Why did you close my thread?

[RojoLulch]

I have to censor my thread and post to avoid violation of the forum rules which prohibit the open discussion of administrative measures.

I also wanted to answer to Oldtimer:

Hi,

with risk of going OT I say you should get your facts straight before making any sweeping statements:

- 3 March 1942 Bomber Command targets Renaults Billancourt factory. So much for your claim that occupied territories were not attacked. That`s just one example to show the accuracy of your statements.

- the Germans were stopped in Russia during the winter 1941/42 probably due to Allied material deliveries. It doesn`t matter they were small as yet, what matters is they provided the very thin margin needed while SU transferred and reorganized its industry.
This fact is being currently admitted in russian historiography.
I looked into "Samolety CCCP wtoroi mirovoi voiny"("SU Aircraft of WW II", yes, I`m fluent in russian) where it`s clearly stated that deliveries of tooling, raw materials and aircraft particularly during the initial stages of the war "were of great importance".
The allied help was vital, first to stop the Germans, then to make possible diverting SU resources to production of weapons almost exclusively as most all else was provided by the Allies.

Re the devs, maybe they keep quiet because they`re occupied with addressing our complaints? Or maybe they don`t listen to whining? In my current game AI SU annexed AI Germany in autumn 1942. So SU can do... Sometimes at least.
I certainly would pay more attention to posters who get their facts straight to start with.

Rgds, Oldtimer

Hey,

the picture I gave isn't wrong just because of several occasional bombing runs against occupied territory...

In my opinion it is rather insulting to claim that the US support was the deciding fact in stopping the germans in '41. Furthermore it is not supported by facts. Just take a look on when the first substantial shipments arrived at the USSR. You could also read up a description of the Battle of Moscow to get your facts straight...

Regards

 

[unmerged(59863)]

Hello;

Decision to close your thread has come from Paradox.

 

[RojoLulch]

Hello,

I know by now. Unforunately the reason seems unjustified as I had been accused of calling you (the developers) 88 fanboys, which I didn't. If you got this impression, I can offer you (again, I already did it in the closed thread) my apologies. I didn't want to (and in my opinion I didn't do it) imply that your political views have anything to do with nazism. It was just a general remark (out of frustration). So again: I apologize.

But I stick to my general criticism. I also can make constructive proposals if you like to hear them.

Regards

 

[OLDTIMER]

I have to censor my thread and post to avoid violation of the forum rules which prohibit the open discussion of administrative measures.

I also wanted to answer to Oldtimer:



Hey,

the picture I gave isn't wrong just because of several occasional bombing runs against occupied territory...

In my opinion it is rather insulting to claim that the US support was the deciding fact in stopping the germans in '41. Furthermore it is not supported by facts. Just take a look on when the first substantial shipments arrived at the USSR. You could also read up a description of the Battle of Moscow to get your facts straight...

Regards

Hi,

I have nothing more to say on this before you deign to do some honest legwork and search sources of information like a historian would do instead of uncritically accepting propaganda blurbs.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[RojoLulch]

As you wish. I guess wikipedia can be considered propaganda then?

 

[OLDTIMER]

Hi,

depends on who sends in what. Wikipedia is not a source of anything(but desinformation maybe) in the scientific meaning of the word.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[RojoLulch]

Well, just compare the respective articles considering strategic bombing and Lend&Lease (and check their respective sources) with the standarts you fullfill in this discussion. This isn't meant in an offensive way, so please don't feel offended by my statements. I just see a huge gap between your scientific ideals and how you justify your statements.

Example?: You jump immediately from the statement "The Lend&Lease support was very important" to the statement "it was vital & it stopped the german advance". Don't you think this is propaganda?

 

[OLDTIMER]

Well, just compare the respective articles considering strategic bombing and Lend&Lease (and check their respective sources) with the standarts you fullfill in this discussion. This isn't meant in an offensive way, so please don't feel offended by my statements. I just see a huge gap between your scientific ideals and how you justify your statements.

Example?: You jump immediately from the statement "The Lend&Lease support was very important" to the statement "it was vital & it stopped the german advance". Don't you think this is propaganda?

Hi,

not really, I draw conclusions from sources. Instead of drawing them from unsubstantiated opinions, misinterpretations or lack of any hard info at all.
But enough of this, in stating an opinion in contradiction to facts as you have done, be it only once, puts the burden of proof on your good self and no one else.

Good day to you, Oldtimer

 

[Klausewitz]

Hi,

not really, I draw conclusions from sources. Instead of drawing them from unsubstantiated opinions, misinterpretations or lack of any hard info at all.
But enough of this, in stating an opinion in contradiction to facts as you have done, be it only once, puts the burden of proof on your good self and no one else.

Good day to you, Oldtimer

Hmm, the point is you draw them from sources you claim to have. Which nobody can check. Which is even less trust encouraging than somebody citing wikipedia since that claim at least can be check for logic.
Your claim that Rojo has the burden of proof... well, no. For that there would have to be an 'established truth' he challenges. Which i do not see.

 

[RojoLulch]

I didn't draw conclusions from "unsubstantiated opinions". I just stated what I read. But your conclusion isn't even logical (i.e. it doesn't necessarily follow from the source what you asserted).

@Klausewitz
Exactly, thx for adding some reason to this debate.

 

[RisingSun]

Cant always believe what you see in Wikipedia, some were incorrect informations and some were accurate. Have to understand there are peoples out there will do anything to make it more difficult, for example fault informations that lead more problems, like hackers.

If you been reading alot of books and gathering alot of informations over the years, could come up something useful on history. For me took years, argh!

 

[RojoLulch]

@RisingSun
Thx for the advice. I certainly don't believe everything on wikipedia, although I have to say that it is quite advanced and accurate e.g. in mathematics. As a first test one could always check the discussion page. If there are several points of view in the academia you have a good chance of getting this information at least using this tool. From there onwards you can use your own rational mind to estimate the odds for several opinions to be true.

 

[Klausewitz]

Cant always believe what you see in Wikipedia, some were incorrect informations and some were accurate. Have to understand there are peoples out there will do anything to make it more difficult, for example fault informations that lead more problems, like hackers.

If you been reading alot of books and gathering alot of informations over the years, could come up something useful on history. For me took years, argh!

But without substantiating your opinions by chapter and verse, so to say, yours is even less 'scientific' than those on wikipedia.

 

[OLDTIMER]

Klausewitz,

you seem not to understand that Rojo not only challenges "established truths" such as that bombing factories in German occupied territory was standard Allied practice during WW II but does so without even bothering to provide a single source for his conclusion.
For anyone engaged in research work such practice amounts to signing own death warrant.

Admittedly I stooped down to standards of Rojo here so I`ve got myself to blame. But anyway, info on Bomber Command targets during WW II is not hard to find for those interested. For the particular Billancourt raid I mentioned you might take a peek at:

- www.rafbombercommand.com

The russian book I cited has ISBN 985-13-2090-0. Look at pgs. 6-7 and 9. And I say in advance that just because it`s in russian doesn`t mean it`s uncheckable for everyone.

Honestly I can`t believe what pains I had to go through just trying to clarify what "good practice" in a historical discussion is. My own fault.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[OLDTIMER]

I didn't draw conclusions from "unsubstantiated opinions". I just stated what I read. But your conclusion isn't even logical (i.e. it doesn't necessarily follow from the source what you asserted).

@Klausewitz
Exactly, thx for adding some reason to this debate.

Rojo,

if I were you, I would look at relevant(or any) sources to begin with and first then question conclusions. No offence meant.

Rgds, oldtimer

 

[RojoLulch]

@Oldtimer
In my point of view you have now been offensive to me several times even while I tried to keep the discussion focused on the topic. I'd like to ask: Are you engaged in research?

1. It is absolutely in accordance of scientifical practice to challenge conclusions where YOU stated your basis (which is just the opinion of the respective author that the shipments "were of great importance") and the conclusion (at least in mathematics it is always allowed and encouraged to question the logic of statements made by someone and I believe this is the way it should be in every science/you could be misinterpreting or missing something). From that alone I can say with certainty that the conclusion isn't logical. (Maybe you didn't state all the facts which are needed to support your conclusion, but in that case do you really like to call this "good practice"??) If you still like to insist that this isn't feasible then you have no sense of logic at all and any further discussion with you is needless. Just to stress this again: You should have some sources (other than opinions byone author, even if he is russian) which explicitely support your challenge on my claim, since I already gave a source (even if it is wikipedia) which says clearly that the support routes where just established during '41 (but did not see major shipments during that period). Through the arctic convoys for example the USSR recieved less than 7*8 cargo shipments. An exemplary cargo (of a whole convoy with 8 cargo ships) consisted of 190 Hurricanes and 20 tanks (which were inferior to both soviet and german models). But some had just 15 planes and raw materials. The Luftwaffe had air superiority throughout the Operation Barbarossa, so areal warfare didn't contribute much to the defensive force of the USSR. So what you say is that these shipments saved Moscow from being conquered in a time where the Red Army lost hundreds of tanks and hundreds if not thousends of planes in every major battle? Leave alone the fact that the Soviets first had to be instructed to use these weapons...

2. I checked the targets for for june '41 to june 42. This raid you are talking about is the sole exception (in '41) mentioned there where non german strategic targets where chosen. But I wouldn't call that a good source either as there is no explicit listing of the targets of every month. It is sometimes just mentioned that several bombers of some type attacked and lost some amount of machines, not mentioning which targets they had. A more explicit list can be found in the german wikipedia (of course with sources which support the numbers and dates) which also suggests that my opinion is right. As I do not wish to waste to much time on this topic in general I can of course not read all of the research literature. But using the easily available sources give me the impression that the main focus was on Germany. As far as I remember (but honestly I could have to dig up a source for that as it was just stated in a documentary in tv) some important targets where excluded throughout the war, e.g. the Skoda works. This cannot be said about any german industrial center...

 

[OLDTIMER]

Rojo,

I already stated earlier that this matter does not deserve further waste of time.

You made a general statement in contradiction to known facts because you didn`t bother to check ANY source.
Which puts your trustworthiness in this matter in doubt at large.

Whatever you are trying now to do to amend this is a bit late.

If you are offended I apologize. No need to prolong what starts to be a flame war.

Rgds, Oldtimer

 

[RojoLulch]

So arguments don't matter after all, only arrogance. Ok. I will ask the moderators to close this thread, as the topic I originally intended to discuss here (improvements in IC) hasn't recieved any attention at all.