Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

[proviisori]

Originally posted by 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.

I think Patton was NOT the best general of the 20th century. We had several even greater generals during our war against the mighty USSR. When you consider the material and number of soldiers, they were truly exceptional.

[uberfish]

WW2 is actually a good justification for the Civ models of universal suffrage vs police state. The US converted a strong economy into production (bonus hammers and rushbuying) while the dictatorships were able to keep their citizens fighting under appalling conditions (war weariness) and use slave labour to produce military equipment.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Spikey, are you trying to catch up with Grandpa Troll?

Actually it's the other way around.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by LordShiva


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...

You got me. You know what I meant.

[Rudra]

Re: Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

Originally posted by more_cowbell
[...]Second, the troops are inspired by love of freedom, which is an extreemly powerful motivating force.[...]

This is what inspires troops in a democracy, because people who live in a democracy see democratic values as part of their national or tribal identity. People who live in other kinds of governments can have equally motivating ideologies. A strongly held cause such as religion, political viewpoint, xenophobia, what-have-you can be just as strong, if not moreso, as we have seen from crusaders, guerillas, samurai, jihadists and so on in history. Furthermore, freedom and democracy are not the same thing. An oppressed ethnic group under a dictatorial regime may be fighting to throw of the yoke of the invader or oppressor, but that doesn't mean they necessarily want to set up a democratic regime in its place.

[Unimatrix11]

Comparing Patton to Rommel or Guderian... tisktisktisk - that is pretty offensive, but certainly lacks any fuel... in fact thats like a slap in the face... (guess i should cross my arms and count to ten now)

[JereL]

I wouldn't knock v. Mannstein or Zhukov

[more_cowbell]

People are quick to give examples of Kamakazi pilots as evidence that troops under a dictatorship are very "inspired."

A couple of points with regards to that. First, the kamakazi pilots were all volunteer and were more a product of the Japaneese culture rather then being influenced by any dictatorial pressures put to bear on the citizenry.

Also, people are disregarding the second part of my argument that troops under a democracy excercise much more initiative then their dictatorial counterparts. The Allied landings in France were aided to a great degree by not only the inititive shown by the American soldiers on Omaha Beach, but also by the LACK of initiative able to be utilized by the German generals in being able to counter the landing with the reserve Panzer forces in a timely fashion.

[Unimatrix11]

@JereL: not to be nitpicky, but his name was Manstein

@ more_cowbell:
1. The allied landings in France were aided to a great deal, by the lack of anywhere to retreat to and even if they went back to the ships - what would have all they comrades left on the beach have died for ? The movie "private ryan" shows how some commanders wanted to dig in and erect command post in the tidal zone... so much about initiative...

2. The german tanks didn't show up due to two reasons:
a) The bridges and railroads in northern France had been destroyed to large parts by allied planes prior to the invasion, delaying troop movements to a great deal. Closely linked with that is, that as soon as a german unit got spoted by allied planes during daytime it was: Of the road and in the woods, take cover ! Sit and wait for the night...

b) German high command (and esp. Hitler) thought D-Day to be a mere dispersion, with the main invasion still to come somewhere else (around Calais) - so a whole army was kept in the low countries to react to that. Allied disinformation led him to believe that 80 allied divisions were still in England and the Allies supported that idea, by keeping prominent generals in England for as long as possible (i dont have my book on me right now, but among them was either Monty or Ike).

3. Talking about initiative of allied powers (or democracies): Look at the mediterranian theatre and look how the british reacted on Rommels first offensive in Lybia, or how they missed out on opportunities at the landing at Anzio/Nettuno. Or Pacific theatre: Malaya & Singapore... - to give just a few examples.

4. You yourself say that the kamikazes were volunteers (true) - can you imagine that in a individualistic society, that values the good of one just as high as the good of all (basicly regards them as one and the same) ? I dont think so...

All that should show you that your thesis is simply not true.

[kseecs16]

I have to disagree that democratic nations create super generals with great initiative any more so than any other type of government. It has a lot more to do with the military and cultural institutions of the nations, regardless of form of government. German military leaders were talented because the german military was an intellectual institution where ideas were exchanged, books written, and a lot of talented brainpower exercised.

I think you are mistaking wealth of supply and gusto in American leaders for initiative and skill. Allied, particularly American generals were amateurs compared to their enemies, they just did not have the funding in peacetime to develop the military institutions present in Germany. All in all I do not think government type should influence military capability - the current model works well.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by kseecs16
the current model works well.

Agreed. Thanks for playing, everyone.

[gdijedi7]

Originally posted by johnmcd
So Bush and Rumsfeld's democratic war in Iraq or Nixon's Vietnamese input showed the triumph of democracy on the field?

During the war, the US (democracy) stomped Saddam's (dictator) forces.

The current situation involved very few Iraqis until the civil war (anarchy vs anarchy effectively) and were mainly Iranians and Syrians from all I've heard...

[WolfEyes]

Hardly a fair comparison, considering that Iraq had been under sanctions for years, which hardly does wonders for morale, had out-dated equiptment (while the US spending on military equipment rivals most small countries entire GNP), and then add in the 'Shock and Awe' fireworks they were subjected to. Hardly a fair comparison.

[Unimatrix11]

The U.S.-military budget is currently more than 2/3 of the world's military budget (including the U.S. itself)... In Civ terms they already pretty much won the game - that is one reason why i get so mad, when i think of what the current administration makes out of that unprecedented opportunity...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by gdijedi7
During the war, the US (democracy) stomped Saddam's (dictator) forces.

You fogot little details such as superority in both number, technology, and information gathering.

Besides, the war is very much still going on, in an unconventional way.