Cantum Americus

LOL....I just finished E. Bauer's "The History of WWII" as a "Too much time on my hands at bedtime" book. I read Mein Kampf in University, as a "I should be studying for finals, but I'm a lazy, unmotivated SOB" book. It was long, and most of it was bloody boring, but it beat studying for finals. Surprisingly, Hitler's a better read than Carl Jung.

I recently finished a book, "How Hitler could have won WWII", by Devin Alexander. It raised some good points, and got me thinking: Other than not attacking Russia, how could Germany (not just Hitler) have avoided defeat in WWII? I love historical debates, and I figure this one oughta be good.

This is funny. I'm actually in the middle of re-reading that book. It's my "sitting in the hottub" book, so progrss is slow. Thanks for ruining the ending for me!! Now I know what happens to France!!- You bastard!!

I'm new around, and so I don't know whether I'd get a shot at playtesting, but I'd be all for it.

Hmmmm....says Russia is tagged as "neutral"....now, thinking about that: That would keep Russia neutral, so long as I didn't attack, now, wouldn't it?? Which would explain why Russia never got involved, and why the AI sued for peace without Russia involved, correct?? If that's true, would random mark them for a shot at teaming with Germany??

Yep.....Here's the rundown from the Intelligence report: Thanks to my buildup of Italian tanks, I hold a large edge in land forces (approx. double). However, allies hold a decent edge in air power (approx 10 units), and, from what I can see, have extensive (8) units heading around the horn to trip me up, although I have no idea whether they're naval or transport units. It is also of note that, up until the last few turns, the allies also held the naval edge as well. Losses are 37 allied (27,4,6), 26 Axis (15,2,9). The computer tells me the game is over, and will not allow me to move units, research, buy units, etc. It still allows me to save the game, which is what I did. Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Turkey, Iraq, and Russia are currently neutral, although, as I mentioned, in another turn Iraq would not have been. Any ideas??? As for the idea that staying out of Russia is a dumb idea against a human opponent, I agree. Human opponents will inevitably use Russia's strengths in its favor. However, in a historically based game, if Germany doesn't go, then there's a good chance Russia stays out of it.

To clarify, I wasn't suggesting a definitive strategy, just relaying one I used to win a particular game.... And, strangely enough, the AI opened up peace negotiations, and my game stopped. To be honest, it surprsied me that it happened, since the allies were still in posession of large air and naval forces, and still controlled Britain, US, etc. And, as was pointed out, the USSR had not joined the fray. I was actually in the middle of a strategic advance when it happened. So, my question now is this: Have I hit a bug in the game?? Or, having only had the game a bit more than a week, have I simply missed something?? I'd expect it'd be the latter, so perhaps one of you could clarify for me.

I just achieved victory in an SC campaign by using the Axis with the only strategy I think will work- staying the hell out of Russia. Rather than waste my troops in that meat grinder, I (after conquering all mainland European countries except Switzerland) built up a large German contingent (read "highly developed tanks") to defend the Atlantic Wall, along France and down through Spain (After I conquered it) to defend against any Allied amphibious landings. I strengthened the line with lots of air fleets to defend against the inevitable allied airstrikes, and was in the process of adding rocket contingents to fend off Naval strikes when the allies sued for peace. After I took Gibralter, I fed some Italian units I had stashed in Germany as reinforcements across the border in Algeria. On the south side, I relied heavily on my Italian allies for support, using a large supply of tank groups to run almost unopposed (after I'd beaten Malta into submission) through Afika, linking up with my tansplanted Italian forces making their way from Germany. After that, I headed East, concentrating my resources on building up Battleships to eliminate any allied naval units in the Mediteranian Sea. I was heading for Iraq when the allies sued for peace. A few notes: 1) Don't get greedy. Take only what you need. I made a mistake by trying to take neutral Norway, and the Allied navies cut off my expeditionary force, isolated my tanks, and wiped them off the map. Then, to add insult to injury, the allies dumped air bases on the newly-allied Norway, and beat on my MPPs in Northern Germany the rest of the war. 2) Avoid the Bear. If you get too aggressive, Russia jumps into the fight, and the game becomes infinetly harder. When the game is early, the lower European countries (Bulgaria, Romania, etc) join the Axis side. Use those forces to take the surrounding areas, but avoid dropping large numbers of German/Italian troops into the area. Also, I stopped short of invading Greece and Turkey, leaving them both neutral. Greece, because I didn't want to give the allies a mediterranian port, even temporarily. Turkey, because it's too close to Russia for comfort. As I mentioned, I was intending to take Iraq, simply because the oil fields are too tempting to pass up. Iraq is a calculated risk. 3) Seize Gibraltar, then Plug the whole. If you're trying to isolate the Mediterranian area, make sure you seize Gibralter, then dump naval and air units into and around the strait. The idea being that, if you can plug the strait, and keep the allies from getting out (or in), you can isolate and destroy any allied naval resistence. And, once the navy is gone, the entire southern half of the map is yours to play with. By this point, the allies should sue for peace.

If you're in Ontario, SC can be found at EB games and at the Zehr's "Great Canadian Warehouse" stores for $19.95 Cdn. Because of Zehr's connection to Loblaws, I'm going to assume that any Loblaws store that sells computer games would have it as well.

I almost forgot.... An excellent point about Von Manstein. There WERE other generals that tried to stand up to Hitler. I used Rommel because he was Hitler's prize general, at one time the head of his bodyguard, and he ended up dead for his proper belief that Hitler had become unfit to lead Germany.

Somewhere back in the thread, someone mentioned about how, if Hitler never made it out of 1920 (or the gas attacks in WWI, for that matter), that some other nutjob would have risen up in his place. I agree with that point, given the political climate and unrest during the period. With the rise of communism, and then facism as the anti-communism, and the unstable political climate of the time (when countries could change political systems almost spontaneously), such an extremist was bound to rise. My point, however, is that perhaps the nutjob in waiting would not have come from Germany. Its debatable as to whether Franco wins the Spanish civil war without Hitler's help (Its not my area of interest, so any further thoughts about the SCW on my part are uneducated, and therefore unwarranted), and Mussolini's facist regime was never really embraced by his people the way the movement was in the other countries. What becomes of the political instability of Germany without Hitler is debatable, but what isn't is that the Nazi party was a non-factor until Hitler's charisma began to take hold. The man could win over a crowd, and that was the main reason for his rise to power in the Nazi party....that, and his ruthlessness in seizing power. He won public support, and then siezed power through purges and pseudo-coups. From what I gather about the Nazi party, I doubt anyone involved in the party had the same panache that Hitler did, and I doubt anyone could have seized the initiative the way he did. My choice, therefore, for madman in waiting, is Stalin. Taking a second fiddle to Hitler in atrocities, the man still killed millions of his own people, and didn't even do it under the guise of racial hatred. He was just plain nuts, paranoid, and extremely overprotective of his grasp on power in the USSR. Under different circumstances, he IS Hitler, but with Vodka. With a Nazi-controlled Germany never materializing, its concievable, although unlikely, that Communism could have taken control in Germany, resulting in the eventual absobtion of Poland into Communism (it spreads like a plague), then the lower, less politcally stable countries (Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc). I don't see Greece converting, but my knowledge of political histories of Southern European countries in the 1930s is almost non-existent. Eventually, the anti-communist sentiments in the various Allied countries (Britain, USA, France, Italy, etc) create tension, and eventually total global war. More likely (in the simplest terms possible), however, is that the German people eventually level out their own economics, get over the Versailles anger, and keep the Wiemar republic (or some variant of it)in control. Stalin, following communist doctrine, eventually decides to bring communism to the rest of Europe, and, as befitting his character, does it by force. Probably before 1950. It's interesting to note that, no matter what, the odds of a major global conflict are high. This is because of the political situation of the time. War is basically inevitable in this era, no matter how you work it. You could cite a hundred different factors for it, but all of them still point to a WWII of some type. In the Pacific, Japan's Imperialistic tendencies make them a ticking timebomb to attack the US, or a Birtish colony, either of which invoke major conflict as well. Its an interesting scenario, and one that is rarely discussed. I believe I saw it loosely touched upon in the computer game Command & Conquer: Red Alert, awhile back. Of course, in the real world, Einstein wouldn't travel back in time and kill Hitler.

I just thought I'd add a bit to JerseyJohn's excellent comments on the Prussian/German military tradition. With regards to the militarism in Prussian society, at least up until the end of WWI, it should be noted that Prussian aristocracy was, at least in part, based around its military hierarchy. The old stereotype of the Prussian aristocrat with the monocle and dueling scar, clicking the heels of his boots together, is based predominately off the fact that the military dominated the high-society of Prussia, hence the "Army without a country" moniker. after the defeat of Germany in WWI (and the subsequent installation of Wilson's Twelve Points, the treaty of Versailles, etc), the German people lost faith in the Prussian militaristic system (which, by Civ Mil relations standards, would lean WAY towards Military dominance) and embraced different political systems. The removal of the Prussian system also marked the removal of the Kaiser-based political system, which removed the Prussian "royalty" as well. As well, it must be remembered that, for the most part, the reasons the German generals were considered to be better than everyone else was because, for the most part, they were. Now, I know that many generals in the allied armies came out of WWII shining like diamonds, and many German generals got dumped on, but several things must be remembered. First, the German generals were highly trained at the Kriegsakademie, which, by all accounts, was considered to be one of the finest war colleges in existence at the time. Many of the best generals in the world either came out of that system, or, at the very least, read and studied works created by some of its graduates and personnel (Carl Von Clausewitz, Gerd Von Scharnhorst, etc). The level of instruction there bested anything available anywhere else through most of the 19th century, and into the 20th, which was when many of these generals were trained. As well, do keep in mind that, especially late in the war, German generals had a second enemy to deal with- Hitler. It is very tough to lead an army when your leader is breathing down your back, overriding your orders on whims of madness, and threatening to have you killed if you don't do what he says. Fact is, the only general to have large-scale success in that crucial period between Dunkirk and Normandy was Rommel, and he was the only general who had the balls to ignore Hitler's orders (and look where it got him). It would be an interesting conversation to hypothesize what would have happened if Hitler had stayed out of military endeavors and simply been a nut in politics alone. Could the German general staff, without Nazi interference, have waged a war against the allies which evened up the odds, so to speak?? Lastly, it must be understood that many of the allied Generals (the Russians excepted) never experienced a large-scale strategic withdrawl, a drawn running battle while retreating, or even a lack of supply, as what the Germans experienced in Russia during the winter months. It is these hardships which tests the mettle of generals in battle, and proves their true worth as generals. The allies, in particular the Americans (but the Brits to a lesser extent) never really experienced supply difficulty, or even a large-scale retreat (after Dunkirk), simply because the allied supply system was so superior. The Allies were masters of Offense, but were never really tested defensively, and in what is arguably the strongest (and dumbest) German Western offensive after 1941, The Bulge, the Americans were having problems until the Germans began to run out of fuel. The fact that the German units held together in the retreat back to Germany (Russia and Europe) despite heavy casualties and a knowledge that the war was basically over shows the strength of the armies as a whole, and the determination of a proud people in particular.

Keep in mind that Patton had a tendency to be overzealous in his activities, and that got him into trouble. Although he was popular at home, he was raked across the coals before his death for his distaste for the Russkies, and his public comments about how the Allies had fought the wrong enemy. As well, he took great heat while Governor of Bavaria for his use of ex-Nazis in administrative positions. By the time of his death, he was extremely unpopular in the social circles which were essential for becoming president, and he had earned the wrath of most of the American presscorps. As a general, Patton's driving end-run is the stuff of legend in the history, and, although his hard-driving style and sheer bravado made up for what could be described as a "mobile wall" tactic for battlefield advance, he WAS successful, and success is what makes generals great. I do have to agree with the notion that Patton's drive was through a shell of an army, be it because of the knowledge within the Wermacht that Hitler was not the man they thought he was or because, as was mentioned, great treatment in the POW camps in the states was preferred to getting shot at (or some other reason). Patton's end run would never come to fruit if Hitler had not attacked Russia. If Hitler wasn't the most incompetant military leader of his time (Plus the whole "He just plain nuts" thing), the other 2/3 of the German army would be in Europe, and the results of WWII would likely have been extremely drawn out, if not much, much different. Russia was a meat grinder for the German army. No meat grinder = very different war.