Jump to content

What Ifs? of SC


Liam

Recommended Posts

WachtMeister

I don’t know what sent me flying about that post. I was obviously pretty livid at the time, then I went off to do some work and started running it all back and forth and around lunchtime it suddenly dawned on me that the damn thing needed to be toned down a few notches. Unfortunately I got back to the computer a little too late.

Glad you didn’t go through the roof; I had no intention of writing anything that pushy, but I’m glad you accepted it in such good humor. As you obviously realize, no offense was intended and after reading your response I’m assured none was taken. I'm the one who owes an appology for getting so strung out.

You’ve got Loring described perfectly; it’s the precise end of the universe. Everyone stationed there figured it was chosen for a SAC Base because a direct hit would give it some added charm. I gathered all the SAC Bases were pretty similar -- unnatural dreariness and a location far from anything worth destroying. I remember a new guy asking our unit commander, “Okay, the bombers fly off and the base is targeted. What’s the plan from there -- I mean, the escape plan for us to get out?” The twenty guys being briefed all broke out laughing. The poor new guy was embarrassed as hell. When it died down the C.O. said, “Escape plan, it goes like this, ‘Our Father who art in Heaven. . .”

Strangelove is one of those movies you either can't stand or are crazy about.

I enjoyed all the early sixties cold war movies, particularly this one and Fail Safe (they doomed it to obscurity by not releasing the damn thing ahead of Strangelove). I still like Seven Days in May, The Manchurian Candidate, ,and all the others of that genre, even the idiot prop in Manchurian Candidate that has a silencer on the end of a revolver. Wonder how that got passed the researchers.

[ January 25, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JJ:

No problem mate. Occasionally, some clearing of the air is part of the dialogue process.

Immer Etwas:

["always something" well named alright.]

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my two questions. In following the original post, I just did not get those parts.

For my part, though trained in a scientific dicipline, I am not one who denies rightful place of the spiritual, mystic, philosophic, etc aspects in the modern world, or any other world.

Wholeheartedly agree that a human being is far more that complex collection of protein molecules to be arranged at will. I believe that the spirit, or "spark", as you phrased it, is the true essence.

Certainly, many current physical science theories will be changed in the light of further knowledge. This is the strength of the scientific method, in that it constantly reviews its assumptions and changes them as new discoveries are made. Unfortunately, new discoveries can often be used for good or ill. The scientific method does not, however, provide the ideal framework for deciding which it will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While not trying to be insensitive to those civilians that suffered from those A Bomb blasts....The Japanese people really have to blame their own government.

Dropping the bombs was the correct decision to end the war as quickly as possible and save hundred of thousands of American lives.

To those who think dropping the bomb on Japan was barbaric, they should try to think what life was like under Japanese occupation in SE Asia and China from 1937 to 1943!

They certainly weren't the victims then when they were pillaging the Far East and running around with victory fever in 1941!

Japan should have immediately sued for peace in May 1945 when Germany surrendered.

But they gambled and lost by trying to drag out the war. Those fanatical Japanese army generals wanted to fight to the end and hoped for Soviet mediation.

Sorry I digress from SC tongue.gif

My family suffered under Japanese occupation in China during the late 30's so naturally I have a strong biased here.

To me there should be no debate at all at a national "moral" level. To me the choice is pretty clear.

[ January 25, 2003, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genghis

You're appologizing for straying away from SC topics? Of all forums, why do it in this one, the forum that's gone from Alexander to Armageddon with guest appearances by Attila the Hun, Hadrian and Trajan, the Incas and Aztecs, the Spanish Armada and even your ancestor the Kahn! :D

Your bias is understandable. That soldiers of seemingly any nation can resort to slaughter and atrocities against unarmed civilians and prisoners of war is unnerving. All it seems to take is a little encouragement from the top, and the Japanese army certainly had more than a litle encouragement from it's leaders.

I don't think we're talking as much about the dropping of the original A-bombs as the state of manking having to rely for half a century on total annihlation to prevent another World War.

It seems wrong to me to ever say the citizens should blame their government. The average Japanes, German, Russian and Italian are the same as the average citizen everywhere; they're born, work, grow old and die. And that's the total effect they have on the government that controls them. Whether it's a good or bad one is usually out of their immediate control.

Japan arrived at it's rulers through an heredetary system so solidly entrenched it couldn't have been dislodged from within. The average citizen had no power whatever to influence government decisions, nor would thay have imagined themselves entitled to it.

Major upheavals from within, revolutions and civil wars, are just as likely to have a bad result as a good one.

When the Second World War ended, Americans in particular blamed the German people for putting Hitler in power. Somewhere along the line it was forgotten that he was appointed then ran phony elections to see if the population supported him. Of course they supported him, every voting place had Brown Shirts looking over people's shoulders while they X'd Yes or No .

I'd like to know what possible action the average person of any major country can do to oust a bad government. What would Americans do if someday a president comes along who either creates or helps instigate a national crisis and decides to exercize his more extreme emergency powers.

During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of Habeus Corpus because he felt it was something that only benefitted rascals and scalliwags. The only thing keeping him from having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court locked up was the advice of his cabinet. And Lincoln, a lawyer, is traditionally considered to have saved the country. A more cynical man might have become dictator.

Since that time the number of emergency powers the president can exercise has increased many times over. So I'm not too inclined to point a finger the average person anywhere else, because I'm not that certain it won't happen right here.

SC what-ifs?

In continuing this forum, and I'm sure the next poster or two will get us back on the original track, do we want to discuss likely what ifs , such as: What effect would it have had if Belgium and Holland had lined up with either the Allies or Germany, and similar situations easily set up through the editor. Or, more outlandish possibilities, like the USSR joining the Axis after British and French intervention during the 1940 Winter War.

I wonder if that would make a decent scenario?

As an afterthought I'd like to thank all the people who contribute to this site who's spelling is as horrible as my own. I'd also like to thank those who can spell for not making fun of those of us who can't. smile.gif

[ January 25, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JerseyJohn -

Aye agreed that it's very difficult for ordinary citizens to control the actions of their own government.

But I was trying to say is that if people wanted to blame or cast doubt on the US for the bombings, they should be condemning Japan as well.

As for taking this forum back to What Ifs in SC, Has someone did a mod with the US trying to invade a German dominated continent in 1943-1944 without the UK nor the USSR as a staging base?

This assumes UK fell in 1940 easily or was taken over by Quislings.

Africa would be somewhat split historically with the Brits controlling Suez still or at least Free french/Free Brit units.

I'd give the US a heck of a lot of money and see how far they can go into Europe or at least liberating some countries.

Should be fun

[ January 26, 2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genghis

Your what-if sounds like a lot of fun, like a giant scale Operation Torch . It's been one of my gripes against the AI that the U. S. doesn't attempt this after Britain falls. Instead it just builds up and waits. At least that was the way it reacted when I reached that point earlier. Now I'm leaving the Fog off when playing the computer, I'll have to see if it exhibits more initiative if it knows where everything is.

I'm sure the USSR would have refused to allow U. S. ground troops on their territory, but if the most of Germany's troops were occupied in fighting Russia, and most of the rest in protecting occupied Britain and France . . . If the UK has surrendered I'd put Gibraltar under U. S. control. No doubt the Axis would need to be distracted in it's "Soft Underbelly" (yeah, sure!) before either England or France could be retaken.

Ironically, right after posting that last entry the local college station broadcast a stanford psychology documentary which included experiments from the fifties to see how the average American responded to assumed authority figures when told to inflict pain in ever increasing amounts upon an unseen, screaming, test subject supposedly as conditioning for giving incorrect answers in a test. 3/4 of the walk-ins kept upping the voltage and pressing the button. Some protested but did it anyway. Of the 25% who refused and walked out, not a single person thought to either call the police or free the unseen and crying victim!

A second experiment, ten years later, involved a group of college students divided into jailors and prisoners. It was supposed to last three weeks but had to be cancelled after six days due to excessive sadism and abuse from the jailors.

Kind of makes you wish psychologists would limit their studies to rodents in mazes. The percieved humanity of pit vipers keeps improving as we learn more about the inhuman nature of mankind. ET would be nuts to wander around planet Earth without some sort of death ray!

[ January 26, 2003, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier Scenario Suggesstion

In an earlier posting I said in a passing what-if that I thought a USSR entry into the 1940 Axis as a result of British/French interverence in Finland might make an interesting scenario.

The easiest way would be to start with the 1940 scenario, set the USSR to neutral, leave Finland neutral as well -- i. e., Russia's already driven the Brits and French out of Finland and negotiated a peace with the Fins -- and proceed with the game. Germany can't achieve victory untill it's conquered both Britain and Russia. If Germany conquers the UK without also conquering the USSR the result is not an Axis victory, but a draw.

In effect this means the USSR is cooperating fully with Nazi Germany and has no thought at all of preventive war. Presumably the Soviets are occupied offmap trying to take India away from the Brits as part of it's Axis agreement.

It goes without saying the Hitler would still want to turn on them only now he's got much more time to set the stage and deal with the UK first. As Russia is not going to prepare for war, it might be a good idea to set America on it's historical entry setting. This gives Germany roughly a year to push the UK back to Manchester before the U. S. enters. If it chooses to take Manchester before the U. S. entry, without invading Russia, it attains a draw. If the Axis plays the AI it won't launch Sea Lion before invading Russia, taking much of the suspense out of the situation.

Not a biggie, but a scenario of sorts if anyone cares to develop it. I think I will further down the road. I'm not sure there's enough in it to post in a forum, but it could make for an interesting project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a show on Hitler where it always showed his whole desire for the USSR. Their wealth and land... I would think that a big Player like Stalin, would not be trusted by the Fanatical dictator. He hated Bolshevism with a passion, and I doubt that they would've worked together on any longterm basis. All Hitler's plans would lead the long road to moscow eventually... Fulfulling a WW1 accomplishment that really gave the Germans very little but tired troops and some Ukraine Wheat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Genghis

Your what-if sounds like a lot of fun, like a giant scale Operation Torch . It's been one of my gripes against the AI that the U. S. doesn't attempt this after Britain falls. Instead it just builds up and waits. At least that was the way it reacted when I reached that point earlier. Now I'm leaving the Fog off when playing the computer, I'll have to see if it exhibits more initiative if it knows where everything is.

I suspect that it does anyway, FoW be damned.

Try leaving a conquered England completely bare

of a garrison-the US will eventually invade it

(I found this out the hard way). Also will go

for an empty Gibraltar.

John DiFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnDiFool

Glad you mentioned that. In the games against the AI where I had England conquered I never left it undefended or Gibraltar open, but this opens new possibilities for gameplay as well as scenarios.

Liam

In Mein Kampf Hitler, or whoever wrote it, refers repeatedly to the East, vaguely meaning Poland and Russia, as though it were territory without a ruler and literally subhuman inhabitants. He continually refers to it as a possession the Germans are not only entitled to by must possess in order to continue in existence. The book also speaks of the Japanese as being the Asian equivalents of the Aryans.

I don't believe he thought of these things himself, probably they came from Rudolf Hess, who was typing and edititing the manuscript, and he probably got them a university professor who expoused Geopolitics. I think the professor's name was Househoffer, but I'm not certain. He and his son were both professors and preached the same Aryan dominance philosophy.

It seems doubtful to me that Stalin realized how deeply this obsession with eastern expansion ran through Nazi reasoning. Probably he assumed they'd be more than content with controling continental Europe and figured America would be their next challange after finishing with England.

In the months before Barbarossa Russia pressed Hitler to concede a Norwegian ice-free port city for Soviet use and allow them to construct a rail line going to that city through Northern Finland and Norway. Hitler saw this as a threat, but it seems more like Staling was planning for a more normalized post war period where he would have good Atlantic trading access to the Western Hemisphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...