Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

SSG have been busy

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 3:28:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

SSG of Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy fame have not been sitting
on their hands.

2 brand new scenario's for Battles in Normandy have become available :

http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios/MacArthur-Bin.EXE
squares of US and Japanese forces on a fictional island fight

http://www.ssg.com.au/Run5/scenarios/Luzon-Bin.EXE
explores the what-if of MacArthur's "stand and fight" on Luzon,
Philippines.

Finally a pretty simple Decisive Battles screensaver (32 screenshots) :

http://www.ssg.com.au/downloads/screensavers/db_scr.exe

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

More about : ssg busy

Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:01:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Actually the scens are by 2 very dedicated and skilled guys. There's a
3rd scenario too.

SSG wouldn't be sitting still though with DB4 in progress.
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 9:15:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Adam Parker wrote:
> Actually the scens are by 2 very dedicated and skilled guys.

If the stuff they produce is good enough to be put on the SSG homepage
it surely must be.

> There's a 3rd scenario too.

Already provided a link to that some weeks ago - I'm trying to cut back
on the use of electrons :) 

> SSG wouldn't be sitting still though with DB4 in progress.

I've got it noted down as "Battles in Italy" - no release date yet -
but if anyone has something (un)official on this I'd be glad to know.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:35:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, eddysterckx@hotmail.com mentioned

>explores the what-if of MacArthur's "stand and fight" on Luzon,
>Philippines.

WHAAAT!! "Dugout Doug" standing and FIGHTING???

Never happen, no way, no political advantage for a Presidential
candidate, might get HURT!!. Fantasy scenario.

If he couldn't run away to Melbourne, he'd have *swum* to San Diego,
or Valparaiso, or Teneriffe.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:28:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 11 May 2005 23:35:18 -0500, Miowarra Tomokatu <not@thistime.net>
wrote:

>While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
>world domination, eddysterckx@hotmail.com mentioned
>
>>explores the what-if of MacArthur's "stand and fight" on Luzon,
>>Philippines.
>
>WHAAAT!! "Dugout Doug" standing and FIGHTING???
>
>Never happen, no way, no political advantage for a Presidential
>candidate, might get HURT!!. Fantasy scenario.

I'm no fan of MacArthur as a human being,but he frequently placed
himself seemingly carelessly amidst fire zones from '42-45. Whatever
else you want to say about him,I don't think he can be called
cowardly.
May 14, 2005 6:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Yes, he had to be ordered to go to Australia. He actually refused to leave
the Philippines until the President of the United States directly ordered
him to leave. He was convinced folks would consider him a coward (as many
do), otherwise he was staying with the boys. Got a bad rap for following
those orders ever since..


"Michael A. Oberly" <kitch@SPAMOFF columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:v8f681tlr8eifoflka4ij9iuoq4jqpv283@4ax.com...
> On 11 May 2005 23:35:18 -0500, Miowarra Tomokatu <not@thistime.net>
> wrote:
>
>>While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
>>world domination, eddysterckx@hotmail.com mentioned
>>
>>>explores the what-if of MacArthur's "stand and fight" on Luzon,
>>>Philippines.
>>
>>WHAAAT!! "Dugout Doug" standing and FIGHTING???
>>
>>Never happen, no way, no political advantage for a Presidential
>>candidate, might get HURT!!. Fantasy scenario.
>
> I'm no fan of MacArthur as a human being,but he frequently placed
> himself seemingly carelessly amidst fire zones from '42-45. Whatever
> else you want to say about him,I don't think he can be called
> cowardly.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:38:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Bill mentioned

>Yes, he had to be ordered to go to Australia. He actually refused to leave
>the Philippines until the President of the United States directly ordered
>him to leave. He was convinced folks would consider him a coward (as many
>do), otherwise he was staying with the boys. Got a bad rap for following
>those orders ever since..
>
>
One source of my (and many other Australians') disapproval of him is
the shameful way he treated and abused our troops. Not only the verbal
abuse of the heroes who had just stopped the invasion of Port Moresby
over the Kokoda Track, but the whole "mopping up" campaign of 1945
through Borneo and the Clebes, when as our General Staff protested,
the isolated Japanese forces could have been left to wither on the
vine, out of supplies. There's also the refusal to include Australian
troops in the Liberation of the Philippines, for his political
grandstanding.


..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 5:16:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
>
> [snip some stuff]
>
> Or will you just move on to MacArthur's next vile depredation against
> humanity?
>

He smoked tobacco. Oh, the horror... the horror!


;-)
Anonymous
May 16, 2005 4:16:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned

>Or will you just move on to MacArthur's next vile depredation against
>humanity?

His mother dressed him funny?
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned

>In article <tuqd8114e0iri4vi4vn78bpreavb1ltohf@4ax.com>,
>not@thistime.net says...
>
>> >Yes, he had to be ordered to go to Australia. He actually refused to leave
>> >the Philippines until the President of the United States directly ordered
>> >him to leave. He was convinced folks would consider him a coward (as many
>> >do), otherwise he was staying with the boys. Got a bad rap for following
>> >those orders ever since..
>> >
>> >
>> One source of my (and many other Australians') disapproval of him is
>> the shameful way he treated and abused our troops. Not only the verbal
>> abuse of the heroes who had just stopped the invasion of Port Moresby
>> over the Kokoda Track, but the whole "mopping up" campaign of 1945
>> through Borneo and the Clebes, when as our General Staff protested,
>> the isolated Japanese forces could have been left to wither on the
>> vine, out of supplies. There's also the refusal to include Australian
>> troops in the Liberation of the Philippines, for his political
>> grandstanding.
>

>Well, this is an interesting mode of argument; when your "theory" that
>MacArthur had fled from Manila in a cowardly fashion was challenged -
>with the obvious fact that MacArthur had to be summarily *ordered* to
>leave - you come back with a new, wholly unrelated claim about
>MacArthur's "abuse" of Australian troops.
>
My previous message was facetious and I withdraw it completely. Your
points deserve more serious consideration.

My original complaint re: MacArthur was informed by my knowledge of
his later actions (including his career in Korea) and thus I cited a
commonly held opinion of him, here in Oz. I don't consider the two
aspects of his personality as evidenced by his actions to be unrelated
and taken together, they form the basis of my criticism.

The nickname "Dougout Doug" is applied because of his flight to
Melbourne, rather than basing his headquarters in either Sydney or
Brisbane.

Sydney was, of course, attacked by Japanese midget subs trying to sink
the USS Chicago and overflown on several occasions by IJN spotter
planes. It actually saw enemy action and was therefore inapproriate
for MacArthur to base himself, of course. It was the major East Coast
surface naval base, too and therefore likely to draw further attacks.

Brisbane certainly *would* have been appropriate since it became the
major base for US troops from 1943 onwards and it might have been a
good idea for the Commander, SWPA to have based himself near them, but
then, he was prepared to withdraw to "The Brisbane Line" in the event
of land invasion and surrender Northern Australia to the Japanese. We
now know that this wasn't really seriously considered by either the
IJA or IJN but WE didn't know that at the time.

Hobart might have been further away from the action, but there were no
good restaurants at that time. I'm told it's greatly improved since
then.

>Is it OK if we ask you for the text of the "verbal abuse" MacArthur
>served up to those heroes of New Guinea?

Your reference is Gavin Long's single volume condensation of his
multi-volume Official History, titled "the Six-Year War - Australia in
the 1939-45 War" ISBN 0 642 99375 0.

There are several references to MacArthur's attitude and comments in
Chapter 8 "The Tide Turns in the Pacific War", particularly:

- p224 Date 17th Sept 1942 - MacArthur's comments during a telephone
call to the Australian Prime Minister Mr Curtin.
- p232 Date 21st October - relayed through Gen Blamey, complaints
that tactical handling of troops was inadequate. ("Pig" Blamey was a
wonderful sycophant, formerly Commissioner of Police, Victoria - hence
the nickname, although he _was_ corpulent, too, and could be *relied*
upon to pass on alien criticism rather than defending his own troops.)

There are other passing references in that and subsequent chapters.

The actual text of the messages isn't included in Long's condensed
history (nor are the texts of any *other* official signals), and since
Blamey was criticised (justly) for his sycophancy, then I strongly
suspect that the originals have been disposed of.

You may have better luck Googling for them than I have. (Who was the
French general who refused to speak on the telephone because he didn't
want to be quoted in anybody else's memoirs?) The telephone message
to Curtin is likewise covered under the rules of Cabinet secrecy.

You may find more detailed coverage of MacArthur's relations with
Australian political and military leaders in the full Official
History, but I don't have that available to quote from.

> How about some details about
>how the Australian soldiers were (almost simultaneously) sent off to be
>uselessly slaughtered in the "mopping up" - and denied their proper
>moment of glory in liberating the Philippines?

The political considerations concerning the Philippines campaign
aren't well-documented, either. (Very few political or military
memoirs actually describe fully the motivations of their participants,
let alone their authors', and I have a strong suspicion that Freddy de
Guignand's hagiography of Montgomery is actively misleading, for
example) However, it was certainly a consideration that MacArthur
wanted the recapture of the colony to be completed solely by US
forces.

He, and Admiral King, (and possibly the US Government) didn't want
British or Commonwealth forces re-establishing their presence in the
old colonial areas, Burma or Malaya OR Hong Kong and successfully
defeated the idea of a land advance from India through those areas
into China, in favour of the "island-hopping" strategy through the
Marshalls and Marianas and the future B29 bases on Saipan.

Between them, they also limited the British return "East of Suez" to
the British Pacific Fleet and scuttled the proposed "Tiger Force" RAF
air component.

In August '44 MacArthur *was* prepared to include the two most veteran
A.I.F. Divisions (7th and 9th) by including them in US corps, but it's
been a firm Australian principle, since 1917 (ref. Pozieres,
Fromelles, Bullecourt, Gallipoli), that our troops would never be
commanded by foreigners again, and they would in this instance only be
available as 1 Aust Corps (with its own corps troops) and he wouldn't
accept that.

After a tentative plan for an Australian amphibious landing near
Aparri in northern Luzon (for 5th Dec 44) to secure airfields for
support for the assault on Manila , MacArthur decided that Nimitz
could guarantee enough carrier air support and cancelled the op.

Basically, after the US forces left New Guinea in Oct '44 and control
passed to 1st Aust. Army, the three component Australian divisions
were required to clean up the IJA 5th, 32nd and 48th Divs around the
Banda Sea, 35th and 36th in NW New Guinea, 20th, 41st and 51st around
Aitape-Wewak, 17th, 38th on New Britain, 6th on Bougainville and 14th
on Palau.

They relieved the US 32nd and Americal Divs (to Leyte), the 37th, 40th
and 43rd (to Luzon) and the 93rd (to Morotai).

US infantry divisions were three times the size of Australian divs, so
you can see that manpower was a consideration in the task required of
them. The doctrine of those US forces had been to set a perimeter
around their bases wide enough to preclude IJA attacks, then go on the
defensive.

The Australian forces were tasked with eliminating the IJA forces, not
with sealing them off and allowing them to starve.

>Or will you just move on to MacArthur's next vile depredation against
>humanity?

I'll say this in his favour, he was the right general to be the
American Shogun. His style suited that position in the Japanese
culture of sixty years ago.

I doubt he'd have been as good a President as Eisenhower proved to be,
but that's personal opinion and I have nothing with which to back it
up.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:46:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> > >Or will you just move on to MacArthur's next vile depredation against
> > >humanity?
> >
> > His mother dressed him funny?
>
> This, while irrelevant, at least has the benefit of being true - unlike
> your last sallies.

MacArthur's disrust/dislike of Australian troops is reasonably well
documented. Clay Blair, for example, mentions it in his MacArthur biography
("For some reason (perhaps the quick surrender of Singapore), MacArthur did
not hold the Australian soldier in high regard"). It rankles because it was
unfair and generally unjustified. There were times in New Guinea and the
Pacific when American units performed worse than the Aussies ever did.

It may also have had something to do with relationships between senior
commanders, for example between MacArthur and the Australian Blamey, but I
haven't read up on the issue enough to be certain of that. Franklin
Roosevelt's reference to Commonwealth PMs as "my Prime Ministers" indicates
a level of US patronisation that may well have permeated US command
stuctures and which obviously wasn't going to endear them to non-US
colleagues.

Andy
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:46:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Andy Brown" <andybrown@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
news:D 6bbgk$9i4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...

> It may also have had something to do with relationships between senior
> commanders, for example between MacArthur and the Australian Blamey, but I
> haven't read up on the issue enough to be certain of that. Franklin
> Roosevelt's reference to Commonwealth PMs as "my Prime Ministers"
> indicates
> a level of US patronisation that may well have permeated US command
> stuctures and which obviously wasn't going to endear them to non-US
> colleagues.

Actually the source I have seen indicate that Blamey and MacArthur had a
good relationship. Certainly in 1954 MacArthur wrote about Blamey, "I have
always felt that his services in the Second World War were not sufficiently
recognized. What he did cannot be overestimated and his contributions to the
defeat of Japan marked him as one of the great soldiers of our time."

Part of the issue was that MacArthur's headquarters in Australia, despite
orders to the contrary from Washington, pretty much excluded Australian
officers. Since the decisions to deploy Australian troops were made here,
naturally Australians felt left out. MacArthur also underestimated the
effect of the terrain in New Guinea and didn't think the troops were moving
quickly enough and was constantly hectoring and exhorting them. This however
applied to the Americans as well as the Australians but in the initial
stages the troops were mainly Australians so it seemed directed at them.

In the latter stages of the war, I believe Australian law prohibited
militia, which comprised a large percentage of the Australian troops, from
operating north of the equator so Australians were assigned to deal with
bypassed Japanese who were tying up large numbers of otherwise deployable
troops. Blamey pressed the attacks on these objectives because he believed
it was politically vital for Australia to participate in the invasion of
Japan and for that he needed to free up the professional Australian army as
quickly as possible.

Frank
Anonymous
May 17, 2005 3:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, F. Voros mentioned

>
>"Andy Brown" <andybrown@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
>news:D 6bbgk$9i4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> It may also have had something to do with relationships between senior
>> commanders, for example between MacArthur and the Australian Blamey, but I
>> haven't read up on the issue enough to be certain of that. Franklin
>> Roosevelt's reference to Commonwealth PMs as "my Prime Ministers"
>> indicates
>> a level of US patronisation that may well have permeated US command
>> stuctures and which obviously wasn't going to endear them to non-US
>> colleagues.
>
>Actually the source I have seen indicate that Blamey and MacArthur had a
>good relationship. Certainly in 1954 MacArthur wrote about Blamey, "I have
>always felt that his services in the Second World War were not sufficiently
>recognized. What he did cannot be overestimated and his contributions to the
>defeat of Japan marked him as one of the great soldiers of our time."

See my other post. "Pig" Blamey was a great sycophant.
>
>Part of the issue was that MacArthur's headquarters in Australia, despite
>orders to the contrary from Washington, pretty much excluded Australian
>officers. Since the decisions to deploy Australian troops were made here,
>naturally Australians felt left out. MacArthur also underestimated the
>effect of the terrain in New Guinea and didn't think the troops were moving
>quickly enough and was constantly hectoring and exhorting them. This however
>applied to the Americans as well as the Australians but in the initial
>stages the troops were mainly Australians so it seemed directed at them.
>
>In the latter stages of the war, I believe Australian law prohibited
>militia, which comprised a large percentage of the Australian troops, from
>operating north of the equator

Technically it's the matter of being outside Australian territory.

Volunteers for overseas service had no such limitation. That's why we
had the Second A.I.F and the A.M.F. The latter, (the Australian
Military Forces) were conscripted and were required to serve in
Australian territories. Until Independence in 1975, Papua and New
Guinea were mandated Australian territories under League of Nations
and later, United Natiions mandates, after being taken away from the
german Second Reich in 1914.

>so Australians were assigned to deal with
>bypassed Japanese who were tying up large numbers of otherwise deployable
>troops. Blamey pressed the attacks on these objectives because he believed
>it was politically vital for Australia to participate in the invasion of
>Japan and for that he needed to free up the professional Australian army as
>quickly as possible.

We didn't have a professional army until 1945 when we established the
R.A.R (Royal Australian Regiment) (yes, there's only the one) with a
contingent sent to B.C.O.F and later as (3rd Bn R.A.R) deploying to
Korea in 1950. The old restriction on mandatory overseas service
became obsolete at that time (although the volunteers of "K Force"
were sent to Korea as well as 3RAR)

But yes, the three surviving divisions of the 2nd A.I.F (6th, 7th and
9th) were not only available but veteran by late '44. They had by then
specialised in jungle warfare and Aust. troops were to maintain that
specialisation through the Malayan Emergency, "Konfrontasi" and
Vietnam. Now they're specialising again as peacekeepers.

>
>Frank

..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 6:55:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned

>My point is that, one the one hand, you appear to be taking MacArthur to
>task for sending Australian units into combat, and on the other, you
>appear to be criticizing him for *not* committing Australians to battle.

It's more a matter of WHICH combat the troops were sent into.

7th Div A.I.F. veterans especially still resent (as you'll hear on any
Anzac Day) the "useless casualties" taken in clearing Balikpapan.

They'd have more readily accepted those same numbers if they thought
the cause in which they were inflicted was worthwhile. That option of
securing an air base in Luzon, or participating in the Saipan invasion
would have been welcomed as advancing the Allied cause; "mopping up"
isolated units who could still fight, instead of leaving them to
starve out for six months more, wasn't viewed as worthwhile.

I wasn't aware that the nickname "Dougout Doug" had been applied
before he reached Australia and I thank you for the ditty which
accompanies it. Added to the collection.
..
..
"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout"
..
It's not just a management tool,
It's a philosophy for living!!
..
Anonymous
May 18, 2005 5:38:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Hmmm. I'm not sure that a single sentence in a good sized biography
> amounts to "reasonably well documented." What was Blair's source for
> this conclusion?

I've got several books on my shelves that discuss the matter at varying
lengths. I quoted Blair because I understand him to be a fairly reputable
American historian
  • and I figured that would carry a bit more weight than
    some of the more parochial Aussie writers.

  • The Forgotten War (about Korea), Ridgeways Paratroopers, A General's
    Life (about Omar Bradley), Silent Victory, The US Submarine War against
    Japan, MacArthur, and about a dozen others.
    Anonymous
    May 19, 2005 4:22:02 AM

    Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned

    >> 7th Div A.I.F. veterans especially still resent (as you'll hear on any
    >> Anzac Day) the "useless casualties" taken in clearing Balikpapan.
    >
    >I imagine any number of American servicemen still bitch about the
    >"useless" casualties on Iwo Jima or Peleliu. Or Canadians about Dieppe.
    >Or Americans, Britons, Canadians, et al about Sicily and Italy.
    >
    >> They'd have more readily accepted those same numbers if they thought
    >> the cause in which they were inflicted was worthwhile.
    >
    >Who determines what's "worthwhile?"

    As far as I'm concerned, the veterans _themselves_ have the final say
    in that.

    > Any number of operations can be
    >couched as "worthless" given the eventual outcome of the war, and the
    >direction the final strategy took. Heck, given the US development of
    >nuclear weapons, it's even arguable that *everything* between Pearl
    >Harbor and July 16, 1945 was "worthless," considering that actual
    >working nukes pretty much end the war regardless of where the forces
    >stand in, say, 1943.
    >

    Yes, hindsight is a very effective tool.
    ..
    ..
    "When in danger or in doubt,
    Run in circles, scream and shout"
    ..
    It's not just a management tool,
    It's a philosophy for living!!
    ..
    Anonymous
    May 19, 2005 11:04:58 AM

    Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <ef8o81tibpe288ih9mi5bqh80a9s2os4eg@4ax.com>,
    not@thistime.net says...

    > While taking a short break from the daily grind of enslavement and
    > world domination, Giftzwerg mentioned
    >
    > >> 7th Div A.I.F. veterans especially still resent (as you'll hear on any
    > >> Anzac Day) the "useless casualties" taken in clearing Balikpapan.
    > >
    > >I imagine any number of American servicemen still bitch about the
    > >"useless" casualties on Iwo Jima or Peleliu. Or Canadians about Dieppe.
    > >Or Americans, Britons, Canadians, et al about Sicily and Italy.
    > >
    > >> They'd have more readily accepted those same numbers if they thought
    > >> the cause in which they were inflicted was worthwhile.
    > >
    > >Who determines what's "worthwhile?"
    >
    > As far as I'm concerned, the veterans _themselves_ have the final say
    > in that.

    Ridiculous. One could find any number of veterans who thought Overlord,
    or Guadalcanal, or Tarawa, or Okinawa, or Bagration, or Midway
    represented "worthless unnecessary casualties." Servicemen are often
    the *least* well-informed about the strategic environment that makes
    necessary the battle they're involved with - and always the *best*
    informed about the horrors of the combat itself. I submit that this
    makes them possibly the worst judges of whether an action was
    "worthwhile."

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have
    justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered
    the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers.
    They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly.
    But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had
    nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and
    murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged
    act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad."

    - Robert Spencer
    Anonymous
    May 19, 2005 1:48:54 PM

    Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > A single sentence? Unsupported by other sources? I find that virtually
    > weightless.

    You gotta understand, Gifty, that MacArthur's wartime attitudes are not the
    most important thing in my world right now. When another poster raised the
    issue, poorly and unsupported I do accept, you dismissed the issue out of
    hand because he failed to cite. I weighed in to emphasise that there was
    indeed an issue, one recognised by at least one reputable American
    historian. I do not, myself, hold definitive views on the matter at this
    stage of my life, however.

    IIRC, the question is referred to directly or indirectly a number of times
    in Blair's MacArthur biography and, obviously, it's certainly mentioned by
    numerous writers of Aussie and Commonwealth origin (eg Paull - Retreat from
    Kokoda, Taafe - MacArthur's Jungle War (whoops, Taafe's also American), the
    Aussie WW2 Official History). I admit to having neither time nor
    inclination to search for particular quotes from these works right now but
    please believe me when I say that the issue does exist and is a matter of
    historical debate.

    Andy Brown
    Anonymous
    May 19, 2005 1:48:55 PM

    Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    In article <d6gdbu$9st$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andybrown@somewhere.in.nz
    says...

    > > A single sentence? Unsupported by other sources? I find that virtually
    > > weightless.
    >
    > You gotta understand, Gifty, that MacArthur's wartime attitudes are not the
    > most important thing in my world right now. When another poster raised the
    > issue, poorly and unsupported I do accept, you dismissed the issue out of
    > hand because he failed to cite. I weighed in to emphasise that there was
    > indeed an issue, one recognised by at least one reputable American
    > historian. I do not, myself, hold definitive views on the matter at this
    > stage of my life, however.

    It's not a burning issue for me, either. But neither am I willing to
    let the implication raised in this thread - that MacArthur not only held
    Australian troops in low esteem, but actually saw to it that they were
    unnecessarily slaughtered, and denied their full measure of
    participation in the Pacific War - hang from such a slender reed.

    > IIRC, the question is referred to directly or indirectly a number of times
    > in Blair's MacArthur biography and, obviously, it's certainly mentioned by
    > numerous writers of Aussie and Commonwealth origin (eg Paull - Retreat from
    > Kokoda, Taafe - MacArthur's Jungle War (whoops, Taafe's also American), the
    > Aussie WW2 Official History). I admit to having neither time nor
    > inclination to search for particular quotes from these works right now but
    > please believe me when I say that the issue does exist and is a matter of
    > historical debate.

    This wouldn't even pass muster in a high-school history paper. If
    you're not prepared to support an accusation, then you must be prepared
    to see that accusation dismissed out of hand.

    --
    Giftzwerg
    ***
    "If a Qur'an had indeed been flushed, Muslims would have
    justifiably been offended. They may justifiably have considered
    the perpetrators boors, or barbarians, or hell-bound unbelievers.
    They may justifiably have issued denunciations accordingly.
    But that is all. To kill people thousands of miles away who had
    nothing to do with the act, and to fulminate with threats and
    murder against the entire Western world, all because of this alleged
    act, is not just disproportionate. It is not just excessive. It is mad."

    - Robert Spencer
    Anonymous
    May 20, 2005 5:21:41 PM

    Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

    > This wouldn't even pass muster in a high-school history paper. If
    > you're not prepared to support an accusation, then you must be prepared
    > to see that accusation dismissed out of hand.

    If I was writing a high school history paper, I'd probably provide the
    scholarship you require. On a newsgroup, without a point to prove, I'm
    happy to settle for something less.

    Andy
    !