Allied Superior Leadership

[Liam]

People will say that the Axis had the "Great Men." That on the Allied side you only had Zhukov, Montgomery and Patton in the Euro Theatre. Although the Top Leadership of the Allies were far better. Churchill, FDR and Stalin were far better World Leaders than Hitler and Mussolini. Hitler could get together a Mass Rally but he was not General. He was given to fits of Rage, madness, went to Tarot-Psychic readers, etc..Mussolini, aside from bring Fascism to the World I can't remeber much notable achievements there.

Churchill had his historic failures but this Man was an Ex-Real Military Man. He had what you call real Guts and Qualities that would help his Nation prevail up against some pretty bleak Odds.

FDR got his Nation into a War they weren't sure they wanted sneakily, bit by bit. Little resources here, little lend lease there, little embargo over there. He was charismatic, not saying Hitler wasn't, but he was no Fanatic and I don't sense him as being as Failible. He didn't make as many mistakes<as least important ones>

Stalin, was a psychopath and well, against another one he was even more so. I don't recall anyone ever attempting a Coup in Soviet Russia whilst he was still Healthy mentally.

I think that the Allies Deserve some sort of Political and Leadership bonus in the game on that level. The fact they were 'good', and the World knew it. Though they don't have a Guderian, Rommel, Manstien, or many of the other great Field Leaders... Truly Patton IMO was not fully tested against a "large equally equipped enemy." Nor was Montgomery as both men at the time had #s, airpower, and supply on their side by the time they won... Zhukov was different and he used Weather, but the fact is Germans and Italians didn't have as much political Power as the Allies IMO, part of their failing.

Just an added thought folks, but certian values in the game should be adjusted accordingly. Liam

[ev]

My guess is that the player is the top dog for each of the warring parties. So if you are the Allied Player then you are Roosvelt, Churchill and Stalin all put together. And, your skills together with the difficulty setting you select are your top dog bonus.

Now, of course, this might be some sort of a hidden bonus for the Axis. Most human players would hope to avoid the very big mistakes made by Hitler and Mussolini.

Most of us would agree the war could have followed a different course but for the big mistakes Hitler and Mussolini made. We would agree that the US and Britain had good leaders. The whole point of the game is to see what would have happened if you replace the leadership at the top, and, put in their place people like you and me, or Hubert's AI.

[Liam]

Well, heh, that is true in a aspect Ev but not entirely. These leaders didn't control all the aspects that we do in SC, we can play Patton or FDR. We can play Admiral Doenitz or Goring. We have it all at our fingertips. The Leaders are merely Icons and no matter which way you slice the pie you end up with their Good Traits or bad attributes.

The biggest Notably if you're playing Axis in '39 Poland Scenario is the the early DOW and unpreparedness for a 2 front War. I would've waited as Hitler till I had more of a Navy and Army to face the possibility of being hit by the Reds and the Democrats.

The AI plays more like a Private who can't peel a potatoe and the only way to make it a challenge is to give yourself virtually nothing to fight back with.

[Glez_]

Let me see, FDR with the worlds greatest industrial power behind him and the largest navy, not much strategy there, just build build build , and build untill you out build the Germans. Oh, and let's not forget that his diplomatic actions made his military victories useless. ( Teheran, Casablanca etc.)

Stalin, here you may have a point. If not for Stalin's brutality, his country would not have survived, and also because of his brutality,( purges) his country almost did'nt survive.

Churchill, here I see the best of the three. Although he is responsible for gearing Britains economy completley toward war. A great setback after the war as it took Britain much longer to recover, and arguably unnecesary as once the US entered it was all decided.

Mussolini, Italy was in no way shape or form ready for war in the 40's, make of that what you will.

Hitler, responsible for many of the Germans victories and defeats. Without him the German people would'nt have had the guts to enter a second world war, much less be on the verge of winning it. IMO, I see his greates fault in not gearing the German economy for total war sooner, and when he did they never reached ww1 figures.

[Liam]

Ahhhhhhh! But Glez, these men you speak of had to decide many many things. FDR was Charismatic, ever heard his speeches? He makes me want to pick up a rifle for the red white and blue, more so than say Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, etc... He was a Man of his time, and despite the major backing of an Uber Economy, you can't take away from the Man. He was not a weak Leader<he was ill is all>. He gave his Generals and Leadership quite a bit of freedom, something other leaders did not. The men who knew how to wage war, the ability to do their jobs, without as many hinderances. From Doolittle to MacArthur, to Patton<except when Patton wanted to Drive onto Moscow in '45> Harry wasn't as able and admitted it but a good second hand man. People followed FDR, they didn't follow others so wholeheartedly since.. A very Memorable US President.

As far as what you said about Churchill, right on! A bulldog against a Tiger! Who wouldn't budge.

Stalin was brutal, his purges and his Hellish 5 year plans either destroyed the Reds or made them into an Industrial Power. I tell you one thing, there were few traitors in his Ranks. If you so much as said the word Free or Stalin is an old goat over dinner I'm certian you got a cyanide caspule in your night cap I will admit Stalin's hard hand was unneccessary, but hey, look the Reds had revolted in his lifetime. He didn't trust anyone, he got to where he was by killing everyone in his path. He was in a way an Evil VS Evil... That worked somehow. I still don't know entirely why the people followed, but their were plenty of Comrades and despite his vast Vile Cruel acts he defeated Hitler. He would've likely sacrificed every man, woman and child to do so!

Hitler what is notable about him? Great Public speaker, awful tactician, lucky is mostly what I have to say about him. He knew how to Rally the Broken Germans. The Germans built the Machine, their Leadership, their Great Tacticians drew up the plans. Hitler stole most of his ideas from other Great Men and was a figure head. He had a sick Dream, and it never saw fruition.

The Italians were sort of Iraqis of the WW2 Era. They couldn't defeat Greece. Albania and Ethiopia fell to the Uber Italians. They were overrated... Oddly enough when the Allies came in I feel personally they showed more bravery. They were like the French, there to make love and drink wine not make war

<a clique sure, but name one notable land victory by the Italians in WW2 vs a World Power?> Ready or Not they never impressed me...

[Glez_]

Liam, what we have to remember is that above all else, these men are politicians. Sure FDR let his generals do their work but what good did it do if he made political decisions like the "Unconditional Surrender", that only gave Hitler more propaganda to fuel his already desperate situation. Let's not forget FDR agreed to partition Germany when the US could have taken Berlin, because for all the Germans the real enemy lay in the east, not in the west.

He may have been a great President,recruiter, economist, that however does not make him a great politician.

Now back to Hitler,remove Hitler and you remove Mansteins brilliant plan through the Ardenes,among many other events.

Don't get me wrong, Hitler made some very grave mistakes, but he put himself in a position to be able to make those mistakes. The allies gave him nothing he took it all from them. Sudetanland Czechoslovakia, Austria, Rhur industrial area, these were all his victories, through diplomacy and politics, therefore he was a great politician.

On a side note I ask you the age old question:

Who was worse Stalin or Hitler?

Take into account cruelty, # of murders, etc. etc.

[ May 21, 2004, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Glez_ ]

[Retributar]

Hitler was worse than Stalin...but, not by much.

[jon_j_rambo]

FDR led the United States thru some very tough economic times before WW-2. Those factories weren't just building themselves, it took leadership. Rifles, tanks, & supplies don't grow on trees either. FDR was a great military, economic, & political leader. The spirit of the American people won WW-2.

The Germans were way overated, they didn't defeat any real opponents. They invented blitzkrieg using modern weapons with calvary tactics to use against sleeping farmers, that is about it. The spirit of the German people was of an evil pride, that's why they lost WW-2.

[Roosevelt45]

The spirit of the American people won WW-2.

Because I don't want to insult anyone,I'm not going to respond to that.

FDR,gotta love this guy.

Liam, yes I have heard his speeches and for a while there even I considered joining the NAVY .

Churchill was a war leader.

The kind of man you need during a crisis like the Battle for Britain.

He was equally if not even more stubborn than Hitler.He was always pushing his generals to start more offensives.Too bad for him the people felt the same way and he wasn't elected after the war.

Stalin was a murdering brute.

But that's just what the USSR needed to stop the Germans at that time. And without him, god knows what would have happened.

Mussolini was a very weak politician and stepped into the war while nor his country nor its economy were ready for it.

his only victories were achieved before the war started, Albania and Abessinia(Ethiopia)

and let me sketch that last one.

Ethiopia.

spears,swords and a whole lot of courage.

Italy.

airplanes,tanks,musterd gas,etc..

Also Mussolini soon became nothing more than Hitler's puppet.

Last but not least, Hitler himself

a talented speaker, a maniac, a brilliant politician,etc..

But in the end, nothing more than an opportunist who happened to be on the losing side.

Germany was so poor after what was decided at Versailles that eventually it would have gone wrong with or without Hitler, he only made it happen sooner and in a more inhuman way( the holocaust).

[Panzeh]

The Germans were varied in their quality. The Germans lacked standardization in anything, so that should be some of their disadvantage.

The Allies should have a set of leaders that are around average, with a few good ones and a few bad ones.

The Germans and Soviets should have wildly varying quality in their leadership.

[Retributar]

Your right about that 'Panzeh'...the 'Germans lacked standardization in anything'...is basically very true...although a little harsh!.

"Too many fingers into too many pies...brings one to his own Demise!."

[Arthur Krupp]

One of the great assests of the German army was its officer core though-for instance in Africa rommel could leave HQ for days on end to be at the front and the staff officers could run the whole show and on more than one occassion took serious decisions-this versus other armies which use their staffers as mere pen pushers and the people who choose the next nice chateou for the HQ...on the whole I'd say they balanced out with the allies possesing superior political leadership and the germans superior command leadership.

[xwormwood]

I think Churchill made mistakes as well. One of the biggest was probably to agree with Arthur Harris (strategic bombing against civilians will win the war --> proven wrong)

@j_j_rambo:

I agree with your spirit statement, but i would change it to "The Nazi-spirit slowly poisend the minds of many german people, pushed them into WW2 and was the reason why the evil 3rd Reich lost WW-2."

---

Hitler is overrated, ok. But those misguided german soldiers fought against the strongest enemies of the entire world. USSR, USA, UK, France. And even though they had to do this with HITLER giving way too many goofed and mad orders, they were (unfortunatly) able to fight until mid 1945.

Do you have any proofs that the USA defeated some "real", "equal" or "strong" opponents on their own?

Iraq? No.

Vietnam? No.

Korea? No.

WW2? No.

WW1? No.

So where is the pride in all this farmer-boy talking?

[ May 21, 2004, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[SeaMonkey]

How about 1812, The British? More recently 1941-1945 The Japanese in the Pacific. As for Korea, don't I remember something about 200,000 Chinese. Oh yeah I'll admit there were some other minor, very minor players that helped USA, and we are grateful(not to diminish) for their help, but let's not skew the facts, the majority of the fighting and dying were Americans. As it was, it is.

[ May 21, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[xwormwood]

Ok, the british in 1812 & and the independance war? Granted. But not impressive if i use these j_j_rambo standards here.

Korea & Pacific War: far away from equal enemies.

But that was really not my point. I wrote this nonsense as a reaction of the weekly "Euro-Farmers" issue.

Isn't it utter disrespect against those none-US citizen in WW2 (fighting against axis-powers or suffering under axis-powers) when someone writes "The spirit of the American people won WW-2" or "sleeping farmers"?

Ok, i fired my shots, i have cooled down, and i am really sorry if i have insulted someone with my scribblings. I simply can't read all this without reaction. My fault.

[Edwin P.]

Perhaps, you could recreate the different governments in SC2 by having government types affect ones ability to DOW other nations.

For example

Germany, Italy and the USSR have a 100% that their DOW actions are automatically accepted.

UK and USA have only a 50% that any DOW by them against a neutral nation is accepted by their government that turn.

For example - If the UK attempts to DOW Ireland then there is a 50% that the British parliament does not agree and the DOW must be retried the next turn.

[Glez_]

I would have to say that after all the posts Rambo has made about ww2, especially about the Germans being so evil and we Americans being so rightous, he is wrong most of the time. Quite simply the war lasted as long as it did because of the allied incompetence at the command level.

As far as the Japanese being an equal to the US, no way! Check the industrial capacity and the resources at the time.

US strategy of the entire war: 1.Build more than them, 2.build more in case you "screw things up",

3.build even more in case you "screw up again".

No superior strategy here.

[With Clusters]

Wow. I think people need to tone down the nationalistic/partisan rhetoric, and use a little fairness and common sense when talking about history.

So sure, 'spirit' alone doesn't win wars (just ask the Japanese), and it also wasn't something soley possesed by US soldiers. I'm sure that soldiers from other Allied nations had just as much spirit/loyalty/patriotism/etc. as American ones. Go ahead, be proud of your country's history (I'm American, and I'm certainly proud), but it doesn't need to be done in it a way that belittles the accomplishments of others.

But on the other other hand, characterizing the entire US strategy as merely "build more than them" is patently unfair. And while the US was able to outproduce Japan by a large margin, this production benefit hadn't really kicked in until after decisive battles (such as Midway, brought about by good intelligence, courage [so spirit sometimes can help], and of course luck - but not because the US had 'more') had already turned the tide. So such simplified blanket statements are rediculous, and only meant to insult.

So people just need to drop the personal bias, and quit poisoning these forums, so the more rational of us can enjoy talking about the game and the history behind it in a reasonable and rational way.

[Slapaho]

Only 2 countries fought a true 'world war', Britain and the USA. Britain could not have done this without the help of the Canadians, Indians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. All this required good leadership on the part of Churchill, but the commitment and sacrifice of those nations to fight in theatres 1000's of miles from their homes, just like the Americans. Just like the Americans they deserve respect for their sacrifice.

Tweaking the game to represent the nuances of the then leadership (as you take the role of overall leader in the game) would be very difficult, imho. For example, the British/USA agreed a 'Germany first' approach, something which the american generals did not like as they saw Japan as (and rightly so) a more direct threat to the US homeland. To represent a possible US 'Japan first' strategy, you could halve the US MPP production, which would effectively garauntee the US ability to contribute to a European campaign would take at least a year or more from their entry into the war.

[Roosevelt45]

Wow. I think people need to tone down the nationalistic/partisan rhetoric, and use a little fairness and common sense when talking about history.

Tell that to JJR.

[J P Wagner]

Take this crap over to the General Forum....

[Retributar]

http://www.britannica.com/normandy/articles/Ultra.html

Ultra:-Allied intelligence system that, in tapping the very highest-level communications among the German armed forces, as well as (after 1941) those of the Japanese armed forces, contributed to the Allied victory in World War II.

The incoming signals from the German war machine (more than 2,000 daily at the war's height) were of the highest level, even from Adolf Hitler himself. Such information enabled the Allies to build up an accurate picture of enemy plans and orders of battle, forming the basis of war plans both strategic and tactical. Ultra intercepts of signals helped the Royal Air Force to win the Battle of Britain in 1940-41. During the Normandy campaign of June-August 1944, signals between Adolf Hitler and the German command in the West were forwarded to Allied commanders; this led to the destruction of a large part of the German forces in northern France. In the Pacific the Germans had supplied their Japanese ally with an Enigma machine as early as 1937; the modified Japanese version, called "Purple" by the Americans, was duplicated by the U.S. Signal Intelligence Service well before Pearl Harbor. Resultant revelations of Japanese plans led to U.S. naval victories in the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway, crushing the offensive power of the Japanese fleet, and enabled American flyers to find and shoot down the plane carrying Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the Japanese commander in the Pacific.

This is how the Allies mainly won the war!.

[With Clusters]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

Take this crap over to the General Forum....

Amen.

[With Clusters]

Uh, that is, unless you meant me too...

[Liam]

Well, all I have to say is this how many of you think Russia and UK would won alone, without Lendlease/Trade/Technology sharing. Since the Russian's best tank design of WW2 was an American Design

Take USA out of the equation and Japs could've entered Far East after India/Australia fell with couple Million men, that would've be end of Soviet Russia