Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

[xmixmasterx]

Having a dictatorship doesn't necessarily mean your army is weaker. Don't forget generals aren't the only thing in war. they make strategies, but the training and weaponry of those on the field is a big part of who wins. the German soldiers were better trained and for the most part had far superior weaponry. Any one on one battle no one could have beat them.

[Unimatrix11]

I also dont agree that Hitler didnt have the politcal power to eliminate his officers prior to the war. It was not due to political needs, but to military ones that he didnt - after all he needed them for his war. The important commanders in charge of "Fall Gelb" (the conquest of the low countries and the first stage of crushing France) were supporters of the tank-and-dive-bomber-doctrine (the so-called Blitzkrieg), which Hitler favored over the tradionalists of WW1 (whereas France decided vice-versa). In fact during the time the offensive's start got repeatedly delayed (from Nov '39 to May '40) Hitler and Manstein had totally seperately from each other worked out the basic concepts of the offensive (the so-called Sichelschnitt). The man who then carried it out (Heinz Guderian) by achieving the crucial break-through at Sedan and the fast advance to the Channel even was the author of the book "Achtung Panzer !" in which he explained the basics of the blitzkrieg-doctrine (pretty much inventing it). Hitler needed those men and if he had eliminated them the first stages of WW2 would have turned into a WW1-like massacre - a "material-schlacht" which would have left Germany no chance to begin with. It was only later, when the tide of the war had turned (esp. immerdiately after the battle of moscow in winter '41/'42) that he relieved competent generals from their command, because he suspected them of treason. In the late stages of the war, when any general of minimal compentence knew the war was lost, he started to execute them (esp. after the assisination attempt of july 2oth '44). Only then the number of executed generals began to rise until it reached more than 50 by the end of the war.
And as for the soviets: What about Schukow ? Extremely competent and popular, he survived through the whole war.
Summarizing i would say it is not valid to say that every dictatorship kills its competent officers. The leaders of (stable) democracies base their power on the mandate given to them by elections. Dictators rest their power on "pillars". Among others one of the pillars maybe the military. If the military turns into a threat though and needs to be reformed (either to achieve modernization of doctrine or ensure loyalty) then mass execution may occur. But when the military is modern (in leadership) and loyal and a war is planned, anticipated or being waged, then the dictator would be plain stupid to execute his generals (pretty much agreeing with Yosho as a reslut).

[LordShiva]

Zhukov was one general. That he survived doesn't mean Stalin didn't purge his army to the point of extreme weakness in the 30s...

[Unimatrix11]

that is true - but that only means Stalin
a) felt he needed to reform his army to either modernize its doctrine or ensure loyality, and
b) did not plan or anticipate a war in the near future (so much for "if Hitler hadnt attacked the soviets, the soviets would have attacked Hitler within a year or so")

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by fed1943
Well,democracy doesn´t help to win battles;but increases prodution;and prodution(logistics)wins wars,unless the enemy can achieve a blitzvictory.
(In WWII,the URSS was suplied by the USA).

Not necessarily - take a look at the UK.

The USA remain unmolested during WWII. If it were to take a pounding as heavy as the USSR did I strongly doubt that it could supply anybody.

[more_cowbell]

Very interesting responses for this thread.

My argument was that a democracy would have BETTER generals and troops with better initiative and overall motivation, not that dictatorships would have NO generals or that their troops would be without any motivation.

Napoleon never fought vs a true democracy, so his example is not valid for my discussion.

Weather from expediency or necessity, some of Hitler's generals that he allowed to survive at the beginning of the war DID eventually try to kill him. Thats an ever present weakness in a dictatorship that can't be ignored. If a dictator allows competent generals to live, they will most likely come back to kill him later.

Don't forget, also, that Stalin did not have to fight vs a democracy but rather vs another dictator, making his victory easier by virtue of chronic strategic mismanagement by Hitler.

[JereL]

As someone already mentioned it's not a very strong reasoning to say that because Hitler's Germany failed under police state government against mainly democratic opponents that democracy is decidedly a better government to have during wartime. After all he was fighting several of the most populous and (at least at the end of the war) most industrially powerful countries in the world.
Had Germany been a democracy, would they have attacked anyways? Depends on the leadership I'd say. As recent world event have shown democracies can be just as bellicose as the more strict dictatorships.
I'd say that democracy by itself lends nothing to the ability to wage war. It's all about how you can harness the industrial and economic power of the country to produce war material and how well you can get the population to support the war. Propaganda works in all forms of government, the shape and form may vary.
As to what comes to the war leaders, the generals, in WW2 there were very good ones in all the countries that went to war. Also those that weren't so good in matter of the military but were excellent in political matters and could rise up the chain of command that way.

[Vynd]

I think the "Democracies produce better armies/generals" theory as explained here is based almost entirely on the good performance of the United States and Britain in World War II.

There are many counter-examples. France was a democratic country in 1940 and they still got crushed by the superior military of the dictatorial Germans. France and the USA both lost wars in Vietnam. The Korean War was fought to a stalemate between democratic and communist forces.

Even when the democracies did win the war, such as in World Wars I and II, it's a big assumption to say they did so through superior leadership or better motivated troops. In both of those wars the democratic countries, taken together, had larger economies and more natural resources than their opponents. The democratic countries also had a lot of help from czarist/communist Russia, especially in World War II.

Furthermore, in game terms we're comparing "Police State" and "Universal Suffrage," right? Well neither of those have any impact on the quality of your military. Police State helps you produce troops faster and supresses internal dissent. Sounds like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia to me. Universal Suffrage boosts your overall production capabilities by enabling you to rush buy and by making towns produce hammers. In other words, it gives you a really strong economy. Sounds like the USA in WWI and WWII to me.

[xmixmasterx]

good points vynd. In vietnam the troops were certainly motivated. And in Germany the nazis were talking about a reich that would last a thousand years. i think it's hard to say that one sort of motivation would create better generals than another. And in the political makeup of these regimes, they talked as much about being free (if not other words of prestige, equality and greatness) as the democracies did Whether or not you agree with it you should be able to understand that some people would have extraordinary motivation thinking they were fighting for the largest civilization in history. There'd be a lot of pride in people who ten years beforehand had to use garbage bags full of german marks to buy a loaf of bread, and then were in a position to be the most powerful nation on earth.

[xmixmasterx]

also, i think the argument concerning generals in a dictatorship vs. democracy revolves around the idea that the opportunity for free creativity exists in a democracy, making the democracy more open to the best ideas and best organizers. However, i think you'll find the demarcation between the modern militaries to be much more sparse than that.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DrSpike
No they shouldn't. Even if you have a case, game balance trumps historical debate, as indeed it should.

You should listen to this guy.

Despite all the responses of undeniable erudition this is the only post in the thread that makes sense.

[Veritass]

I agree that a democracy probably creates better generals and better equipping capabilities, but not that it produces more inspired troops. This is evidenced by the extremists and kamikazes brought up before. The game already factors in the production capabilities. It could factor in the generals by creating the Great General alluded to in other posts, and having democracies create a larger percentage of these units.

[Urban Ranger]

Spikey, are you trying to catch up with Grandpa Troll?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DrSpike

Originally posted by DrSpike

No they shouldn't. Even if you have a case, game balance trumps historical debate, as indeed it should.

You should listen to this guy.

Despite all the responses of undeniable erudition this is the only post in the thread that makes sense.

But then, your second post doesn't make sense, since it's in this thread. So therefore, the first one doesn't either. But then...

Anyway, this post makes no sense.

[Older than Dirt]

Yeh, right. Democracies are great during war. That is why we (USA) had Patton doing next to nothing and listened to Monty. Maybe it was intentional so that Roosevelt's business buddies could make more money off of the longer war in Europe. Patton may have been an SOB, but he was the best general of the 20th Century - (including Guderian and Rommel). Gott sei dank, he wasn't a German.