... I think the best thing in Civ 2 was the WW2 map!!! I dont now how many times I have played that map and I was sad when there was no one in Civ3!!

Does Civ4 need a WW2-Map and maybe WW1 map or another war-map??

Over and Out from Denmark....

I say leave it for the senario builders.

(that is only because I don't like playing "real maps")

And welcome to CFC! :band:

(that is only because I don't like playing "real maps")


Hear hear! That just takes the fun out of exploration. They did mention a map editor for civ4, didnt they? I[m sure it won't be long until we're inundated with detailed map of every corner of the earth!

In of the previews (I'm too lazy to find out which), they said that they will have some scenarios included in the regular game. I'd say it’s pretty likely that WWII will be one of them :).

I think it has also been confirmed that Rhye is doing a mod for Civ IV already... I think it was supposed to ship with the game :).

Instead of a WWI or WWII scenarios, I'd prefer the units from those eras to emulate the roles of their real world counterparts in the grand campaign. That's all that's really needed, surely? You want to experience the strategy of how the wars were fought, not necessarily the terrain on which they were fought.

Although was a really important war I don't lie it because it is too one sided. How can Germany and Italy conquer all of Europe africa and half of asia. I'm not trying to undermind any one here and I know Japan was in the war to, but they didn't contribute troops to defending Germany. The Pacific WW2 is realistic and fair the only real opposition Japan has is America. Germany and Italy didn't have population nor military strong or numerous enough to literally conquer all of Europe. Not to mention that the Italian army wasn't filled with no Rambo and Arnold.

Germany could have won the war if Hitler hadn't decided to attack the USSR and hadn't allowed the Japanese to pull the US into the war. By "winning," I mean gaining and keeping control for many years of France, the UK, the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and maintaining vassal states in the Balkans and Spain. It's quite likely that resistance movements would have eventually toppled them, but it was overreaching with the USA and especially the USSR that sunk them.

Could have should have would have. We don't want to hear about what Hitler could have done. He was incompetent. He should have continued to slowly over take Europe then he would be smart. He should have used the "undesirables" as war pawns or modern slaves not burn them in cc, which cost germany billions of dollars in fuel and precsious gas which could have been used to crush the enemy. He should have send Nazi propoganda and Nazi youth camps to countries before he invaded them so he could already have foreigners worker for him. He should have barricaded of north Germany and focuesed on taking over resource rich countries in other parts of Europe. He should have had Spain take over the rest of France. He should have allied with a country like the USSR which was sympathetic to Hitlers plan (before he invaded them) instead of military weak Italy which he could have easily taken over himself. He should have supplied Japan with oil and other resources from austria and scandinavia so that they wouldn't have had to invade america. Hitler was a good speaker and propagandist but like mussolini he couldn't lead an army which lead to their demise. Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you. This put Germany under pressure to defend Italy a country near its own size. This stretched out German forces and allowed the allies to be succesful out VE day and D day

Civilization is about changing history. That would be the point of a WWII scenario, to see if you can alter the events that have transpired.


Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you.

Considering how Canada had the fourth largest army and third largest navy at the end of the war...

And you obviously don't realize that the British and Americans also invaded Italy along with the Canadians.

Germany could have won the war if Hitler hadn't decided to attack the USSR and hadn't allowed the Japanese to pull the US into the war. By "winning," I mean gaining and keeping control for many years of France, the UK, the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and maintaining vassal states in the Balkans and Spain. It's quite likely that resistance movements would have eventually toppled them, but it was overreaching with the USA and especially the USSR that sunk them.

Hitler could have achieved his immediate goals by simply not attacking Poland at that time. Lebensraum was a very long-term, dreamy sort of idea up until war broke out. For the immediate, Hitler was seeking to annex all territories containing signifigant numbers of Germans, and the object of attacking Poland was principally to secure the Danzig Corridor and the territories (eg Silesia) lost to Poland in the plebiscites after WW1. Given that Poland was not really neutral nor even hostile to Germany up until it was invaded - it even participated with Germany in the invasion of the Sudetenland in return for some territories there - it's not even all that inconceivable that Germany could have eventually come to some agreement regarding Silesia and the Danzig Corridor, particularly if German power and influence continued to progress uninterrupted. Hitler didn't believe Britain and France would actually declare war (particularly after Polish participation in the Sudetenland campaign!) - that was his real mistake, misjudging the West, and he was doomed from that point on.

Attacking Russia was a necessity. Stalin was reorganizing the military and industry of Russia to produce a vast war machine, and there was only one possible reason for that - he meant to bring communism to Europe. It wasn't even a secret, really. But, he was still a few years away from having it and in the process of reorganization, Russia was very very weak. Left alone, though, it would have certainly seized the opportunity to strike Germany from the rear at a most inopportune time, once some sort of Atlantic front had developed. The failure of the Luftwaffe to pacify British skies, simply made this all the more of a problem for Germany. What Russia eventually managed to field in WW2 was only a hastily assembled version of what it intended to assemble before WW2 - one can well imagine what unrestricted buildup would have produced by '44 or so. It was an attempt to nip a Leviathan in the bud, and as necessary as trying to get air superiority over Britain, but just like that campaign, ultimately beyond the power of Germany.

Originally posted by Ghafhi
Italy was worse than Japan because Japan held its ground where as Italy lost to Canada something that a grade 5 canadian will tell you.

Do you have something against Canadian people? And mind you, Canada had (and still does have) a very strong army, with excellent equipment and well-trained soldiers.

Ghahfi you have managed to offend me about 6 times with the posts on this page alone. You have the right to your opinion but use some tact and support what you are saying with some facts if you want people to agree with you.

That'd be pretty good advice, HD, but Ghafhi's pretty well insulated in his beliefs. He won't allow the facts to get in the way, and couldn't really care less about other cultures (or how people feel about them).

Could have should have would have. We don't want to hear about what Hitler could have done. He was incompetent.

I'm actually of the opinion that, at least at first, Hitler did the best possible military manoever: he surrounded himself with brilliant military minds, laid out some clear objectives and kept his nose out of it. Later on in the war, when he started believing his own 'hype', he made the fatal flaw of trying to be something he wasn't: a military strategiest and commander

He should have used the "undesirables" as war pawns or modern slaves not burn them in cc, which cost germany billions of dollars in fuel and precsious gas which could have been used to crush the enemy.

Gee, is energy efficiency really the only reason the holocaust was a mistake?

He should have send Nazi propoganda and Nazi youth camps to countries before he invaded them so he could already have foreigners worker for him.

Why bother? He had fellow fascists and countless collaborators in every country he invaded. Lots of foreigners went to work for him.

He should have barricaded of north Germany and focuesed on taking over resource rich countries in other parts of Europe.

In what other part of Europe? He had footholds in eastearn Europe, Scandanavia, France, the netherlands, sympathetic regimes in Italy, Spain and Switzerland, and was doing his best to defeat Britain ...what was he missing exactly?

He should have had Spain take over the rest of France.

Which part? The part he annexed or the part that he had a puppet regime in?

He should have allied with a country like the USSR which was sympathetic to Hitlers plan (before he invaded them) instead of military weak Italy which he could have easily taken over himself.

The whole point of his war was to punish france, then take on Russia to exapnd germany's borders. Even the non-agression pact was
a risky, yet necessary, compromise.

He should have supplied Japan with oil and other resources from austria and scandinavia so that they wouldn't have had to invade america.

I believe he did. And I always thought that the attack on Pearl Harbour was more to assure Naval dominace of Japan in the Pacific, should america decide to join the war. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there were any plans to invade the american mainland!

Back on topic, I look very much forward to playing a civ4 WWII scenario

I'm actually of the opinion that, at least at first, Hitler did the best possible military manoever: he surrounded himself with brilliant military minds, laid out some clear objectives and kept his nose out of it. Later on in the war, when he started believing his own 'hype', he made the fatal flaw of trying to be something he wasn't: a military strategiest and commander

That's pretty much it. Hitler had access to people good at their jobs. He just didn't let them do their jobs. The major disasters on the eastern front are the results of his interference, along with certain advanced weapons that could have prolonged the war or possibly forced a stalemate with Germany as the defacto ruler of the European continent (I'm thinking of the Me262 jet fighter and the Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle here -- both could have been out a year earlier and had a serious impact on the Airwar and Eastern Front respectively).

Gee, is energy efficiency really the only reason the holocaust was a mistake?

:lol:

Ghafhi's alway's shown some difficulty sympathising with the plight of other people, precisely because they are OTHER people.

Why bother? He had fellow fascists and countless collaborators in every country he invaded. Lots of foreigners went to work for him.

Quite true.

In what other part of Europe? He had footholds in eastearn Europe, Scandanavia, France, the netherlands, sympathetic regimes in Italy, Spain and Switzerland, and was doing his best to defeat Britain ...what was he missing exactly?

The only areas of Europe Hitler's Germany did not have military access to were Portugal (on the other side of Spain), Spain (fascist, friendly, but neutral), Switzerland (neutral, and kept so for international reasons), Sweden (fascist friendly and defacto occupied being surrounded by German forces), and Turkey (hard to invade through mountains, would have triggered a war with the USSR anyway).

Which part? The part he annexed or the part that he had a puppet regime in?

Another excellent point, and this is ignoring the political reality that Spain and Germany had reached a political impasse to get Franco to sign on with the Axis. Germany very much wanted Spain in the war, but mainly so they could grab Gibraltar and close the Med off from the UK.

The whole point of his war was to punish france, then take on Russia to exapnd germany's borders. Even the non-agression pact was a risky, yet necessary, compromise.

Very true, and this is also avoiding the fact that both the USSR and Germany were political enemies at the time. Neither nation could trust the other, up to the treaty that divided Poland, both Russia and Germany repeatedly verbally attacked each other on the world stage. The M-R Pact was mainly one of convenience to designate "spheres of influence" -- Germany in Europe, Russia with Finland, the Baltics, and Turkey. Both nations knew war was inevitable. Stalin just thought Hitler would wait until after he'd knocked England out.

I believe he did. And I always thought that the attack on Pearl Harbour was more to assure Naval dominace of Japan in the Pacific, should america decide to join the war. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) there were any plans to invade the american mainland!

Germany also supplied blueprints for weapons types. The Japanese Ki-45 (I believe that's the right designation) is loosely based off of a set for the Bf-109, minor the better German engine. Japan was later given designs for the Me262 (the Kikka), and the Me163, though neither entered the war. Neither Japan nor Germany had plans for an invasion of the USA, though it's plausible they would have drafted such plans had the war gone so well in their favor. Germany had developed an "Amerika Bomber" that had the range for a one way trip to New York. Only useful if their Heavy Water plants had bore some success in developing nuclear weapons, and by the time it was ready for production, Germany's air industry was mainly devoted to interceptors to combat the combined British and American strategic bombing command. The two operational bombers built were instead designated as emergency transports to fly Hitler to Japan if the need should arise. They were destroyed on their airfield by American P-51s, I beleive. Beyond that, their most successful efforts at attacking the US came from the early days of the Battle of the Atlantic, where German submarines had nearly crippled American and British shipping up and down the Eastern Seaboard.

Japan did successfully bomb the US through a weird weapon -- high flying balloons. Japan launched some into the jet stream from the home islands, allowing them to come down in the American Northwest. Had these been more accurate, and loaded with the superbugs Japan was developing in Manchuria, they would have been far, far more effective. In addition to that, Japan had successfully developed a submarine capable of launching a limited number of aircraft. They had intended to use this submarine to launch an attack on the Panama canal, but by the time it was ready, the situation was too desperate -- US forces had already knocked out the bulk of the Japanese navy and US bombers were firebombing Tokyo.

Back on topic, I look very much forward to playing a civ4 WWII scenario

I'd like that as well as long as the units worked right.

@doronron

THanks for the extra info.I consider myself an amateur history buff (at least 20th century history), but doing a degree in science always makes sure I can't cram too many historical facts in my brain.

By the by, have you ever heard the song "Me262" by the Blue Oyster Cult? Quite possibly the best (if not only! :lol: ) WWII rock song ever composed. Definitely worth the download!

I think it would be great if those wars were included as scenarios with the game. I too really enjoyed the WW2 scenario in Civ II. It doesn't really matter if Hitler could have won the war in real life (and I think he might have, had he not attacked the USSR and gone for the Caspian oil fields he needed, instead going through Turkey to the Middle East, but of course such hypothetical questions will never be answered). All that matters is that it isn't impossible in the game. But even if the scenarios aren't included, it's no big deal, since users will make them eventually anyway.

ghafi, ghafi, ghafi..PLEASE get your facts straight from now on...you were close to right..but at the same time way off. Japan and germany did co-operate...quite abit actually...even the zero was a german designed aircraft. if hitler would have held of his operation barbarosa,(dont start a land war in asia) we might have our european conterparts speaking german

@doronron

THanks for the extra info.I consider myself an amateur history buff (at least 20th century history), but doing a degree in science always makes sure I can't cram too many historical facts in my brain.

By the by, have you ever heard the song "Me262" by the Blue Oyster Cult? Quite possibly the best (if not only! :lol: ) WWII rock song ever composed. Definitely worth the download!

Glad to help, Che. I'll have to go find that song. I haven't heard of it before. Thanks. :lol:

ghafi, ghafi, ghafi..PLEASE get your facts straight from now on...you were close to right..but at the same time way off. Japan and germany did co-operate...quite abit actually...even the zero was a german designed aircraft. if hitler would have held of his operation barbarosa,(dont start a land war in asia) we might have our european conterparts speaking german

Or else they might be speaking russian, as it was noted both Stalin and Hitler were panning to take over Europe. If Germany had stayed tied down in war with England alone, then the Soviets would have attacked at some unfortunate time.

The real problem was in the Axis attacking Both the Soviets and the US within 6 months of each other. They probably could have handled either one, but both was just too many. (because they both had hard to reach industrial production).

that is very true..but it would not have attacked untill much of europe was under the German yoke.. and even then i dont know how sucsesfull they would have been..if the germans were allowed to settle in and rebuiled, and without england in the picture(along with any hope of a US base of operations)well it may have taken more then the already stagering 13 million russians to turn the tide. and yes attacking the americans and russians soo close was idiotic imo. the 2 nations whos industrial capicity was nearly untouchable...

Well, even in the real timeline, it was a very near thing. Russia had the Germans on the run before the West had gone up the Boot and landed in Normandy. It was a race for Berlin, and the Soviets still took the time to mop up the Balkans before pushing into Germany proper.

I wonder how things could have changed if the West hadn't held back in the end and allowed the Red Army to take Berlin.

im saying had things gone a little different...like not attacking russia. i think then the germans would have had the upper hand if russia decided to move in.. they would have been better off further persuing operation sea lion then operation barbarossa...even if lost would not have cost them near as much i do not think

im saying had things gone a little different...like not attacking russia. i think then the germans would have had the upper hand if russia decided to move in.. they would have been better off further persuing operation sea lion then operation barbarossa...even if lost would not have cost them near as much i do not think

Not sure if Defense would've worked.

On the upside, controlling the British Isles would have knocked out the British bombing campaign and pushed the US bombing campaign far enough back to allow for a plane that could cross the Atlantic.

Downside? Additional forces needed in France and England to suppress partisans.

Operation Barbarossa knocked out a large portion of the Red Army. Both men and material were lost in the opening months. In fact, the only thing that slowed the German Army of 1941 down wasn't Russian military might, but rather the weather.

However...had Russia been the one to make the first move, I'm sure Hitler's order for the Wehrmacht to stand its ground would have been rather swift. The German army at that time was at its best when it was on the move, always attacking. Put it in a defensive position, and you take away its strongest doctrinal assets. It becomes, at best, just another European army, and not the nearly invincible force it made itself out to be in the opening campaigns.

In the original timeline, the only time German forces took a real pounding by the Reds was when they were tied down to a particular location and not allowed to manuver. A defensive campaign to protect German soil from the Russians would certainly have tied them down.

I'm not saying Hitler wasn't involved in Japan at all but most japs will tell you Japan invaded America because they where desperate for resources like metals and oil. The Japs would have to had been retarded to invade a country way bigger than them unless they had no choice to. Maybe I am not 100% correct but my understanding is that Japan attacked the US because The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to the Japanese. Esssentially screwing over Japan, and with Japans so called allies not exaclty giving these to them they had no choice but to make a crazy desperate move like bombing pearl harbour

Do you have something against Canadian people? And mind you, Canada had (and still does have) a very strong army, with excellent equipment and well-trained soldiers.

LOL Canada had the fourth biggest army after WWII because of conscripts and because all other army were destroyed. And no we don't have a powerfull army right now... just look at the used diesel subs we bought from Engalnd...they are leaking (a lot), and our awsome infantry that party and puke and eat sh1t after that (litteraly!), and our 1970 jets and the nice modern fregate we bought couple years ago that cant be fully fonctional without a chopper(but no chopper) ... Yes indeed we have a very powerful army ;)

LOL Canada had the fourth biggest army after WWII because of conscripts and because all other army were destroyed.

Considering how everyone else's armies consisting of conscripts. :rolleyes:

And with the population base that Canada had compared to the US, Britain, and USSR, fourth largest is quite impressive.

...but most japs will tell ... [t]he Japs would have to had been retarded to invade... (bolds added)

Maybe this isn't my job, but I find language like this in a public forum to be veryoffensive. Please keep the dialogue out of the gutter, thanks.

Originally posted by Ghafhi
I'm not saying Hitler wasn't involved in Japan at all but most japs will tell you Japan invaded America because they where desperate for resources like metals and oil. The Japs would have to had been retarded to invade a country way bigger than them unless they had no choice to.

The United Kingdom has an area of 94,248 square miles. Iraq has an area of 167,975 square miles (my source: Webster's International Atlas, 2003 Edition). In 2002, when the US-led coalition invaded Iraq, the UK participated. And the same in the 1991 Gulf War. So, would you call the English "retarded" becuase they invaded a larger country?

Greece. c. 350 B.C. Alexander invades the Persian Empire with 40,000 men. AND BEATS THE HECK OUT OF PERSIA. Would you call the Greeks "retared?"

Germany in 1940 had an area around 170,000 square miles (perhaps less). France had an area slightly less than 210,000 square miles. And what happened in 1940? Fall Gelb -- the invasion of France. And look what Germany did to France in one month! Would you call the Germans "retarded?"

England (mainland) in 1944 was as big then as it was now. Germany controlled over 50% of Europe, be it directly or via puppet/satalliete states. And what happened in 1944? D-DAY!! British forces invaded France, then the low countries, and then Germany itself. Would you call the English "retarded" because they invaded a small country?

In each of these examples, the smaller country invaded a larger one, and won.

Enough said.

Maybe I am not 100% correct but my understanding is that Japan attacked the US because The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to the Japanese. Esssentially screwing over Japan, and with Japans so called allies not exaclty giving these to them they had no choice but to make a crazy desperate move like bombing pearl harbour

You are only partly correct. Yes, the embargos were used against Japan as a measure to peacefully coherce (sp?) the Japanese to withdraw from China. Now, unless you were rooting for Japan, they weren't screwed-over. They were using the materials sent by the UK, US, Dutch, etc. to not only prepare for a war with the United States, but also in their war with China. So, basically, you've just told me that you support the slaughter that Japan did in China.

At what time were the US and UK allied with Japan? They didn't even join the Axis until 1940, and before then, there only ally was a puppet state (called Manchuko) in Manchuria. In fact, the US/UK were more or less opponents of the Japanese. There were never peaceful relations between the three since the end of the first world war.

Ghafhi, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE POST YOUR SOURCES!!!!

The United Kingdom has an area of 94,248 square miles. Iraq has an area of 167,975 square miles (my source: Webster's International Atlas, 2003 Edition). In 2002, when the US-led coalition invaded Iraq, the UK participated. And the same in the 1991 Gulf War. So, would you call the English "retarded" becuase they invaded a larger country?

Greece. c. 350 B.C. Alexander invades the Persian Empire with 40,000 men. AND BEATS THE HECK OUT OF PERSIA. Would you call the Greeks "retared?"

Germany in 1940 had an area around 170,000 square miles (perhaps less). France had an area slightly less than 210,000 square miles. And what happened in 1940? Fall Gelb -- the invasion of France. And look what Germany did to France in one month! Would you call the Germans "retarded?"

England (mainland) in 1944 was as big then as it was now. Germany controlled over 50% of Europe, be it directly or via puppet/satalliete states. And what happened in 1944? D-DAY!! British forces invaded France, then the low countries, and then Germany itself. Would you call the English "retarded" because they invaded a small country?

In each of these examples, the smaller country invaded a larger one, and won.


To be honest I find this extremely ignorant. I really don't think that Ghafhi ment it like that. And for the most part is he right about Japan they would have to be "retarted" to attack America at that point inless it was imperative. We were a much larger country in term of their resources. We were larger in every sense of the word and in all catagories. And as for that extremely informative piece that I quoted, I mean come on say America invaded Canada and won in hours would we be "retarted"? My point is that instead of jumping on a someone just to "showoff" and pretened to know what you are talking about you should try to read ("top to bottom,left to right, you group words together in a sentece...") and then make a post to add to the conversation not take away from it.

The Japanes never intended to invade the US in 1941. Pearl Harbor was a pre-emptive strike designed to eliminate US offensive naval capability in the Pacific. If the US cannot strike them, they can focu exclusively on China. In terms of naval capacity, the Japanese were the same if not better in the Pacific. It was not until Midway that the naval war put the US at an advantage. The timing may have been poor, but a pre-emptive strike on Pearl Harbor is a good move.

__________________________________________________ ______________

The only way Hitler achieves his goals is successful completion of Sea Lion. This restricts allied operations to North Africa. Barbarossa was a good idea, but Hitler ultimately fails if England is open. Also I stopped Army group North way short of where Hitler went.

__________________________________________________ _____________

It is possible to play through these historical what-ifs of WWII. There is an excellent game called Hearts of Iron (http://www.heartsofiron-game.com/). Try it out and play some of your alternate paths to victory.

Can we get on topic? So far this has little to do with suggesting things for Civ4...
Also, Ghafhi, check your PM.

There was one historian that wrote about the real miracle that the nazi's
pulled off was lasting as long as they did. Germany could have beaten the U.S if it did not try to fight Russia at the same time? Laughable assertion as the U.S. was miles ahead of the germans in nuclear technology. Germany was lucky D Day worked or they would have been so much atomic dust.
A preemptive strike on pearl harbor was a good move? Again- a strange assertion since it resulted in japan getting pulverized in short order-from what i can see they only destroyed outdated (tactically) battleships and left the whole future of naval warefare-(subs and carriers) untouched. i would suggest a smarter move would have been to withdraw from China and sue for peace with Britain and Australia and updating their pathetic equipment. :crazyeye:
(except for those carrier subs they built- very cool idea- )
Damn, just read moderator's post....on topic-
Conquests ww2 in the pacific was a good mod- that and rise of rome i liked the best- although they both suffered in the area of repeatable play. More ww2 mods would be welcome for variety.

I would continue this discussion, but will honor Civrules request.

__________________________________________________ ___

A WWI and WWII scenario would be good ideas since they make good features to advertise on the box. Works for all generations and even creates nostalgia for Civ 2 fans that loved that scenario.

^^^^How? :) Anyway I would really like for some more original wars in Civ4, I want to play as Alexander and Play as American during the Revolution. I just want some more fun things then the same old WWII which has been so beaten into the ground in the last few years.

The United Kingdom has an area of 94,248 square miles. Iraq has an area of 167,975 square miles (my source: Webster's International Atlas, 2003 Edition). In 2002, when the US-led coalition invaded Iraq, the UK participated. And the same in the 1991 Gulf War. So, would you call the English "retarded" becuase they invaded a larger country?

Greece. c. 350 B.C. Alexander invades the Persian Empire with 40,000 men. AND BEATS THE HECK OUT OF PERSIA. Would you call the Greeks "retared?"

Germany in 1940 had an area around 170,000 square miles (perhaps less). France had an area slightly less than 210,000 square miles. And what happened in 1940? Fall Gelb -- the invasion of France. And look what Germany did to France in one month! Would you call the Germans "retarded?"

England (mainland) in 1944 was as big then as it was now. Germany controlled over 50% of Europe, be it directly or via puppet/satalliete states. And what happened in 1944? D-DAY!! British forces invaded France, then the low countries, and then Germany itself. Would you call the English "retarded" because they invaded a small country?

In each of these examples, the smaller country invaded a larger one, and won.

Enough said.



You are only partly correct. Yes, the embargos were used against Japan as a measure to peacefully coherce (sp?) the Japanese to withdraw from China. Now, unless you were rooting for Japan, they weren't screwed-over. They were using the materials sent by the UK, US, Dutch, etc. to not only prepare for a war with the United States, but also in their war with China. So, basically, you've just told me that you support the slaughter that Japan did in China.

At what time were the US and UK allied with Japan? They didn't even join the Axis until 1940, and before then, there only ally was a puppet state (called Manchuko) in Manchuria. In fact, the US/UK were more or less opponents of the Japanese. There were never peaceful relations between the three since the end of the first world war.

Ghafhi, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: PLEASE POST YOUR SOURCES!!!!
Wikipedia ww2 japs.
Now your are just splitting hairs. How you interpret what I said about Japan invading America based on size proves your ignorance towards the issue. If you knew much about ww2 you would know I was refering to industrial size. Although Iraq is much larger than England, England has bigger industrial lands than Iraq. Not to mention Iraqs backwards military capabilities. The reason why I can use size to accurately compare the japs and yanks is because they are roughly of same technology and industrous per capita as well as population. I know America is alot bigger now but that hasn't always been the case. What you said about England and Iraq was idiotic. What made you think I was refering to land size? I could have been talking about population in which Britain outnumbers Iraq 3 to 1. Not to mention that Britain has always been the minority when invading Iraq. In ancient times land size was not so relevant. You had people with large populations and weak armies-egyptian- and small populations and good armies. Germany had been building up there army for more than 10 years before the invasion of france. The Canadians toppled Italy where AMERICA and mostly other Western countries and Russia beat Germany. Lets face it without America and Russia most Europeans would be dead or saying hail hitler2. If Britain is as strong as you claim it to be then why did they need america and russia as allies?

germany never would have gotten the nuke but i dont think ill go into why the japanese (not japs) were guinea pigs for us brass (the generals of the army)
Russia and America would have gotten in the war no matter what, Russia wanted more land and the spread of communism and America had invested to much money, time, and amunition into the Allies to back out, even if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor and yes they did it to knock out USA's naval power but the 2 carriers that were curcial to the American fleet weren't in Pearl Harbor during the bombing hence America wasn't hurt to badly even though they lost the USS Arizon and 5 other battle ships were heavily damage (and airplances) everyone in the war played a key role, Canada included and it isn't about quantity, it is about quality the Americans (when they joined the war) sent almost 5 tanks to every 1 tank germany had and STILL the geman panzers (panzers 4 and 5 mostly and 3) whiped them out
when Russia attacked germany did hold them back and pushed them back all the way to Stalingrad (spelt right i hope) before they got traped and killed in the city even with their superior numbers they did not have the quality the gemans had
like Britan, German was an industrial power house once they built up their army not a lot could stop them. France's Maginot Line was strong and near unbeatable but the never guess germany would drive through Belgium and flank them so in effect it was not the germans who were "" it was the french and later on Hitler
mistakes are made in war why bother biting off heads about it

Ghafhi and Kentharu, didn't I say to get back on topic just a few posts before?
And Ghafhi, I am very surprised you decided to ignore this, even with the sent PM. 3 day ban.