Ideal Social Engineering Settings

[Commy]

Just a reminder, the planned depicted in SMAC IS A FREE MARKET. Technically it is called a semi-MARKET economy, which practically represents almost all the democracies, particularly US and Europe. So in essessence, there is no planned economy in SMAC, only a semi-market and economic anarchy...

[Zeiter]

I didn't see Europe fighting in Vietnam for something for WORTHWWHIL, called FREEDOM. No, Europe only fought cause it didn't like people who didn't have blue eyes...

Huh? Are you saying that the Vietnam war was a good idea? If you, then that's cool, (although I'd probably disagree), but I just want to make sure I understood you right.

I am no history buff, but I will not disagree with the fact that Europe, if you consider its entire history, has seen more wars than any region in the world. Lots and lots of wars, like the ones in medieval ages and the ones before that and the ones before that and on and on and on. But do those really matter? Europe has changed quite a lot. So for all intensive purposes, to make a fare comparison with America and Europe, let's start at the Revolutionary war.

I don't think you can just cast off centuries of history just because it happen "a long time ago". Those conflicts are partly what shaped Europe into what it is today. I'm sure Europeans consider the medieval wars and such just as important as Americans consider the Revolutionary or Civil War to be. Some French still feel a sense of patriotism from when Joan of Arc ousted Britian waaaaaay back in like the 1200's. Heck, Mussoulini loved to make references back to the Roman Empire in his speeches. That history is still very much a part of today.

I definitely agree that the American colonists defeating the most powerful army in the world was very impressive, especially considering that the colonial population was split almost right down the middle between patriots and loyalists. Of course, the colonists did have a little help from the French, let's not forget that. And also, I definitely agree about the Mexicans defeating Napoleon as being very impressive too.

Most countries in Europe fought eachother, mostly for rediculous reasons. While I'm sure there are more, I do believe that France had its own civil war. And if I remember correctly, it LOST. There was still France, but practically in anarchy. However, America won it's civil war, and yet you still say Europe has seen more war? War of what, religion? Or maybe something stupid, like killing all the redheads and burnettes for fun, because only Hitler liked Blondes.

Well, we may think, in hindsight, that they were ridiculous reasons, but there were people at the time who were willing to die for those causes, so it must have seemed pretty important to them back then.

Yep, France had a very bloody revolution, which could pretty much be classified as a perpetual civil war. And yes, I guess you could say it lost, but not just against itself. Every other single nation jumped on the "We hate France" bandwagon when Napoleon seemed to be getting too powerful. The entire European continent could be speaking French right now if it weren't for:
1. All of the other countries jumping to arms against France
2. Napoleon's disastrous campaign against Russia.

As for us "winning" our civil war, I guess we were successful in keeping the nation united, but I don't know if it's possible to classify 500,000 deaths as a victory.

I don't know much, but I do know that WW2 was because of some insane fascist. Okay, so it is fairly arguable that Europe has seen a lot of war in that. But Europe, being stupid, has to go to war because some of it doesn't like Jewish people. If it weren't for America, chances are Germany would have won. I didn't see one of Europes 'glorious' generals leading D-Day, the decisive battle of the war. No, it was an American 5 star general, Eisenhower. And you say America hasn't seen war?

The insane fascist was only the culmination of many problems, really. The long term problems of militarism, imperialism, nationalism, German bitterness over WW1, the German economic depression, etc. had more to do with creating WW2 than just 1 charismatic lunatic and his personal hatred for Jewish people. Of course, Hitler did a remarkable job of getting his population to believe that they were "ubermensch" and that others, including the Jews, did not deserve to live. (Hitler even called the U.S. a "mongrelized nation". He definitely had plenty of hate to spread around.)

You think America was the deciding factor in WW2? What about the Soviet Union? You can see from that map up top that Germany exhausted most of its soldiers and equipment fighting the Soviets. I guarantee you that the Soviet Union had more to do with Germany's defeat than the U.S. (BTW, the story of Operation Barbarossa and the Soviet invasion is very interesting reading. You won't believe how many mistakes Hitler made, and how easily he could have taken out the Soviet Union had he not made so many errors. And I am confident that, if Hitler had conquered the Soviet Union within the first 6 months, like he could have, then Germany would have had a legitimate shot at winning the war.)

While I don't know the exact numbers, more Americans are in the mid east fighting for FREEDOM than Europeans are. So England sent in a few troops. Great. You say EUROPE has seen more war? All I remember is England sending in a few troops and Germany LOANING us a couple of their tanks.

Are you really convinced that we are over there fighting for "freedom"? If freedom comes in 55-gallon barrels, then we must be one freedom-lovin' nation!

Sorry if it sounds like I'm slamming what you said, but I just have to respond to some of these comments.

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis

So we agree then that Free Markets can only work if the government interferes both with the economy and with the way businesses are allowed to handle their affairs.

So why are we still arguing then?

I think the word "interferes" illustrates the crux of the problem.

When I think of personal freedom, I need the government to safeguard my freedom, by providing laws that penalize those who try to mug me, or kill me, or deprive me of my rights, etc. On the other hand, the government could encroach on my freedom by telling me where I have to live, or go to school, or restrict my travel, or restrict what work I can do, or what I am allowed to buy, etc. In both case, the government is involved in how people handle their affairs. But applying the word "interference" to both cases would be wrong. In the first case, the government only "interferes" to protect the masses from criminals and bullies. In the second case, "interference" would be the proper word.

Similarly, in a properly run free market, government regulations should only protect the masses from anti-free market practices. It would only be considered "interference" by those who were trying to engage in unfair trade practices. On the other hand, in planned markets, governments deliberately interfere with economic freedoms. Even if neither the buyer or seller are engaged in unfair trade practices, the government can intervene and prevent the transaction or subsidize another seller so that the buyer would be motivated to purchase from a less efficient seller.

To me, this is the difference between the government protecting me from being beaten up by a bully, verses the government telling me what I am allowed to buy and from whom.

And I am not hold up the USA as a panacea of free market virtues. There are many practices in the US that encroach on market freedom, such as protectionism (tariffs and subsidies) of certain industries, or establishing government monopolies in certain areas, etc.

But I firmly believe in economic freedom just as I believe in personal freedom. To the extent governments embrace economic freedom, the people prosper.

[Commy]

To Zeiter,

I am not voicing an opinion about Vietnam being a good idea. While the idea of the war was appealing, but the cost was much greater. Anyway, the point of that post ways to counteract the many others that claim 'America hasn't seen war' and blah blah blah, particularly livid imps digest. I am not against Europe, and I definitely question the patriotism Americans believe in about America being number one and all that, however I was just saying that Americans have seen enough of war just as much as Europe has. As for America being decisive in WW2, I believe that LESS casualties in war is usually a sign of success. Also consider the battles of the Pacific that America won. And while I am not trying to brag about America, it was an American genius and many American marines that fought in D-day.

And why does Civ 3 make Joan' of arc or whatever so ugly?

[Zeiter]

Never played Civ 3, so can't say that I know.
Edit: I should say, never played Civ 3 extensively, not enough to know what Joan of Arc looks like on there. I did play a few hours of it over at a friend's house. Very cool game. I should buy it one of these days. Maybe when it makes it to the $9.95 bargain rack next to SMAC.

Yes, I definitely agree with you there, America hasseen its fair share of wars, although none of the recent ones have been as close to home as they were for others (the only time we were attacked on our territory in WW2 was at Pearl Harbor. Just imagine if we had to endure 4 years of horrific trench warfare on our soil (France in WW1) or 6 million civilian casualties (Poland) or nightly air raids (London). Even though we've been very much involved in the recent wars, they haven't had the same impact on America's collective consciousness as they've had on other countrie's consciousnesses, which might explain why Americans in today's world tend to view war differently than others. But yes, you definitely made some good points, and I appreciate that someone like you is there to stick up for the good ol' U.S.A. . (Not like we really need it, though.).

[mmontgomery]

Originally posted by Zeiter
you really convinced that we are over there fighting for "freedom"? If freedom comes in 55-gallon barrels, then we must be one freedom-lovin' nation!

I have heard this slam many times, and it is utterly ABSURD!

1. THe US could BUY oil a lot cheaper than waging war.
2. The US could develop their own MASSIVE reserves.
3. The US gave GRANTS to rebuild Iraq, not loans. So the US get no oil to repay.
4. The provisional and elected government determines who develops the oil and who it is sold to, not the US.

On the other hand, freedom has indeed been restored in many ways.

1. The many rape rooms and torture rooms have been shut down. (The prisoner scandel is nothing in comparison to the video tapes of the activities shown in these rooms, including cutting off hands, beheading, mass rape and sodomy, "medical" torture endurance experiments, etc. And the people who were involved in the prisoner scandel are being tried and punished, while those who participated in the rape rooms were rewarded.)
2. At least 6 people who had their hands cut off in these tapes have been tracked down, and sent to the US for restorative surgery (all paid from donations from private US citizens and surgeons).
3. The US has donated 20 billion dollars to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, and further grants are being considered.
4. Over twice as many people have water, electricity, and other services than before the war.
5. The people no longer have to live in fear of a dictator who could have them killed with a word, no trial, no appeal.
6. The only reason the US is remaining is to safeguard the Iraqi people against those who would take away their freedom and enslave them. It costs the US billions of dollars and many lives to continue protecting Iraqi freedom, with no gain for the US.

But why bother with facts, when we can write a witty line that slams the US for trying to help an oppressed nation become free. This is akin to defaming someone who thwarts a rape attempt by saying he only did it so that he could get into her pants himself. Shame on you!

[Zeiter]

But why bother with facts, when we can write a witty line that slams the US for trying to help an oppressed nation become free.

Oooh, you thought it was witty? Why, thank you!

But no, really, you do have some points:

5. The people no longer have to live in fear of a dictator who could have them killed with a word, no trial, no appeal.

You're definitely right about that.

The many rape rooms and torture rooms have been shut down. (The prisoner scandel is nothing in comparison to the video tapes of the activities shown in these rooms, including cutting off hands, beheading, mass rape and sodomy, "medical" torture endurance experiments, etc. And the people who were involved in the prisoner scandel are being tried and punished, while those who participated in the rape rooms were rewarded.)

Yep, right about that, although doesn't excuse what our soldiers did (not that you made that assertion, just saying.)

4. The provisional and elected government determines who develops the oil and who it is sold to, not the US.

That's halfway true. They do get the "official" say on it, and they may have some influence on the decision making process, but U.S. officials and companies also have quite a bit of say in this too. And it doesn't have to be direct legal influence. The process can very well be indirectly influenced by subtle threats or gentle prdding$. At least, that's how it is going to be until Iraq gets a truely elected government that wasn't partly chosen by the U.S. administration.

THe US could BUY oil a lot cheaper than waging war.

But this isn't about buying oil for America. This is about securing oil deposits that can be drilled and processed by American companies for a handsome profit. It doesn't matter if the American economy or the American public loses out in the long run, just as long as certain companies can secure some handsome reserves, that's all that matters. And also, I think you may be slightly underestimating the potential value of the Iraqi oil reserves. Sure, the war is costing billions of dollars, but the total value of all of the Iraqi oil reserves AT TODAY'S PRICES is in the trillions. And that figure is only going to go up.

The US could develop their own MASSIVE reserves.

But where are they going to get all of that extra oil? By pumping more? Every single non-OPEC country is already pumping at 99.9% capacity. Current reserves are continually being depleted, and new discoveries are dwindling each year. I think many underestimate the full geo-strategical genuis of the U.S. As oil demand increases and production levels off, and as the Hubbert's peak nears, a U.S. in control of a large percentage of the world's oil reserves is going to be an extremely dominant U.S., even moreso than it is now. Everything runs on oil: Wars, economies. And alternative energy resources just aren't going to be able to be a complete substitute for oil. There's no other substance that packs the same energy per unit into such an efficient package, which can be so easily trasported and stored (something hydrogen fuel lacks). This may well be a plan by the U.S. of CEO Morgan proportions!

The US gave GRANTS to rebuild Iraq, not loans. So the US get no oil to repay.

Again, partly correct. The U.S. gave grants to American companies in Iraq to rebuild Iraq.

The implications of such a plan are really quite scary, especially when you consider the current talk of a draft in the U.S. next year.

Sorry for turning this thread into a political debate. It just kinda snowballed. That's just how it happens, I guess.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Well, then I'll ask you:

1.did your grandfather died from a snipers bullet while scouting the frontlines (1943)?
2.was your grandgrandfather enrolled in the age of 15(WWI) and lost left leg in the second war(1942)?
3.was your grandgrandmother from the other parent found dead in the ruins of bombed house(1944)?
Mine were!

I understand that the older members of your family have experienced the two most destructive wars in the history of the world. Many members of my family also saw action in WW2. None were killed, but two were wounded, one severely. So we both know more than a few people who "have seen the elephant" in WW2.

Originally posted by binTravkin

Was your fathers cousin drafted to fight in Afganistan?
Mine was!

My brother in law (my sister's husband) was called up and sent to Afghanistan last year, and Iraq this year. As were a number of my friends and comrades in arms from when I served in the Army.

Originally posted by binTravkin

And I didn't mention that all but one of my grandfathers and grandgrandfathers have "seen combat"!

And I have known 10 people personally who were later killed in combat or in accidents connected with their military service. I cannot even estimate the number of combat veterans I know or have known over the years.

Originally posted by binTravkin

So you should better close your mouth!
Even if you have related people who had seen war that war was not like my ancestors have seen!

You shouldn't let your little brother have access to your computer, it makes you look immature. As for the point he makes about whether what my relatives experienced compares to what your relatives experienced, it would be impossible to determine, especially in the midst of an international argument / flame fest on the internet.

Originally posted by binTravkin

I attend Latvian University, History catedre, 2nd course and I'm the best student in the course..
What we learned about in the spring was the beginning of the 20th century.

Then you should really be better at making a cogent argument, even in a foreign language. Here's a hint. Argue against what I have said, not what you want me to have said.

Originally posted by binTravkin

Well, maybe I dont remeber the real number, but your ancestors didn't made any diference in WWI, difference was made by economical sanctions nut a handful of mis-guided americans who therefore got high casualty ratio!

The frontline moved ~100 km in the 1918 when americans came into fight; do you call it big difference?
To make 10km/month..
If the war continued so, Germany was won around 1925 or even later when Allies reached RUR area..

You should study WW1 then and learn something. The Americans made a huge difference, in my opinion for the worst. We took a war that was almost certainly going to end in an exhausted stalemate and turned it into an overwhelming victory for the Western Allies, accidently setting the scene for WW2. We didn't mean to do so of course, and were actually more hesitant about what was happening at Versailles than many of the "more sophisticated" Europeans we were dealing with.

I don't argue that the Americans were better troops than the Euros (how could they have been, with almost no professional army to use as cadre), they were raw recruits. But for that they were more effective than expected, and arrived in time to help blunt Germany's last gasp offensives (which btw were kicked off in the hopes of ending the war before American manpower could deploy effectively) and go over to the offensive themselves with good effect. It was enough to convince the Germans to surrender, something that millions of casualties hithertofore could not accomplish. If anyone "didn't make a difference", I put to you that perhaps it was all those people who were killed in the first three years of the war. But I wouldn't make such an argument as it would be wrong, and merely an emotional outburst.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And you should read livid Imp Digest and think about it a bit cause I'm starting to think that you're just another "patriotic" american who believes too much in his government and american "patriotic" historians

It's showinism!

I read livid Imp's comments. While I don't agree with much of it, he certainly has a right to his opinions. The difference is that he states them as opinions rather than taking absurd positions about history that he can't back up in an effort to score emotional points in what I can only guess is a crypto-political argument.

As for your opinion of me, I don't care about it. I am not a boy, I am a man who has probably lived more history than you have read about. Show me what you are really capable of (this thread hasn't been your finest hour) and your opinion will have more weight with me.

[binTravkin]

You, Sicander, are too overconfident what you have read or heard..

Most people who had been in war tend to romanticize it too much and I dislike it so much that I could one day kill such a person who tries to say that war is not hell and he has seen much more of a war than me..

Well, I haven't "seen combat" as you understand it, but when I look at what this "combat" has done to my family and almost all Latvian families I know, then coompare it ti an average American family, then I must say It is obviuos why you Americans, or some of you, still think that war is not hell - you simply hadn't lost so much to war..

And if you oppose to it, I don't know what to say about your brain capabilities!

Have you heard that any Amercian has ever seen enemy planes running overheads in his own land, had he seen tank roaming through his farm, had he seen a machinegunner kill his children or a bomb dropped over his house?

NOPE!

You just don't know true horrors of war - I remember when my grandmother told me about how it was - it was like watching the most scary movies I ever had watched, to imagine all those sights she saw, the blood, the blows, the fire..

Maybe your veterans know war but your civilians surely don't know!

You called me a youngster, but even an average Latvian youngster understands the simple truth that is always questionable because it has gone through the mirror of propaganda - I have 3 history encyclopaedias (don't know the right word) at home and the difference between them is that one has been published in USSR in 1974, one in Latvia in 1998 and one is from US(I ordered it electronically for my studies), rather a collection of researches in history than a real book.

There's a HUGE difference between them!

We have a subject in University which is called "Comparison of Sources" (or something like that) where we read the reports from different sources about the same event - it's the most interesting subject I think, how governments and even romantisinng historians "make" history!

Well, you should do it yourself one day - order an european history book, a book from USSR and one of your, US, historians, then open the section of WWII in all them and compare..
Just read about some minor event and compare!

You'll see what propaganda and "The Official Government Viewpoint" means!

I remember clearly the statistical table of USSR/German Losses/Troops, in fact I could even it post it here one day If I remeber to take it with me nd have time to right down..

You see,
USSR had 2900 tanks at the start of WW2, in their opinion
USSR had ~8000 tanks in German opinion (stated on Latvian history book, from post-war research in German reconnaissance and battle reports)
USSR had ~20000 tanks in US opinion

How do you think, how many tanks it really had?
And is there any real way to check it?

Do you think US opinion is the most objective?
I don't think so - I think that German opinion is the most objective as they had the chance to count, how many Russian tanks they killed..

USSR's opinion is clearly a lie!

Another one - D-Day had 2million troops involved -half US, half UK/Canada
I dont remeber from where it is, but I tend to believe in it as such a number is both quite possible and reasonable compared to results..

And where the hell then those 13.5 million were?

Do you still believe so blindly in your lone historian?

[binTravkin]

This may help in understanding those who suffered from the war(s).

I still wonder why europeans are not soooo eager to go to war...
I still wonder why europeans dislike/fear patriotism so much...
I still wonder why europeans dislike/fear right wing values of 'doing his duty'
I still wonder why europeans dislike/fear capitalism/free market that allow powerfull private companies/lobbies to put their men in political position, and 'incite' governments to go to war (did someone said Bush?).

Leftist sissies, probably, I see no other explaination...

If there will ever be a situation that Americans as a nations will have suffered so much from ongoing wars over centuries, they will be as unwilling to go to war and do other stupid things as Europeans!

[livid imp]

Originally posted by mmontgomery
On the other hand, the government could encroach on my freedom by telling me where I have to live, or go to school, or restrict my travel, or restrict what work I can do, or what I am allowed to buy, etc.

These thing have nothing to do with FM vs Planned economies. What you are describing is totalitarianism. A form of government that has 'total' control of its citizens.

Originally posted by mmontgomery
And I am not hold up the USA as a panacea of free market virtues. There are many practices in the US that encroach on market freedom, such as protectionism (tariffs and subsidies) of certain industries, or establishing government monopolies in certain areas, etc.

Tariffs good. Subsidies bad.
Keep in mind that tariffs not only add to the government treasury (meaning less income taxes), but help keep jobs in America. If you allow all the jobs to be shipped overseas, then you wont have any Americans with money to buy the goods now made overseas.

Subsidies OTOH are anti-competive by nature and are mostly pork-barrell projects to prop up businesses that should have gone out of business long ago. There are some good subsidies that help out emerging markets/technologies until they can get on there feet (such as hydrogen fuel cell technology).

Originally posted by mmontgomery
But I firmly believe in economic freedom just as I believe in personal freedom. To the extent governments embrace economic freedom, the people prosper.

Apples and oranges. No matter how many basic freedoms you give an individual, they wont change the amount of jobs created or taxes generated. Economic policy OTOH does very much affect the health of a nation. Given total economic freedom a company will do what is best for that company (which is normal and natural), but not what is best for the country. Therefor the country must enact rules to ensure it gets its fair cut of the pie. After all, without taxes to pay for the roads, the company couldn't ship its goods, and without taxes to pay for cops, you could stop criminals from stealing their goods.

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Zeiter
Never played Civ 3, so can't say that I know

You didn't miss anything. My copy sits on a self collecting dust. I dont even like SMAC's sci-fi setting over Civ's relistic one. But SMAC is just soooooooo much better a game.

[Quezacotl06]

All of you debating politics...please...just shut up. Debating on the internet is just stupid. Because you encounter people who do not reason everywhere. So just keep it to yourself, read the good books, take some good classes, and learn yourself, rather than indoctrinating others into whatever oppressive corporatist or communal despotic philosophies you may carry around with you.

[binTravkin]

All of you debating politics...please...just shut up. Debating on the internet is just stupid. Because you encounter people who do not reason everywhere. So just keep it to yourself, read the good books, take some good classes, and learn yourself, rather than indoctrinating others into whatever oppressive corporatist or communal despotic philosophies you may carry around with you.

Stupid people never shut up, because they think theyre clever!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by binTravkin
You, Sicander, are too overconfident what you have read or heard..

Most people who had been in war tend to romanticize it too much and I dislike it so much that I could one day kill such a person who tries to say that war is not hell and he has seen much more of a war than me..

How very emotional.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Well, I haven't "seen combat" as you understand it, but when I look at what this "combat" has done to my family and almost all Latvian families I know, then coompare it ti an average American family, then I must say It is obviuos why you Americans, or some of you, still think that war is not hell - you simply hadn't lost so much to war..

This is not a phenoma peculiar to Americans. In fact I would say that Americans per capita tend to have more familiarity with warfare than the average citizen of the world. As I have never said that war isn't hell, I'm not sure what your point is. You address your post to me, but you don't take issue with my points, but simply continue to flame Americans. You paint with a broad brush and squeal like a pig when someone offers a reasonable critique of your overly broad presumptions.

Originally posted by binTravkin
And if you oppose to it, I don't know what to say about your brain capabilities!

Your point here is unclear as stated.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Have you heard that any Amercian has ever seen enemy planes running overheads in his own land, had he seen tank roaming through his farm, had he seen a machinegunner kill his children or a bomb dropped over his house?

Other than the attacks on Hawaii in 1941 the U.S. hasn't seen its civilians attacked by mechanized warfare. A point which we both can agree on (and which I specifically stated in a previous post), and about which neither of us has previously made any statement to the contrary. So what is the point of reiterating this?

Originally posted by binTravkin
You just don't know true horrors of war - I remember when my grandmother told me about how it was - it was like watching the most scary movies I ever had watched, to imagine all those sights she saw, the blood, the blows, the fire..

I'm sure your grandmother had some very chilling stories about the war. I've heard them as well, from my own relatives who fought in major campaigns for years in WW2, from Russians who lived in Leningrad during the seige, or who worked in a field hospital throughout the whole Great Patriotic war, or from a Major who commanded a Soviet Infantry Battalion in that same war, from family friends who were kept in concentration camps by the Japanese, and others whose families were almost completely wiped out by the Germans. From my friends and neighbors on Okinawa who survived the battle that left 100,000 civilians killed in a 350 square mile area, and from my uncle who fought at Guadalcanal at 17 years old, Saipan, and was grievously wounded on Okinawa at 21 years of age. Three of my friends fathers were killed in Vietnam in one week in 1968. They all lived on our street. So forgive me if I'm not overwhelmed with your second hand understanding of warfare. Many millions of us worldwide have as much understanding.

Originally posted by binTravkin
Maybe your veterans know war but your civilians surely don't know!

You called me a youngster, but even an average Latvian youngster understands the simple truth that is always questionable because it has gone through the mirror of propaganda - I have 3 history encyclopaedias (don't know the right word) at home and the difference between them is that one has been published in USSR in 1974, one in Latvia in 1998 and one is from US(I ordered it electronically for my studies), rather a collection of researches in history than a real book.

There's a HUGE difference between them!

We have a subject in University which is called "Comparison of Sources" (or something like that) where we read the reports from different sources about the same event - it's the most interesting subject I think, how governments and even romantisinng historians "make" history!

Well, you should do it yourself one day - order an european history book, a book from USSR and one of your, US, historians, then open the section of WWII in all them and compare..
Just read about some minor event and compare!

You'll see what propaganda and "The Official Government Viewpoint" means!

I remember clearly the statistical table of USSR/German Losses/Troops, in fact I could even it post it here one day If I remeber to take it with me nd have time to right down..

You see,
USSR had 2900 tanks at the start of WW2, in their opinion
USSR had ~8000 tanks in German opinion (stated on Latvian history book, from post-war research in German reconnaissance and battle reports)
USSR had ~20000 tanks in US opinion

How do you think, how many tanks it really had?
And is there any real way to check it?

Do you think US opinion is the most objective?
I don't think so - I think that German opinion is the most objective as they had the chance to count, how many Russian tanks they killed..

USSR's opinion is clearly a lie!

Another one - D-Day had 2million troops involved -half US, half UK/Canada
I dont remeber from where it is, but I tend to believe in it as such a number is both quite possible and reasonable compared to results..

And where the hell then those 13.5 million were?

Do you still believe so blindly in your lone historian?

You act as though Latvians invented history and have kept its mysteries a secret until recently. In fact you are the ones who have only been able to read various sources of history in the recent past, ie since the fall of the USSR. I've been reading history since 1971. I'm very familiar with the variable reliability of source material, and I've been exposed to numerous points of view (including Soviet histories) from the beginning of my studies over 30 years ago. I have probably read more books on World War Two alone than you have read about all subjects. That's just a function of our age difference, and my interest in the subject which has waned a good deal recently as I have found other subjects of interest.

Very little of the history written in the U.S. is produced by the government, but some of that is surprisingly good. The per capita quantitative and probably qualitative champions of writing history have to be the British. I'm sure that I have read more British histories than those produced in any other country, and this isn't just a function of sharing a common language. Take a look at what is available in any language and you will see what I mean.

As for the Soviet AFV (armored fighting vehicle) statistics you mention, there are some fairly easy explanations for the variation which don't rely on conspiracy theories or assumptions of national bias. Firstly, you compare statistics from three different sources and assume that their methodology and parameters were identical. In fact they could all three be correct if these were variable. For instance the Americans could have been counting all AFVs on the front as well as those in the Caucasas and the Far East, those in reserve and used for training and those in depots and parked at the factory waiting for shipment. Many of these would not have had crews assigned, as some were obsolete models and some were in storage for reserve units which had not yet been called to duty, while others (like the T-34a) were being worked up in small numbers and stored in larger numbers in the interior.

The Soviet figures may have only counted tanks that were operational within the battle area on the first day of the war. This would certainly cut down on the numbers significantly, as tanks spend a fairly short part of their lives operational and at the front, especially Soviet tanks in 1941. I agree that one has to be careful with Soviet numbers in general, as they were very reluctant to admit how badly the Germans had hurt them in the early part of the war for security reasons as well as political / propoganda reasons.

The German figures are in some ways the most suspect, in part because the Germans seriously underestimated both the quantity and the quality of Soviet designs in the early part of the war, and because their count could only be an estimate based upon their limited view of the battle from their side of the line. They would have a limited view at best of tanks in immediate reserve and would have been almost completetely blind to tanks in strategic reserve, in depots or those being held back nearer the point of production or on other fronts such as the Far East. These figures were probably estimated based on the number of Soviet tanks encountered / destroyed by German forces in the early part of the war, and these numbers are very easily inaccurate with no attempt at bias by those trying to compute them. For instance a tank may be seen in several battles and counted numerous times, or not seen at all because it had enough speed to avoid contact / encirclement. The same tank can be destroyed several times as well, by different units which encounter the same (seemingly intact but actually previously abandoned) tank and put a round into it. (This happened as recently as last year in Iraq).

As for the troop numbers on the Western Front of WW2 (D-Day was only the initial invasion with significantly fewer troops involved). The other troops were in the air (basing from England) and on the sea (every ocean in the world), in Italy and all over the Med, in Australia, New Guinea, the Phillipines and on 100 islands throughout the Pacific, in China, Burma, India etc. You are correct that the intial ratio of forces on the Western Front was about 50/50 between the U.S. and the Commonwealth, but that ratio changed more and more in favor of the U.S. as new American units were brought to the front and as casualties bled British units dry. The Brits after 4 years of sustained combat just didn't have anyone left to plug into the line. In fact units on all sides on the Western Front were getting weaker numerically as the battle raged, but the Americans were most able to replace their losses.

Keep in mind that the American Forces in WW2 were deploying to combat thousands of miles in every single theatre with the exception of a small part of the Atlantic. Much cargo will be in transit when the supply line is a long one. In this case many forces were used to defend the supply line as well as actually carry the huge amounts of material to the front lines for both our own forces as well as out allies. We couldn't simply step on a train and ride to the front like the Germans, and our defensive commitments covered a large portion of the globe. So our (U.S.) already high ratio of support troops to combat troops (compared to the non-mechanized or barely-mechanized Germans and Soviets) was raised even higher.

As for my lone historian that you assume I blindly believe, I'm willing to stand by him until someone can offer better proof. He was a good track record, and was especially handy for me as his data were on the internet and I am at work where it is the only resource handy. You on the other hand have yet to even produce this much evidence to support your claims, whatever they may be.