Question after earlier Tiornu remark

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question after earlier Tiornu remark

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Question after earlier Tiornu remark

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 9:02:44 PM

Jaroen

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

If it's not allowed to bring back an argument from a older closed thread I'd understand.
I can only say this question has nothing to do with any nationalistic views I might have.

The question is related to the earlier Royal Navy sacrifice thread.
After stating that sinking the French war ships at Mers-el-Kebir Tiornu followed by quoted reply below:
The British did attack the French to prevent French ships from falling into German hands--that is true. The fact that the French ships were not going to fall into German hands anyway does not change the British purpose. It merely makes the attack decision look foolish. In military terms, it was a foolish decision. If it played a role in securing political gains (e.g., increased connection with US industry), then an argument can be made that it was worth it. Personally, I'm skeptical of that argument.
It's not true that every option was given to the French. Every British-approved option was given.

My question is about the second statement; "the fact that French ships were not going to be handed over to the Germans".
How was that a fact???

Looking through the older thread I don't find any specific explanation about it and I'm very intrigued about any information/data which supports that so-called fact. To my knowledge it was a very uncertain time, a very unsecure time, and nothing was clear about anything.

Aside from that . . . I think supporting that statement is logically required to make the argument run true!

Thanks beforehand!

Post #: 1

RE: Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 9:43:35 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

If it's not allowed to bring back an argument from a older closed thread I'd understand.
I can only say this question has nothing to do with any nationalistic views I might have.

The question is related to the earlier Royal Navy sacrifice thread.
After stating that sinking the French war ships at Mers-el-Kebir Tiornu followed by quoted reply below:
The British did attack the French to prevent French ships from falling into German hands--that is true. The fact that the French ships were not going to fall into German hands anyway does not change the British purpose. It merely makes the attack decision look foolish. In military terms, it was a foolish decision. If it played a role in securing political gains (e.g., increased connection with US industry), then an argument can be made that it was worth it. Personally, I'm skeptical of that argument.
It's not true that every option was given to the French. Every British-approved option was given.

My question is about the second statement; "the fact that French ships were not going to be handed over to the Germans".
How was that a fact???

Looking through the older thread I don't find any specific explanation about it and I'm very intrigued about any information/data which supports that so-called fact. To my knowledge it was a very uncertain time, a very unsecure time, and nothing was clear about anything.

Aside from that . . . I think supporting that statement is logically required to make the argument run true!

Thanks beforehand!

Warspite1

I think what Tiornu was trying to say was that it was ultimately a fact that the ships were not handed over to the French and indeed, Admiral Darlan, specifically promised that the ships would not fall into German hands.

The counter-point made by me, others and I believe yourself, is that Winston Churchill did not know that was going to be the case. Because he lacked any mystical powers of hindsight, he had instead, to rely upon his judgement. In doing so, he had to weigh up

- Would the Germans seize the ships anyway (with or without the help of Darlan)
- Would the Germans (with or without Spanish help) seize Gibraltar

Get the decision right, and you may (depending upon the French response) kill hundreds of Frenchmen
Get it wrong, and you throw your country, its people and their way of life down the drain - oh and allow Europe to descend into a new dark age into the bargain.

Great choice eh? Thank God - no Thank Winston S Churchill that the right decision was made, and be sorry that it took the lives of 1,000 + French sailors. The only consolation is that they ultimately did not die for nothing..

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 2

RE: Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 9:46:45 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Guys...this is an interesting discussion and all, but I think the locking down of the last thread is an indicator that the mods feel it is too political for this forum. I'm not the forum cops by any stretch, but may I respectfully suggest PM'ing one another or taking this into the main Matrix discussion?

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 3

RE: Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 9:50:43 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

I'm not sure what the confusion is. The ships were not handed over to the Germans. The subsequent actions of the British had nothing to do with it, except that it caused the French to move units from North Africa (where the Germans could not reach them) to the Metropol (where the Germans might conceivably get to them).

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 4

RE: Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 9:54:35 PM

Tiornu

Posts: 1126
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

I didn't even notice the other thread had been closed. (That little lock is so tiny!) The discussion didn't strike me as inflammatory, but I have seen the topic explode on other forums, so I don't criticize shutting it down.

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 5

RE: Question after earlier Tiornu remark - 1/3/2011 11:41:13 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I would say it is not the topic per se, that is "inflammatory", but some of the responses and we've already had one that comes too close to the line.

So while I personally find the topic interesting and would like to discuss further myself, because I think there are other points that have not been made that are worth making in this case, instead I will shut this one down to make the point that we cannot engage in political discussions on this forum. There are other forums where political discussions are allowed or even encouraged, but not this one.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Tiornu)

Post #: 6