Terry Duncan wrote: ↑
28 Aug 2019 14:59
I was also disappointed that you made a post containing personal comments within a couple of hours of my posting asking all members to
refrain from doing so. Reword your post so it makes the points you wish to
raise without making reference to
the other person and there will be no problem. Comments about threads in the 'What If' section being products of someone elses imagination, or suggesting proving that the What IF ideas are not possible is akin to
proving legendary creatures does not exist are hardly helpful when a situation is already heated, and, being the 'What If' forum in the first place products of the imagination tend to
go with the territory at least somewhat. If the answer to
every 'What If 'scenario was 'it cannot work because they didnt do it' then all threads would be very short, as they would also be if the answer was 'this works because I say so'!
This is where the art of civil discussion comes into play, and where the forum rules requiring people to
provide details to
support whatever proposal they are putting forward, either pro or con the scenario, need to
be followed by everyone.
I do not write this in argument but as an explanation or defence of my words.
I do not believe my post contained any negative commentary about TheMarcksPlan himself. It was, however, negatively questionning the (lack of) credibility of his scenario.
By definition, what if discussions revolve around just that: imagination. TheMarcksPlan's scenario here is entirely of his imagination. It is not a what if discussing a point of divergence to
history, it is a let's see how we can achieve the non-historical outcome predetermined by TheMarksPlan. Each individual element of the scenario is also, in itself, imaginary until such time as it is demostrated as being credible/realistic. Only TheMarcksPlan can present that, and that has still to
be done. Specifically, the 600,000 claim is imaginary until such time as he can provide credible substance.
Mythical creatures and already heated discussion.
The discussion would be unlikely to
become heated if senior moderators had taken steps at an early stage to
enforce their own rules and guidelines. You will notice from TheMarcksPlan post at the top of this page that he still thinks he is not required to
evidence his claims and suggests it is your job to
police out doubter's questions. TheMarcksPlan has not explained how the 600,000 is calculated. It is crucial to
guaging the credibility of his entire narrative. What evidence he has produced indirectly points to
a number considerably less than 600,000.
It cannot work.
At no time have l written that his scenario cannot work. Since the scenario is a product of his imagination, it needs lengthly, credible explanations. I have not said it is impossible for 600,000 to
be lost. I've asked how he has got to
that figure. Did he start with 1,200,000 in the pocket and assume 50% got out? If so, which formations. Then, and only then, can serious discussion be had on the consequences. Remember, TheMarcksPlan has repeatedly riled against those who dismiss his narrative when set against historical reality and demands we only comment on the outcomes of is fantasy narrative. OK. But he has to
provide that information in detail. He hasn't. Similarly, l've asked how he overcomes the offensive burnout, how he overcomes the reasons behind General Marck's decision not to
launch a panzer group out of Romania etc etc.
There is no discussion, civil or other, until the basic framework is established. This thread has become 'uncivil' because TheMarcksPlan is unable or unwilling to
provide the basic framework to
his scenario and his claims. Yes, he has written volumes. No, they have not substantiated the core elements - they have (deliberately) caused misdirection and frustration. Senior moderators at an early stage could have got this thread, and others, on track. They didn't. Hoping for poster self-moderation isn't working.
I still have no idea how the 600,000 is derived. From a historical point of view, it is quite unrealistic. Whether it is realistic in TheMarcksPlan narrative depends on how he got to
that figure. The very same applies to
every stage of his narrative. Why? Simple. The outcome that he has predetermined is based upon those numbers holding true. The entire narrative collapses if they are unrealistic. Can, and how does, he make them realistic? Which formations were located in the pocket? With that information, others can begin to
analyse the realism of that and the consequences.