Terry

So far I've not noticed any imbalance. Sure, disorders air fleets have blown the hell out of me but this was countered by the ability of the Allied Fleets to cause havoc (I think I lost 12 ships to his 16, but 6 of mine were French and no CV losses so thats okay). Plus there is a lot of Allied MPP thanks to Iraq - certainly enough to rebuild the good old RN. However, I have to openly admit being very lucky in Greece - I can't remember the amount of times the Greeks were reduced to one but lived to fight another day. disorders unlucky number is definitely one! This allowed me an easy atack on Tobruk and Tripolitania. I have also been lucky on Tech. However, disorder is about to mincemeat the massed french defense so we'll see how it goes from there.

Well its 30 June 1940, Turn 18, and the Greeks are still going. However, given that they are now facing 3 armies, 3 air fleets, 2 bombers,1 hq and sundry corps reserves I thought i'd do a quick Malta, and give them a national GC and mention in despatches before they get wiped good time. Damn those dirty brown units! But at least I got a swap of Tobruk out of it, so no crocodile tears! :cool:

Anybody know the telephone number of a good maritime salvage specialist because I'm currently having a few issues regarding the seaworthiness (and size) of my Royal Navy? I can be contacted on extended vacation in Athens!

Hi, would like to join. Normally play Hotseat so will do me good to get out and get battered by someone new. Probably can only play PBEM due to work committments (maybe some IP at weekends). Are players going to be intially organised into timezones to make IP more practical?

JerseyJohn, couldn't agree more about Iraq and the current situation. Thanks for the link on Vichy - good string.

I think Rambo was being a bit harsh on the French and on America's military contibution in the war. It is certainly true that many French collaborated with the Nazi's, and indeed some of the last units fighting in Berlin were French SS volunteers. Vichy itself was a national mistake of the largest order, and the actions of portions of the armed forces in fighting the Allies in Syria and North Africa now appears almost anal in its attempt to preserve 'French Pride'. However, the actions of the Vichy reigme has to be placed within the political and social context of French society within the 30's and the pre-occupation, shared with many in Western Europe, of Communism vs Facism. To many, better a Nazi than a live under Stalinist reigme. More importantly it ignores the fact that the French resistance was the largest in Europe, and that along with the Poles, they formed the largest Free Armies serving in the Grand Alliance. Their sacrafice, when their own countries were occupied and being reduced to rubble, should not be forgotten. It may sometimes seem that the USA is interpretated as buying victory with Economic power. This merely reflects the fact that the US under Roosevelt did become an economic superpower in WWII. Lendlease, supplies to Russia, the Liberty ships and even the post war Marshal Plan were all keystones to the Allied plan. However, it isn't meant to negate or ignore the bravery and sacrfice of American troops, who served as best as anyone in the Pacific campaigns, the D-Dya landings, the daylight bombing raids over Germany etc. The Bastards of Bastogne, the voluteers in the Flying Tigers, The Doolittle Bombers are all remebered for their bravery. It's just that from a strategic level, which is what the intial question was, the USA economic power was an undeniable factor. Anyway, people working 100 hour weeks in horrible dirty munition factories did their part just as anyway else did.

The question is an interesting one. My answer would be that all 3 of the primary allies were required equally to defeat Germany. In short, Britain provided the will, the USSR the men and the USA the mateirals. If Britain had surrenderd or come to a non-aggression pact in 1940 it is difficult to see how the USSR would have resisted the intial onslaught and the US would have had no subsequent 'gateway' to Europe. An non- aggression pact is not as unlikely as it sounds. Churchill only became PM becuse of the opposition parties insistence that the Conservative party's first choice, Lord Halifax, was not suitable as it was believed he seriously considered a compromise with Hitler, who openly admired the British Empire and felt London should have been a natural ally against Bolshevism. Indeed, although the leading Tory statesman, Halifax was deliberatley omitted from the new goverment and instead posted as the GB ambassador to Washington. Britian's military achievements were small but it was the only country at war with Germany all the way from '39. It should be remebered that Germany declared war on the US not the other way round. The US was absolutely vital, even from 1940, as the wars bankroller and supplier of materials. Although the US public was largely against intervemtion Rosevelt was clear from day 1 where his interests, and ultimately America's, lay. Lendlease, the occupation of Iceland, US Navy patrols on the seaboard were all critical to British survival in 1940 & 1941. Subsequently the USSR was heavily dependent on US supplies, and the US was given the primary responsibility of wearing down Japan. After EL Alamein the US was the chief partner in the Anglo-British alliance, as illustrated in Overlord. The USSR paid for victory with life - approx 20-30m soldiers and civilains. From a military perspective it was indeed the Red Army that eventually crushed the majority of the German land forces. However, war is also about economic and morale factors and it would not have got by without its partners. Even after the 6th Army was crushed at Stalingrad, the USSR was desperate for a second front. So I'd say it Churchill's will, Rosevelt's wallet and Stalin's soul that won the war for the allies. Take anyone of those out of the equation and there was a serious, almost likley, threat of a New Order in Europe.