I live just north of Texarkana in Arkansas, about two hours or so from Tyler and Longview. Man, I’ve been struggling to find some AA players since moving to the region. I would certainly be down for the drive to get a game going! Definitely let me know if you guys wanna get some dice rolling one day!
Posts made by Zhukov_2011
-
RE: Looking for Texas Players
-
RE: AAG40 FAQ
What version is this game on now? It’s been a while since I had a chance to dust the old boards off but now I come in here and I’m seeing versions 3 and 3.9?
-
RE: Italy and Alpha2
Italy can become a powerhouse if left completely unchecked by the Allies, but its walls are still paper thin. Knocking down Italy’s NOs is fairly easy since most of those are located at the outer peripheries of the Med. Morocco will not hold long against the US, and a UK factory in Persia (along with the one in SA) should more than threaten Italian possessions in the east Med. The only way for Italy to reinforce its holdings, without spending any of its desperately needed money on a (extremely vulnerable) minor IC, is to use transports. If the Allies do not let Gib fall, they will always be in a position to hit Italy’s fleet anywhere in the Med. As the Allies I’ve always been able to amass a large fleet in the two SZs around Gib, forcing Italy to use blockers to protect its inferior fleet (which is useless once the Americans enter the war) or forcing them to give up Africa and the Middle East completely.
In general, I believe Italy is pushed into biting off far more than what it can chew. It can become an economic monster, but it will never have the resources to hold on to its far flung and fragile empire.
-
RE: Sealion defense
What is the consensus on stacking the UK fleet in SZ110 on UK2 to help defend Britain?
The UK fleet after G1 should comprise a BB, two CAs, two or three DDs, and 1 loaded CV. This is a strong force and stacking it in 110 prevents the German shore bombardments and forces them to devote some of the Luftwaffe towards the naval combat. I’ve done this in a couple of games and both times Germany was still able to successfully take Britain (both times with only one land unit, though they had to take hits on their air force to save that land unit).
But sacrificing the RN in SZ 110 means Italy gets to go wild in the Med and Africa. It also gives Germany some breathing room because the the Atlantic will be devoid of any Allied warships, and it will take two turns (more if the U.S. is going hard after Japan) for the U.S. to bring some pressure to bear on German-occupied England and the Continent.
What do others think? Would it be more efficient to husband the fleet (saving it for ops against the Italian fleet, or to provide escort for U.S. transports so the U.S.'s Atlantic builds can focus on transports and land units instead of warships) or stack it in SZ 110 if a G3 Sealion seems imminent? Save the fleet to fight a weak Italy now, or sacrifice the fleet to fight a weakened Luftwaffe later?
-
RE: Most influential person of 19th century
The problem with egg heads like Marx is that they really don’t know what the world most people live in is like.
That’s exactly it. Communism is based on the flawed belief that people are inherently selfless creatures when, in fact, everything that comprises human society - as well as human nature itself, including the genes that make up our genetic structure - is based on self-interest. Communism was a fallacy from the get-go because its proponents did not understand the true nature of humanity.
As far as most influential person of the 1800s is concerned, I’d like to see the Emperor Meiji included. He sent Japan down the road of “Western modernization” and in the process made a new world and way of life possible for the people of Asia - an action whose consequences still ripple through our time, and will continue for many years.
-
RE: Players in Arkansas?
Hey Coach, I got a free weekend in June (not sure just which one yet) if you’d like to play a game and have some extra company. I’d enjoy the trip and another chance to see the barren Oklahoman wastelands. :-D
-
RE: Hockey fan anyone?
Any updates on the come back of the Winnipeg Jets? I’ve heard some rumors about it from my parents, but I haven’t been there much since graduating high school and I’m way out of the loop. The new MTS center is pretty wicked and just begs to host an NHL team (personally, I’m not a fan of any sport involving ice skates, but it’d be a nice boost for an otherwise pretty mediocre city).
-
RE: Germany's wartime food supply
Kurt Godel isn’t trying to make excuses for anyone, there are none. He’s trying to explain the strategic thinking and sentiment behind the decisions that were made, so people understand them - thus not to repeat them.
I would disagree with your statement when he argues that “Most or all of the illegal killing within Germany would likely have ended once the British food blockade had been lifted” and “That a proximate cause of the decision to exterminate the Jews was the desire to reduce pressure on the food supply.” Proximate cause does not mean it was one of many causes, it means it was a sufficient enough of a cause to be the primary one. Then he suggests Britain is partly responsible for the extermination of Europe’s Jews because the English wouldn’t let them all move in. Gar, have you even been keeping up with this discussion? I’m sorry if Kurt’s one source isn’t enough to convince me that the Nazi’s killed millions because of food shortages. You claim to be a skeptical individual, but you’ll accept these arguments just like that?
He may be explaining the strategic thinking and sentiment about those decisions, but it doesn’t mean he’s right. I’m sorry if I can’t believe that Germany only built concentration camps and gas chambers to reduce pressure on the food supply. The death of up to 17 million people goes much deeper and, if it’s even possible, is more sinister than that.
But what Kurt’s really trying to push, is that sometimes with the “grey” decisions we make, like blocking food, starving people out, etc, that we need to learn the lesson, that perhaps that makes a person unconciously a monster in disguise as well.
Interesting point, but you fail to mention that Nazi Germany was a monster long before the blockade. Everything Hitler lead Germany to do before and during WWII he more or less mentioned back in 1923 in Mein Kampf. He had a plan to do these things, he didn’t need the excuse of an Allied food blockade to wage war against millions of people and systematically exterminate millions of others.
Yes, the Western Allies had their share of depravities and no one’s going to argue that Stalin was a saint. But we’re talking about what Germany did and why it did it, and I’m having trouble buying some of those arguments.
-
RE: Bin Laden dead
The only evidence on record that Osama is dead, is the word of a single politician. Now I believe that to be true but… If as a general world public we are supposed to wholeheartedly accept that as a fact, aren’t we in trouble? Shouldn’t we ask for proof?
Are our heads in the sand if we don’t?
I don’t know where in America you live, Gar, but that process has already begun. Do you think this country would be in the position it’s in if people actually paid attention to the government and possessed even the slightest bit of skepticism? Complacency is the order of this day.
The only reason you even know what bin-Laden looks like is because you’ve seen pictures released by the government and media outlets who say the man in the picture is indeed Osama bin-Laden. So, if they showed you a picture of a dead bin-Laden, how would you even know it was him, let alone know he was the one behind dozens of terrorist attacks? Because they told you so, that’s why. So why do you need proof of his death when you have no proof, besides what the government has said, about his role in 9/11 and other attacks? Of course, I’m not arguing against bin-Laden’s involvement in those attacks. What I’m saying is, how do you know anything the government really says is true? Do you just pick and choose?
I’m fine without seeing the picture or having his head paraded down New York. If bin-Laden’s really dead, that’s great. If he’s still kicking, it doesn’t make much difference. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups aren’t corporate-style pyramid organizations. They are loose, cell-based webs of extremists and supporters. Cut the head off of one group, and another one will grow in its place. The only way to limit the appeal of terrorism is to undermine its arguments and prove the fallacy of its leaders.
-
RE: Any of you guys fisherman?
@ABWorsham:
How do you like kayaking? The family has been thinking about getting into the sport.
Best catch was a 10 lb albino channel cat from our three acre family lake. Took my entire 5th grade summer break but I caught the fish!Man, I love it. I’ve got a few different types, one for playboating on Class III+ rapids, an ocean kayak and the one I just bought for the river ($200 brand new at Academy, an unbelievable deal).
They’re all very stable and much harder to tip than a canoe or a flat bottom with your 275 pound friend up front. I love the freedom of the kayak, its speed and its ability to reach places others in their bass boats can’t reach. I would definitely suggest getting the family involved in kayaking. It’s great exercise, there are few costs to enjoy a kayak besides the initial investment, and it’s a great way to see wildlife. I love to spend a weekend kayaking to some far off place, camping that night, and kayaking back, even if it’s just me out there.
AB, I would totally suggest you and the family get into kayaking, and I promise I’m not getting paid to say that. By the way, that was a nice catch, I presume it was good eating too?
Three-prong hook in the eye, eh Gar? I imagine that could be a pretty traumatic experience. Did you try using it as bait afterwards?
I like shooting as well. I’m not into hunting but hurling buckets of lead down range sure is a great way to relieve stress. But damn, ammunition has gotten so expensive in the last few years that I just can’t afford to go shooting all the time anymore. I notice fewer and fewer people at the range every time I go.
-
RE: Germany's wartime food supply
In that earlier thread, I’d made several statements. Prior to WWII, Hitler had attempted to solve the so-called “Jewish problem” by resettling Jews outside of Germany. A program had been put in place to resettle German Jews in Palestine. 10% of the prewar German Jewish population emigrated to Palestine via that program; with many more German Jews emigrating elsewhere. Hitler had also envisioned resettling Jews in Madagascar.
Ok, is this just a fun fact you’re throwing out there or are you saying this was a noble gesture by Hitler? This is the third or fourth time you’ve mentioned this, and this is the third or fourth time I’ve had to tell you, this plan doesn’t excuse Nazi depravities. Forcing a group of people to move to some underdeveloped sub-tropical island with only the clothes on their back doesn’t really compare to just leaving that group of people alone. You keep saying Hitler tried to “solve” the “Jewish problem.” The Jews weren’t some mathematical equation that just needed to be solved, there were a group of living, breathing people, women, men children and old people.
I supported the aforementioned statements here, and my understanding is that they are not under dispute.
No, you threw out some various quotes from a book that illustrated the Nazi perspective behind the Holocaust and other killings (and not everyone shares Tooze’s views of that perspective - many believe, with lots of evidence, that the Jews et al were killed because the Nazis just didn’t like them). Tooze is certainly no Holocaust revisionist, and his book does nothing to support your claim that the “proximate cause” for the extermination of the Jews and millions of others was the food blockade, or that all of the “illegal killing” would have stopped if the blockade had ended. Did you even read my last post, or, as I’m beginning to believe, are you just trying to get a rise out of someone (if so, I hate to say it definitely worked)?
The thing we’re arguing here is your misguided theories as to why the Germans were “forced” to kill so many innocent people. If you factor in the death of Soviet civilians, the Germans killed approximately 17 million people, most of them women, children and old people. This number does not take into account the number of Allied soldiers killed during the war. You blame those deaths on the Allies because of the food blockade and because the Allies wouldn’t find homes for Europe’s Jews. You really think those deaths had nothing to do with Hitler’s insistence on cleansing the “master race” of its “undesirables”? It had nothing to do with Nazi eugenic programs, or just the pure hatred the Nazis held for anyone not of German Teutonic stock? You believe the Germans were justified in killing millions? You would have to be a blind fool to believe such things.
- Which nation bears the blame for the British (and later American) government’s decision to use food as a weapon? During a time of war, the deliberate targeting of enemy civilians is a war crime. A food blockade directed against an entire nation can have no possible target except civilians.
Which country bears the blame? Which country?!?! Are you daft? Germany you burke! They started that war and if they couldn’t handle what the Allies threw at them in response, too f***ing bad. They are the ones who chose to start the war, they are the ones who chose to indiscriminately bomb European cities and murder civilians and gas Jews and slaughter Ukrainians and sink civilian ships and kill Roma children and chose to perform many more similar acts. The German people are just as much to blame for leading their country to war as the Nazi leaders through their complacency and outright dedication to the Nazi effort, and many (including me) would argue the German people reaped what they sowed. It should have forced them to seek a change in government like the blockade did in 1918. No, you can’t shift the indiscriminate killings of millions of people to the Allies. I can’t even believe I’m arguing this…
You seem to think the Nazis were decent people who were forced to do horrific things because of the Allies. You base your claims off of one book which doesn’t even come close to supporting some of the claims you’re making, and a few wikipedia articles you twist in order to support your claim that the blood of millions of innocent people lays at the Allies’ feet (White Paper, Madagascar plan). In other words, you are trying to feed us pure BS.
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
Oh, yessir Mister Ryan, I donts want to be kicked off this here forum, I just learnin so much, especially from you Mister Ryan!
Yessir, Mister Ryan, I play nice from here on. I just donts know what I’d do if dey got rid ‘a me! That postin’ off topic stuff, good Lord, that’s just the devil.
Yessir, Mister Ryan, maybe you put in a good word to the masters for me and maybe dey keep me ‘round sum more! Maybe dey let me be a grovellin’ sidekick too?
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
Mods, is it possible to have this topic split into another thread… ?
That way we don’t have to argue this BS all over again. Besides, I feel a mile-long series of comments and quotes from Kurt coming our way, and we wouldn’t want him to put it in the wrong thread.
-
RE: Bin Laden dead
thay dont want to relese the 1 vid and photos because of gore, but i say thats BULLSHIST. if you dont want to see dont look!
That’s not so easy when today’s media outlets have no moral scruples. I for one don’t want my kids or anyone’s kids seeing a dead terrorist with two holes in his head, and you know that picture would be on for days.
Remember when Nick Berg was beheaded by Al Qaeda and the whole thing was videotaped? That was put on national TV, and people just ate it up. In the weeks and months after 9/11, the news stations continued to air, rewind, and re-air the video from that tragic event. Over and over again. No, no thank you, I’m fine believing bin-Laden is dead without needing to see some bloody, bullet-ridden corpse for evidence.
-
RE: Any of you guys fisherman?
Love it. Actually, that’s all I can think about right now (except A&A, obviously).
I live in Arkansas, the fisherman’s paradise. I bought a river kayak a few weeks ago to start fishing the local hard-to-get-to-areas, but I’m still not quite sure what I’m supposed to do when I hook a 10-pound bass in that tiny, rickety little boat. :-D I caught a few perch and crappie the other day and put them on a stringer attached to the kayak. Even those little guys were pulling my boat around.
Got a favorite catch?
-
RE: Battleships are too Expensive
Subs can be a real tactical blessing at times. After Japan’s first couple of turns I like to buy two or three each preceding turn. Three subs statistically ensures at least one hit, and the “koi pack” costs less than a battleship.
Subs can be especially useful for the U.S. if it wants to skimp on, but not abandon, the Pacific Theater. Large, cheap sub fleets in the Pacific, along with a growing ANZAC surface fleet/air force, would force the Japanese player to think twice about splitting his/her own fleet (denying great tactical advantages), and at the very least force the Japanese to take one DEI at a time or lose some precious transports.
Furthermore, since subs are immune to enemy airpower without accompanying destroyers, subs can be very effective at defeating the remnants of the Japanese Navy and hitting convoys during the later rounds when Japan is being bottled up, but still possesses a powerful air force.
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
Making excuses why Nazis did bad things is a losing argument no matter how eloquent you think you are being.
Good point, MrMalachi. Acknowledging Nazi atrocities, even if some incidents of those atrocities are overstated, isn’t just about admonishing the Germans. It’s about what drives some groups of people to commit horrific acts in the name of something, and how we can try to prevent that from happening again, or at least catch the warning signs early.
Kurt wrote:
That mechanism is explained in more detail in Adam Tooze’s excellent work, The Wages of Destruction. The book has been praised by The Times (London), The Boston Globe, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Sun, and other major media outlets. On pages 89 - 90, Tooze writes,
Fantastic source, but no where does it support your claim that the food blockade was a “proximate cause” for the killing of millions of Jews (as well as millions of Poles, Ukrainians, and other European ethnic/national groups) or that without the blockade, the Nazis would have embraced Europe’s Jewish population. I’m sure Tooze would balk at such a correlation to his excellent book. He analyzes the Nazi perspective that justified - in Nazi eyes - mass killings of certain groups, but he does not condone those actions, let alone blame the Allies for those killings.
Again, you try to shift blame to the UK because they did not provide homes for the European Jews (you do realize there were millions and millions of Jews in Europe?). What kind of argument is that? Hitler’s desire to ship the Jewish population to Madagascar wasn’t a noble one, wouldn’t you agree?
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re suggesting Nazi Germany was forced to exterminate and execute millions of innocent people becuase:
A) the Allied blockade caused a food shortage, and some groups received better food than others
B) the UK and whoever else wouldn’t accept the millions of Jewish refuges, and finally:
C) Hitler wasn’t able to ship the Jewish population to Madagascar, which we all know is just such a wonderful resort and would have made a fantastic place for millions of disposed and penniless people to live. :roll:Am I and MrMalachi the only ones who call BS on these nonsensical arguments? This isn’t just some interesting conspiracy theory, like those who believe English pilots bombed Pearl Harbor to draw the U.S. into the war. These are rather some very serious misconceptions.
And Jesus, Cminke, do you not own a dictionary?
Mods, is it possible to have this topic split into another thread, maybe named something like “WTF, This is ridiculous”?
-
RE: Bin Laden dead
True SF, but any information found will only add to the number of questions the U.S. now needs to ask Pakistan. For all we know right now, bin-Laden’s been living in Pakistan for the last ten years with the ISI’s full knowledge.
I agree with FMG, it would have been a great show to see bin-Laden captured and put on trial, and then serve life in Gardner or Sing Sing in an eight-by-ten room shared with 400-pound Bubba.
-
RE: Bin Laden dead
It was a surprise to hear bin-Laden wasn’t already dead. I figured he had been given a proper burial in some cave years ago by two tons of U.S. Bunker Buster goodness. I spent two years in northern and eastern Afghanistan and somewhat figured that if we hadn’t killed him already, he could hide in those mountains forever.
His death will only raise more questions than it answers, however.
For one, bin-Laden was not killed in some damp, dark cave; he was found living in luxury inside a Pakistani masion complex less than a mile from Pakistan’s political capital, Islamabad, and just as close to the country’s military headquarters, Rawalpindi.
Only the most naive Pakistani apologist would try to argue that Pakistan officials had no knowledge of bin-Laden’s whereabouts.That’s why the U.S. government gave the Pakistani government no warning of Sunday’s raid in which bin-laden was killed. U.S. officials correctly knew unilateral action was the only way to ensure success; if the CIA had informed the Pakistani government that they were going to raid a mansion believed to contain bin-Laden, well, let’s say we’d still be looking for him.
-
RE: What IF canada stayed out of the war(IF)
In my initial post, I made three separate factual claims or implications.
- That a proximate cause of the decision to exterminate the Jews was the desire to reduce pressure on the food supply.
If you would like me to support some or all of these claims, I’ll be happy to do so. I’ll also be happy to avoid using sources any reasonable person might consider “revisionist.”
That being said, I find your above-quoted response devoid of substance. Other than using emotion-laden words or phrases like “revisionist,” “Holocaust Museum,” and “lots of duct tape wrapped around your mouth,” it contributes nothing to the discussion; and certainly not to anyone’s search for accurate information about the three points listed above.
Yeah, number three up there is the one I have a problem with. Please, humor me with “facts” and “sources” to support this point. You are right, my post was without substance but how much substance should one attribute to comments like, “The Jews were killed because the Germans were hungry?” You mean to tell me the extermination of Europe’s Jews had little or nothing to do with Hitler’s twisted and racial ideology that strived to wipe out all “impurities” from the “master race?”
To be honest, I’d rather not argue this subject with you because, in my opinion, you do not have a firm grasp of the horror that occurred in Nazi-occupied Europe or you willfully choose to ignore all the evidence. Besides, Nazi depravities in WWII is a subject that doesn’t need to be argued. Why would I argue that the Earth revolves around the Sun when we know it to be fact?
To be honest, Kurt, I used to think like you that those nasty Germans couldn’t have been all that bad. But then I started reading and discovered just how uninformed I was.
But if you want to start a thread where you justify or explain why Nazi Germany killed millions of Jews, and why German soldiers were forced to shoot up busses filled with school children and why everything they did is OK because the Allies made them do it, please be my guest. Let’s not hijack this thread anymore.