Victory, Defeat, Armistice, Taxes, Depression

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

We (Manifest Destiny) was not like Nazi Germany. Rather a land grant from Above.

Really? which part of the bible mentions the America's at all? Did Jesus even know it existed?

and which part of "Manifest destiny" are you refering to? the bit that "worked" (unless you were an Amerindian of course), or the bit that includes Canada and Mexico, conveniently ignored these days by some.......

Being #1 means there's only one way to go....and it's a long way down....Iran used to be #1, as did Iraq once upon a time, as did the UK, as did Spain.

I wonder who is going to rebuild the USA??.....

[jon_j_rambo]

Wait a minute guys!

Look at the success of Manifest Destiny!

1) Bill of Rights

2) Right to own land.

3) Right to believe ANY religion you want.

4) Right to cable

5) Right to explore science

6) Right to pursue happiness, etc. !!!

The USA did it all! The Spainish, Mexicans, & Gringos all had their chance to better the world, but they didn't, we did.

I'm honest to realize, we have faded in our core. The One World Order is close to being here.

Far as land grants, true, nowhere in the N.T. was land or earthly gains promised. Yet, in the O.T., there was a land grant, which will come to means in the future.

How does this relate to SC? Simple, Germany motivated their people against a certain group, and lost. The fact this group survived WW-2, and later won the 6-Days War, IS AN ABSOLUTE MIRACLE!

If if we stick the temporal, I'd love to see a newspaper from the year 2200 A.D. If newspapers even exist

Being Me,

-Legend

[jon_j_rambo]

Anybody watch the special on Discovery Channel about the Berlin Wall? Was rather incredible. I can't imagine my neighbor building a fence for his dogs, let alone a fence to divide ppl.

Yes, my land is my land, because I paid for it. Well, the bank has some of it And the taxman gets paid each month in my escrow.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from a movie.

"I know why you're here. You are here to initimidate me. Do you understand me? Am I speaking too slow for you? I'm NOT a politician. I'm NOT a preacher. I'm NOT the best of all men. I'm a soldier. The fact we are pushing you off the face of the Earth is no concern of mine. We are doing the same thing you do to each other. When you steal horses from the Seoux, or slaughter the Crow. You took what you wanted, because you won it in battle."

That's more or less the quote, from General George Armstrong Custer.

Think I'll watch it tonight

[JerseyJohn]

Stalin's Organist,

Bravo! As is obvious by now, I agree 100%.

Brother Rambo,

I'm pretty sure I saw that one, there were a few documentaries on the Berlin Wall. If I remember correctly the first person to pass through was an East German soldier! -- What a propaganda boost that must have been.

-- You've probably seen the old James Cagney movie 1-2-3 . One of my favorites even 45 years later. :cool:

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Wait a minute guys!

Look at the success of Manifest Destiny!

1) Bill of Rights

2) Right to own land.

3) Right to believe ANY religion you want.

4) Right to cable

5) Right to explore science

6) Right to pursue happiness, etc. !!!

none of which have anythgin to do with Mnifest Destiny - MD was the movement that the USA shuold control the entirety of the north American continent.

Far as land grants, true, nowhere in the N.T. was land or earthly gains promised. Yet, in the O.T., there was a land grant, which will come to means in the future.

If it is OT then it is promised to Jews, since christianity didn't exist then. Looks like you're on the wrong team.

[Blashy]

Seeing as the Bible is a work of fiction I guess JJvR is a fan of science fiction.

Don't believe me? Do your homework... EVERY main event in the bible was written 1500-3000 years B.C. and it is all there for anyone to read to THIS day.

All of it in Egypt (virgin mother, three kings, the name Jesus, the father carpenter, the apostles, the curing of the blind, the creating of wine & bread, crucification between 2 thieves, etcc) ALL of it HAS been written as part of old egypt religion AND they did not write it as historical fact, it was symbolism and storytelling to help people guide THEMSELVES spiritually.

Christianity screwed up big time when they tried to sell the bible as historical fact when NOTHING written about the bible is fact and has not ONE single record of evidence outside the bible... apart from being a re-write of a fable told many years before.

[jon_j_rambo]

It's quite obvious there are several people that go overboard whenever I post, LOL I used one word, and it sets you guys off. Check the posts, I wrote "from Above"...then came the dominos...nice work.

It's really amazing, the rats come after the Truth based on that. Then again, it's not that amazing...

Lets keep to subject to keep everybody happy

The Germans were upset.

The Germans started yelling.

The Germans built tanks.

The Germans yelled more.

The Germans beat up shop owners.

The Germans yelled more.

The Germans beat more people up.

The Germans attacked sleeping farmers.

Uncle Sam got upset, beefed up the factories, and took care of business.

Simple, enjoy the game.

Far as Manifest Destiny...lets keep it tame so Stalin's Organ & Blashy don't cry. I'll leave you with these quotes on destiny.

"Forrest, is was my DESTINY to be your mother." --- Sally Fields in Forrest Gump.

"Luke it is your DESTINY" --- Darth Vadar.

Everybody happy? Everybody all good? Everybody a good little Bunta?

-Legend

[JerseyJohn]

So that means you've never seen One, Two, Three --? I find that hard to believe.

[Liam]

Before this debate departs too far, let us just say this.......Much of the West before the USA entered into it was sparsely settled. Even the Natives were not that thick in certian places. I will say that many many of them died in an interesting war something fun to read about but I'm certian terrifying to live. Now Mexico was dominant in the American SouthWest not anymore.

England had their eyes on the NorthWest and the USA did need to make their move for expansion, Texas had fought Mexico in a very valiant effort to win their freedom... The USA is a very interesting yet young nation, with a meteoric rise, mostly due to the infighting in Europe I assume!

As for Germany and Russia, I cannot fathom why these two could not be partners, I suppose the vast differences between Teuton and Slav. In WW1 these differences were not so bitter with racial intolerance though it was still present! As Jersey John mentioned about the German Nationalistic Vision, I must assume this is the case. Had they had a really wise Leader who would have stopped with any sort of combination of conquests in 1939 into 1940, perhaps the Germans may have actually consolidated and gone on to be a World Power.

I know that Hitler's own books state his desire to settle with peace in the West with gains and a show of force I do not however know the specifics of this. Meanwhile carving a homeland out of the East. The East would have been a much better partner than the West! Stalin was more a powerhungry dictator than anyone partner in the West. Tokyo-Moscow-Berlin would have been a very good combination for a successful alliance, however shortlived it may have been. I cannot see the Ideology of Germany at the time Embracing this wise diplomatic move. So they were doomed.......

[Guest Mike]

Uncle Sam got upset, beefed up the factories, and took care of business.

Except of course Uncle Sam didn't get upset - Uncle Sam beefed up his factories in response to war orders from France and hte UK that were paid for in cold hard cash while Uncle Sam was asleep.

then Tojo woke Uncle Sam up by tipping him out of bed.....then the USSR took care of Hitler on Uncle Sam's behalf.

[arado234]

I think what we have all come to realise is that people and nations have been fighting(for whatever reason no matter how stupid) since they have been able to throw rocks.All thats improved is the ability to throw bigger and more dangerous rocks further.Politicians have always and will always try to force their will on other nations.

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

I agree with what you're saying. To me it amounts to a situation where each time Hitler seemed to have reached his goal he immediately set a more impossible goal instead of building on what he had. A more rational leader wouldn't have done it that way. But, as we know, a more rational leader would probably not have gotten to that point in the first place.

Also agree that a Berlin-Tokyo-Moscow Axis would have been very unstable, but as you also said, even if it held up for 2 or 3 years it's members might have reaped huge rewards. I picture it as the USSR moving south into Iran; Germany backing the Iraqis and driving the British out of the Middle East with Japan driving Britain and France out of Indo-China/Malay-India and the Dutch from the East Indies.

-- Whether the United States, not being attacked along the way, would have gotten involved, is an open question to me. Even if the country stopped being isolationist it couldn't have simply declared war because another country was an aggresor if that aggression wasn't directed at the United States.

arado234

Agreed. I think what you've said is indisputable.

[targul]

I love these discussions but I think this one is heading out of the gaming spectrum and we need to bring it back.

People will start responding and thread will rightfully be closed.

[JerseyJohn]

targul

I can see it being closed too, especially if it meanders too far into religious views and current politics. Or, of course, starts getting nasty.

But so far it seems to be going pretty well.

And, of course, it would definitely be good if the posts got back to applying a few of these ideas to some future version of Strategic Command. :cool:

[Liam]

Yes, John is right on the money. That the Middle East or a Eurasian Axis Sphere including the USSR is the only possible way that Germany could have succeeded in "longterm" plans of world domination. It would have still only been a "world power," Not the premier power but it would have set the stage for the longterm. Japan lacked an army had a navy, the USA and the Imperial Colonial Powers would have bunted heads with the Japanese. The Germans with victories in Europe would've stabilized the situation by forcing Treaties on the Colonials, if the Germans brought these Colonials to their knees and included the Japanese it would've solidified their partnership. Meanwhile the USSR could've split up Eastern Europe and portions of the Mid East... I see this a likely scenario but a great victory in France and perhaps in the skies still necessary in Western Europe.. Then Deals and concessions!

We could simulate Japan much the way we simulate the USA, a landgrabber getting much support from the USA, and wanting to break loose from that noose but unable to right away until maybe '42 or '43... With any sort of Territorial gains in South East Asia the USA would get touchy, it may not DOW but it would cut all resource shipments to Japan. This would keep the Scenario in WW2 context. Germany probably delaying Barbarossa until 1943 or '44 and possibly turning on the Russians then for once and for all. Winning it's historical victories and then forcing the British hand in Iraq/Syria.........along with limited U-boats guarding shipping lanes in mass this could turn into a bitter political battle. Historically the Germans were often able to attack the British on the surface but then the political tension abroad could arise if they do not force the British the Discussion Table...

All this is possible, and in the end no saying the Germans could still best the Russians on land... and no saying that the British and US may not rejoin the French in some sort of Western conflict, perhaps on a time frame.

P.S. For the Germans to have a good piece of the pie in the Mid East and control of the Suez it would've required a better Navy and time to utilize it. Don't know if this is possible in 6-7 years between '39 and '47

[ July 03, 2007, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Lets keep this thread going on subject; whatever the subject is.

Anybody have a mod of Red Star Falling? Where Patton is able to arm the Germans & head East?

[arado234]

I think Liam and JerseyJohn your forgetting about one important thing. If this alliance did hold together for a while(i doubt it would)it surely would mean a long conflict would arise.In that case who gets the war winning atomic bomb first.THAT would be the trump card for whoever.If germany got it and pursued her rocket program,look out.

[SeaMonkey]

You want to keep this going into the "what if"? Then let's define Italy's role. Granted a state not long on natural resources, but perhaps with some better management could have been a potentially bigger player.

Africa beckoned on Italy's doorstep and let's say they didn't waste their intial momentum on Abyssinia (Ethiopia). Lots of resources to supplement Italy's cause lay to the south.

Now imagine that Italy and Germany had been more cooperative, a true fascist alliance, on the same page. Exchange of arms, techniques, strategies, a sharing of resources to further Italy's expeditions to the South. No forays into Albania and Yugoslavia, not to mention Greece, without each others prior consent and assistance.

Now the Suez is closed by a joint German-Italian escapade and what then is Franco's position?

Gibraltar definitely looms as a glaringly critical strategic objective. Closed and the Med becomes an Axis Lake.

Well?????

[Guest Mike]

Jeez...and what is the rest of the world doing while this fascist utopia is being formed??

might as well assume that the Nazi's found aliens, adopted UFO technology, put a secret base in Antactica and....oh.....hang on....

It all relies upon palpably silly premises like Hitler being stable, Mussolini having a good opinion of him, Spain not being exhausted by civil war, the Soviet Union not being wracked by purges, starvation, forced collectivisation and other disasters, the UK and France playing even dumber, the US even more so.

I vote for the other version - France declares war on Germany after the reoccupation of the Rhineland, a militarised Poland allies with czechsolvakia and invades Germany from the other side at the same time.

The Soviet union, alarmed by Polish successes, allies with Germany and attacks Poland, but a Baltic defence pact including Sweden, the Baltic States and Finland reacts and declares war on the USSR.

Romania takes advantage of Soviet problems to invade too, the Soviet Union falls apart as Ukrainian and Byelorussian nationalists set up seperate states.

The USA is not required, the UK regains its prestige from pre-WW1 and surpasses the USA as a world power, discovers German technology, monopolises jet aircraft, radar and atomic weapons.........

It's more likely than your version I reckon!! :cool:

[ July 03, 2007, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

[JerseyJohn]

-- Well, the original point of this thread was the possibility of concluding an armistace, say for a number of turns minimum, without closing the game, etc & etc, something along what can be done in Civilization type games.

On the What-if front, I think all these things were probing different ideas, not a contest to see which ones made the most sense. Also, I don't think we can base anything on the personality of the historical leaders since, for game purposes, we're starting from scratch: if a human is running that country then it's the human player's personality. If the AI is running it, then it would be good if there were a way to try and simulate various attributes to an historical figure, but I don't think we've got one here.

Regarding Italy, one of the ironies is it already had oil in Libya and didn't know it. Mussolini's decisions, at least in planning for WWII, aren't really irrational when we consider he was working on a 1941 timetable. Hitler, in mid-1939, assured him that he would not get involved in a major war before then. Immediately afterwards he began planning for the invasion of Poland. From Hitler's view he wasn't lying to Mussolini, he was just moving ahead on his assumption that Britain and France would not go to war over Poland.

I don't think pre-war what-ifs, such as were mentioned by Stalin's Organist, are suitable for a scenario because, if France had acted upon Hitler's early moves the result would have been obvious. Even Hitler realized that. The moves were made on the assumption that France was having too many internal problems to react to Germany moving back into it's own territory. He turned out to be correct, but as we've said twice already in this thread, a more rational leader would never have gotten to the position Germany was in when the war started.

-- Also, there doesn't seem to have been any inclination for Czechoslovakia and Poland to work together, and Hungary was definitely leaning toward Germany, pretty much negating moves by it's neighbors.

Neither Italy nor the USSR originally sought to move close to Hitler, the western allies went out of their way to push both countries closer to Germany.

If either Britain or France had a suitable bomber in early 1940 they might have bombed the Caucasus oil fields, as they'd discussed, and tossed the USSR into the war against them. Another close call was in not being able to send troops to Finland, as they'd also wanted to do, again getting themselves into a war with the Soviet Union.

With Italy Mussolini felt he was following up on a late 19th century agreement with Britain and France, inviting Italy to conquer Abyssinia as a colony. The reasoning was it would give the continent a European balance by having almost all of the continent colonized by Europeans. The Italians fell on their end of it by having a defeat similar to the British loss against the Zulus at Ishandwana. The difference being Britain pushed on till it controled Zululand and the Italians took four decades to come back. Meanwhile a treaty had been signed between Britain, France and Italy in 1906 revoking the earlier understanding. Mussolini mulled over the issue, finally making his move when a royal marriage would have established an Ethiopian alliance with Japan.

This put Britain and France in an awkward position. They reacted through the League of Nations and only made things worse. Japan withdrawing because of Manchuria and Italy leaving over Ethiopia. -- The Civilizing Mission by A.J. Barker is an interesting look at the Ethiopian War.

Anyway, I think it's obvious that part of Hitler's reasoning in 1938 and 39 was that Germany was more prepared for a major war than either Britain and France, both in arms and in national will. Both Italy and Spain needed time to recuperate from their more recent wars. Italy might have recovered somewhat by the promised 1941, though Spain would probably have needed at least a year beyond that.

There was the Balkan League, of course, but it seems to have been little more than a loose mutual defensive understanding between Turkey, Rumania, Bulgaria. I don't think either Greece or Yugoslavia were in on it. Poland wanted a real defensive treaty of all the Baltic and Balkan nations, with itself as the hub, but none of the other countries would thow in, ironically because they felt the Poles would act with Germany.

Pre-1939 Europe would be extremely difficult to fathom in this what-if game. Which is why I was primarily discussing situations that might have arisen with the Fall of France. To me that's the last point where WWII might have remained a totally European war -- Germany throws everything into isolating and strangling the UK and doesn't move on the USSR. From there I think ideas like a Berlin-Moscow-Tokyo Axis start making more sense.

SeaMonkey,

I've been leaving Italy out of most of what I've been discussing because to me it was partly pulled into a war it didn't want to enter, and partly jumped in when Mussolini thought it might suddenly end without him grabbing some of the spoils. It had a an impossible position in both Hitler's and Mussolini's view of things, a new Roman Empire dominating the Mediteranean and Middle East. I don't think it could have done that even with Britain agreeing to peace in 1940. It certainly would not have agreed on pulling out of Egypt, Malta or Gibraltar, and I doubt Italy could ever have forced the situation later on.

-- On the other hand, if as you said, the UK is driven out of Iraq and it throws in with the Axis, it becomes a different situation. Except of course both Iraq and Egypt were controled by the UK in the same manner, puppet monarchies propped up by British money and garrisons. But the thing is, the UK did come very close to being driven out of Iraq in 1941, holding on by virtue of the most meager and obsolete air units. If even the small amount of German aid that arrived too late had been there from the start, the Iraqis might well have succeeded.

With the situation changed there, and German troops actually sent to the Middle East, the Italians might well have been a decisive factor coming in from Libya.

-- I all of these ideas can be represented as scenarios created through the SC2 editor. Most of it would rely on speculation by the designer, but that's where a lot of the fun always lies.

Regarding the development of either the A-bomb or an aircraft capable of delivering it, I'm inclined to think none of the continental powers had the resources to carry through on such programs. Perhaps Germany if vicorious in 1940 might have developed them by 1950, but I don't think either the United States or the USSR would have followed that path unless actually involved in a desparate war, as was the case with the U. S.. And I think both Britain and France, if they'd signed a peace treaty in 1940 after being traunced by Germany, would have have pursued more conventional rearming for the next war.

It seems more likely to me that all the major countries would have put a lot into jet aircraft programs and Germany might also have put major resources into both rockets and smart weapons, which it was the first in the world to develop and use.

[Guest Mike]

Hey why are you confining my scenario to actual conditions of the time but not hte fascist utopia??!!

[JerseyJohn]

Sorry S. O., guess it's just the Bunta in me.

I think nearly all these things are way out on a limb. But, as I was saying, it's hard to have a scenario where one side is just outright doomed -- as Germany would have been if France took military action against Germany in the mid-30s.

On the other end, I agree 100% with what you're saying about the USSR in the early 1940s. I think the German invasion jumped them several years ahead of where they'd have been without it -- but of course that was with an unfathomable cost in lives and wealth, and the real risk of being defeated. Whatever defeat for the USSR would actually have come to mean.

[Guest Mike]

Playing a side that is doomed is a character building exercise!!

[JerseyJohn]

Been there. Done it. Any side I play is always doomed.

It's why I give the disclaimer that I'm not really a player. No one ever argues with that. :eek:

[Liam]

JJ: over a quick review you've a realistic scenario, but a percentage of success for any of the scenarios discussed. Who says USSR could even enter the war until '43, they were unready historically until then about give or take 6 months.

I suppose all these "what ifs" must be examined for the most likely and incorporated in a system. In this you could expand the diplo system and not vary too far from history with including 1936 or 1938 to 1946.. I'm sure that a temporary treaty is possible with USSR, and it's interesting how lucky the Allies were not to lose them! The Allies are very lucky!

Italy would not of aided Axis endeavors. They had small successes without their leadership and with their brave men. Poor morale, little aide from Germany, and lots of wars over worthless territory. Italy should not have been in Greece or Yugoslavia. Nor Ethiopia or Albania. These are some of the poorest regions in Europe and it did not favor them one bit. Their failures in France, and in Egypt are a part of their overall undermining morale. By the time Egypt kicked off I think on the all the Italian morale had slipped into oblivion. They'd seen how they could not win a single confrontation and they knew that the war was doomed for them. Germany was holding that leg up up the entire war... Italians needed 5 or 10 years to prepare for a war... That or a a lot help! I think Italy favored the demise of Germany a Year or so

As for the Atom Bomb, I think it would have been a great deal more complicated than 1945! The USA put some money into it and the best scientific minds of the age. Perhaps by the late 40s... without the motivation of war, few would put cash on it.. WHAT IF 10 Nuclear Bombers departed England to bomb Germany in 1945 and German Jets shot down a great deal of them!!! What if the Jet Screen of Germany couldn't be broken

TerrorBombing was a devastating as conventional bombing in WW2, firestorms in Hamburg were as ugly as a Nuke