Victory, Defeat, Armistice, Taxes, Depression

[JerseyJohn]

There's always someone who posts that Germany had to be defeated and, most recently, that the victory condition shouldn't be whether the Axis can win, but how long they can hold out.

Rubbish!

Why do we have to see the war in Europe as something that had to keep expanding indefinitely till the Axis reached a point of no return?

The basic Axis problem was Hitler could never take yes for an answer. The more successes he was handed the more blinded he became to anything other than what he was sure would happen next. By the time he invaded the USSR the only possibility he would consider was the country's collapse within a few months. But suppose we consider various points along the way and how someone less insane, one of us for example, would have done things differently?

1) -- Having rebuilt the German army and air force Hitler believed he could use it to win two quick local wars without drawing Britain and France into a DoW on Germany.

-- Czechoslovakia

He wanted what he thought would be a quick war here so he could show off Germany's new military might and set the groundwork for his next move, which would be against Poland. Hitler was actually angry that Mussolini set up the Munich Conference as he wanted the local war so badly. When the UK and especially France (which was allied with the Czechs) caved in, Hitler became convinced that a quick crush of Poland would be an even better opportunity.

Contrary to popular myth, the German army was not planning to assault the Sudetanland fortifications. Having absorbed Austria, there would have no need to do so, the drive would have been south of those positions and straight for Prague. Even so, considering that small country's military preparedness it would have been a hard and costly campaign with the Czech's possibly being able to hold out till Britain and France were mobilized and able to go on the offensive. In any case, it was definitely a better Allied position than existed the following year.

-- Poland

Up till Germany's seizure of Slovakia and the start of demands for the Danzig Corridor, Poland was a cooperative state. So much so that other Baltic and Balkan countries declined to throw in with her because they considered it too pro-German.

A new situation, France having sold out it's previous ally joins Britain in a defensive treaty with the Poles. After Slovakia Hitler believed the western nations would reneg once again and, even if they did declare war, wouldn't actually fight over the place. So, his territorial demands refused, he invaded. Poland didn't begin serious mobilization till the last day of August 39, only one day before being invaded.

Having conquered Poland and finding himself at war with France and the Uk-Commonwealth, Hitler believed there would be peace in the Spring. In the early stages he didn't imagine his forces could actually conquer France, instead his ambition was to add Denmark and Norway and, if the war continued, to keep the British and French pinned down in the Low Countries till war weariness set in and a settlement agreed upon.

Stalin saw a similar scenario, Germany and the two western Allies exhausting themselves while the USSR repaired the military purges and prepared for a later war, probably with Germany.

-- Up to this point WWII was strictly a European War. The United States sought to remain nutral and the USSR had no desire to become involved.

Spring 1940, Denmark and Norway conquered by the Axis. Same basic situation. In the United States public sentiment against Germany was growing, but the mood was still for neutrality.

Germany conquers the Low Countries then France.

The UK will not agree to peace unless it's in danger of being starved by a successful blockade, or invaded.

-- At this point, with the November presidential election coming up, FDR is still forced to claim America's desire to steer clear of war despite leaning toward Great Britain. The R. A. F. wins a pyhric victory agains the Luftwaffe and the situation falls into a stalemate; Germany can't invade Britain and Britain can't possibly retake mainland Europe.

- U. S. S. R. is still neutral and not prepared for war against Germany and it's allies.

- U. S. A., after FDR's reelection is openly aiding the UK but also apprehensive about Japan.

-- This is a juncture. What if Germany fortifies it's eastern frontiers, does not plan on invading the USSR and, instead, goes all out to win the submarine war against the UK?

Elsewhere, Italy has entered in the Mediteranean and managed to aggressively initiate its own military catastrophes.

-- Nazism is viewed very sympathetically in the Middle East where pro-German and anti-British/French sympathies are very high. Moslem leaders turn to Berlin for help but Hitler, foolishly seeing the region as being in Italy's sphere, does not respond. When an uprising to oust the British from Iraq comes about in 1941 it fails when Britain, hopelessly outnumbered on the ground uses obsolete training aircraft to control of the sky. Germany, finally realizing it's error, sends support but it arrives too late.

Meanwhile, Rommel has captured Tobruk in Libya and is driving toward Alexandria.

-- What happens if the Middle East is a constant without Germany having launched Barbarossa?

Britain is against the wall in the Atlantic due to greatly increased U-Boat activity and Germany, not fighting in the USSR, is able to exert real pressure in the naval war as well as the Middle East and North Africa.

-- Without a Russo-German War does Japan still attack the United States?

At what point does the United States go to war with Germany? Roosevelt can't declare war without congressional approval, and that isn't coming without a direct attack on the United States or one of it's territories.

To me this situation is a very realistic alternative. It's the path Hitler himself knew he should have taken when looking back after his first setbacks in Russia (evidenced in the Finnish tape with Mannerheim 1942).

Naturally, in game terms, this possiblity is avoided because sooner or later it's an Axis victory; Britain cannot continue at war indefinitely without either the USSR or USA fighting with her.

-- And, without being invaded by Germany, there's always the possibility of the USSR actually joining the Axis (that was actually discussed even while Hitler was massing troops in Poland) and turning toward the Indian Ocean to Iran and India.

Anyway, I think it's wrong to say Germany couldn't have won. As was pointed out by Urban Shocker in another thread, there was always the Indirect Approach, of sidestepping drastic moves and winning one stage at a time.

That's something Hitler sought to achieve in the late 30s with his plan of expansion through small wars, but deviated from after Poland and forgot about all together when he invaded the USSR.

-- I think these alternate situations should be considered in any discussion of Allied victory and Axis defeat, and should also be incorporated into the game other than the choice to just set the USA and USSR to neutral.

-- Thread Title Renamed July 7 & July 9 so late posts will still be on topic.

[ July 09, 2007, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

It is not realistic because as early as 1940 UK and USSR were already outproducing Germany in Tanks, Planes, Ships, etc...

And USA's help to UK / USSR was much greater than what we see (in the game) before USA joins and after.

And Hitler ALWAYS had the intention of invading USSR, he makes that very clear in his book. But even if he had not touched USSR. It was still being outproduced by UK. And UK was never going to accept Germany become such a great power in mainland Europe.

And Stalin planned being at war vs. Germany although not that soon.

The basic principle is that ALL the Allies were outproducing Germany and had the resources. The best Germany could have done is hold on an offer peace or armistice on their terms.

[Guest Mike]

That would have been me, only i didn't say those should be the victory conditions - I said that there's something to be said for them.

If you are factoring in all the things that Hitler could have done PRE-war then it's only fair to factor in all the things that the UK and the USSR and the USA COULD have done too...

for example Germany could not have successfully invaded the UK in 1940...unless it planned for it starting about 1937-38. Nor could it have developed successful heavy bombers unless ditto - regardless of how much tech you pump up in the game!!

Fact is given the starting conditions for WW2, including Hitler's leadership and personality, Germany could not have won.

Your hypothesis is correct IMO - given different decisions Germany might well have won....but the major change required is to get rid of Hitler......in which case do you have WW2 at all??!!

But changing those starting conditions is outside the scope of WW2 games IMO - you need to get to a geo-political-economic game like "Making History"

[ June 19, 2007, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[JerseyJohn]

Stalin's Organist

I agree completely.

What I'm saying is SC2 and similar games would gain by having more emphasis on geo-political factors.

It would be the only way I can see to come up with valid variety.

Of course the basic assumption is that we, as the player, are replacing Hitler; there hasn't been a coups or revolution, just we're calling the shots instead of Hitler or Stalin or whoever else led the country.

As for changed historical decisions, I'd like to somehow play it without the Nazi agenda. It feels more than a little sick playing for a Nazi victory but, of course, we're all looking at these things from a purely military view (I hope) and not in terms of implementing the Final Solution.

Blashy,

Of course. But what I'm saying is it would be good, as the Axis, to take the course of the war in a different direction from that taken by Hitler.

All countries make plans to invade other countries or at least to conduct successful wars against them. The United States two ocean strategy followed a much early study called Red-Yellow, a hypothetical war of the United States against Japan and -- Britain!

True about production figures, but there are other factors and, as I said, it would have been easy enough for Germany to have not gotten into a war with the United States. Stalin was not rushing to go to war with Germany and, if he had initiated it and it fell apart he'd have been driven from power. He knew that fully well.

As has been said many times, if the game has to follow the historical path it has to get the historical result. The further we go from that the more variety we'll get.

The key, as we all know, is to not get so far from historical reality as to wander into the realm of historical fantasy.

[Blashy]

Ah, I see your point JJ. Yes certain things could be changed dramatically BUT you would have to start the game earlier (I think).

As much as USA was not intent on joining, I think it would have joined eventually even if Germany had not DoW on USA or even sunk ONE US merchant ship.

Simply because since the early 1900s USA was becoming and adopted a policy to become the world power and it has shown ready to do the most devious things to achieve those goals prior and especially post WW2.

If Germany stops after France and builds up its military, so would UK, USA, USSR and allot of other countries. The status quo of leaving France, Low Countries, Denmark, Norway under occupation would not have been accepted.

IMHO, the minute Germany went on the war path it was over for them. UK and USSR would simply not accept to give them any land and to keep it, shifting the balance of power was out of the question.

So in the end, I think achieving certain goals and holding on to them by a certain date could have hypothetically made it possible for Germany to ask for concessions on their terms.

That is how I perceive it.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

We're pretty much on the same wavelength. :cool:

After the fall of France, Britain could only have made peace with Germany as an absolute last resort. I think Churchill was talking reality, what was perfectly obvious, when he said Britain could not agree to terms with Nazi Germany (I use the N word because I don't want people to think I regard Germans as Nazis, I don't).

-- A peace treaty would have left Germany with a huge manpower base, tremendous increase in resources and industrial capacity and, extremely important, all the continental land on the North Sea and English Channel. There's no doubt in my mind that Hitler would have armed to the teeth afterwards and set up forward airbases within easy flying distance of London. Naturally, not being at war, it would also have continued on it's prewar path of jet aircraft development (it had a working prototype in the spring of 1939!) and, beyond a doubt, would have proceeded with it's rocket and development program. Even if peace had continued, the UK would have found itself ever more at Germany's mercy. As you said, the shift in power that would have been realized.

The United States, beyond a doubt, would have continued arming but mainly in the context of a war with Japan. A whole different topic I'll avoid going into unless we have to later on.

-- Eventually the situation would have to come to a head. As you said in your earlier post, Hitler said, blatantly, in Mein Kampf that Germany's future was in the east, to conquer all of Russia west of the Urals and repopulate it with German overlords. Stalin realized that and, without a western war keeping Germany occupied, he would definitely have needed to take realistic measures for the German invasion that, inevitably, would have been directed at him.

Anyway, don't quite know how much of this can be gotten into a war game but I thought it would be a good line to discuss.

Enjoying the topic. Agree that a UK-Reich peace treaty would have been the next thing to a British surrender. Also agree that afterwards Germany would have secured it's coast while, at some point probably quite soon, would have turned east.

-- In that scenario, where Germany doesn't have a war at it's back, I believe the USSR would have been driven back to the Urals but would not have surrendered. Nor do I believe Germany could have successfully occupied the conquered territory and at the same time continued pushing the Soviets farther east, so at some point the USSR stabalizes and begins counter offensives. If the German occupation is historical the rear areas would be teaming with partisans, much worse than it was historically, and European Russia, again this is only my own opinion, goes into a nightmare existence of wars, truces, and resumed wars.

-- Which leaves Britain rebuilding, the United States arming and Japan drooling over former French and Dutch colonies, all as variables.

A second disclaimer, I realize much of this is beyond the scope of SC2 and similar games. Don't know how these things could be put in, but I'd love to see it.

[Blashy]

Nice post JJ.

I agree with Russia not surrendering if it gets pushed past the Urals. As much as their industrial center is in the East, they have tons of resources in the west that are to THIS day unexploited, probably due to manpower shortage, 100 million people of such a HUGE country is not many at all and of course the harsh conditions.

But Germany could not have had the manpower to chase them past the Urals AND as you state occupy what was already conquered.

Although they would have been in a great position with access to vast resources, but then UK and USA STILL had more resources, especially USA. They also had better manpower.

I always prone that if USSR falls the Axis should never get plunder, it would simulate Russia falling back and not surrendering but out of action.

One way or another, if any of the big boys (5 majors in the game) went to war, you were sure to drag pretty much all of them in it, everyone was vying for power.

[Guest Mike]

USSR should probably not surrender, but should offer a peace if Moscow, Lenningrad & Stalingrad fall.........but this would only buy a year before they come back again.......

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

USSR should probably not surrender, but should offer a peace if Moscow, Lenningrad & Stalingrad fall.........but this would only buy a year before they come back again.......

That would probably require more than script work.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Appreciated and likewise.

I agree about USSR not giving up plunder as the Soviets were very good at pulling everything of any value back with them, or destroying it, sabotaging mines and oil wells making them useless for months or years afterwards.

Theoretically, if Germany could have utilized all that conquered territory, including all of European Russia in the hypothetical situation we were discussing, I think it would have been a match even for the United States. But saddled with the Nazi racist insanity they'd have greatly reduced their own chances. It's hard to get much out of people who are officially treated as subhumans. Even harder to get anything useful from the millions being stupidly executed.

-- Set out tonight to buy a book on the late German bomber designs, should have gotten it when I first saw it, now it was gone. Wound up buyting something equally interesting that fits right in here: Himmler's Crusade, The Nazi Expedition To Find The Origins Of The Aryan Race. Should be interesting.

I've always felt the Third Reich, even if it had won militarily and settled at whatever boundry with the USSR while at peace with the UK, would have wound up toppled from within. I can't imagine a modern society going on for very long that consumes so much of it's own population for the sake of petty personal hatreds and prejudice.

Stalin's Organist,

In total agreement.

-- The only chance Germany had was if it not only won militarily but also changed its self-destructive racial policies.

But here too, if the invading Germans had offered something better than what Stalin had given the Russian people -- they were welcomed as liberators when they first came in -- it might have been possible for them to have actually won. But even here, it's hard to imagine that sprawling into Asia. Failing that, the remnant of the USSR would have worked toward reconquering it's European territory. I think the United States would have put its hatred of Bolshevism on the back burner and provided them with full support via Alaska.

Japan -- ?

I can't help but think it would have made a grab for the Dutch East Indies and French Indochina. The only question is whether they'd have attempted it without also attacking the United States. If they did I don't believe the U. S. would have, or could have, DoW'd on them, probably not even if they'd attacked the UK in Malay/Singapore.

-- All of these scenarios could be simulated in mods designed specifically for the situation. If I had the SC2 specific knowledge I'd attempt at least one of them. Might do so some time in the future, but I'm really shaky on this system, just haven't worked with it enough, or even played the game often enough to have much understanding of its mechanics.

[targul]

These hypothesis are IMHO wrong. Hitler was probably one of the best leaders in there history. I know it is politically incorrect to call Hitler a great leader but who else has taken a completely broken country in 8 years made it one the primer nations in the world.

He did many things wrong but he also did many things right. He was first to develop the freeway his greatest curse on America. But this autobahn allowed for both civilian and military travel while giving the German people a job even in severe poverty.

He was dedicated to the German peoples and there improvement and felt that they should lead the world.

Like it or not it was his leadership that took Austria, Czech, Poland, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Greece. He also took most of the Soviet Union. The generals where many times unwilling to attack but his orders made the attack and each time he was successful.

Even his stand in the Winter of 41 was the correct one. 42 was wrong but by then it was over for the Reich.

As you say he was outproduced in 40 but he still managed to conquer all of Europe both east and west.

Anyone with the success Hitler had would have felt invinceable just as he did. Most never try. He did.

Don't get me wrong I am not in support of all that Hitler did or stood for but I am a student of history and he was a unique and fasinating character.

Actually, I feel that if Churchill had not taken command of England and been so stuborn the war would have ended quickly.

I also believe Hitler would have then taken up arms verses his true enemy the Soviet Union who he truely hated almost as soon as he had peace with England.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

USSR should probably not surrender, but should offer a peace if Moscow, Lenningrad & Stalingrad fall.........but this would only buy a year before they come back again.......

That would probably require more than script work. </font>

[JerseyJohn]

targul,

This is a very sensitive area, of course. Hitler, like Mussolini, was a very successful leader till he started WWII. He had a lot of natural ability and a talent for selecting the right people to get things done for him. But, tragically, he was an extreme sociopath and so were many of the people he inserted in high places.

His accomplishments, the ones you've mentioned, are undeniable, though some say Germany was already recovering economically when he took it over from the Weimar Republic.

-- But the thing is, did he need to kill millions of people in order to get things done? Marking for death tens of millions more as part of his victory plan?

I think the Hollocaust alone rules out referring to him as great. The weird part is I have sympathy for him, believe he was disturbed for very understandable reasons by the time he was in his teens, and went insane during the First World War. In another time and place he'd have been a harmless racist, perhaps selling fair to midling paintings for a living. But as a world leader his waves of success, which unfortunately included succeeding in killing many millions of innocent civilians he had contempt for, can't be confused for greatness.

A madman in an age of insanity.

[Blashy]

Hitler was at the right place at the right time.

If you read on how he operated you see very quickly that his tactics on the political side are doomed to fail.

He would pit his OWN advisers against each other to get things done, problem is this becomes very destructive very fast, which is what happened. Even did that on the military side.

So was he a political "genius"? I would say yes.

Was he a good long term planner? Absolutely not.

Was he a good military tactician? Not at all. This is where his generals really showed their genius, he gave them some of the worst orders and they managed to do something with them... on the other hand, they were all stupid for letting him continue giving those destructive orders, his aura must have been very powerful to keep them from eliminating him (the ones at the very top).

Germany was outproduced but did have a head start on actual units ON the ground and the Western Allies were being opportunistic, they had no qualms about Russia burning to the ground as long as German troops burned with it which is exactly what happened.

Prior to starting the war, he brought the economy back up but it was a (again) short term solution, based on military buildup, you can not sustain a whole country just on that alone.

As for taking all those countries, a certain fellow on this board says it best: They were practically fighting farmers .

[Guest Mike]

One of my history lecturers once described Hitler's political style as being along the lines of expressing a wish that somethign be done, but rarely actually writing it down. Then his 2nd tier cronies (Himmler, Goering, etc) would all rush off & try to do it first themselves, thus ingratiating themselves.

This resulted in the infamous diversification of effort within Germany, and because it usually wasn't written down half the time they were doing the wrong thing anyway having misunderstood (deliberately or otherwise) the Fuhrer's intent.

Justification for anything was always "the Fuhrer wants it" - nothing more was needed.

Didn't make for good planning!

As for the economy - much of the revival in the late 30's was artificial - arms manufacture, expansion of hte armed forces, etc. It was financed by deficits, and there's a school of thought that Hitler had to declare war because otherwise Germany was headed for a crash.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by targul:

Hitler was probably one of the best leaders in there history. I know it is politically incorrect to call Hitler a great leader but who else has taken a completely broken country in 8 years made it one the primer nations in the world.

He did many things wrong but he also did many things right. He was first to develop the freeway his greatest curse on America. But this autobahn allowed for both civilian and military travel while giving the German people a job even in severe poverty.

He was dedicated to the German peoples and there improvement and felt that they should lead the world.

...

Don't get me wrong I am not in support of all that Hitler did or stood for but I am a student of history and he was a unique and fasinating character.

Sorry, but i think you are utterly wrong.

Hitler took over after Germany got on the right track again (Autobahn was already planned before Hitler, the economy had already improved as well).

He simply took over at the perfect moment, harvesting what others had already planted.

All he did later was to prepare a war, spending therefor money which wasn't there to spend.

And what he really thought about the german people came through when he order to torch all germany in 1945...

[targul]

I remain unconvienced that he was incapable but we are all allowed our opinions. I spend, as I am sure many of you do, hours reading the accounts of Germany and other countries during the period and find no evidence to support most claims until the war started going badly.

His actions were similiar to many religious fantantics. Even though they were not done for religion they were done in a similiar manner.

I am admittally opposed to all wars since I believe wars are caused by politicians failing to do there jobs properly.

It is easy to sit at home in our modern economic positions to pass judgement. But many people were straving had no work and no hope. Without these wars are inevitable. Had the politicans not placed these peoples in such a horrible environment maybe no war would have happen and men similiar to Hitler could not gain power.

[Blashy]

I think the point they are stating the economy started to get better before he had full power and this is not really speculation, it can easily be found as historically accurate.

It is easy to sit at home in our modern economic positions to pass judgement. But many people were straving had no work and no hope. Without these wars are inevitable. Had the politicans not placed these peoples in such a horrible environment maybe no war would have happen and men similiar to Hitler could not gain power.

Totally agree, that is why some fault of WW2 is given to the treaty of Versailles, the UK/French politicians asked for too much (Their own generals knew war was going to come of this in about 20 years) and the German politicians settled for such harsh conditions.

I believe WW2 was caused by BOTH sides when WW1 ended. Political failure.

[JerseyJohn]

The big tragedy of WWI's ending came a year before the Armistace, in the interim between the arrival of American troops in France and the Russian collapse. Germany agreed to peace in the east and gained huge of tracts of former Czarist Russia, including all of Poland.

Britain and France offered a peace treaty that would have recognized Germany's gains in the east in exchange for return of occupied territory in Belgium and France. Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to accept the treaty but was bullied by his generals into refusing. Hindenburg and Ludendorff threatened to resign if Germany accepted a peace treaty that would have quadrupled their 1914 borders -- and the Kaiser backed down to them. A truly absurd situation, his two top generals threatening to resign if the country were given peace -- and they were put out of work.

We all know how absurd the Versailles Treaty was, lesser known is that British naval blockade remained in place for a full year after the war ended, causing a catostraphic situation in Germany to become totally hopeless.

All things considered, when Hitler said Germany's future lay in the east he was playing on a sentiment most German's felt anyway, that those were territories that had been stolen from them. Add to that Silesia, the Danzig Corridor and other territories taken away and all the groundwork was laid for any German leader making the promises Hiter rode to power, to restore Germany's former greatness and regain its stolen territories.

-- There's an interesting difference in the way Germany treated the eastern European people during the two wars. In WWI the Ukranians and other Russians accepted Imperial German occupation willingly and were fairly treated. They were not regarded as subhuman. A little over twenty years later they welcomed the sons of those troops as liberators and this time their food was confiscated as they were randomly brutalized and slaughtered reduced to slavery and starved. The slogan "Kill your German" was not handed down by Stalin, it was the common cry of occupied Russia and most other occupied populations.

So one basic alternate scenario is how Germany's war would have gone if it had a less insane occupation policy.

Regarding Hitler as an effective leader, he had a good mind for detail, many of his generals acknowledged that, often grudgingly. But I find it impossible to regard him as a great, or even good national leader. His methods worked well because the Germans were desperate as he grabbed power from the Weimar government. I don't fault him because all of his future plans were predicated on conquest, what I really hate is his desire to liquidate tens of millions of people, aside from the Jews, also the Poles, Slavs, Gypsies for entirely racial reasons, along with anyone who didn't fit his ideal of who should or shouldn't be allowed to continue breathing.

As Xwormwood said so well, in the end he showed contempt for the Germans. One of his last utterances was that the mongrel Slavs had proven themselves superior after all. As the Gotterdammerung he created played out he did his best to assure the extinction of the people he'd ruined. They failed him and now deserved nothing better than extermination.

It's impossible fo me to see him as a great leader.

[SeaMonkey]

Wow!!! Now this reminds me of the old SC forum days.

Seems we're going down the road to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Do I recollect a designer of a campaign of the same name set in SC fashion? Along with that other classic "Z-Plan". Could be my memory escapes me.....could be........NOT!

Can't add anything here but an opinion already expressed......just had to shamelessly enter into such a civil discussion feeling honored to be in hallowed company.

Dissent or concur, doesn't matter, the SC forum has always represented a lively platform for respectful exchanges of ideas.

Gentlemen...I salute you. Could be the world might learn something from examining this small microcosm.

[targul]

Could the world learn is the real question?

I must say they havent in many thousands of years so I remain doubtful.

Look at the present day actions still war. No reason other then politial failure.

It is a shame that politicans can convince otherwise intelligent and kind people to act without cause against another nation is beyond me but it has happen since the beginning of time.

We live but we dont learn. We do prove that the same mistakes can be made any number of times.

History is never even considered whenever the world marches of to start its next war.

Only thing that comes from this is good wargames. Since I like these guess I will stop complaining.

[Blashy]

Learning from History is IMHO humanity's biggest failure: Poverty, Wars, Slavery, Hunger, inequalities, oppression, etc...

All the worst atrocities are still occurring to this day and EVERY single nation (especially the rich) are responsible for this, mainly by supporting such horrible acts for the personal gain of their country or companies in their country.

Quite simply... Greed is going to kill us all or close to it, hopefully after that we learn.

Anyways, superb last post by JJ. My only comment is if the UK/France would have accepted peace and let Germany have the extra land, it would not have lasted. Russia would come back for their land sometime in the future and UK/France deep down certainly did not want Germany to become the biggest power on mainland Europe and all those resources would have helped them allot in that goal. Although the seas would still belong to UK (embargo) and they still would have had a weakness in terms of oil.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Wow!!! Now this reminds me of the old SC forum days.

Seems we're going down the road to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

Do I recollect a designer of a campaign of the same name set in SC fashion? Along with that other classic "Z-Plan". Could be my memory escapes me.....could be........NOT!

By Jove, SeaMonkey, I vaguely remember that guy too! If I can ever figure out how to handle the SC2 editor I'll be making new versions of those things. I've spent four years thinking about how I'd do them differently next time and now that next time is here I've got to put myself in gear. -- Or, as Hubert would say, " "

Can't add anything here but an opinion already expressed......just had to shamelessly enter into such a civil discussion feeling honored to be in hallowed company.

And it's become all the more hallowed with your entering.

Dissent or concur, doesn't matter, the SC forum has always represented a lively platform for respectful exchanges of ideas.

Agreed. That's why we all love the place. :cool:

Gentlemen...I salute you. Could be the world might learn something from examining this small microcosm.

Appreciated my friend on behalf of myself and our esteemed colleagues. With major world leaders dropping hints about their country's nuclear capacity I do believe your point is well taken. Perhaps the U. N. needs to set up something like this discussion forum?

Targul,

Agreed. Through all of our discussions here I kept thinking about Ghengis Khann with his slaughtering of countless Chinese, Persians and Indians. Also, modern examples such as Rwanda, Cambodia and the Sudan. As a species we really don't seem to learn from our past barbarities.

Blashy,

Appreciated and likewise, I always enjoy your posts. :cool:

Of course I agree 100% with what you're saying about European history if Germany had made peace with UK and France in early 1918.

-- And what you said is the exact premise of my 2003 SC mod Brest-Litovsk Aftermath . The idea is the peace treaty bought two decades of stability but in 1939 Stalin (all things having been constant in the USSR) invades the German protectorate of Ukrania, triggering World War Two. Within a few days Germany declares war on the Soviet Union.

Britain and France, who after the 1918 peace treaty did indeed become fearful of the super-power Germany had developed into, became the USSR's ally during the 1920s. Now they go to war too, against Germany.

-- Italy and Finland enter the war on Germany's side with Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria to follow later on.

It was a difficult scenario to play, I only did so once myself, as the Axis against Carl von Mannerheim with SeaMonkey becoming the mod's greatest enthusiast.

-- I'm planning to make an SC2 version when I feel confident enough with the game system.

[ June 21, 2007, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

Oh my friend are you in for a surprise once you get into the editor, even more so the expansion pack.

You can basically recreate a whole new game!

I actually played those mods, I remember them being my favorite mods for SC. That an a WW1 one.

[Minty]

One of the best posts for a while. I do believe though that the USSR whilst it may not have surrended if the Axis reached the Urals, that is it woudl have collapsed. It had only been in existence for 20 year and if Moscos had fallen then it would would not have sustained a united resistance, most likely breaking apart into regional areas (as we see today) that would have been fought over interbally between pro and anti communsists (the latter with Axis support). Chechnya and Georiga would have broken away way before German troops could have even gotten there withou the fear of the Moscow controller red army and as for Borat's grandad defeating the SS Panzers by himself I just don't think he would have the organisation behind him without the moscow led USSR. Post 1989/90 has shown what a divided and barely held together state the USSR war after 70 years of unity. After 20 all it woudl have needed was the head cut off to have divided.