Diplomacy Zine -- Chapter Eight EP #244 From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 22:07:19 +0000 Issue #244 of ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL: ************************************************************************* The castle-in-the-air-theory of investing concentrates on psychic values. Lord Keynes, a famous economist and outstandingly successful investor, enunciated the theory most lucidly in 1936. It was his opinion that professional investors prefer to devote their energies not to estimating intrinsic values, but rather to analyzing how the crowd of investors is likely to behave in the future and how during periods of optimism they tend to build their hopes into castles in the air. The successful investor tries to beat the gun by estimating what investment situations are most susceptible to public castle-building and then buying before the crowd. According to Keynes, the firm-foundation theory involves too much work and is of doubtful value. Keynes practiced what he preached. While London's financial men toiled many weary hours in crowded offices, he played the market from his bed for half an hour each morning. This leisurely method of investing earned him several million pounds for his account and a tenfold increase in the market value of the endowment of his college, King's College, Cambridge. ************************************************************************* Chapter One contains: BAGHDAD, AUSTERLITZ, BLITZKRIEG II, KING'S GAMBIT, PASSCHENDAELE, DRAGONS, BLACK OCTOBER, OPERATION DESERT STORM, THE SOMME And is published by uunet!cti1!rlister or rlister@cti.com/Russ Lister Chapter Two contains: REPUBLIC, BORODINO, KHAN, SUTHERLAND And is published by sinhaa@mcmaster.ca/Anand Sinha Chapter Three contains: SQUALANE, BRUSILOV OFFENSIVE II, CULLODEN, GANDALF'S REVENGE, GOODBYE BLUE SKY, MASTERS OF DECEIT, PANDORA, NOW AND ZEN And is published by mad-2@kub.nl/Constantijn Wekx Chapter Four contains: DEADLY DAGGERS, MONTREUIL-SUR-MER, FIRE WHEN READY, THUNDERDOME, BEREZINA, FONTENOY And is published by daguru@ucscb.ucsc.edu/Nicholas Jodar Chapter Five contains: YALTA, AJAX And is published by ddetlef@csd4.csd.uwm.edu/David Aaron Detlef Chapter Six contains: BERLIN WALL, HIROSHIMA, GENGHIS KHAN, SEA LION, VIOLENT PEACE, GIBRALTAR And is published by barry@brahms.udel.edu/Barry Fausnaugh. Chapter Seven contains: TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS, TEUNISGEK, RIYADH'S RECKONING And is published by staats@ucscb.UCSC.EDU/Robert Staats. Chapter Eight contains: HELM'S DEEP, GROUND ZERO, TIBERIUS, BETELGEUSE, IRON CROSS GUERNICA, TEUNISGEK, WOLF BLITZER ------------- Chapter Eight ------------- Table of Contents: Margin Rates Diplomacy convention information Diplomacy abbreviations Italian Openings Letters from Dennis Summerbell and Steve Robinson TARNOVER CITY ISSUE TWO (26-4-91) ---- If you know the margin rates for a country besides Canada or the U.S., please send me this information. I need to know both the buy and sell margin rates. From: Per Westling <c85perwe@odalix.ida.liu.se> ****** DipCon XXIV/ CanCon IV will be held in Toronto, Canada, organized by Doug Acheson, August 2nd-4th, at Scarborough Campus, University of Toronto. Con registration = (Can)$20 Townhouse accomodation = About (Can)$28/night/person Unfourtunately, I can't find the address of Doug Acheson, but to get more information you might try to contact David Hood, 104-F Terrace Drive, Cary, NC 27511 or Pete Gaughan, 1521 South Novato Blvd #46, Novato, CA 94947-4147 [Phone (415)-897-3629]. I think both these gents will be attending the con. BTW, David organized DipCon XXIII when it was held in North Carolina last year. Another person you might contact is Cal White, 1 Turnberry Ave., Toronto, Ontario, M6N 1P6, Canada. ****** ManorCon 91, 19-21 July in Birmingham, England. UK's biggest Diplomacy-con with about 300 attendants. Takes place at High Hall, Birmingham University and is a really nice con. Contact: Richard Walkerdine, 13 Offley Road, Hitchin, Herts, SG5 2AZ, UK. Cheap accomodation (Bead & Breakfast), although you should avoid the food... ****** World DipCon III, 25-27 January 1992 in Canberra, Australia. Contacts: North America David Hood, 104-F Terrace Drive, Cary, NC, 27511, USA. Europe Mike Gibson, 1/98 Great Titchfield St, London W1P 7AG, UK. Rest of world Luke Clutterbuck, Organiser, World Dipcon III, 16/353a Old South Head Road, Bondi, 2026, Australia. ****** For the general gamer: SPIEL '91, Essen in Germany, 17-20 October. Contact: Friedhem Merz Verlag, Alberichstr. 15-17, D-5300 Bonn 2, Germany. Phone: Germany - (0)228 - 342273. --- C'est tous --- The following was first published in EP #1, and answers a question that I had about English abbreviations. You normally use the first three letters of the province as the abbreviation, with the exceptions mentioned in the following article: Some people have asked what notation I accept. I accept anything in English! I am currently reporting using Avalon Hill's computer abbreviations but I am petitioning Avalon Hill to change their program to use Avalon Hill's boardgame abbreviations. (And have offered to do the programming if necessary!) Here are Avalon Hill's computer and boardgame abbreviations for difficult provinces: Province Computer Boardgame Gulf of Bothnia GOB BOT English Channel ECH ENG Gulf of Lyon GOL LVO Liverpool LVP LPL Livonia LIV LVN North Atlantic Ocean NAO NAT Norwegian Sea NWS NRG North Sea NTS NTH Tyrolia TYR TRI Tyrrhenian Sea TYS TYN Western Meditteranean WME WES And here is something I received from mad-2%KUB.NL/Constantijn Wekx Subject: English abbreviations Adr Aeg Alb Ank Apu Arm Bal Bar Bel Ber Bla Boh Bre Bud Bul Bur Cly Con Den Ech Edi Eme Fin Gal Gas Gob Gol Gre Hel Hol Ion Iri Kie Lon Lvn Lvp Mar Mao Mos Mun Naf Nao Nap Nts Nwg Nwy Par Pic Pie Por Pru Rom Ruh Rum Ser Sev Sil Ska Smy Spa Stp Swe Syr Tri Tun Tus Tyr Tys Ukr Ven Vie Wal War Wme Yor The following was first published in PROTOCOL #1: (this is my postal zine) The following article was taken from Diplomacy Digest #110: ITALIAN OPENINGS Many, including me, have bemoaned the relative weakness of Italy in an otherwise well-balanced game. But now I see this as ignorance on my part. It is rather like complaining of chess that the queen is disproportionately powerful or the pawns took weak. Players of Italy (and Germany and Austria also) would be well behoven to acknowledge the relative strengths of Rance and Russia, the relative impregnability of England and Turkey, and the high dropout rate of the countries in the "Axis" of the board. When playing Italy I make my first aim an Austrian alliance saying something like... "Well I'm moving out of Venice away from you whatever you say. If you attack me it'll be a war of attrition. I'll ally with Russia etc etc and we'll both end up down the plug- hole, the usual Austro-Italian fate." "If you move F TRI-ALB and make the armies useful elsewhere we'll both have a very different and more interesting game". Austria will of course retort initially "You must think I'm a fool..." but I think the same applies if I were Austria: "I'd similarly evacuate Trieste. If Italy moves in, I'd pile into him and it's Russia and Turkey who'd benefit. So as Italy I'll not pile in." Won't Austria have too good a start? I hear you ask. Maybe, but my aim as Italy is a strong Axis, and ... at the end ... Austria is BETWEEN Italy and Germany. If I'm friends with Austria, as well as being really nice and leaving him a free hand in the Balkans, I'll attack France, cramping his otherwise good position from the start. Open F NAP-ION, A ROM-VEN, A VEN-PIE. F NAP looks friendly to him. Only the move to Pie looks overtly hostile. But it's only Spring 1901, the game's still fluid and this can be rationalized (fooling Austria, two units on Tyrolia, well F NAP has gone east, etc etc). Follow this will F ION-TUN, A VEN-TUS (can be delayed a season) and A PIE SA FRENCH SPA-MAR (or BUR-MAR) and a build of F NAP sets you up for a 1902 attack on Marseilles and Spain. And if A VEN-TUS is delayed 'til spring 1902, things are still not too obvious. (The Autumn support is of course tactical, in that France is bound to defend Mar, so help him back in and stop the appearance of a French Med. fleet). An alliance with England against France is indicated and your German partner will benefit from this. Likewise, in the east, a modus-vivendi with the Turks encouraging him against Russia and saying you'll beat up the Austrians should be tried ("eastern steamrollers favor Russia - R.Sharp etc etc") -- plus for good measure a verbal assurance to Russia that you're happy to help him duff up Turkey. In short the 'Axis' should try and split the eastern and western steam-rollers. Italy's best course is to ally fast with Germany and Austria. I think this is as beneficial to these three powers as the traditional German-Austrian alliance is to those two. Mark Berch (editior of Diplomacy Digest) replies: Thanks very much John. Please accept this issue free. Your views on Italian openings leave me with mixed feelings. As a confirmed 'Anti- Hedgehoger (the original objector in fact) I agree that Italy doesn't HAVE TO attack Austria as so many Italian players seem to think -- but an attack is often successful and Austria is usually unable to wage a war of attrition. Howerver, Russia usually does do better than Italy in these circumstances. Yes, leave Austria alone by all means; but is France such a tempting target? The ploy is to stop a French fleet build in Mar in W01 may well work, but where are Italy's 1902 and 03 builds to come from? Italy can't get two units on Mar until after W02, and to launch an attack on Spain will take just as long. Mar can be defended easily be the French and Spain requires a lot of guesswork and luck if Italy is going to take it in 03. I rather suspect Austria and/or Turkey will find a virtually undefended Italy a tempting target and both have much to gain. My view is that if Italy is not going to attack Austria (and he has no urgent necessity to do so) then he should move against Turkey with a Lepanto. But this is the fascination of Diplomacy isn't it? We all have our own opininons of what is best. But it's reading the other players that counts most. From: "D." Summerbell <d-summer@national-institute-for-medical-research.mrc.ac.uk> Dear Eric Another Chapter 7 submission follows. I'll send a copy to Steve Robinson in case he wants a chance to bite back. Dennis Friday, 12th April 1991 Dear Steve, Gosh you people write so much that its hard to keep up with the reading, never mind the occassional reply. Similarly its difficult to know where to start. Steve: > "On another topic entirely, I have great respect, admiration, and genuine >liking for the Brits. Do you really suppose they think poorly of us, and >if so why?" Eric: > The Brits like us. A lot of other people don't. The Jordanians for >instance. The Chinese and Russians like us though. Actually, we are liked >and respected more than at any time since WWII ended. Steve: >I'm glad to hear it. I don't give a hoot what the Jordanians think of us, >but the Brits are a different matter. We share common values and heritige. >Dennis Summerbell's comments made me think that maybe our generally good >feelings toward the Brits were not reciprocated. I'm glad to know that my >concern was misplaced. Hey you guys, just a moment, please. An American would rather believe another American saying "Brits like Americans" than a genuine Brit saying something different. Would you rate that behaviour arrogant, narcissistic and self-centered or likeable, endearing and appealing? Anyway, why get hung up on being liked? Being liked is incidental to most activities. When I taught, I preferred my students to like me, but I didn't give a damn if they didn't. When I visit my doctor, I want to be cured, not to have a wonderful (but short) relationship. I'm even told that some people actually marry without necessarily liking their spouse. They rate sex, wealth or power as more significant. Back to Americans, are you liked? It was interesting that Eric claimed that you were liked more than at any time since WWII. I think it true that your image is gradually improving but I'm not sure about the WWII bit. Sure the GI's were welcomed into the liberated cities, but so was Uncle Joe and the Red Army. There is an excellent (American) play by (I think) Arthur Miller? (The Crucible?) Father is an industrialist war profiteer that makes his millions by selling dud spares to the USAF (and the RAF, my interpretation). Son is a flyer who sees his friends killed by the same spares. Father and son can never be reconciled. Alas, poor America, the stereotype that remained with us was not the hero son liberating Europe but the grasping father. My father's generation still holds that stereotype. You were the people who bled us white profiteering from the justest war in history. Army wives taught their children to pray: Thank God for Pearl Harbour. Unfair? Maybe, but that was remembered while the Marshal Plan was not. After the war things hardly changed. I was brought up in post-war England with food rationing in a house with an earth closet, no bath, an outside water tap and gas lighting. Three generations shared the bedroom. My life was luxurious compared with my wife who was brought up in Germany. Once a week we went to the cinema to watch the latest Hollywood extravaganza. All Americans lived in beautiful homes. All Americans fed their dogs better food than we had. All Americans owned a refrigerator, a washing machines and TWO cars. Audie Murphie won the war single handed except for a little help from the US marines and some morale boosting from the local women he screwed before going home to marry his US childhood sweetheart. Did we like them? Well, at a personal level, surprisingly, I guess we almost, but just not quite, did. Anyway this is getting repetitious so I'll refrain from airing my views on American tourists, big business, fast food and failing to appreciate the finer points of cricket. Instead we move onto.... THE FALKLANDS. OK, so by American standards it was small beer. Nevertheless, Steve's original statement was clearly hyperbole: >"Name me one other country in all the world across all history which has> >ever tried as hard as we are to fight a war without hurting people. and my response, if we omit the sarcastic "I know its going back a long way", was clearly true: >US myopia. I know its going back a long way but how about the Falklands? Steve (I want to be liked) Robinson in turn responds: >This conflict was on a *much* smaller scale, and the population was quite >small. Also, the population did not represent the homes or industrial base >of either fighting force. Neither side would have gained a thing by >attacking civilians there. In the Gulf War, there would have been tactical >advantages to leveling civilian targets on a mass scale, but the coalition >forces (Brits included) were humanitarian and decided to spare civilian >lives wherever possible. It isn't wrong to feel good about this. I think that I would argue that the Gulf War and the Falklands War can fairly be compared as they had a great deal in common. The scale: Gulf and Falklands were both limited set-piece wars fought on a carefully restricted and delineated set of ground rules. Neither could be compared to the total war of WWI and WWII, the massively confused shambles of Vietnam or the hideous near-mutual-suicide of the Iraq-Iranian conflict. The effort: I'm not sure about Argentina, but for Britain the starting cost and effort of the Falkland's War was significantly (do I mean *much*) greater than for the Gulf War. Proportionate to size and GNP the US and Britain were at pains to keep their contribution to the Gulf war reasonably balanced. Therefore by extension the Falklands required a greater effort of the UK than the Gulf required of the US. The logistics: No comparison. The Gulf War was a doddle. The naval war: No comparison. The Falklands was bigger, tougher, fiercer, bloodier. On the whole the UK was in control but if the Argentine navy had tried as hard as its air-force, I would now be discussing the ill-fated Malvinos disaster. The air war: The Gulf War was bigger but wholly one sided. The Falklands was keenly fought, hotter, resulted in more direct casualties and as a contest was only just shaded by the UK. It could very easily have gone the other way and reversed the final outcome. This was the only genuine battle in the Gulf but it hardly matched the Falklands for intensity, effort and anxious moments. The ground war: Just like the Gulf, air-superiority determined the outcome of the ground war and the final result was rarely in doubt. Nevertheless the ground war was hard fought. In no way could one compare it to the "duck shoot" in the Gulf. Casualties: There's not very much one can say about the Iraqui casualties, the subjects too horrific to contemplate. British casualties in the Falklands were *much* greater than total coalition casualties in the Gulf. A point that I did NOT enjoy making. Finally, back to the starting point. "Name me one other country in all the world across all history which has ever tried as hard as we are to fight a war without hurting people." Answer: Britain in the Falklands. We inflicted NO, count them again, NO civilian casualties. To their credit the Argentinians also tried hard to limit civilian casualties. The final official figure was three, and all were "collateral" (does this mean something better or worse than accidental) rather than deliberate. Steve implied that there would have been no TACTICAL advantage in Britain risking civilian casualties. I don't accept that unsupported argument. The key to the campaign was air superiority yet from the outset we denied ourselves the option of attacking Argentinian mainland air strips. This issue was decided very early under the British "Rules of Engagement". The reasoning behind the decision was of course a determination to avoid any possibility of civilian casualties. This was a brave and noble humanitarian decision on the part of the altruistic British Cabinet. Twaddle, it was a carefully considered and calculated strategy in the propaganda war to keep the UN and above all, the US, on our side. By the way, those Brits who supported the Falklands War were very grateful for US assistance. It was probably the one act in the last 40 years that most improved your image in Britain. The old prayer is forgotten (remember? the Thank God for Pearl Harbour?). We now teach our children: Thank God for Kaspar Weinberger. On the other hand, those Brits who really HATE the US also tended to be against the Falklands War, so I'm afraid that you lost out again there. (Guess what the same people said about the Gulf War). Oh dear. I think that I'm starting to ramble. I had better stop. Dennis Summerbell (d_summer@nimr.mrc.ac.uk) PS I had to write an apology after my last latter when I realised that it appeared anti-Israeli. This time I'm putting the apology in now. Despite my ranting I would claim to be only very mildly Americo-phobic. Why some of my best friends were Americans. I admire many things American. For a start I rather like the political model. I think it better than our over-adversarial Parliamentary system. I don't like the way you confuse the executive powers of the President with the esteem of being Head of State. I thing that spoils many of the other advantages. At the moment I am very Pro-EEC, even to the extent of Federalism. If for any reason that developmental route were impossible then I think that I would argue for political union with the US. Yes, I would happily transfer power from Whitehall to Washington. Of course you would have to accept the Queen as Head of State...... PPS Steve, please, please... Britain is desperate to hear your news about Kate Adie. We received the relevant Chapter7 four times, the last three claiming to be corrections. Every time the text truncated at: > This is unlikely to be true, else the BBC would have billeted Kate Adie there We await titivation. PPPS >Did you hear a while back where one of Saddam's prisoners had faked a >bad British accent in order to clue the people back home that he was being >forced to say what he said .....text deleted.....I think we can assume he >was beaten brutally at the very least, and he was probably murdered. Way to >go Bernie! What a hero!!! He was beaten, but he did survive and has been repatriated. Several fliers are however still officially posted as missing. PPPS I claimed that there exists a British sub-clone stereotype characterised as anti-Falklands, anti-Gulf, anti-American. They like to be known as the "Peace Movement". The best-organised faction are probably the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I just remembered, their current leader is an ex-patriate American. From: "STEVE ROBINSON" <SHR> To: "D." Summerbell <d-summer@NATIONAL-INSTITUTE-FOR-MEDICAL-RESEARCH.MRC.AC.UK> Dennis: Thanks for the letter. I'll try to send Eric a copy if I can. > Here is the promised text file. I will try to drop you a longer note later. > Both your letters came in fine. Thanks for the copy of the Chapter 7 > posting. All our originals were truncated immediately after the line > referrin to Kate Adie. Mine too, and you're welcome. I'm still dying to know who Kate Adie is. > Gosh you people write so much that its hard to keep up with the reading, > never mind the occassional reply. Similarly its difficult to know where to > start. Same here, and I wrote most of it. > Hey you guys, just a moment, please. An American would rather believe > another American saying "Brits like Americans" than a genuine Brit saying > something different. > > Would you rate that behaviour arrogant, narcissistic and self-centered or > likeable, endearing and appealing? I didn't regard it as accepting the word of an American over that of a Brit on the subject of Brit opinions. Eric is, in my estimation, a fairly well informed guy. Since he edits EP which has an overseas circulation, I assumed (and still do) that he probably spoke based on corespondance with several Brits besides yourself. He also seems to watch a lot of CNN; they interview Brits reasonably often. I see the point you were trying to make, but I think your choice of adjectives is a bit harsh and overstated. > Anyway, why get hung up on being liked? Being liked is incidental to most > activities. When I taught, I preferred my students to like me, but I didn't > give a damn if they didn't. When I visit my doctor, I want to be cured, not > to have a wonderful (but short) relationship. I'm even told that some people > actually marry without necessarily liking their spouse. They rate sex, > wealth or power as more significant. Everyone prefers to be liked; that's simply human nature. We want even more to be liked by those whom we respect. I respect Brits as a group, and yes I would prefer to think that Americans are liked by the majority of Brits. Don't mistake me though. I'm not prepared to wilt and pine away if they don't. Most Americans have long since come to terms with outside disapproval even if we don't understand it all the time. Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic, but the idea of marying for any reason short of true love goes against my grain completely. People can marry for any reason they choose, but I would find a loveless marriage to be the worst sort of prison. My marriage is far more than a business arrangement, it is a lifelong commitment. When I said "till death do us part" in front of God, family, and friends, I meant exactly that. > There is an excellent (American) play by (I think) Arthur Miller? > (The Crucible?) Father is an industrialist war profiteer that makes his > millions by selling dud spares to the USAF (and the RAF, my interpretation). > Son is a flyer who sees his friends killed by the same spares. Father and > son can never be reconciled. Alas, poor America, the stereotype that > remained with us was not the hero son liberating Europe but the grasping > father. My father's generation still holds that stereotype. You were the > people who bled us white profiteering from the justest war in history. Army > wives taught their children to pray: Thank God for Pearl Harbour. Unfair? > Maybe, but that was remembered while the Marshal Plan was not. Don't confuse a play (fiction) with history. Also realize that many Americans were not even alive during the WWII years. I am 30. 1960 and WWII are widely seperated. Praying "Thank God for Pearl Harbor"?!!? Ouch! Over here, that reads a lot like "Thank God for the IRA" would in London or "Thank God for Hitler" would in Paris or Jerusalem (or London). > After the war things hardly changed. I was brought up in post-war England > with food rationing in a house with an earth closet, no bath, an outside > water tap and gas lighting. Three generations shared the bedroom. My life > was luxurious compared with my wife who was brought up in Germany. Once a > week we went to the cinema to watch the latest Hollywood extravaganza. All > Americans lived in beautiful homes. All Americans fed their dogs better food > than we had. All Americans owned a refrigerator, a washing machines and TWO > cars. Audie Murphie won the war single handed except for a little help from > the US marines and some morale boosting from the local women he screwed > before going home to marry his US childhood sweetheart. Did we like them? > Well, at a personal level, surprisingly, I guess we almost, but just not > quite, did. Nothing about war is fair, but surely you don't blame those things on the US do you? No, not all Americans are affluent. Many are quite poor, though few starve. Audie Murphy *was* a hero, but so were countless others of many nationalities. Why take Hollywood hype seriously? Most of us never do. > Anyway this is getting repetitious so I'll refrain from airing my views on > American tourists, big business, fast food and failing to appreciate the > finer points of cricket. Instead we move onto.... My folks went to Europe a few years back. My mother encountered a woman in a public toilet in France. This woman, an American, was upbraiding the attendant because she had prevented her from breaking in front of others in the line. She stomped out of the facility complaining loudly and asking all within earshot why the attendant didn't learn to speak English. This archtypical "Ugly American" embarrassed my mother greatly. Mom speaks fairly good French, and she spent a year studying German before making the trip. Most Americans don't act like this, and we are not well represented by the few who do. As for cricket. Of course we appreciate them. Whenever I see one, I trap it and throw it outside. All other bugs I squash. (Snicker!) > THE FALKLANDS. > Steve (I want to be liked) Robinson in turn responds: Sarcasm again, Dennis? On to Dennis's response. > I think that I would argue that the Gulf War and the Falklands War can fairly > be compared as they had a great deal in common. > > The scale: Gulf and Falklands were both limited set-piece wars fought on a > carefully restricted and delineated set of ground rules. Neither could be > compared to the total war of WWI and WWII, the massively confused shambles of > Vietnam or the hideous near-mutual-suicide of the Iraq-Iranian conflict. True as far as it goes. They were similar in nature, but not in magnitude. > The effort: I'm not sure about Argentina, but for Britain the starting cost > and effort of the Falkland's War was significantly (do I mean *much*) greater > than for the Gulf War. Proportionate to size and GNP the US and Britain were > at pains to keep their contribution to the Gulf war reasonably balanced. > Therefore by extension the Falklands required a greater effort of the UK than > the Gulf required of the US. That's quite a stretch. Many Americans, including many in the State and Defence Departments, feel that the British contribution was not comparable to that of the US proportionate to size, GNP, or benefit. In any case, what must be compared is the overall size of the conflict not any one nation's contribution scaled by some factor of proportionality. Argentina was not anything nearly as well armed as Iraq, and the UK, though well armed, is not on a scale with the combined forces of the entire coalition. > The logistics: No comparison. The Gulf War was a doddle. "Doddle?" Care to translate that from English to something we mere provincials can comprehend? > The naval war: No comparison. The Falklands was bigger, tougher, fiercer, > bloodier. On the whole the UK was in control but if the Argentine navy had > tried as hard as its air-force, I would now be discussing the ill-fated > Malvinos disaster. Iraq had a joke navy. The naval forces involved in the Gulf War were far greater, and they stayed quite busy. The ship-to-ship conflict was so small because Iraq had nothing to fight with. > The air war: The Gulf War was bigger but wholly one sided. The Falklands was > keenly fought, hotter, resulted in more direct casualties and as a contest > was only just shaded by the UK. It could very easily have gone the other way > and reversed the final outcome. This was the only genuine battle in the Gulf > but it hardly matched the Falklands for intensity, effort and anxious > moments. Anxious moments I'll grant you, but the intensity and effort involved in the Gulf War were far greater. You were fighting on the other side of the ocean, but Iraq is at least as far from here, and we moved a lot more stuff. Add in the efforts of the rest of the coalition, and it's not even close. > The ground war: Just like the Gulf, air-superiority determined the outcome > of the ground war and the final result was rarely in doubt. Nevertheless the > ground war was hard fought. In no way could one compare it to the "duck > shoot" in the Gulf. The good guys walked over Iraq, but there was no way to know in advance that it would be so. We expected to pay a **much** higher price than we did. The sheer number of troops involved says that the Gulf War was the larger. > Casualties: There's not very much one can say about the Iraqui casualties, > the subjects too horrific to contemplate. British casualties in the > Falklands were *much* greater than total coalition casualties in the Gulf. A > point that I did NOT enjoy making. I'm quite glad there were so few Allied casualties. I'm sorry so many Brits died in the Falklands War. I'm not sure what that has to do with the size of the war. The total casualties were much higher in the Gulf. It's not a question of size anyway. The question was whether civilian casualties were as carefully avoided. > Finally, back to the starting point. "Name me one other country in all the > world across all history which has ever tried as hard as we are to fight a > war without hurting people." Answer: Britain in the Falklands. We > inflicted NO, count them again, NO civilian casualties. Good point. > To their credit the Argentinians also tried hard to limit civilian > casualties. The final official figure was three, and all were "collateral" > (does this mean something better or worse than accidental) rather than > deliberate. It means unintentional. Avoidable only by not attacking the military target that was struck. Better? Worse? Who knows? > Steve implied that there would have been no TACTICAL advantage in Britain > risking civilian casualties. I don't accept that unsupported argument. The > key to the campaign was air superiority yet from the outset we denied > ourselves the option of attacking Argentinian mainland air strips. This > issue was decided very early under the British "Rules of Engagement". The > reasoning behind the decision was of course a determination to avoid any > possibility of civilian casualties. Here I goofed. When I said that, I was thinking of the population on the islands not the mainland. > This was a brave and noble humanitarian decision on the part of the > altruistic British Cabinet. Twaddle, it was a carefully considered and > calculated strategy in the propaganda war to keep the UN and above all, the > US, on our side. We would have supported you in any case. The Argentinians were the invaders, you were the defenders, and you are our friends. > On the other hand, those Brits who really HATE the US also tended to be > against the Falklands War, so I'm afraid that you lost out again there. > (Guess what the same people said about the Gulf War). We have those professional protester, hatemonger types here too. I try not to hear what they have to say. > I admire many things American. For a start I > rather like the political model. I think it better than our over-adversarial > Parliamentary system. I don't like the way you confuse the executive powers > of the President with the esteem of being Head of State. I thing that spoils > many of the other advantages. At the moment I am very Pro-EEC, even to the > extent of Federalism. If for any reason that developmental route were > impossible then I think that I would argue for political union with the US. > Yes, I would happily transfer power from Whitehall to Washington. Of course > you would have to accept the Queen as Head of State...... I don't know as much as I would like about your parliment. The bit I have seen on CNN and C-Span looked like a shouting match with points actually carried by the side which jeered the loudest. Our system isn't perfect, but it is more polite. You make a point I have made many times. We would be better off with a seperate chief executive and head of state. The president is often too busy to attend to ceremony and isn't as well suited to it as royalty anyway. You don't really want to be the 51st state. You'd choke on the red tape. We will gladly accept the Queen. Most of us think of her as partly ours anyway. We don't have one of our own, so she is sort of our step Queen. > PPS Steve, please, please... Britain is desperate to hear your news about > Kate Adie. We received the relevant Chapter7 four times, the last three > claiming to be corrections. Every time the text truncated at: > > > This is unlikely to be true, else the BBC would have billeted Kate Adie > there Mine too. I sent you the rest of my letter direct. I only wanted to know who that was. > We await titivation. "Titivation?" Another English to barbarian translation please. > PPPS >Did you hear a while back where one of Saddam's prisoners had faked a > >bad British accent in order to clue the people back home that he was being > >forced to say what he said .....text deleted.....I think we can assume he > >was beaten brutally at the very least, and he was probably murdered. Way to > >go Bernie! What a hero!!! > > He was beaten, but he did survive and has been repatriated. Several fliers > are however still officially posted as missing. That was written just after the news came out. I'm glad to know he lived. No thanks to Bernie and crew. > PPPS I claimed that there exists a British sub-clone stereotype characterised > as anti-Falklands, anti-Gulf, anti-American. They like to be known as the > "Peace Movement". The best-organised faction are probably the Campaign for > Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I just remembered, their current leader is an > ex-patriate American. We're sorry, but we don't want him back. Feed him to the Beefeaters. He sounds like a swine, but perhaps they will make an exception? Isn't it strange that it is the "peace protestors" who seem the most militant at rallies. I actually saw some peacenicks hitting a guy with a sign that said "Make love not war." Why don't I think they were sincere? Bye for now. Steve TARNOVER CITY ISSUE TWO (26-4-91) TARNOVER CITY is produced by Mark Nelson (amt5man@leeds.cms1.ac.uk) for distribution with John Bray's SF APA (jbray@uk.co.compulink.cix) and Eric Klien's ELECTRONIC PROTOCOL (Eric_S_Klien@com.portal.cup) This is WEST RIDING PRESS PUBLICATION 165 ************************************************************************ *********************************************************************** Sigh. I suppose it is inevitable that the amount of time between issues in which to prepare a contribution is somehow always filled by a need to do pressing work regardless of the length between issues. My last contribution was typed on a morning before going to Cambridge for a week and this is being typed the evening before going to Derby for a week. How does John always manage to find the most annoying time for his deadline? Hmmm. Since I have not had time to read anything this month I'll just have to fall back on some other material... It is not suprising that the recent Oil War has resulted in comments by editors, writers and loccers in fanzines. It's an event that has raised a number of interesting political issues and so we would, perhapes be shocked if there had been no coverage. But strangely whilst fen see nothing wrong in such comments being made in fanzines there have been some comments made as to the suitability for such comments in semi-prozines, or those fanzines that aspire to this end of the market. Particularly when there is no attempt to even TRY and link political comment with good ol'e SF. Thankfully I'm not even going to consider the suitability of current affairs in such magazines, although I pause to note that some of the prozines see little wrong in commenting on current affairs and their implications and I doubt that any of the complainers would consider writing a letter to a prozine moaning about editorial comments. However the War did bring to mind some SF comments. Perhapes the most interesting part of the war was the propaganda war between the two sides. It has been interesting following not only which methods were used, but how the other side has reported the oppositions own propaganda. A casual read through many of the British papers would not lead one to the conclusion that we were subject to much censorship. Indeed being a 'mature' country we realize that in time of war there is going to be 'necessary' grounds for censorship of battlefield details. But at least we can be content in the knowledge that our news is more accurate than that given out to the opposition. But how sure are we that we have been given a 'fair' deal? It's interesting (and certainly not something I'd even considered) that as the onwards march of technology gives correspondents an ever increasing ability to broadcast news direct from trouble-spots straight to the audience that it is becoming increasingly easier to control the flow of information. This certainly seems strange. SF set in a future with galactic-style Empires seem remarkable free in their exchange of information. Yet perhapes information is more likely to become an illicit material that is traded in a black market away from ever increasing Govermental power to control information for the 'common good'. The only war which we have been involved in where there was no Goverment censorship was the first war to have Press reporters at the front; back in the days where most mail went by hand in some form or the other. Since then the increasing ability of reports to mail back up-to-date information as been matched by an increasing level of cunningness on the part of the Goverment, perhapes to safe-guard us from things we don't want to know or perhapes mindfull of the fact that the only free Press coverage of a war resulted in the downfall of the Goverment of the day. Something else that strikes me about the war is that the ever increasing sophestication of weaponry has seemingly reduced the level of personal involvement in a war, down to that akin of playing a computer game. This is particular the case in the field of aviation. This leads to the idea that the control of armed forces can be reduced down to the control of pieces in a sophisticated computer-simulation. Indeed I can recall one pece of fiction based around this point. Admirals play in what to them is a mere computer-game...their orders go direct to the robotic forces in the field and the simulator records what happens. Taken a step further we could possible even eliminate war. Idealistically we note that once war has been turned from a man-to-man confrontation on the battlefield to a two-player game fought over a simulator with robotic pieces there is no reason why we don't do away with the pieces and just fight the war over a simulator...ending the destructive aspect of war. War without injury, without death and without dammage| But perhapes that eliminates all the 'fun' from war? This possible scenario was used as the background to an episode of Blake's Seven, and doubtless many other pieces of SF (although I can't think of anything else offhand). One classic book on censorship is Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" although I have to admitt to being very dissapointed by it. I don't know, perhapes I was expecting to much from it but whilst the ideas (as presented in the conversations) was worthy of consideration I thought that the book was...well dull, uninteresting, slow.... If anything, "Fahrenheit 451" reminded me of Dickins' "The History of Mr Polly" which I had the misfortune to study many years ago as a set book in English Literature. Both seem to trundle along at the same slow pace and achieve the same level of thankfullness at the end of the book. I don't know why but I had always assumed that this book was originall published in the 1950's or 1960's so the given date of 1976 came as something as a shock. There was I about to mention Bradbury's forsight in recognizing the "dangers" of the increasing level of soap on the TV when I discover that he was writing comparitively recently. The idea of the all-controlling power of soaps to drug a population is also contained in Craig Herbetson's "Soap 7" which appears in the current issue of the small press WORKS ($1.60 from Dave W Hughes, 12 Blakestones Road, Slaithwaite, HUDDERSFIELD. HD7 5UQ). ALthough here there are more sinister forces at play than mere human mind-control. Soaps. However much one condemns them as being mindless drivel... you always get caught watching them as you had "nothing better to do". Despite knowing that you should be spending your time doing somethig more productive (subversive) you put it to one side so that you can watch the latest thrillig episode of whatever you have become addicted to. Religion is no longer the opium of the masses that it once was, perhapes its role has been taken-over by the never-ending progression of soaps and sit-coms that come across our screens. (Not that I would know anythig about these you understand...I've got to do some research for my articles...got to know thy enemy....got to do know it's time to turn the televison on....) ************************************************************************* ************************************************************************* Publisher comments: Quote is from p. 22 of "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton G. Malkiel. I am sure these financial quotes are boring you to death. So send me some wacky quotes! I need standby players due to the summer vacation season that is wiping out some of my college players. I also need scribes. ****************************************************************************** To join in the fun, send your name, home address, home and work phone numbers, and country preferences to Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com. ****************************************************************************** Up