. PST

The best way to deal with Napoleonics is to not get too hung up on the history. It is a wonderful, colourful period, with lots going for it. Great stories (and who really cares if some of them may be myths), larger-than-life characters, fabulous uniforms, exquisite flags, and (in my gaming experience) friendly gaming partners who don't take it too seriously.

Yes, I pay homage to accuracy where I can with my miniature armies, but I don't go overboard about it. It is the *feel* of the period I'm after on the table top, not every little historical detail having to be absolutely accurate.

Have fun with small-battle Napoleonic rules like 'Sharp Practice', or go for bigger battles with 'General de Brigade', 'Black Powder', 'Lasalle' etc. If you make FUN your main objective, then you can ignore all those tiny esoteric details that are fought over here daily on the TMP Napoleonics board (and mainly by history buffs rather than gamers) and you can enjoy Napoleonics as you can any other gaming period.

Graf Bretlach24 Jan 2011 5:10 p.m. PST

Well said Arteis, very true.

I'm more history buff than wargamer, although I used to do both, the 'game' on the end of 'war' does give you a bit of a get out clause, when it comes to accuracy. unfortunately that doesn't apply to history buffs (it only actually happened one way), however sometimes I/we do treat it a bit like a game playing against other history-gamers, this sometimes upsets other history-gamers and also those looking on, seem to get quite upset too (reading back thats terrible English, but hey ho)

I would like to list out lots of references that states those Prussians, Hanoverians, Braunschwiegers (sic) etc did speak a language called German, lived in a place called Germany and elsewhere and were sometimes collectively called Germans (in English anyway), but I really can't be bothered, so apologies to all Deleted by Moderator for another frivolous post.

(must try and work out how to get the post at the top of page 9)

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2011 6:18 p.m. PST

Can we all at least agree that Wellington at Waterloo used his German sepoys like a true sepoy general? Because that, broadly, was the British strategy in respect of land fighting.

14Bore24 Jan 2011 7:03 p.m. PST

No,theres no way "we" can all agree on anything.

Arteis24 Jan 2011 8:13 p.m. PST

I don't agree that we can't all agree. Or maybe I agree that we can all agree?!

Or maybe I don't agree we can agree, or agree that we can't agree.

14Bore24 Jan 2011 8:17 p.m. PST

Arteis – I can agree on that

Arteis24 Jan 2011 8:29 p.m. PST

But that doesn't make sense, 14Bore – you just said there's no way we can agree on anything.

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP25 Jan 2011 3:10 a.m. PST

What's the German for sepoy?

I'm looking forward to PH's next book – "Assaye: the Indian victory".

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx25 Jan 2011 4:10 a.m. PST

Der Sepoy (I am not making that up).

Pat, Do read PH's book as you will at least have a new angle on the popular histories of this battle. I know it looks like there is a lot of acrimony on the subject, but it has been going on for 15 years! the thing about Naps is that it pedates the ACW+ time, when there is plenty of material and much of it in in English, so it is only minor details in that era, which might be disputed. It comes after the 7YW- era, where there is relatively little material anyway, so there is not much material to be disputed.

What makes Naps interesting and colourful is that until about 20 years ago, there was a prevailing wisdom based on anglo-French sources and a lot of third hand claims. Since then, continental material has become accessible to the extent that there is a lot available instantly on your computer! It means that the wisdom has gradually been broken down and lots of people have had interesting ideas and new work, which have massively expansded what we know about the subject. I would agree with Arteis – except that the true stories are actually better than the myths! We see the battles from both sides too. Of course, it does mean that the former wisdom defenders will try to shout it all down – hence some of the bile – but don't worry, as their efforts will fail more and more as Google publishes more.

Read PH's book – then perhaps a popular version maybe some years old. You will find that not only is the subject interesting, but also that you will have your own thoughts about it all.

basileus6625 Jan 2011 5:15 a.m. PST

I remember how upset I was when I started my career and a lot of myths I hold dear were shattered by sources. Since then I've learned to read in a topic with as much an open mind as possible, even if the books blow up some of my prejudices. To be honest, sometimes I don't succeed and I get upset by the author's analysis; specially, if I feel him/her too biased.

Myths have a power of their own, and to trace to their origins is actually one of the most interesting endeavours that a historian can take. PH has tried to do that, and in the process he construed a new mythology -that of a German victory-. However, it was needed. His books have sparked debate and new insights into what we thought we knew about Waterloo campaign. In the end, History trends towards equilibrium, and future histories of the battle will try to balance the different -sometimes contradictory- narratives of the battle. Some dearly hold presumptions will be shattered in the process, and others will be reinforced by a new look at the facts. That, in my opinion, is what makes History so engaging.

Best regards

Gazzola25 Jan 2011 9:01 a.m. PST

Sadly, there are people who say they want to offer a different point of view on history, usually by spouting how they want to destroy myths. However, sadly, they then try to offer their own myths as real history. Hypocritical history at its best! Are we on page 8 yet?

basileus6625 Jan 2011 10:30 a.m. PST

Yes, you are right. But in itself that's not as bad as it sounds. Every time a new myth is created, somebody will take as his life project to debunk it! And thus is how we progress in our knowledge of the past. Tomas Kühn said that all sciences had paradigms that are hold for a while as uncontrovertible truths. Then some observers will notice that those paradigms are not as tight as appears at the first glance, and will defy them. In time, new facts and research will break appart the existing paradigm, giving birth to a new one. And so on, and so forth. Kühn defended that that was how science moved forward. I think that his insights can be applied to History too.

Gazzola25 Jan 2011 11:59 a.m. PST

basileus66

The more people dig the more they will find, so to speak, and, hopefully, we will eventually be able to confirm or contradict any of the myths or historical facts still under debate.

Arteis25 Jan 2011 1:57 p.m. PST

Tomas Kühn said that all sciences had paradigms that are hold for a while as uncontrovertible truths. Then some observers will notice that those paradigms are not as tight as appears at the first glance, and will defy them. In time, new facts and research will break appart the existing paradigm, giving birth to a new one.

Absolutely agree. And the same will apply to the uncontrovertible truths being delivered today to debunk the myths … something else will come up in the future to debunk the debunking.

Will we one day see 'Waterloo, the Dutch Victory' or 'Waterloo, the Irish victory'? ;-)

Myths, by the way, David, are not necessarily more interesting than truth, which is one of the reasons why they are myths in the first place. For example, an omni-potent Gribeauval developing a new gun system that was the envy of Europe (if indeed this is a myth) is much more interesting than a time period of gradual changes and copies from elsewhere, which was never envied by anyone!

XV Brigada25 Jan 2011 5:56 p.m. PST

Dear basileus66,

This thread has taken more twists and turns than is good for it and ceased to have much relevance to wargaming some time ago. The original question was how did Mr Hofschroer get his reputation. It was precisely his challenge of the Weltanschauung to do with Waterloo that a number of people held as incontrovertible truths that got him into to trouble in the first place. As far as TMP is concerned it is his reaction to that criticism that has generated most personal dislike and we continue to see evidence of his childish and rude behaviour on this thread. I think it is a very stupid reaction but I don't think that one can call his claims about Waterloo a myth. What he did was to examine a mass of material not previously seen in English his analysis of which resulted in his conclusion that the German contingents in Wellington's army and the Prussian army were together more responsible for the outcome of Waterloo that any other of the allied contingents, hence it was, in his view, a 'German victory'. That was the paradigm shift.

What we have seen here in this thread is largely unedifying childish exchanges but as I said before Mr Hofschroer is in excellent company. What is absent is a compelling counter argument. The argument that Waterloo was not a German victory using the premises that there was no German nation state or a German nation in 1815 simply does not work because the first is irrelevant and the second is not true which rather skews any conclusion to that argument. As far as I know nobody has claimed that there was a German nation state in 1815 presumably because there was not one but the absence of a German nation state does not invalidate the use of the word German as an adjective to describe the victory if the argument is based on the idea that Germans comprised the largest component part/had more casualties/did more fighting than any other group in the victorious allied forces. As for a German nation by 1815 this was already an intellectual, philosophical and actual reality to one degree or another and had been for centuries. Martin Luther wrote 'An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate' in 1520, the German philosopher Fichte wrote a series of addresses 'To the German Nation' in 1806. One could produce a long list of similar examples. The real problem with all these kinds of threads is the NIH – Not Invented Here – syndrome which is when people refuse to even consider an idea that is not their own or runs contrary to what they believe or accept.

Bill

Personal logo Whirlwind Supporting Member of TMP25 Jan 2011 10:11 p.m. PST

Bill,

Kevin has neither denied that most of the Allied troops spoke German, nor that in some senses those soldiers may have had a shared culture.

But surely Kevin's key point – the "counter-argument" – was that in this period of military history, and to be fair in most others, it is usual to attribute victories to the political entity rather than the culture. For example, Late Imperial Roman Armies might have had more cultural 'Germans' in them than cultural 'Romans' and British Armies in Asia did usually have more 'Indians' in them than 'British' – but usually their victories and defeats are ascribed to 'the Romans' and 'the British'?

Whatever you may think of this counter-argument, compelling or otherwise, some posters have been pretty rude to imply that people are insane or stupid because they hold it.

Regards to all

(religious bigot)26 Jan 2011 3:55 a.m. PST

Everyone likes to claim to be the winner, even if only by proxy, and, as there's no money in it, fair play to them.

JeffsaysHi26 Jan 2011 4:25 a.m. PST

Whirlwind I think that may well have been the most sensible post of all; only taken 7 pages.

When other people reveal that they think the Irish considered themselves British or that the Welsh spoke English and had DNA in common with the Angles you know its time to give up talking nationalities.

So lets all not agree to agree to disagree -:
Britain won Waterloo
Prussia won La Belle Alliance
France lost both.
Austria & Russia turned up late. (must have emigrated to the US afterwards)
PH, or the editors(!) mixed up on intros and all his books and everything he ever wrote is thereby utterly worthless.
.
.
Or not, as every book ever written has faults.

Perhaps Gazz would care to write the perfect book, or at least suggest a few he has actually read we could discuss cogently.

OP next Xmas I suggest asking for "Campagne de 1815 en France" by Clausewitz in its French form – we could have a great thread about what an utter plank Clausewitz is & how Flanders has never been a nation.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx26 Jan 2011 4:45 a.m. PST

Whirlwind – PH's choice of title was about showing how much of a contribution Germans made and the extent to which this was/is ignored by Brits at the time and subsequently. In this, he has been successful. much nap history has been viewed through the prism of the 20th century, so anything worthwhile, which was German or Russian has been brushed aside.

Kevin's intention is not to ascribe victory to any political entity, but simply to diminish the German contribution to anything, be it staff changes, artillery, Waterloo or anything. It is simply a kickback, which we see from the Keepers of the True Flame here and elsewhere.

Gazzola26 Jan 2011 5:17 a.m. PST

JeffsaysHi

Nice posting expect for a few points. First, there is no such thing as a 'perfect' book and I doubt there ever will be.

There are quite a good list of books I could mention, but would they really be debated in a constructive way? I doubt it. But of course I will mention Gill's Thunder on the Danube trilogy, which is almost perfect, in my opinion and we need many more like them. And it even mentions the contribution of the German states, which should really please some people.

I have just been posting with someone who had a different point of view to mine on a different topic, and, unlike this thread, we both accepted each others different points of view like gentlemen. No abuse, just debate. That's the way it should be.

And I still feel that anyone who wants to start defining wars and battles by who had the most troops there or casualties is a step backwards in all areas would certainly be a lie. The Allies won at Waterloo. The French lost. That cannot be denied, no matter how many ways or angles some people want to view it by.

And Dave Hollins comment that Kevin's 'intention' is to diminish the German contribution to the period just shows how ignorant Hollins really is. It certainly shows that by attacking Kevin he is still hostile to the author and has no 'intention' of moving on. Sadly, he is still living on his reputation based on a few Osprey booklets and of course, because of that he thinks he is never wrong. And most books on the period, apart from basic overview titles, have not ignored or brushed aside the Prussian or Russian contributions during the period. It is baffling as to why he wants everyone to think so, apart from making brownie points by taking sides?

Anyway, we must be on page 8 by now. Is there a prize for who gets there first? (I bet it will be a book by PH or an old Hollins Osprey)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx26 Jan 2011 9:57 a.m. PST

Don't worry, my screen has some grey bits on it. Interesting that those, who complain thye most are usually trying to bait. It doesn't achieve anything.

SJDonovan26 Jan 2011 9:57 a.m. PST
Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2011 10:15 a.m. PST

The issues I listed on page one about why I don't really buy the PH view of the world remain valid.

In sum – historians have bigged up the British contribution and belittled others'? If so, it's odd that nobody has been able to name even one.

Germans won it? Well, yes, in the sense that Europeans lost at Kursk; the narrow point is correct but trivial and not new.

Gazzola26 Jan 2011 10:24 a.m. PST

4th Cuirassier

Good posting. But, although we disagree with PH's point of view, I guess we must be thankful that he has people debating something Napoleonic, apart, of course, from those who felt they could only contribute silliness or abuse.

And before anyone says it, yes, I have been guilty of making silly postings myself, due to letting myself get drawn into the foolish side of the thread. No harm done I hope.

XV Brigada26 Jan 2011 1:42 p.m. PST

Dear Whirlwind,

You are right but to be fair I didn't say he did. I deliberately avoided naming anybody in particular and Mr Kiley is not the only person to have posted on this thread. Mr Hofschroer's argument is that Germans comprised the larger component part of the allied armies and he concludes from this that they deserved to have the victory attributed to them. The counter argument to that would need to show Mr Hofschroer's premise was false and that the Germans did not comprise the larger part of the allied armies, and therefore his conclusion was wrong. To be honest I don't think it matters very much except to the NIH 'fascists' :-)

Mr Hofschroer's book is worth reading and puts a different slant on a familiar subject. I do agree with you wholeheartedly that some posters have been unnecessarily rude and continue to be so. It just reflects badly on them and makes them all look rather silly.

Arteis26 Jan 2011 2:29 p.m. PST

Mr Hofschroer's argument is that Germans comprised the larger component part of the allied armies and he concludes from this that they deserved to have the victory attributed to them. The counter argument to that would need to show Mr Hofschroer's premise was false and that the Germans did not comprise the larger part of the allied armies, and therefore his conclusion was wrong.

@ XV Brigade: I'm not sure that that is the only way of counter-arguing PH's argument. Another way would be to show that the conclusion he makes that the largest contingent should have the victory attributed to them is based on a false premise that in any battle the victory is always attributed to the largest contingent.

So the argument must first be what contributes to the attribution of victory in general. Only if PH's premise that the largest contingents always get attributed the victories is proved can the argument then shift to who had the biggest contingent at Waterloo (with it's subset argument of who could be defined as Germans).

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2011 2:37 p.m. PST

The trouble is, XV, that the worst offender in the "childish and rude" stakes is PH himself. Is that how a proper historian defends his work?

Re the main point. While it is true that the majority of troops on the battlefield by 7pm came from areas that are now part of a place called Germany…so what?

What are we to make of the fact that the largest "German" contingent lost two out of its three battles in the campaign? And that, in the third, it took just 10,000 French to contain 50,000 of them for most of the day, while the other 60,000 French were themselves contained by an army that mostly wasn't German? Or that the only troops who ran away on the Allied side were, er, "German"?

Simply turning up on a battlefield doesn't make anyone's contribution inherently the decisive one. Analogously, at Midway there more Japanese battleships than carriers, so was it the carriers that were defeated, or the battleships?

14Bore26 Jan 2011 3:34 p.m. PST

Mesh this argument and the one at Forgetting Napoleon, I don't know if they are not one and the same.

XV Brigada26 Jan 2011 5:03 p.m. PST

Dear Roly,

>@ XV Brigade: I'm not sure that that is the only way of counter-arguing PH's argument. Another way would be to show that the conclusion he makes that the largest contingent should have the victory attributed to them is based on a false premise that in any battle the victory is always attributed to the largest contingent.<

Then it is not a false premise, just not particularly unusual :-)

>So the argument must first be what contributes to the attribution of victory in general. Only if PH's premise that the largest contingents always get attributed the victories is proved can the argument then shift to who had the biggest contingent at Waterloo (with it's subset argument of who could be defined as Germans).<

Don't forget we are not talking in general terms here but specific ones related to Waterloo in particular. But I agree that in other battles there will be other factors. Germans were not present at every battle! I don't think Mr Hofschroer claims that victory is always attributed the largest contingent. There may even be other factors as far as Waterloo is concerned I don't know but Mr Hofschroer's view is evidently that the German contingent was the principal one. If other people think not, that's fine but why 'die in ditch' over it? As far as who can be defined as Germans, well that is probably best left to the Germans, but I suppose it would be soldiers from any of the German states in this case. That at least seems to be Mr Hofschroer's view for the purposes of his argument. I think it would be difficult to prove this false.

Gazzola26 Jan 2011 5:16 p.m. PST

XV Brigada

If PH was just pointing out that troops that could be considered as German, where the main ones at Waterloo or during the 100 Days campaign, that wouldn't be a problem. But his aim appeared to be to try and convince his readers that because of it, Waterloo could be considered a German victory, even though he himself describes it as an Allied victory. Sorry, but it can't be both, can it? Good books, good try but it was an Allied victory, as he himself states. The Prussians couldn't do without the British and the Dutch-Belgians and the British and Dutch-Belgians couldn't do without the Prussians. I'm glad I have his books and would recommend anyone to read them, but nothing in his work changes the reality of that campaign. It was an Allied victory, short and simple.

14Bore26 Jan 2011 5:30 p.m. PST

My 2 cents from another thread."How about an author stating Waterloo was a German victory? Or that the 52nd regt's actions were the decisive act in that victory? Or a Netherlander Brigade saved the day? All these are opinions to me, none of which can be decisively proved but doesn't make them unworthy of a historical account."

XV Brigada26 Jan 2011 5:52 p.m. PST

Dear 4th,

Yes indeed, Mr Hofschroer is at least one of the worst offenders and it is not what one should expect from anybody but I am trying hard not to point fingers at anybody in particular as there are others. If the majority of the troops at Waterloo were German or if one prefers from German states the 'so what?' is that it is quite likely that they were instrumental in achieving victory but see also my reply to Roly (Arteis) above. Of course just turning up (some had actually be fighting all day I think in Wellington's army) doesn't make a contribution decisive I agree. But Mr Hofschroer's apparent view is that they did rather more than just 'turn up' and were collectively a significant factor in the outcome of Waterloo. One doesn't have to agree with him but just contradicting him doesn't disprove his argument. If you want a corresponding example for Midway I think I could construct the argument that it was 'Midway – The American Codebreakers' Victory'.

Bill

XV Brigada27 Jan 2011 5:45 a.m. PST

Dear Skip,

Thanks for injecting a bit of sanity into the thread :-) I think it would be good if we all took the same view. One can construct all kinds of historical arguments based on a variety of premises and so long as the logic holds up that's fine. We are talking about a social science here not a formal science and where you have humans involved with analysis which is almost entirely empirical it is probably unreasonable to expect any two historians to give the same weight to the evidence before them or come to the precisely same conclusions. I think all historical arguments are probably matters of judgement worthy of consideration unless the premises are patently false. That is why history never stands still except for the NIH 'fascists'.

Bill

XV Brigada27 Jan 2011 6:02 a.m. PST

Dear Gazolla,

If you have discovered that Mr Hofschroer has contradicted himself then it seems to me that it is a small error. You said yourself I think that no book was perfect and one apparent contradiction is not at all shabby. Without context though (pages?) I can't really comment but seeming contradiction notwithstanding the thrust of Mr Hofschroer's argument remains pretty clear I think. It is not mandatory to agree with him and if you don't that's fine. I think I tend towards the view that 'Waterloo was an allied victory of which the contribution of the German contingents was fundamentally important' and as I seem to be rather hogging the thread now I think I'll leave it at that.

Bill

Gazzola27 Jan 2011 7:25 a.m. PST

XV Brigada

He mentions it being an Allied victory on 338, volume 2, in his very last paragraph, would you believe. One could possibly consider he was laughing at his readers by making such a statement at the end!
And it is not a small error but a MAJOR one. I can't understand why you can't see that. It is in his conclusion after all, in which he states his aims and what he hoped his work persuaded us to think.
But I am glad that you agreed that it was an ALLIED victory. There is no other way to see it. And really, the contribution of the Prussians and those of the other allied nations, is all to obvious to anyone except those blind to historical fact and want to tie the victory to any one nation or race. But the 'German victory' was a good selling point. I'll give PH that. And I am still glad I have his books.

Gazzola27 Jan 2011 8:07 a.m. PST

I meant add that I liked the map in PH's book, depicting Europe in 1814. Lots of German states but no Germany.

Also, when researching and studying a particular battle or campaign, as many sources as possible should always be employed, in my opinion. And PH's books should certainly be among those employed for researchingr the 100 Days campaign.

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2011 8:28 a.m. PST

Hi XV

Yes, the general point is that turning it into a numbers game is not a particularly helpful way to look at things. If one insists on ascribing victory to a nationality, even a virtual one such as "German", then one has to look beyond that at whose contribution was most significant.

For example, while it's not a claim I would want to defend (because it's facile), one could argue that Wellington defeated 62,000 French with 68,000 men, whereas Blucher defeated only 10,000 French with 30-50,000 men. Ergo (i) the Prussian army was poor and (ii) it played a minor role.

This point, of course, is only narrowly correct, but anyway trivial. Yes Wellington defeated the larger part of the French army. But if he'd had to fight all of it he would very likely have lost, at any of several points. Thus, no Prussians, no victory.

My puzzlement, really, is with claims to the effect that PH's work was somehow groundbreaking and new. It's actually mainstream and not in the least bit new. If there's a book written in German that understates the German input, that would be a different matter. My guess is that German writers all see it as an Allied victory and quote most extensively from Prussian sources. If so, PH's view isn't a new insight, just a foreign view that finally made it into English because he insists we need to know of it.

While it's helpful that he has done this, I'm not sure anyone should confuse it with original thinking. An analogy to this is the US versus Japanese accounts of Midway. Fuchida's claims that the US bombed the IJN carriers minutes before a strike went off was debunked in the Japanese literature 30 years ago. The debunking only made it into the western canon when Shattered Sword came out 5 years ago. Parshall and Tully translated Japanese accounts into English but that's not all they did. They also show how having the second strike taken out below decks was both worse than on deck, and was also very likely to happen given their faulty doctrine.

That was their added insight. Had they just done a translation job or ferreted in archives they'd have been much less interesting.

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2011 8:34 a.m. PST

Incidentally, it looks to me like PH's increasingly childish posts have now been deleted from the thread.

50 Dylan CDs and an Icepick27 Jan 2011 9:30 a.m. PST

Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that Peter Hofschroer was posting on this thread. To my knowledge, he never posted on this thread.

XV Brigada27 Jan 2011 10:08 a.m. PST

Good Evening 4th,

I think I can agree with almost all of your post above. I will pass on discussing Midway further if you don't mind because I don't have have the knowledge of it that you clearly do. As far as PH's books are concerned as a near monoglot English speaker I must say that they introduced a lot of new stuff to me.

Bill

XV Brigada27 Jan 2011 11:08 a.m. PST

Dear Gazzola,

Thanks for the reference. I think you are wrong. Although there are other things in the passage that I would say Mr Hofschroer has exaggerated, the quote in context seems consistent with his argument that the German contribution was the most important one.

Bill

Gazzola27 Jan 2011 1:27 p.m. PST

XV Brigada

We will have to disagree on that, I'm afraid. The context is his conclusion, the same conclusion in which he tried to justify the concept of his work. Then he contradicts himself. To me, that was a basic blunder and perhaps a Freudian slip. And I really believe he believes it is an Allied victory. I also don't agree that the German contribution was the most important one. I think all the Allied contributions were of equal importance. But the number of German troops involved or killed does not justify that their contribution was more important than troops from other nations. Again, that is just my opinion and I have no problems with those who think otherwise.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx27 Jan 2011 2:44 p.m. PST

"Incidentally, it looks to me like PH's increasingly childish posts have now been deleted from the thread."

The Dawghouse also has some new inmates from this thread, although they seemed to have had "the button pushed" by other protagonists.

Personal logo 4th Cuirassier Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2011 2:56 p.m. PST

@ XV

Yes, me too. I certainly hadn't realised that the Old Guard got pwned by the humble 18th (ex-Reserve) Regiment in Plancenoit. How very, very embarrassing for the elite of the elite! Or that one single regiment (was it the 18th again?) took 10% of the Prussian casualties all on its own and won over 30 Iron Crosses that day. I think I read that in Hoffie.

Graf Bretlach27 Jan 2011 3:56 p.m. PST

It would seem to be the usual ending to a thread like this, some of the decent posters get muzzled and others completely erased, while the 'butter wouldn't melt' brigade continue.

At least DH survived (one of the old guard haha)

Lest We Forget27 Jan 2011 4:45 p.m. PST

Graf:

You hit the nail on the head.

Gazzola wrote, among other things " You really are deluded, aren't you?"

4th Cuir wrote "Incidentally, it looks to me like PH's increasingly childish posts have now been deleted from the thread."

Those comments are certainly in the same category or worse than what Von Wint and Khavenhuller were DHed for. Review Khav's comments for getting DHed with 4th Cuir's. Also, 4th accused a phantom PH (PH didn't post here).

There is an old saying "freedom of the press only exists if you own one."

I got $10 USD on who pushed the "tell the teacher" button on von Wint.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13