modern era leaders

[Will9]

Originally posted by Yosho


The only thing he got out of the treaty at all was the Leage of Nations, but because he refused to talk to the Senate about it beforehand, and refused to make any kind of compromise with them after the treaty, the United States didn't even end up joining the leage, and the Leage was a joke.

The reason the Leage wasn't approved by Congress was that Wilson had a stroke during his promotional campaign. Also the Republicans, which ruled congress, voted against Woodrow Wilson's idea because it was only Woodrow Wilson's idea. The Leage was an early UN so don't say it was bad idea. The reason it didn't work was that the US didn't support it. For his efforts in in the founding the Leage of Nations he recived a Nobel Peace Prize.

As for his approch to race it was the culture of the time. If you say he was a bad president because of race you would also have to say Washington and Jefferson were bad presidents.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Will9


The reason the Leage wasn't approved by Congress was that Wilson had a stroke during his promotional campaign. Also the Republicans, which ruled congress, voted against Woodrow Wilson's idea because it was only Woodrow Wilson's idea. The Leage was an early UN so don't say it was bad idea. The reason it didn't work was that the US didn't support it. For his efforts in in the founding the Leage of Nations he recived a Nobel Peace Prize.

As for his approch to race it was the culture of the time. If you say he was a bad president because of race you would also have to say Washington and Jefferson were bad presidents.

Well, I would say he was more racist then other presidents of his time.

About the Leage of Nations, the interesting thing is that a group of moderates offered him a compromise that would have let the treaty pass the Senate in exchange for a few small compromises. He refused. He refused to even talk to people in the Senate on the subject of any kind of compromise.

It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if he hadn't had a stroke in the middle of his promotional tour, but honestly, I think it's very unlikely the Senate would have yielded to that kind of pressure.

[Prussia]

There are alot of people that can be put into this game, but Civ 4 will never put in someone like Hitler, or Lenin. I'm even surprised they put in Napoleon.

I think they try to lean towards the leaders of the nations they already picked, and if those leaders had an impact on the world, such as world leaders in WWI, WWII, The Napoleonic Wars, the Roman, Persian and Greek eras, and everything else they can think of.

And I think that America has enough leaders, but they were both good ones.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Yosho
It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if he hadn't had a stroke in the middle of his promotional tour, but honestly, I think it's very unlikely the Senate would have yielded to that kind of pressure.

I don't know. Only a few years later Truman ordered the drop of the Atomic Bomb with little or no input from anyone else... including the Japanese.

However, I will be the first to admit that I am not up-to-date on Wilson's League of Nations so I can't say for sure.

Tom P.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Prussia
There are alot of people that can be put into this game, but Civ 4 will never put in someone like Hitler, or Lenin. I'm even surprised they put in Napoleon.

One, why would you think that they wouldn't add Lenin when they are already addig Stalin. Two, why wouldn't they add Hitler since they are already adding Stalin.(Stalin is responsible for 50million deaths. Hitler is responsible for 45milion deaths.) Three, what's wrong with Napoleon I Bonaparte, Emperor of France, King of Italy.

[phbreng]

One, why would you think that they wouldn't add Lenin when they are already addig Stalin

exactly...

Lenin > great leader, good ideals
Stalin > Corruption of communistic ideals and another genetic error, just like hitler

[Will9]

Yes, it wasn't for Stalin the west would look at Communism differently.(Effective for getting a nation out of proverty instead of effective for getting rid of the leaders enemies.)

[Virtual Alex]

Lenin would be an awesome leader. He totally changed Russian. He changes the whole world. He should totally be in the game if you ask me.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Victoria wasn't a warmonger, either.

In person, probably not.

However, amongst other wars in her reign prosecuted by her governments were the Boer Wars, 1880-81 and 1899-1902, the Zulu War, 1879, the Crimean War, 1854-56, the Opium Wars 1839-42 and 1856-60, the Ashanti, Sikh and Afghan Wars and so on.

The term 'Pax Britannica', shows just what good p.r. can do for an empire. In many cases when warring against non-Europeans, what would be a war could just be termed a conflict, or policing measure, or a mutiny or rebellion- especially if things went badly.


British winter quarters, 2nd Afghan War:

[Nugog]

molly bloom:

That seems very familiar to the "police action" in Vietnam, the war that never happened in Laos (or Cambodia for that matter)

[padillah]

Originally posted by nugog
molly bloom:

That seems very familiar to the "police action" in Vietnam, the war that never happened in Laos (or Cambodia for that matter)

...or Korea, or Granada, or Bosnia, or even Isreal/Palestine (not at war per se but we provided all the weapons and training for several decades).

We have developed a habbit of not being at war.

Heck even the "war" with Iraq has been "over" for two and a half years now.

So I guess some mondern day presidents DO deserve to be in the Warmongers.. sorry Warlords expansion.

Tom P.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by nugog
molly bloom:

That seems very familiar to the "police action" in Vietnam, the war that never happened in Laos (or Cambodia for that matter)

There's a very fascinating book, whose title is:

'Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition' (Cornell Studies in Security Affairs)

by Jack Snyder.


What's fascinating is how the same themes crop up again and again in Imperial states- a dissatisfaction with borders, natural or otherwise; paranoid conspiracy theories, beginning with little acorns and ending in forests of oak trees- one example being the 19th Century British fears of Russia intervening in the Balkans/Ottoman Empire, leading to a Russian thrust into Persia, then Afghanistan, then India topples, and so on.

Even the Fashoda incident was blown up out of all proportion, and it took Edward VII to put Anglo-French relations back on an even keel.

Notice how the United States protected itself in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, either through direct military intervention or through proxy forces, using state terror or paramilitary terrorism. The threats from these states were never real, but of course United Fruit in Guatemala had influential members of the company board, who either sat in government or had relatives and friends who sat in government, and similarly in Chile those guano supplies and the 57 economic base and precious metal deposits discovered since 1970 seem to have come in handy for American companies.

Imperial Rome 'needed' the wheat and trade of Carthage; it needed the wheat of Egypt, the gold of Dacia and Gaul, the tin, copper and mercury of Spain, a border on the Rhine, the Danube, the Euphrates, and so on. Similarly, the France of Louis XIV 'needed' France's natural borders with Spain and the Germanic territories on the Rhine, it needed to try to install a French candidate on the Spanish throne, to attempt to subject the Low Countries, and so on.


Interestingly, in India the 'Indian Mutiny' is often referred to as the 'First War Of Indpendence' and American schoolchildren have been taught of the 'Filipino Insurrection'- or as it's known elsewhere, the Philippine-American War.