Higher level Strategy

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
and back to the maginot line, if we are gonna talk about it in civ terms, the waste of units would have atleast slowed down the german push whilst reinforcments were sent. But this was difficult at the time, but personaly, had i been the leader of the french or english i would have got the russians and americans involved quicker. And maybe the spanish, but they were just coming out of a civil war (i think), but if they hadn't forced germany to sign the treaty of versaille in 1918, non of it would have happend.

One of us has a bizarre view of history - granted I learned mine much closer to the events than you and as has been often remarked 'The winners write the history books', but to find that the concepts around today are so wildly different from those with which I am familiar is quite unsettling.

Your point about the Treaty of Versailles is well made, but was the 'normal way' of ending a war in the 19th century - what mede the 1914-18 conflict different from the previous centuries of european conflict other tha scale?

But the other nations!!! America was determinedly neutral although on ballance pro Allied, Russia was actually allied with Germany and Spain was essentially Finlandised to the Axis - or that's how it was in the books I read ...

[The Andy-Man]

i only have a high school knowlage (which is patheticaly small)

But if the treaty of versaill hadn't been so harsh (ie. taking away major german mining land, massive war reperations - and lets not forget, the germans were sort or pushed into the war byt the austrians) the german economy would have been a little bit stronger during the weimar republic - which is another probelem (and if i remember, the allies made that to). During 14 years, there had been 15 chancellors, and non of them ever having a big enough majority to pass laws. Also, if the French hadn't then invaded (i think it was the emilitarized rhineland) the german economy would never have hyper inflated. Add these things together plus global depression in the early 30's, the german people are more likley to vote for a well organized but extremist party.......

And the thing about what made the great war different from any
other:

It was (to my knowlage) the first time all the great super powers of the world had ended up fighting, until then, the pre requesite of a war for an imperial nation was that the enemy had no weapons - ie nativevs who used fruit to fight with!
It was also the first war of mass destruction, and lets not fgorget the terrible living conditions in the trenches...

And about the spanish in the 2nd world war. I understand that they were on friendly terms with germany (didnt hitler help out in the civil war), but the allies could have atleast tried.
And as for the americans, they were neutral in both wars until a stupid attack, but with the mass slaughter that had happened in the 1st war, I don't think they had an excuse not to join in and quickly stop another (pointless slaughter).

And the russians weren't allied (to my knowlage) with Germany, they just had an 'agreement' but they were still fearful of Hitler, so i think that the allies could have got them to join in earlier to.



But as i said, i only have the pathetic knowlage of what they tell you in an english high school, most of what i have said is just me thinking what i would have done....

[i]It would have been alot easier just to stay at home and shoot 50,000 of our men a day[/]

BlackAdder comenting on the First World War.

[Blaupanzer]

Andy-Man, time to get a decent World history book and learn the history Sid is trying to simulate in Civ II. With that in mind, the following thoughts spring to mind:

Fundamentally, the idea that the Maginot Line wasn't long enough is not off the mark. It didn't stretch across the Belgian border for both political and fiscal reasons. However crudely, Civ II shows its other failing, its susceptability to modern artillery (Howitzers) and air power (Bombers). France fell for other reasons as well (inadequate and poorly organized field armies, actual betrayal, incorrect terrain analysis -- the Ardennes).

Russia was allied with Nazi Germany at the time of the division of Poland, and Franco owed his victory in no small part to Nazi "volunteers" and weapons. The allies worked very hard through the war to keep Spain neutral, a success. Spanish intervention on the side of the allies was not a valid option.

Many historians, especially some prominent Germans in recent times, contend that World War II is really an extension of World War I. The issues not settled in that war and the harsh peace imposed on Germany and Austria made the second round of combat inevitable. Italy's dissatisfaction with WWI's outcome contributed greatly to its changing sides, another precipitant.

The Napoleonic Wars involved all of the European Great Powers in war, as to a lesser extent had the Seven Year's war. France and Germany fought in the War of 1870, following the fight between France and Austria in 1866 and the Crimean War. Poorly armed natives hardly had much to do with the military organizations of the late 1800's.

[The Andy-Man]

this is the problem with school history - all i knew about the german french war in 1870 was that germany took alsace and loraine.

I never knew of anyother conflicts in 19tth centuary europe except Napoleon, but we never learnt anything interesting about that and the books in the bookshop are all about either, 20tjh century britain or Hitler. I havn't seen much that concentrates on the 2nd world war in europe (mainly looking at military effects on social life and what was actually done). Its all: Adolf Hitler was a quiet boy from Austria, his mother a 16 year old prostitues and his father a drunk....

But i do have to admit, the French were pretty dumb not to think that They wont get invaded from Belgium (the germns going through) AGAIN!!! (it happened in the first world war).

And i do knwo about the 2war was a result of the first. That is what i ment with the treaty of versaille, if it hadn't been so harsh on Germany (who only got in the war so that their only allies (Austia-Hungry) would look bad when the russian's interveened with their attack on serbia) the ngermany would have never felt cheated. And as i said, the fact the French invaded one of their demilitarised zones and the league of nations did nothing, would not have helped german feeling towards them, or the treaties. The 2nd World War was an inevitable consequence of the 1st and (from what i know) the 1st World War was an inevitable consiquence of their being 5 major imperial powers living next to each other. All this 'Archy Duke getting shot by serbs' stuff is not the real reason. The war would have happened any way, another quote from blackadder - it was to much trouble not to have a war.

[Blaupanzer]

Andy-Man, you've obviously been paying attention and thinking for yourself as well. Keep it up. Also note that history covers the last 6000 years, not just the last 200. There is a logarithmic pattern to it, an increased pace in modern times, well reflected by Sid's shrinking number of years per turn in the Civs. Hope this won't make me sound fogeyish, but you could try the library. Most have a one- or two-volume college text in world history that would ground you in the basics. Several military histories (see Liddell-Hart) show the impact of weapons technologies on wars. Keep Civin'.

[The Andy-Man]

obvioulsly there is more history then just the last 2 centries, and personaly i find the [start] of the fall of the roman empire (around 200AD) - the end of imperialism more interesting then the 20thC. but the 2 world wars are fun to look at in respect to the way they completely changed social thinking. Up until the end of the 1st worl war, social life had been very similar for 900years, aristocrats at the top, poor servants etc at the bottom. by the end of WW2, the class system had died, no more imperialism or great empires and many others.

and in my opinion, the 1st WW caused the rapid pace of the 20th centuary because of all the stuff that scienctist came up with trying to break the stalemate, ie planes, big bertha.

If there was no wars, science would be at a virtual stand still, for what is the use of learning how to make a rocket if you have nbo enemy to bomb? No V2 bomber, no space rockets/ships etc. If it wasn't for chemical warefare, we probably wouldn't have insectasides etc etc. I dont want to start rambling.

[KrazyHorse]

Your point about the effect that wars have on the advancement of technology has been made before, but it ignores some major counterexamples. To name the one which springs most readily to mind: the industrialization of Britain took place mainly in the nineteenth century. The difference between 1815 and 1914 is astounding. However, Britain fought very few wars during this time period. If I'm not mistaken, it only fought four (very minor) wars: the Crimean war, two Zulu wars and the Boer war.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Andy-Man, time to get a decent World history book and learn the history Sid is trying to simulate in Civ II. With that in mind, the following thoughts spring to mind:

Fundamentally, the idea that the Maginot Line wasn't long enough is not off the mark. It didn't stretch across the Belgian border for both political and fiscal reasons. However crudely, Civ II shows its other failing, its susceptability to modern artillery (Howitzers) and air power (Bombers). France fell for other reasons as well (inadequate and poorly organized field armies, actual betrayal, incorrect terrain analysis -- the Ardennes).

Russia was allied with Nazi Germany at the time of the division of Poland, and Franco owed his victory in no small part to Nazi "volunteers" and weapons. The allies worked very hard through the war to keep Spain neutral, a success. Spanish intervention on the side of the allies was not a valid option.

Many historians, especially some prominent Germans in recent times, contend that World War II is really an extension of World War I. The issues not settled in that war and the harsh peace imposed on Germany and Austria made the second round of combat inevitable.

Hmmm. The harshest terms imposed were the reperations - which were ended with the Dawes plan in the mid-20's (after the hyperinflation damaged the german polity, to be sure, but still)

Germany's Western boundary was settled at Locarno in 1925. The only remaining issues were the demilitarization of the rhineland and the eastern boundary question. These could have been settled peacefully (britain in particular was sympathetic to Germany) as some German politicians were attempting to do in the 1920's under Weimar.

In any case germany remilitarized the rhinelad in 1936, annexed austria in 1937, and took the Sudetenland in 1938. There is no way the allies would have given germany more favorable boundaries in 1918 then she had by 1938. But Germany went to war anyway - not because Germany had any remaining legitimate gripes, but because fascist ideology required war, and the German upper classes had helped fascism to power as the only way left to avoid social revolution. By 1938 Hitler was entrenched and they were stuck (despite some wartime conspiracies by Prussian officers)

LOTM
The only innocent Germans were socialists.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
this is the problem with school history - all i knew about the german french war in 1870 was that germany took alsace and loraine.

I never knew of anyother conflicts in 19tth centuary europe except Napoleon, but we never learnt anything interesting about that and the books in the bookshop are all about either, 20tjh century britain or Hitler. I havn't seen much that concentrates on the 2nd world war in europe (mainly looking at military effects on social life and what was actually done). Its all: Adolf Hitler was a quiet boy from Austria, his mother a 16 year old prostitues and his father a drunk....

But i do have to admit, the French were pretty dumb not to think that They wont get invaded from Belgium (the germns going through) AGAIN!!! (it happened in the first world war).

And i do knwo about the 2war was a result of the first. That is what i ment with the treaty of versaille, if it hadn't been so harsh on Germany (who only got in the war so that their only allies (Austia-Hungry) would look bad when the russian's interveened with their attack on serbia) the ngermany would have never felt cheated. And as i said, the fact the French invaded one of their demilitarised zones and the league of nations did nothing, would not have helped german feeling towards them, or the treaties. The 2nd World War was an inevitable consequence of the 1st and (from what i know) the 1st World War was an inevitable consiquence of their being 5 major imperial powers living next to each other. All this 'Archy Duke getting shot by serbs' stuff is not the real reason. The war would have happened any way, another quote from blackadder - it was to much trouble not to have a war.

I would suggest two excellent books by Peter Gay. "The Weimar Republic" on the political, social and cultural history of Germany's first experiment with democracy will give you another view on the "inevitability" of WW2 (hint - weimar didnt die - it was murdered) "Freud, the Jews, and other Germans" is a collection of essays that will give insight on Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm, and particularly on those (powerful) elements in German society that foreshadowed the Nazis. An alternative viewpoint from those such as Galleo that see WW1 as coming out of the pre-war power and global economic situation.

LOTM
In tribute to the spirit of Weimar

[The Andy-Man]

correct, in 1925 the reperations payments were lifted, but that was because if it wasn't germany would have never been able to pay their loans back to the USA. Also, by this time the hardships of the last 7 years would have left an aftertaste, and in 1930 during the wall street crash, germany was back were it stareted. One could argue that had the treaty of versaille left germany with more assets, it could have pulled through with just about.

And with reference to all the stuff you made about what was done in the 1930's, hitler did all this, knowing that the league of nations and so on would probabl;y do notthing to stop him.

I have also heard the idea that if Germany Hadn't gone to war in 1939, the country would have collapsed, but no one has ever properly explained this to me stupid high school history.

[reds4ever]

andy, the problem with getting the russians and the americans in was the fact that the russians were quite happy for the germans and french/british to fight each other to a standstill on one front while they mopped up the small eastern states on the other, while the american public had no real desire to get involved in a european war with WW1 still in their memory

[La Fayette]

Blaupanzer and LOTM have given most of the ideas I might have been willing to suggest about why the silly Frenchmen did not enter Germany in 1940. No need to repeat after them.
But spelling correctly city names might be useful.
Here are the names of some french cities (that I often happen to see written otherwise):
Versailles, Lyon, Marseille, Bayeux, Dunkerque.


(this guy is La Fayette, ready, but not really willing to discuss)

[The Andy-Man]

hehe, he said silly frenchman!!!!

But back to the wars, part of my argument for america joining in early was that with what had happened in the first world war, they should have joind in early to prevent a repeat. The effect of the morale in German trenches when the americans joined in was a large factor in their defeat. Despite the fact that in WW1, the americans did very little (to my knowlage).

[reds4ever]

from america's point of view, a repeat of what? the first world war was not fought in america, from their point of view they lost many lives in a far away conflict (remember this is before the UN , peacekeeping forces etc). the common concencus(sorry) before pearl harbour was let them get on with it and negotiate with the winner, even after pearl harbour the US congress wanted war with Japan NOT Germany, it took the Hitler to declare war on america.

[The Andy-Man]

why the hell woud he declare war on the USA?
I was always told it was pearl habour that got america into the war with germany, not germany getting america into the war with germany.

Hitler should have atleast waited until he had taken russia (look at the rush job he did there!)