Shouldn't democracies get military bonuses?

[leclaire]

Ok let's see.

WW2 Germany are in the low score civ category. Then they take on the big score civ France, Britain who are colonial power and URSS who are just realy big. They are winning!

Then USA, another high score civ pitch in again Germany and finally, they win.

Pretty good for a "only generate bad general and poor soldier dictatorship" low score civ. I think they fared pretty well considering they were outnumber and under financed.

On the other hand, USA in vietnam were outnumber but had better equipment and training, but democraty did'nt give them a good morale.

[Unimatrix11]

Exactly, leclaire. I agree with every single word of what you said (except of course URSS=USSR ;-) ). Germany's victory in france 1940 for example had just one single major reason: better military leadership... and nothing else. Weapons tech and numbers for both planes and tanks were roughly equal on both sides, as was the overall troop count. France lost that battle only due to a total failure of the high command and the generals.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by leclaire
Ok let's see.

WW2 Germany are in the low score civ category. Then they take on the big score civ France, Britain who are colonial power and URSS who are just realy big. They are winning!

Then USA, another high score civ pitch in again Germany and finally, they win.

I wouldn't quite say that.

Germany was pretty much the superpower in continental Europe from the time of it's unification, in terms of industrical strength, population, and millitary power. (See:the Franco-Prussian war.) The biggest weakness Germany during this entire period had was the same weakness France had during period it was the most powerful country in Europe (Say, from Louis XIV-Napolean); and that the Hapsburgs had before that when THEY were the strongest power in Europe. And that is that there was a long-standing "balance of power" idea in Europe, where everyone tended to ally against the strongest country in order to maintain the balance of power.

That's why no single power was ever able to take control of contenental Europe; any time one country got too powerful the others allied against them. That's pretty much the opposite of what happened in some other parts of the world, such as China, which has been a unified country for nearly 2000 years, give or take.

Germany's millitary competence was demonstrated during the early days of World War II, but the alliance against them was simply too large in terms of population and industrial output for Germany to maintain a war of attrition forever, even with France out of the picture. The quality of generals and the abilities of soldiers is key in the short term, but in a long term war of attrition, the bigger country or alliance (in terms of population, economy, and industrical production) generally wins eventually.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Yosho
Germany's millitary competence was demonstrated during the early days of World War II, but the alliance against them was simply too large in terms of population and industrial output for Germany to maintain a war of attrition forever, even with France out of the picture. The quality of generals and the abilities of soldiers is key in the short term, but in a long term war of attrition, the bigger country or alliance (in terms of population, economy, and industrical production) generally wins eventually.

Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" expounds this idea very well.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of Great Powers" expounds this idea very well.

Heh...I guess it was obveous I just read that book, huh?

[Unimatrix11]

Generally, as always, i agree with you, Yosho. Just wanted to add that in both cases, Napoleon and Hitler, there were times when Britain fought alone and pretty much all of continental Europe was dominated by a single power - only for a relatively short time tho.

Also i'd like to say, that after WWI and the treaty of Versailles Germany certainly was not a major power anymore (at least in military terms). But i agree that its economic strength allowed to become a major military power again in just 4 years (rearmament in '35). But military doesnt count in score, so i guess you are right.

But in case of Hitler i wouldnt really speak of a european pre-war counter-alliance. After all it was just France (rather relunctantly) and Britain (and of course their commonwealth partners) who declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland - all the other nations (except of latin american nations and some side-flippers in the late war) including the U.S. were declared war upon by germany (dec., 11th, 41) and thus forced into the war by germany. (Greece was declared war upon by Italy and of Course Japan started the war against the U.S.)

Now in case of Napoleon that was a bit different...

[fed1943]

Actually,IIWW can easily be seen as two wars interconnected:an asian war between nations(and with USA)and an european civil war(the only reason for that aliances,both sides,was the political regimes).
Best regards,

[leclaire]

As unimatrix11 said, after ww1, Germany wasn't in good shape. At the begining of the war, when they attacked poland, Germany military was not as powerful and experienced as when they attacked France a year later.

At that time France and Britain had colonies in Africa and Asia. Germany lost their's at ww1. That's why I said they were behind in the civ score.

Anyway, I think Germany lost more because of diplomacy than military. Had they got more allies, like turkey, or if USA did'nt go to war, made peace with Britain like they did with France. The outcome would have been different.

[more_cowbell]

@Unimatrix111:

I'm confused with your arguments. You seem to be making a nice case for my viewpoint, but I want to make sure that is what your intention was.

You argue that one of the reasons why the Germans under Hitler did not respond with Panzers to the Amercans at Normandy was because they were fooled by the diversonary army (thought to be) led by General Patton. Thats a GREAT argument for the inferiority of American generalship. Only very STUPID generals would try to decieve their enemy and increase their chance for victory. Score one for you.... err, maybe not...

Then you argue that the Germans were not able to move their Panzers because the bridges were blown up as part of the American battle plan. That also refutes the superiority of American Generalsip... err, maybe it doesn't....

I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove here, but you do a fairly good job of proving mine...

[Yosho]

All right, more_cowbell. Do you think that their form of government had a negitive effect on the quality of Japan's generals and their millitary morale during WWII?

I would say that Japan basically just lost because they were outnumbered and out-produced, especally after Germany fell, not because of any problems about the bravery and will to fight of their soldiers or the quality of their generals.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Yosho
That's why no single power was ever able to take control of contenental Europe; any time one country got too powerful the others allied against them. That's pretty much the opposite of what happened in some other parts of the world, such as China, which has been a unified country for nearly 2000 years, give or take.

Well the difference was China were usually a unified country. Periods of fragmentation were exceptions. This means that, culturally, even when there were a few smaller nation-states instead of a China, they were very close to each other.

Europe had neve been that way.

Originally posted by Yosho
Germany's millitary competence was demonstrated during the early days of World War II, but the alliance against them was simply too large in terms of population and industrial output for Germany to maintain a war of attrition forever, even with France out of the picture. The quality of generals and the abilities of soldiers is key in the short term, but in a long term war of attrition, the bigger country or alliance (in terms of population, economy, and industrical production) generally wins eventually.

This shows that a good stretagist will beat a good tactician every time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by more_cowbell
You argue that one of the reasons why the Germans under Hitler did not respond with Panzers to the Amercans at Normandy was because they were fooled by the diversonary army (thought to be) led by General Patton. Thats a GREAT argument for the inferiority of American generalship. Only very STUPID generals would try to decieve their enemy and increase their chance for victory. Score one for you.... err, maybe not...

It appears that you have no idea what you are talking about. Deception is an integral part of armed conflicts. Read The Art of War? Sun Tsu says actually slugging it out is stupid.

Originally posted by more_cowbell
Then you argue that the Germans were not able to move their Panzers because the bridges were blown up as part of the American battle plan. That also refutes the superiority of American Generalsip... err, maybe it doesn't....

Originally posted by more_cowbell
I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove here, but you do a fairly good job of proving mine...

I think you should go back and think about what war is again.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Well the difference was China were usually a unified country. Periods of fragmentation were exceptions. This means that, culturally, even when there were a few smaller nation-states instead of a China, they were very close to each other.

Europe had neve been that way.

Right, except I think you have cause and effect reversed there. China has been a unified country with a more-or-less unified culture BECAUSE it has been a single unified state for thousands of years. Note that there is still more then one language in China. Europe has so many different cultures because it has never been unified, so there was never a chance for one culture to dominatate all the others.

This shows that a good stretagist will beat a good tactician every time.

(shrug) In a long war, sure. In a quick war, a good tactician with good logistics and a well-trained army can crush their opponent very quickly, no matter how poorly planned out their larger stratagy is.

[Unimatrix11]

@cowbell: if you have 12000 planes to about 350 it doesnt take superior generalship to isolate a battlefield... and patton almost never had gotten a new command after italy - ike only gave it to him after he promised he would behave (thats were my "cross my arms and count to ten" statement came from) and i doubt that it was his idea or doing to make the german high command believe there were 80 divisions left in england after d-day... Even ike was an amateur compared to Rommel or Guderian or Manstein (the later two were not generals on the western front in '44-'45) ... most of the time german soldiers fought in numbers about 1:3 in troops, 1:5 in tanks and 1:30-50 in planes on the western front - had they had the same amount of material and troops at their proposal as their allied adversaries, they would have kicked their butt - i gurantee you (not that i wish they would have - i really do not).

Good generals are made out of experience, study, creativity and the feeling of responsibilty to their men - not from ideology - that has absolutely nothing to do with it (unless they are italian ;-) ).

Sorry my reply lacks a bit of profoundness this time, but i am a bit drunk right now and at least as pissed that you still dont get that your point is a totally invalid one.

[Amarsir]

Even ike was an amateur compared to Rommel

That magnificent bastard. I read his book!