So which nation has been luckiest? Meaning just out of pure dumb luck they do the right thing, or are saved by the darndest things? My vote? Russia. Both times they were faced by massive invasions (read: Napolean and Hitler), unusually cold winters strike. Not to mention the fact that Russia's freakin huge. The supply-lines are almost unmanagable!:eek:

New Zealand. They can do whatever they want, and nobody cares. ;)

Russia has a good claim to fame, but I'd go with England/Britain, we must have had a hell of a lot of luck to start in a tiny island (which in itself is lucky I guess) and end up owning all that land :) It can't ALL have been talent :D

So which nation has been luckiest? Meaning just out of pure dumb luck they do the right thing, or are saved by the darndest things? My vote? Russia. Both times they were faced by massive invasions (read: Napolean and Hitler), unusually cold winters strike. Not to mention the fact that Russia's freakin huge. The supply-lines are almost unmanagable!:eek:

add sweden ( charles XIII, 1709 ) to the napoleon & hitler list

Rome. Without luck, it would not have gotten anywhere. By all means, it should have been destroyed multiple times in its history.

America. A continent full of free, unclaimed, unused (for farming or settlements) land and unexploited natural resources in front of it with no effective (the Native Americans were not very organized or purposely dedicated to resisting the US and lacked the numbers to do so) opposition to deter it from expanding and a sea behind it to protect it from Europe in its infancy.

Britain definetly, without a doubt the luckiest nation. I'd say Russia is the most unlucky nation ever.

america because i was born there

Conch Island (aka Key West). It declared independence from the USA and by a technicality its independence was won.

The USA. Vast and fertile land. No threatening nations nearby. No bloody wars, excluding the American Civil War of course. Superb access to both Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Excellent but extremely diverse Climate. 140 years of stability. No foreign invasions on American or Canadian soil since the 1812 war and even then they were minor and relativly bloodless compared to those of less fortunate nations.

IMO both Australia and New Zealand are amongst the few countries which actually can claim to be amongst the luckiest. Good land, good climate, good resources, good relaxed culture, no real threats in any direction. Stability for 100% of their history, and no civil wars.

America, what other nation can gain independence from the superpower of its time, and then in less than 200 years become the only superpower.

The USA. Vast and fertile land. No threatening nations nearby. No bloody wars, excluding the American Civil War of course. Superb access to both Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Excellent but extremely diverse Climate. 140 years of stability. No foreign invasions on American or Canadian soil since the 1812 war and even then they were minor and relativly bloodless compared to those of less fortunate nations.

poncho villa invaded in early 1900s

Finland for surviving world war 2 and managed to stay neutral in the cold war, without ending up like Estonia is now.

Ireland. Ever heard about the luck of the Irish?

Seriously... where did the idea of "luck of the Irish" come from? They have one of the most depressing histories of any nation.

I don't think america is the luckiest. Exept form the indians and the luissiana purchase everything else was just skills.

Ireland. Ever heard about the luck of the Irish?

Seriously... where did the idea of "luck of the Irish" come from? They have one of the most depressing histories of any nation.

I think it was suppose to be sarcastic.

poncho villa invaded in early 1900s

Well, he raided the small town of Columbus, New Mexico. If you want to call that an invasion wrather than a raid. If you want to get technical the last invasion took place in 1863 when the CSA invaded Pennsylvania.

Speaking of today, 2004, being nominated for the best quality of life on Earth, I would say Norway, in terms of GDP per capita and relative political influence per capita.

I too would say Britain – and the main piece of luck was having that 22 miles of English Channel separating us from Europe. It has saved our neck on many an occasion…

I'd like to agree with Provolution, but I think that the USA has a longer history of being lucky. Other candidates must be the UK because of the canal, and for fighting back the Luftwaffe under WWII.

As I read the original question, it's about dumb luck as in apparently miraculous events, not so much who has the best location or such...

Russia was admittedly lucky with those cold winters, but still, cold winters are the rule, not the exception there, so I don't find those so miraculous.

I wonder that no one has mentioned Japan though - surely being saved from overwhelming Mongol fleets by a timely hurricane not once but TWICE has to be the dumbest luck of all time...

Russia has a good claim to fame, but I'd go with England/Britain, we must have had a hell of a lot of luck to start in a tiny island (which in itself is lucky I guess) and end up owning all that land :) It can't ALL have been talent :D


Yeah, yeah. We are still sulking over our lost "Invincible" Armada -sigh-. Now, you were sooooo lucky back then. British have had a fair deal of luck. :lol:

Also being almost cousins, if not brothers, of Americans helps out a lot.

My vote goes to Switzerland. They were the poorest country back in Europe at the end of XIX century and after implementing dodgy banking laws look at them ! and nobody bothers them much, because everyone has money there stashed away. No one invades them or declares them wars being in the heart of Europe ! Is that lucky or what ?

The armarda victory was just as much skill as luck :smug:

I think the gale winds, and the awful bad weather took a heavy toll to our larger and less manouevrable war galleons. :p

1588 , arggggggh !!

It was British skill though that drove you into that situation though, so the luck of the winds is irrelevant :smug:

The British skilfully sent small ships on fire to the netherland port were our warships were harbouring; copying BTW a Spanish strategy we had previously and most sucesfully used against you lads :D . We easily evaded the ships on fire, albeit on the process we scaterred our fleet. Due to the fog we were unable to regroup.

The English took advantage attacking and sinking our ships one by one like a pack of sea wolfs. If faced against our whole Armada properly deployed you wouldn't have standed a chance.

As it was, you took full and intelligent advantage of the foul weather to hunt down one by one our scatered fleet.

Without the stroke of luck of the bad weather, you were no match to an Empire who at the time comprehended a hundred million people versus your measly three million and a half fledgling English Empire. So be it, luck was on your side that whole week, and your sailors were skillful under a good commander to finish off what the bad weather had started earlier on.

But now we have the Eurotunnel ! muahahahahaha ! :devil2:

The English took advantage attacking and sinking our ships one by one like a pack of sea wolfs. If faced against our whola armada properly deployed you wouldn't have standed a chance.

Uhmm, actually, the English fought at least two running battles against the Amarda prior to this at longer ranges and survived both :) The damage done was negligible, however sinking ships wasn't the main British intention, but rather to prevent the embarkation of the army, and scattering the fleet, both of which were done later :)

The whole tactics of the english fleet was precisely not to engage the Armarda to the Armarda's advantage as that was suicide, but to prevent an invasion. The English showed great skill in doing this and the tactics in breaking up the enemy fleet were also very sucessful, and not mostly down to luck. The fog played it's part, but nonetheless, the Spanish did regroup before leaving the Gravelines area to some extent and were faced with the choice of either going back through the channel (via the english fleet, would have been difficult but not impossible to do) or round the coast which of course they did.

Portraying the Armarda as an example of pure luck is just silly ;) It's not like the English navy was inferior in quality after all, just look at the last stand of the revenge :mischief: Luck may have played some part, but without the skills and tactics of the English fleet, the luck would never have taken any part in the events.

No, no. The Armada incident wasn't just sheer luck, of course. The English had plenty of skill at scattering our Invasion fleet. No doubt. I was just highlighting the fact that they took full advantage of unfavourable weather conditions to our much larger warships which were less manouverable than yours at the time.

The English fleet was inferior in quality, not in skillmanship, only in equipment. Yours sailors were and have always been some of the best. but your warships at the time were inferior to ours. It's like comparing panzers to T-34's (them russian tanks in WWII).

The English, as i've pointed out before, very admiringly defeated (i.e. stopped dead our invasion) a much larger and powerful foe. As you say, the keypoint wasn't engaging our fleet head on but rather to prevent the landfall of our assault troops, all veterans from Italy's campaigns. Oh well... :cry:

The English fleet was inferior in quality, not in skillmanship, only in equipment. Yours sailors were and have always been some of the best. but your warships at the time were inferior to ours. It's like comparing panzers to T-34's (them russian tanks in WWII).

Kind of depends on what you're looking for really, the English had built theirs to be fast, manouverable and easy to fight with in the heat of battle. The Spanish kind of ascribed to the principle of "bigger the better" which produced ships that were rather slower and harder to manouvere, especially when in a kind of convoy like the Armarda found itself in. During the second running battle, more damage was done by ships running into eachother than English cannonfire :lol: Both have their merits I guess, the English fleet though was perfectly suited to the fighting in 1588, had it been using Spanish style ships, the result may have been different :)

There's no doubt that despite all Elizabeth's words, had the Spanish army embarked from Holland and reached England, that the world would be much different today. That is why the English chose to fight the way they did. Put simply, the english wouldn't have been that worried if none of your ships were sunk, just so long as the army never left Holland :D

Yes, no doubt. You wouldn't have colonised North America. There would be no USA, which means no Sid Meier, which means no Civilization, yeeeeeeeeargh !! ;)

Yes, no doubt. You wouldn't have colonised North America. There would be no USA, which means no Sid Meier, which means no Civilization, yeeeeeeeeargh !! ;)

Omigod! So we have Sir Francis Drake to thank for Civilization? :eek:

*Lights candles to his memory*

:lol: :lol:

Or perhaps Sid would have been French and the game would have a proper spelling "Civilisation"

Or perhaps Sid would have been French and the game would have a proper spelling "Civilisation"

Yeah... and you could ONLY win by culture... :D

Now THIS is what I would call "thread jacking" har har :lol:

And this time, no-one can blame me :D

To be fair, 22 miles of channel needs protecting in order for it to protect.

Incoming: Roman Invasion, Saxon Collonists, Norman Conquest
Outgoing: Hundreds Year War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2

France was the luckiest nation ever.

Reason: It has been conquered numerous times, and is always given back it's sovereignty. Has any other nations had so many second chances?

France was the luckiest nation ever.

Reason: It has been conquered numerous times, and is always given back it's sovereignty. Has any other nations had so many second chances?

Doesn't say much for her ability to fight wars though :mischief: ;)

We don't have that much trouble to fight wars. It's a bit different when it comes to win them.

However, it's true France was lucky, but I think the most lucky part was for the kings of France, who managed to unify the country, and "beat" their vassals one by one, when almost every vassal was more powerfull than the kings..

We don't have that much trouble to fight wars. It's a bit different when it comes to win them.

Well that's ok then :lol:

add sweden ( charles XIII, 1709 ) to the napoleon & hitler list(re: Russia]
By alla means add Sweden! Still around after being neighbours to the Russians for centuries (like Finland, the Baltic states, Poland...) That took a bit of luck. :D

As for the Swedish invasion that ended in the defeat at Pultava in 1709... Well, it would never have happened if the Russians hadn't decided to got o war in the first place.
The war started in 1700 because Russia, Poland and Denmark decided it was time to carve up Sweden. (Denmark and Poland had a secret pact of aggression against Sweden since 1698, and Russia entered into in in 1699.) Charles the XII was 19 years old at the time, an absolute monarch and completely inexperienced, so things were looking good for the coalition. It was a defensive war for the Swedes, but with offense being the best defense... ;)

How about Korea?
A country that has never won a war in recorded history, and plenty have been fought over it and in it, but it is still around. (Be it in two pieces.) From what I understand the Koreans tend to celebrate miltary defeats where they fought excpetionally well. :mischief:

From what I understand the Koreans tend to celebrate miltary defeats where they fought excpetionally well.

Hmmm, perhaps we Brits and the Koreans would get on well then :goodjob:

China damn them

I'd say Australia, for lots of reasons. For example, the VAST amount of Iron discovered by pure accident.

Switzerland...of course...

America, what other nation can gain independence from the superpower of its time, and then in less than 200 years become the only superpower.

Give us Finns 100 years more. ;) :D

Yeah... and you could ONLY win by culture... :D


ROFL :lol: :lol: :lol:

I too would say Britain – and the main piece of luck was having that 22 miles of English Channel separating us from Europe. It has saved our neck on many an occasion…

Well It did not help against the Danes (Vikings) ;)

All in all I think every nation is lucky, that we have a planet like Earth.
The one spot (that we know of) that life can be...

The Vikings didn't have to cross the channel to invade England :p

The Vikings didn't have to cross the channel to invade England :p
But they may have given the poor anglo-saxons (king Ethelred the Unready et al.) the idea that a powerful navy might come in handy.;)

Just a shame we didn't use it a little more often in 1066 :mischief:

China damn them
Uh, no... we're not lucky at all. Do you call having ferocious nomads as your northern neighbors for all eternity "lucky"?

Historically, the only blessing China had is her natural borders (frozen wasteland to the north, the sea to the east and southeast, jungles to the south, mountains to the southwest, and desert to the west). And the fact that she had everything she needed within her own borders. This made her arrogant and complacent, however. Thus missing out on exploration, industrialization and colonization. So it's actually both a blessing and a curse. :(

Uh, no... we're not lucky at all. Do you call having ferocious nomads as your northern neighbors for all eternity "lucky"?

Historically, the only blessing China had is her natural borders (frozen wasteland to the north, the sea to the east and southeast, jungles to the south, mountains to the southwest, and desert to the west). And the fact that she had everything she needed within her own borders. This made her arrogant and complacent, however. Thus missing out on exploration, industrialization and colonization. So it's actually both a blessing and a curse. :(


Well recently China has been pretty lucky.

Well recently China has been pretty lucky.
How so? :confused:

Well in a matter of years it went from beng backward and third world to an economic tiger.

Well in a matter of years it went from beng backward and third world to an economic tiger.
Luck had nothing to do with that! People worked hard for it. Policy-makers, diplomats, businessmen, marketing people, technicians, construction workers... :)

We're not out on the clear yet. Somebody screw up and the economy can still be devastated. Now is not the time for us to rest on laurels, or lower our vigilance.

And India isn't doing that bad either. We envy your IT industry, you know?

I too would say Britain – and the main piece of luck was having that 22 miles of English Channel separating us from Europe. It has saved our neck on many an occasion…

Wouldn't it make more sense to say England?

There's no 22 mile channel separating Wales or Scotland from England...

I'm going to say something nobody else has said: Luxembourg.

Get out an atlas some time that has the stats for it. You know where it is, right? Very difficult to see, but it's inbetween France, Belgium, and Germany. Of course it was captured a lot and all that, but look at it. It's under 1000 square miles in size and is completely landlocked. However, when it comes to GNP per capita, it's the richest in Europe according to my atlas. Very little unemployment, and 6 million pigs (and 5 million cows) are raised there each year. The average person there lives a year and a half longer than the average person in the USA, and one tenth of a year longer than the average British person. There's over 400,000 people there. It gained independence from the Holy Roman Empire and became one of the many tiny independent states in the Middle Ages. The others aren't here today, but Luxembourg is. It was also one of the founding nations in NATO. These may seem like small achievements, but it's under 1000 square miles in size (998 to be exact.) Skill? Of course not. Even with infinite amounts of skill, it's too hard to make a nation that small influencial, yet in my mind it's not doing badly. Only luck could be responsible for this.
EDIT: They even have what appears to be their own language, Letzeburgish.

Wouldn't it make more sense to say England?

There's no 22 mile channel separating Wales or Scotland from England...


I suppose you’re right. Napoleon, Hitler etc. would not have been interested in Wales and Scotland. Makes sense. :mischief:

In my POV, 4 countries are candidates for this title:
They are, in no particular order:

1. United States of America - since/after the War of 1812, it has never been invaded again. Not to mention that it wiped away the Native American tribes and forced them to move to less-than-optimal lands and conditions and reservations. Been on the rise since, and after WW1, the USA was perhaps the only one - or at least one of the very very few - country involved that got out of it not only intact but for the most part, even stronger than before, even though it went back into isolationism. Today it remains a major power.

2. Russia - because of its vast expanse of territory. I mean let's face it: how many other countries have been able to win wars or at least weaken/beat back foreign invasions by using a strategy of retreat? Then again, today the dituation is disastrous because of the Chechen crisis and internal corruption, not-so-good economy, etc. Hmmm... so is it a lucky nation...?

3. France - in most of the wars it fought, no matter if they were winning or horribly losing, France always showed up again in the post-war treaty settlements. In many other cases, the loser countries were destroyed.

4. Germany - OK, so post-WW1 wasn't good at all for Germany. However, the "victors" of WW1 who punished Germany so severely just watched as she rearmed and came out of hibernation in 1930s. WW2 was successful until about 1942/1943. And post-WW2, yes it was divided into two and became the symbol of the Cold War itself, but West Germany quickly rose to become a major leader yet again, and that was further secured in 1989-1991 with the fall of the USSR and its client satellites and with the reunification of East and West. This is one major case that I know of where the loser of the war was hardly punished.

[/QUOTE]New Zealand. They can do whatever they want, and nobody cares.[QUOTE] -rmsharp

its true i do care. but yes New Zealand is the luckist country in the world, we have no poisonus animals. and the best part is Australia has them all HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Mwahahahahaha :mwaha: :evil: :satan: We have them all to take out a few Kiwis which stray across the Tasman ;)

USA, easily! Come on, look at all that virtually uninhabited, resource-rich land we got with nary a true struggle. Combined with the genius of the Founding Fathers, and millions of hard-working immigrants, the USA would have to TRY to fail. And even then, it probably wouldn't!

Canada would be a close second, but it gets damn chilly up there, and they have Quebec.

Australia has a pretty good set up. Too close to China and Indonesia, and, 60 years ago, to Japan.

I don't see Russia as lucky at all. That place has been miserable for 99% of the population since day 1.

Russia has a good claim to fame,
I usually find myself learning from your posts in this forum so I'd like to see what you know that could influence one to consider Russia of all countries lucky.



Well recently China has been pretty lucky.
The last 300 or so years of Chinese history is about as unlucky as a people can get without being a Native American population.

ts true i do care. but yes New Zealand is the luckist country in the world, we have no poisonus animals. and the best part is Australia has them all HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Not so fast mate
You forgot NZ has the kiwi nows theres a poisonus ... fruit :D
Yuk

I usually find myself learning from your posts in this forum so I'd like to see what you know that could influence one to consider Russia of all countries lucky.

Two countries then considered the most powerful in europe, with what was considered to be the finest army of their respective times invaded her and both times the Weather came to Russia's aid :D

Other than that, any country that can go through all the total nightmare of a history that Russia's had to go through and still spend half of a century as a superpower must have a considerable dose of luck ;)

My vote goes to Switzerland. They were the poorest country back in Europe at the end of XIX century and after implementing dodgy banking laws look at them ! and nobody bothers them much, because everyone has money there stashed away. No one invades them or declares them wars being in the heart of Europe ! Is that lucky or what ?

I just wanted to hint you, that one of your facts isn't correct. At the end of the XIX century, Switzerland was richer than today, compared to the other Eurpeans. Might have something to do with the fact, that Switzerland spearheaded industrialization, had a participatory democracy, a public-schoolsystem that kicked ass and the best universities of the world. As a remainder of that time, Nestlé, that began with chocolate is still the biggest food supplier of the whole world and Novartis the second biggest chemics-company of the world. Knives, watches, ever heard about that ? What worries me, is that we lost are industrial advantage compared to other countries. And for dodgy banking laws, that's the speciality of the British. Channel-Islands ? And being stock between Lombardy and Swabia isn't that bad either. Even today.

GDP per capita in 1900

1. United Kingdom $4593
2. New Zealand $4320
3. Australia $4299
4. United States $4096
5. Belgium $3652
6. Netherlands $3533
7. Switzerland $3531
8. Germany $3134
9. Denmark $2902
10. Austria $2901




http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_per_cap_in_190

3. France - in most of the wars it fought, no matter if they were winning or horribly losing, France always showed up again in the post-war treaty settlements. In many other cases, the loser countries were destroyed.First point, I'm not sure it is true, second point, I'm not sure we could consider this as luck.

England really became the first power in Europe after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and I wouldn't say Vienna has really favoured France which has lost many territories belonging to France before Napoleon.

But more important than that, after the 1st world war, France had been considerably weakened : 1.5 million kids dead, the most industrialized regions of the country now looking like the surface of the moon. France was supposed to be the winner but that was mainly a honorific title. France in the 30's was a poor country which hadn't really raised its head from the devastation of the 1st world war.

The only case where France, as a loser, really showed up again, is world war 2. But in here, we can't really base this on luck... or if there's luck, it's consisting in having the right guys at the right time. Don't believe it's been a piece of cake for France to become a nuclear power 15 years after the liberation.

Two countries then considered the most powerful in europe, with what was considered to be the finest army of their respective times invaded her and both times the Weather came to Russia's aid :D

Other than that, any country that can go through all the total nightmare of a history that Russia's had to go through and still spend half of a century as a superpower must have a considerable dose of luck ;)

Good points p h ! :goodjob: Interesting to think over :scan: .

Everyone know you better not fool with Mother 'Russia', I mean 'Nature' .
:D ;) :cool:

Hi!

In my point of view , Germany is the nation with most of the dumb luck. Alone the peaceful happening of the reunion 1989/1990 , a thing which no german had even dared to dream of. Then the rebuildings and credits after WW2 who brougth it back as a major (economic) european power. We could have been the battleground of WW3 , but instead we now are on of the (now stuttering) big engines of the EU. Thats just plain dumb luck.

Have fun!

First point, I'm not sure it is true, second point, I'm not sure we could consider this as luck.

England really became the first power in Europe after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, and I wouldn't say Vienna has really favoured France which has lost many territories belonging to France before Napoleon.

But more important than that, after the 1st world war, France had been considerably weakened : 1.5 million kids dead, the most industrialized regions of the country now looking like the surface of the moon. France was supposed to be the winner but that was mainly a honorific title. France in the 30's was a poor country which hadn't really raised its head from the devastation of the 1st world war.

The only case where France, as a loser, really showed up again, is world war 2. But in here, we can't really base this on luck... or if there's luck, it's consisting in having the right guys at the right time. Don't believe it's been a piece of cake for France to become a nuclear power 15 years after the liberation.

Hmmm I must have completely forgotten the post-war recovery attempts or situations in France, including the instability of post-WW2 French Fourth Republic (it may sound sarcastic, but I'm being honestly serious here). Considering these pieces of info I forgot or overlooked for some reason, I perhaps should re-evaluate my original position on France being one of the luckiest.

Britain - Capturing a U-boat with intact navy Enigma codes in WWII, The storm in 1588 sinking 60 ships of the Armada, bad organisation of the 1917 Irish uprising meant that the rebels didn't aquire thousands of rifles and ammunition, the Oslo Report.
USA - Battle of Midway, several Japanese blunders in Gaudacanal campaign.
Japan - Hurricanes staving off invasions, large US bomber force due to arrive at Honolulu same morning as Japanese attack (the Japs got there first but were identified as the US bomber fleet).

There are probably many other examples but I can't think of them at the moment.

Luxemburg! Such a tiny country, yet it is one of the riches countries in the world!

Luxemburg! Such a tiny country, yet it is one of the riches countries in the world!Well technically, it's the richest country (according to its GDP per capita which is over $50,000). ;)

However I'm sure there are richest place in the world like, I dunno, the city of Beverly Hills...

Canada would be a close second, but it gets damn chilly up there, and they have Quebec.

And look who our Neighbours are, how could we be considered lucky? j/k :-).

I agree with USA being the luckiest, most of the points already been mentioned. I like the mention of being the only Superpower after only like 200 years of independence.

You are all wrong

Sorry for the flashy header...

But what about Israel

This nation was on the verge of destruction by an alliance of Arab nations several times, is a prime target of hate and terror nowadays and without luck, strong belief and ingenuity the Jews could have lost their hopes of a state of their own and their very lives for the next decades for sure.

The Switzerland is also lucky, for their neutrality and the fact that there is so much of the worlds money. :)

China, France and Israel are pretty lucky considering so much of their power is attributed to otheres decisions and not theirs. They are strong nations that were either liberated are given much of their territory by foreigners and the first 2 have consistently switched allegiances with world powers without too many consequences.

And look who our Neighbours are, how could we be considered lucky? j/k :-).

I agree with USA being the luckiest, most of the points already been mentioned. I like the mention of being the only Superpower after only like 200 years of independence.

I'm sure some luck was a factor but there has always been too much of a consistent strategy from the US to call it lucky. The US controls too much of its fate and has benefited too much from taking action for me to consider them the luckiest.

America. A continent full of free, unclaimed, unused (for farming or settlements) land and unexploited natural resources in front of it with no effective (the Native Americans were not very organized or purposely dedicated to resisting the US and lacked the numbers to do so) opposition to deter it from expanding and a sea behind it to protect it from Europe in its infancy.

was'nt so lucky for first nations people

I'm sure some luck was a factor but there has always been too much of a consistent strategy from the US to call it lucky. The US controls too much of its fate and has benefited too much from taking action for me to consider them the luckiest.

yer bigshots only cause Germany screwed Europe up for 100 years

China, France and Israel are pretty lucky considering so much of their power is attributed to otheres decisions and not theirs.....and the first 2 have consistently switched allegiances with world powers without too many consequences.
That's still not luck. That's just very efficient diplomacy. ;)

That's still not luck. That's just very efficient diplomacy.

Yeah I guess it is.

yer bigshots only cause Germany screwed Europe up for 100 years

1st of all the US didn't have to go to war with Germany. It could have done just fine with Germany in control of Europe but the US wanted to do as it pleased there too. No Germany was a stronger and smarter enemy then anyone in Europe aside from the Brits and their rise to power was the strongest possible challenge that could have came from the region. Surely another nation such as France with its static defenses and lack of vision could have only made Europe weaker as a regional leader at that time. At the same time the US fought the powerfull Japanese and supplied Britain with the need for only minimal defenses of the homeland. Thats not luck but a great strategy of expansionism and establishment as a leading industrial power. Everything the US had done up until WWII had made it hard to attack, accessible to both fronts and in control of many of its own resources.

I don't see the special luck of the USA, either. Just too many wars where they actively entered and won simply outnumbering their opponents.
Australia and New Zealand had good starts and were lucky to have no opponent in the area. Climate is too warm in Australia but the area with decent conditions is large enough. Other choices would be Switzerland(lucky that their neutrality was always respected and rich people kept transferring money there) or United Arab Emirates(Oil, oil, oil).

Canada was pretty lucky too... We has a rich cultural mix (french, English, Native, and many maaaaaaaany more) Timber, farmland and a neighbour that didn't try to invade us every decade. and then they found oil in Alberta. That was really lucky... of course we then got Deifenbaker and Mulroney and all the other recent (idiot) Tory PMs

i would say macronesia.
No big war since ww2.
90% of the poeple even never heard of them.
they live on and grow mightier and mightier.... :evil:

Sweden.

Two words: Ice Hockey!

Welcome to CFC Spämmikone.

Danke, danke! :goodjob:

Glad to see Spammikone that you can live up to the first four letters of your username ;) But anyway, why do you say Sweden when your location says Finland? (Don't you have Ice Hockey either?)

Glad to see Spammikone that you can live up to the first four letters of your username ;) But anyway, why do you say Sweden when your location says Finland? (Don't you have Ice Hockey either?)

It's not about HOCKEY, it's about RESULTS of the hockey... :D
Believe me, only us finns understand this. :cry:

For aussies it's maybe like this: You lead agains New Zealand in football(/soccer), no matter wich the score is. Only thing matter that NZ ties the game in last minute, and score the winning goal from a weird bouncy ball when there are only few seconds left.
Of course this must happen often in major tournaments for 30 years, otherwise you wouldn't know how it feels. :D

Yeah I guess it is.

At the same time the US fought the powerfull Japanese

Thats not luck but a great strategy of expansionism and establishment as a leading industrial power. Everything the US had done up until WWII had made it hard to attack, accessible to both fronts and in control of many of its own resources.

The Japanese were backwards, not powerful. Like the italians they waited
for the time they thought they could score a easy victory.

The Atlantic made the US hard to attack, and the industrial power was built
by arms and oil sales to Europe (which bankrupted Europe) and manned by european skilled workers fleeing the German wars.

Germany aggresion build the US, not strategy.

The Japanese were backwards, not powerful. Like the italians they waited
for the time they thought they could score a easy victory.

The Atlantic made the US hard to attack, and the industrial power was built
by arms and oil sales to Europe (which bankrupted Europe) and manned by european skilled workers fleeing the German wars.

Germany aggresion build the US, not strategy.

I think you are way off the mark here :crazyeye: . Japan was not backwards
although they knew they could not 'win' a prolonged war with the US. The
US industrial power was already in place, it just needed to switch to war
production. "arms and oil sales to Europe (which bankrupted Europe)" -----
What are you referring to? That's silly. Europe was under German control, how did the US bankrupt Europe? :confused:

The Japanese were backwards, not powerful. Like the italians they waited
for the time they thought they could score a easy victory.

The Atlantic made the US hard to attack, and the industrial power was built
by arms and oil sales to Europe (which bankrupted Europe) and manned by european skilled workers fleeing the German wars.

Germany aggresion build the US, not strategy.

12 carriers says the Japanese were powerfull and the fact that they took advantage of they're importance in naval warfare before anyone else says they weren't backwards. No backwards nations build fleet carriers period. Not then and not now. Good luck supporting those claims.

The Atlantic, the Pacific and the Panama Canal made the US harder to attack and a long term strategy of expansionism ensured they had both. The US also stymied European imperialism near its borders (Cuba etc) long before they could benefit from wars with German. The US used its industrial power to make excursions around the world long before the situation with Germany.

It did profit from German wars but good strategy put them in a position to benefit from them in the first place. For example the Americans were smart enough to sit and profit from the war building up its industrial power base before entering it.

American industry was manned by everyone in America not just Europeans fleeing German wars.

12 carriers says the Japanese were powerfull and the fact that they took advantage of they're importance in naval warfare before anyone else says they weren't backwards. No backwards nations build fleet carriers period. Not then and not now. Good luck supporting those claims.

The Atlantic, the Pacific and the Panama Canal made the US harder to attack and a long term strategy of expansionism ensured they had both. The US also stymied European imperialism near its borders (Cuba etc) long before they could benefit from wars with German. The US used its industrial power to make excursions around the world long before the situation with Germany.

It did profit from German wars but good strategy put them in a position to benefit from them in the first place. For example the Americans were smart enough to sit and profit from the war building up its industrial power base before entering it.

American industry was manned by everyone in America not just Europeans fleeing German wars.

12 Blind Carriers, no radar, and their anti-submarine capabilites sucked too
even by 1930s standards, thought in bonazi charges and you have a
medieveil country with a couple of high tech units (Fleet carriers and the
zero). Saddam was powerful too in 1991, he lasted 100 days. Numbers don't
match intelligence. Oh the British started Carrier air power in 1918 and were
still arguablely ahead with their armoured carriers in 1944, too bad they were also bankrupt.

Didn't Spain surrender BEFORE the Spainish America war? Pretty scary.

I don't think the US entered eithier WW1 or 2 voluntary, and i'm sure they
were invited in by Japan in WW2.

Arabs. They started their expansion just when Persia and Byzantium were licking wounds after giant war, and both were in disorder. If their attacks had started a bit earlier or a bit later, they would have been nomadic tribes singing poetry about gracious camel tail forever

oh, and Slovaks and Byelorussians especially. No state for centuries, and suddenly they get all their ethnic territory and more.

France. First off... they were incredibly lucky a teenage girl had hallucinations when they were getting whipped by the brits. Need i say more? Second... they got lucky in WWI when the whole country was being gassed, invaded, defended, bombed, and tourched by all sides. In WWII, they got lucky when hitler was driven back relatively easily. Paris was not destroyed, the Eifel tower wasn't knocked over, and the puny french army wasn't descimated because luckily (conveniently) they werent there when they were invaded.

How about french colonys? They were (and still are) lucky that new orleans wasn't destroyed by indians, the english, flooding and hurricanes.
I guess, however, they could have been a tad unlucky with all of the recent hurricanes and civil unrest in Hati.

And finally, why is france the most lucky nation in the world? They are increadibly lucky that they havn't yet been attacked by the staggering amount of terrorists living in their country (look at what happened to poor spain and russia). They are lucky that america has enough patience not to nuke the bastards for spitting in the face of all of the american soldiers that have died for them in Paris and Nomandy :aargh: ; and finally they are lucky that considering all of the wine that they drink, they have a low alcohaul-related death rate.

What about the two mongolian invasions that didnt get to japan because of the weather, now thats luck. Its only bad luck the weather couldnt stop the american airforce

France. […] They are lucky that america has enough patience not to nuke the bastards for spitting in the face of all of the american soldiers that have died for them in Paris and Nomandy :aargh:
If the US did that, they'd get nuked right back.:crazyeye:

The French still stage huge yearly commemorative festivities in Normandy to express their gratitude over the invasion. No spitting in anybody's face yet.

They don't celebrate in Paris, since the only Americans to die there, did so after partying too hard.;)
The French army liberated Paris.:goodjob:

they got lucky in WWI when the whole country was being gassed, invaded, defended, bombed, and tourched by all sides.

Yes, more than 1 Million dead. How lucky we were


In WWII, they got lucky when hitler was driven back relatively easily. Paris was not destroyed, the Eifel tower wasn't knocked over, and the puny french army wasn't descimated because luckily (conveniently) they werent there when they were invaded.


Tell me how we lose 600,000 men in WWII? The allied bombing of French occupied cities account for only 67,000 casualties.

The French army liberated Paris.:goodjob:

Only because they would have thrown a wobbler and taken their ball away if we didn't let them :mischief:

And it also gave the allies an enormous supply headache :crazyeye:

Only because they would have thrown a wobbler and taken their ball away if we didn't let them:mischief:
Yup!
That's the way to do it when you go hunting in the woods with the British and the Americans. Don't throw a wobbler and see how far it gets you!:D

Tell me how we lose 600,000 men in WWII? The allied bombing of French occupied cities account for only 67,000 casualties.
Steph:
I'm afraid these figures are going to convince him. Many Americans seem to live under the conception that "getting killed = being useless".:p

The French army liberated Paris.:goodjob:

The French army “liberated” Paris only because de Gaul insisted they march into Paris. Paris was effectively liberated on D Day when just a handful of French joined in. (IIRC 15 French died against many hundreds (?thousands) of ‘true’ allies)



Tell me how we lose 600,000 men in WWII?

More French died fighting for Hitler than for the allies. Maybe that explains it ;)

Yup!
That's the way to do it when you go hunting in the woods with the British and the Americans. Don't throw a wobbler and see how far it gets you!:D

Well we were carrying shotguns and you a peashooter, so I guess we had to give you a hand ;)

every1 always forgets canada in WWI/WWII oh well, thats how we work, give more than we should and never noticed

The French army “liberated” Paris only because de Gaul insisted they march into Paris. Paris was effectively liberated on D Day when just a handful of French joined in. (IIRC 15 French died against many hundreds (?thousands) of ‘true’ allies)

More French died fighting for Hitler than for the allies. Maybe that explains it ;)
You really believe this?:lol:

French troops didn't fight the allies in any considerable numbers except on the east front against the Soviet Union. There certainly weren't more Frenchmen killed fighting the allies than the Germans. But what the hey, in those confused times Frenchmen fought each other.:crazyeye:

The French absence on D-day would be a valid point of criticism if it wasn't for the fact that Roosevelt had decided he wanted this to be an Anglo-American operation.
There were several hundred thousand French troops stuck into the joint allied effort at that time. The First French Army (150.000 strong) was already fighting in Italy and later had their own amphibious landing on the coast of the Med.
Don't blame the French for not showing up to the party when not even the willing ones were invited. They would have come too, if only to show "les anglosaxons" that there were Frenchmen who wanted to fight.;)

12 Blind Carriers, no radar, and their anti-submarine capabilites sucked too
even by 1930s standards, thought in bonazi charges and you have a
medieveil country with a couple of high tech units (Fleet carriers and the
zero). Saddam was powerful too in 1991, he lasted 100 days. Numbers don't
match intelligence. Oh the British started Carrier air power in 1918 and were
still arguablely ahead with their armoured carriers in 1944, too bad they were also bankrupt.

Didn't Spain surrender BEFORE the Spainish America war? Pretty scary.

I don't think the US entered eithier WW1 or 2 voluntary, and i'm sure they
were invited in by Japan in WW2.

So your point is Japan was a weak enemy because their carriers had no radar and they had weak anti-submarine capabilities. Not very convincing. I can point out random weakness for any nation on the planet at that time, especially yours. Doesn't make them weak. The amount of strategy involed in winning WWII against both the Germans and Japanese was endless and trying to argue that it was all luck or the Germans were responsible is pointless. Defeating neither was no walk in the park nor was it an accident.

Steph:
I'm afraid these figures are going to convince him. Many Americans seem to live under the conception that "getting killed = being useless".:p

Hey, i had many family members die in battle. Do not tell me i think getting killed means being useless. Poor bastard thinks i dunno what im talkin about.

You really believe this?:lol:

French troops didn't fight the allies in any considerable numbers except on the east front against the Soviet Union.

Tell that to the 600 Americans killed by French guns at Casablanca, 1942.

They're all dead. Leave them alone!! God rest their souls.

What happened in Casablanca? IIRC, the French Resistance aided Commandos and Airborne troops (of course they got aid in return) and regular Allied forces after D-Day. Not necessarily by playing with guns and shooting grey-uniformed, Mauser-wielding peeps but sabotaging bridges, etc. I think there was an incident where the Resistance blew some bridges for the Allies. Not too sure though..

BTW, Ozz, the Mitsubishi A6M Zero was one of the best fighters of the war until the advent of the P-51 and the later Mk. Spitfires.
Radar was a primarily British technology. Germany only managed to develop it to a satisfactory level in 1943-ish. Japan never got their hands on radar, ever. Plus, I really doubt the Enterprise had radar during December 1941.
Japan's only mistake was that their level of industrialisation was rather pathetic. As a matter of fact, much of their equipment were literally hand-made. Hence, they couldn't build their units in large numbers (and their tanks never got further than the Chi-Ha :D )

Tell that to the 600 Americans killed by French guns at Casablanca, 1942.

Tell that to the hundreds of French sailors the Allies killed when they fired on various French naval ships during the war in order to "safeguard" them from the Germans. We can all play that particular game methinks

I'm going to say something nobody else has said: Luxembourg.


Have a look in a good geological atlas: There's a rock. Now try to locate the next natural stronghold close to any major East-West routes. Zilch.
In Civ3 terms, the Luxemburg is on a mountain tile controlling a chokepoint.

Tell that to the hundreds of French sailors the Allies killed when they fired on various French naval ships during the war in order to "safeguard" them from the Germans. We can all play that particular game methinks

Well Sir, my 'daisy' is back :clap: . Welcome home, I hope your trip was
nice and fun! I have missed you in the WWII quiz especially :( . Too many
aircraft and technical questions for a dummy like me :blush: . I don't think
I have answered one correctly since you have been gone. Get over there
and answer one and give a good question for me :scan: .

Back to the original question...
(Man, am I tired of all that french-bashing and retaliation fire :vomit: !)

Ever heard of the German small state of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha?
At first sight, a completey insignificant chunk of land. No interesting resources, not exactly a rich agricultural area, no important trade routes etc.
However, over centuries their rulers managed to always pick the winning side in the inner-German (Prusso-Austrian) Wars.
In 1848, the Duke of S-C-G was the only German principal who granted a real constitution.
Despite lacking natural resources, the House had one thing to offer: Nice and intelligent sons and daughters :)
Nothing that was really interesting for invaders...
As a result, they still 'rule' over Belgium, Great Britain (had to change their name to 'Windsor' during WW1), Bulgaria (the elected Prime Minister of Bulgaria would also be King if it would still be a Monarchy), and did rule Portugal until 1910.

The dumbest luck:
The city of Coburg decided to not join the newly formed state of Thuringia after WW1, and instead 'defected' to Bavaria. Thus, after WW2, that city ended in the American Zone instead of the Soviet Zone, and later in the Federal Republic of Germany, not the GDR.

Pontus, without a doubt.

The luckiest nation in the history of the world is... France.

There luck begins with the conversion of the King of the Franks Clovis to Christianity in th 500s. The Franks are the only major barbarian tribe to convert directly to Roman Catholic Christianity, not the heresy of Arian Christianity.

Due to this event, the Frankish tribe developed a strong relationship with the Catholic Church. In the 700s, when the Lombards invaded Italy, the Pope called on the Franks for help. Charlemagne defeated the Lombards and granted the lands of central Italy to the Pope. In return, the Pope crowned him in 800 on Christmas Day as emperor of the Romans.

Though his empire did not last, Charlemagnes dynasty lasted until the 900s, and was succeeded by the Capetian Dynasty.

The Capetians were the luckiest rulers in the history of the world. Their leader was the only French noble to hold the title of King. Their meager lands, consisting only of the area surrounding Paris, was ignored by the more powerful dukes and counts.

Expansion of the Capetian domain began following the death of Richard the Lionheart, King of England and ruler of Normandy and Aquitane. With the succession of the inept King John, the Capetians broke out and captured Normandy and most of Aquitane.

With the death of the last Capetian ruler in 1328, Charles IV, the English king Edward III claimed the French throne. Eventually the Hundred Years War broke out (1337-1453). The professional army of the English whipped the French in battle, but the first 59 years of the war changed nothing.

However, things changed when England crushed France at Agincourt (1415 and the insanity of the French king motivated the Burgunduans to ally with the English.

And then...

Everyone knows what happened when a certain saint appeared and led the French to victory against overwhelming odds and saved the disintegrating nation of France.

Bottom line: France's extraordinarily lucky history prior to 1453 led to its emergence as a major world power which it maintains, still, in 2004

Rome is the luckiest state ever!

Some say that pax romana is the longest era of peace that the western world has ever seen.

Aslo, finland! it stood against the soviet union in second world war.

Soviet had 500 000 men army and much more advanced weaponary and machinery. 2000 tanks and 1000 airplanes

Finland had an ''army'' of a round 295 000 men, but enough rifles for 250 000 men. machinery of 13 tanks and 114 airplanes.

Yes finland lost... but finns were never invadet during the second world war!

Any nation that does not have Germany as a neighbour can make a strong case for being the luckiest ever IMO.

Any nation that does not have Germany as a neighbour can make a strong case for being the luckiest ever IMO.
You can replace Germany with...

Russia (Poles, Swedes, Finns etc. would nod in agreement),

France (all those Gascons, Occitans, Lorrainians, Bretons, Katalans etc. that have been steamrolled by French history)

England (I personally now a few Irish, Welsh and Scots who agree with this)

the US (Mexico, "So far from God, so close to the USA")

...or any other large and powerful nation in history.

Any nation that does not have Germany as a neighbour can make a strong case for being the luckiest ever IMO.
Or any nation that did not have borders on Central Asia/the Russian Steppe. Nonstop invasions of greater China, India, Persia, Anatolia, Russia, the Balkans...

Germany. Two world wars and they still exist.

You are all wrong

Sorry for the flashy header...

But what about Israel

This nation was on the verge of destruction by an alliance of Arab nations several times, is a prime target of hate and terror nowadays and without luck, strong belief and ingenuity the Jews could have lost their hopes of a state of their own and their very lives for the next decades for sure.

The Switzerland is also lucky, for their neutrality and the fact that there is so much of the worlds money. :)

Both my picks too... the Swiss for avoiding war and Isreal for covering up their war crimes; against the Palestinians AND the USS Liberty (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87117) [for over 40 years]

Lets have a poll on this...

Israel - they are persecuted and hated yet they still hang on and in the end up get a free country.

America up until the 2000 elections. :lol:

I doubt luck is really a factor in History. You can be lucky from time to time... but there are always times where you're less lucky.

I doubt luck is really a factor in History. You can be lucky from time to time... but there are always times where you're less lucky.

There's always one...

USA, easily! Come on, look at all that virtually uninhabited, resource-rich land we got with nary a true struggle. Combined with the genius of the Founding Fathers, and millions of hard-working immigrants, the USA would have to TRY to fail. And even then, it probably wouldn't!

I don't see Russia as lucky at all. That place has been miserable for 99% of the population since day 1.

I smell a lot of bull... First of all, if a nation has got all the resources, space and people they want, what part of their achievements is luck?
Second, I personally find USA miserable and degenerating, but that is, of course, my personal opinion (I do live in US, moved here with my parents at the age of 14, so had little choice and can't really go back to Russia). Russia has indeed become not the best place to live, thanks to all the corrupt and indifferent a$$holes that have held power in the last few decades. However, saying that a place (or rather a 1/6 of the world's land mass), to which one quite probably has never been and knows nothing about, is and has been a miserable place is a complete nonsense.

Back on topic, I would not say that Russia has been lucky. It has seen three major invasions: Mongols, Napoleon and Hitler. However, while the luck with the weather did help quiet a bit by slowing down the German armys (the rains were UNexpected and the German tanks were stuck for quiet a while), both other invasions were fought off with a lot of patience, cunning and hard work (300 years of patience and cunning for Mongols). And having people who only care about their wallets run the country is not exactly lucky either.

I smell a lot of bull... First of all, if a nation has got all the resources, space and people they want, what part of their achievements is luck?
Second, I personally find USA miserable and degenerating, but that is, of course, my personal opinion (I do live in US, moved here with my parents at the age of 14, so had little choice and can't really go back to Russia). Russia has indeed become not the best place to live, thanks to all the corrupt and indifferent a$$holes that have held power in the last few decades. However, saying that a place (or rather a 1/6 of the world's land mass), to which one quite probably has never been and knows nothing about, is and has been a miserable place is a complete nonsense.

Calm down, you don't need to live in america if don't wan't to, move to some eastern european contery. ;)

US has seen its golden age, and is in declane (I beleave). I mean it has a president that can just say that '' God told me to attack that contrey''
and arrest people without trial because they are terrorist! But america is not a miserable place to live in.

oh yes, the topic ...umm ..well.. luckiest nation is: Rome

Sorry for the emotional outburst... If anyone was offended, that was my personal opinion, based on my personal observations and experiences, not a scientific fact, you are more than welcome to disagree. I can't go live in some eastern european country, not without any citizenship whatsoever and 200 dollars in a bank living paycheck to paycheck and going to school... I agree, that US was once a great country, but I see a lot of "we are the best, to hell with the rest" attitude (same attitudes started two world wars already) and the president could really benefit from having a brain... I also see a very rapid decrease in moral standarts and on and on and on...
And, though, a fair number American people I know are very nice and decent human beings, there seems to be many more who are preaching arrogant ignorance.

On the topic, perhaps Armenia is lucky to still exist despite Stalin's genocide...

I don't think america is the luckiest. Exept form the indians and the luissiana purchase everything else was just skills.

Skills? Having the only major tracts of untouched and unclaimed agircultural land in the 19th century world, vast untapped mineral resources and two oceans as massive natural defensive barriers that have never been breached is a skill?! :confused:

Anyway, how do you define being lucky for a nation?

I think that the luckiest nation on earth is France. They've never managed to win a war, yet are still in existence.

Second, I would say Israel. After the creation of the nation after WW2 it was invaded by Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Iraq all at the same time and farmers kicked them all out, lol. They were about to be attacked again in 1967 when Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Iraq all massed troops at their border before pre-emptively striking out and completely destroying all invading forces. They completely annihilated the entire air force of Egypt, as well. Not only did they have to fight the armies of five other nations, they managed to take land, as well (Golan heigts, Gaza Strip, etc.).

Egypt and Syria tried once again, but were humiliated. Again.

Thirdly, I would say America simply for the Louisiana Purchase and getting Alaska from Russia right before oil was discovered there, heh.

Israel - I think it didn't have much to do with luck.
Also, was it oil or gold?

it was gold, although I don't know if there is oil in Alaska, if there is, then it's both...

there is plenty of oil in alaska (a lot of it is untouched, in nature reserves.... though not for long with this preseident).

Portugal ;) for being in the westest point of Europe, to have been occupied by romans and mainly moors who gave us agriculture and boats. Then we sailed because Portugal dont have rich resourses. Luck dont last forever thats why we loosed all the power to major powers. Being one of the smallest countries in Europe we had our big achievments mainly by luck in my opinion, by arriving first (and taking advantage of it, the part that is not to do with luck).

I think that the luckiest nation on earth is France. They've never managed to win a war, yet are still in existence.

Are you an idiot or just ignorant? Or both perhaps.

Aegis has never heard of Charlemagne, Napoleon, or World War I.

it was gold, although I don't know if there is oil in Alaska, if there is, then it's both...

I know there's oil there, but I don't think it was useful and used just after buying Alasca.
And even today.

Are you an idiot or just ignorant? Or both perhaps.

Aegis has never heard of Charlemagne, Napoleon, or World War I.


Winning battles is one thing. Wars are quite another. I would expect you to understand the difference.

I am not saying that France is this completely feckless country that has never won anything militarily and that they are a joke, like some people around here are. All I am saying is that they are lucky to still be in existence, considering what has happened. They are lucky to have had the allies, prophets and various other circumstances which have helped it remain in existence.

Fighting in WW1 is not the same as "Winning" WW1. Neither is being on the winning side. Yes, technically it's a check mark in the Win Column for the French, but it's not like they did it all by themselves or did a truly spectacular job helping.

I admire France for it's tenaciousness. They have survived in the face of so much adversity, and that is impressive. And lucky. They're also my second favorite Civ to play with, lol.

England. This country has been at war a lot, and has never been invaded, save William of Normandy, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Romans.

Fighting in WW1 is not the same as "Winning" WW1. Neither is being on the winning side. Yes, technically it's a check mark in the Win Column for the French, but it's not like they did it all by themselves or did a truly spectacular job helping.
So your view of WWI is France sitting on its thumbs while Britain and the US fought the Germans? :crazyeye:

How would you describe the French performance in WWI?

I would call it spectacular in both its highs and lows. And I would say that France did the fighting and dying with Britain and the US in supporting roles, while leaving the Russian experience aside for the time being.

England. This country has been at war a lot, and has never been invaded, save William of Normandy, the Saxons, the Vikings and the Romans.
I think I've already said this...

Sweden has never been successfully invaded.

I think that the luckiest are those that "came to the finals".
And since I never saw a live Babylonian/Greek/Roman/Mayan/Egyptian (ancient ones)...

They are lucky that america has enough patience not to nuke the bastards for spitting in the face of all of the american soldiers that have died for them in Paris and Nomandy :aargh: ; and finally they are lucky that considering all of the wine that they drink, they have a low alcohaul-related death rate.

Well first of all, we "the bastards", did not spit on the face of the American Soldiers who helped us in WWII, although we 'll be happy to spit on your face.
Second, thankfully, the people who are leading you are not dumb and hatefull as you are, to even think about nuking us.
Third, calling the people who helped you have you freedom "bastards", is at best being ignorant, and at worse being a bastard.

So your view of WWI is France sitting on its thumbs while Britain and the US fought the Germans? :crazyeye:


Well they weren't exactly marching towards Berlin, either, were they? And after General Nivielle (sp?) blundered the attack on the Germans at the Siegfried line, they were pretty much sitting on their thumbs while they tried to regroup. It was up to Great Britain to stop the Germans until the French got their stuff back in order.

So how would I describe the French performance in WWI ?

Offensively Innefective. Meatshields. The Germans were too much for the French military, even with the help of Great Britain. It wasn't until Great Britain had tanks (which is why they broke through the well-defended Sigfried line) and the US entered the war that the Allies were really able to do anything offensively.

So how would I describe the French performance in WWI ?

Offensively Innefective. Meatshields. The Germans were too much for the French military, even with the help of Great Britain. It wasn't until Great Britain had tanks (which is why they broke through the well-defended Sigfried line) and the US entered the war that the Allies were really able to do anything offensively.
Which is a decent general description of the war.

In what way does any of this have special relevance for the French army?

It looks as if you blame the French for not doing better than anyone else.

As for the Germans being "too much", well no. If they had been, the war would have ended in 1914.

The "meatshield" theory either applies to all combatants, or not at all. If it was more true about France, then French casualties would proportionally be higher than the British and the US (proportional to the time spent fightning and the numbers involved).
They weren't, with the exception of the spectacular problems of 1914. But 1914 didn't end in defeat, and the reformed army of 1915 already was very different.
More tactical reforms in the use of arty for instance came out of France than out of Britain. More arty overall as well. (France overtook Germany in heavy artillery by 1917).
British war writers (Sassoon, Graves, Blunt) tend to depict the French as better led and better provisioned for with trench warfare equipment than themselves. At least Graves was a dependable Gallophobe and had no reason to write the French up.

As for the tanks, the French rolled several hundred Renault tanks through the German lines at different points in 1918. Just like the British. Why would only the British breakthroughs count? ;)

Which is a decent general description of the war.

In what way does any of this have special relevance for the French army?



Relevant in that they were lucky to have Great Britain fighting for their side. That's the point of the thread: Which nations are the luckiest? I am saying that France has had a verra long streak of luck, including WWI.


As for the tanks, the French rolled several hundred Renault tanks through the German lines at different points in 1918. Just like the British. Why would only the British breakthroughs count? ;)

Because of the rules that I've just made up! Just now. :D
And I'm backing it up wiiiith....This gun lent to me by the National Rifle Association! Do you have a Flaaaaag? =oP

It just goes to show you that it took tanks for the French to be effective.

Relevant in that they were lucky to have Great Britain fighting for their side. That's the point of the thread: Which nations are the luckiest? I am saying that France has had a verra long streak of luck, including WWI.
The British knew what was in their interest.:goodjob:

That's probabaly the reason for the French "luck". The ability to come up with schemes in someone else's interest as well.:D
It just goes to show you that it took tanks for the French to be effective.
Again, it took tanks for anybody to be effective.:p

The luckiest nation ever?
mmh... that's difficult, because many nations have had moments of luck.
But one of the luckiest nation in History can be the USA, because... they got independence more less easily, there it's the Atlantic ocean, separating them from England, and allowing them to defeat the british army. After that, they had all of northern america to conquer, with almost no resistence. So, they became soon a very large country, with a lot of land to grow food, and no enemies next to them.
And, in WW2 they were one of the most benefitted countries, and no damage in their own land.
Really, I don't think ever has existed a luckiest nation... no enemies near to them, thousands of kilometers to develop... what more can ask a nation for?

Ausatralia is the luckiest country ever. People even call us the 'lucky country'

Australia??? Mh.... i don't think so. Australia has a lot of land, yes... but most of it is desert. And being 12 hours difference from the rest of the developed world... Really, i don't know why should Australia be the luckiest country ever. Could you tell me why?

We have never been invaded, we have one of the best economies in the world, we have a good climate, our society is very open and very free and we own an entire continent. All this for a nation of 20 million people.

Well i would probably agree with the USA they were lucky in the war of independance that A) Britain was too busy with France B) that the garrison force had to be supplied by those faithfull cities and by the motherland over a large sea.

They were lucky in was it 1890 that they decided for whatever reason to again go to war with Britain and burnt parliament house in York Canada? well they were lucky that the British army didnt tear the heart of of a number of key american areas (yes iam aware of the burning of the white house and senate :D got to love the way we did it as well lol)

They were lucky that in WWI they were able to sit off and gain off the misfortune of other nations and then lord over them come the end of the war whilst creating the alliance with Britain that would be a bridge to europe for decades to come.

They were lucky in WWII that they got a reasonably painless lesson in North Africa about their inadequcy as a fighting unit and that they had the time to right the wrongs before having to jump into Europe with both feet.

They were lucky after WWII in having a reasonable balance against the USSR and in being able to be hypocritical without judgement (turkish missle sights meet Cuba)

And they were lucky in having such a fertile land in every way from which to spout their rhetoric.
====

As for France and Britain in WWI, the French did by most accounts do slightly better at arranging their trenches and supplying their troops for a large part of the time. However in the open field the 100,000 men of the BEF held the 2million man strong german army and completed their infamous fighting retreat to re-align with the French army allowing the counterattack at the marne. French casualties were almost a million higher than British i think maybe i exagerate by more than i think and thus am being unfair however the French did lose a lot more men. And the french tank designs at the end of the war were radical and influenced the future of tanks however without the British development of them well.. it was a logical step but we got it so we can milk it :) also British deployments from 1916 onwards set the standards and again being the first to use tanks en mass we get the credit.

France historically has been lucky, Henry V for instance nearly united the 2 kingdoms creating a dual monarchy which would make an interesting alternate history. they also had more than their share of misfortune but with any of the truly old nations of europe there have been a fair number of setbacks

They were lucky in was it 1890 that they decided for whatever reason to again go to war with Britain and burnt parliament house in York Canada? well they were lucky that the British army didnt tear the heart of of a number of key american areas (yes iam aware of the burning of the white house and senate :D got to love the way we did it as well lol)

You mean 1812?

probably i cant remember and its late erm early..

I still say Australia is the luckiest nation in the world.

As for France and Britain in WWI, the French did by most accounts do slightly better at arranging their trenches and supplying their troops for a large part of the time. However in the open field the 100,000 men of the BEF held the 2million man strong german army and completed their infamous fighting retreat to re-align with the French army allowing the counterattack at the marne. French casualties were almost a million higher than British i think maybe i exagerate by more than i think and thus am being unfair however the French did lose a lot more men.
Begging your pardon, but the BEF didn't hold a German army of 2 million. That amounts to saying that the BEF stopped the German advance already prior to the Marne.:p

The BEF stopped and fought being to exhausted to retreat but not too exhausted to fight and they gave the Germans a nasty chock. Professional troops, hardened by colonial warfare, where every man carries his own ammo and only a fool wastes a round, firing up to 12 accurate shots a minute. And picking off the officers first. Spectacular. :king:

But it didn't stop the German advance, mainly bacause the BEF engaged too small a part of the offensive. The British stopped, fought well, and the carried on retreating (possibly to Bordeaux to be shipped home to Blighty.)
Most of the fighting was still being done by the French army of the Sambre and Meuse. Never mind how good the BEF was, it was still too small to make a real difference. And their commander John French had to be personally persuaded by Joffre to make them stand and fight at the Marne.:goodjob:

It can also be argued that what really stopped the German advance was limitations to the German foot soldier's capacity for walking, a factor it seems the German war planners hadn't taken into account.:crazyeye:

Overall Britain mobilised 6 million men and lost 900K, most of these from 1916 onwards. France mobilised 8 million and lost approx. 1,3+, most of them in 1914-1915.
Complete proportionality would have meant 1,2 million, but these figures include the 1914 debacle. (1 million casualties in four months fighting, and then a vertiginously steep French learning curve.)

Point, the first Australian death in Iraq occured four days ago. Since then the last Austrialian combat death was in Vietnam, pretty lucky.

When was the last Swedish combat death again? :rolleyes:

We have never been invaded, we have one of the best economies in the world, we have a good climate, our society is very open and very free and we own an entire continent. All this for a nation of 20 million people.

Sweden has never been invaded, we have one of the best economies in the world (and has had, since the end of WW2), we have a decent climate, our society is also open and free and we own most of scandinavia. All this for a nation of 9 million

Does Sweeden own a continent?

Wouldn't the indigenous population have something to say about the whole "never been invaded" with regards to Australia? ;)

Unless you want to use the "as a country" argument, in which case since Australia has only existed a very short time in that context compared to say Sweden, it's rather a small point, especially when one counts how many times anyone's bothered to even try and invade Australia ;)

exactly they dont try cause they know we will win.

Wouldn't the indigenous population have something to say about the whole "never been invaded" with regards to Australia? ;)


Well, the aborigonies did not have a flag so they don't count... :goodjob:

exactly they dont try cause they know we will win.

Maybe they didn't try because they thought it wasn't worth bothering about :p It's not like there's been that many countries out there that have ever been in the position to either.

Well, the aborigonies did not have a flag so they don't count

:lol: Are you sure you're not British? :D

:lol: Are you sure you're not British? :D


Eddie Izzard is the dog's bollocks. ;)

Hmmm my vote goes to Europe in XIII century. The death of one man stood between them and the gates of hell. The death of Chingis Khan was one of the events that helped Europe to be what she is today. She was prospering while other world nations tried to fight Mongolian occupation...

poncho villa invaded in early 1900s

He didn't really invade; a better word is raided. It was a result of the US allowing another revolutionary group to use its railroad lines. That is not to say that I am defending him, since he attacked civilians.

So your view of WWI is France sitting on its thumbs while Britain and the US fought the Germans? :crazyeye:

How would you describe the French performance in WWI?

I would call it spectacular in both its highs and lows. And I would say that France did the fighting and dying with Britain and the US in supporting roles, while leaving the Russian experience aside for the time being.

France would have lost had it had to fight Germany one on one. They have won many wars in the past, such as the 100 Years' War. However, the entire argument is pointless, as Aegis was not serious when he said that France hasn't won any wars.

This nation was on the verge of destruction by an alliance of Arab nations several times, is a prime target of hate and terror nowadays and without luck, strong belief and ingenuity the Jews could have lost their hopes of a state of their own and their very lives for the next decades for sure.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that they're stealing Arab land and ****ing missiles at them. Yeah, poor Israel. Surrounded by Arabs and only about a billion US provided tanks, apaches and missiles to protect them.

Yes finland lost... but finns were never invadet during the second world war!

Still lost some land though... which is almost as bad.

we have a decent climate

Pretty cold in Sweden though, isn't it? Then again... I prefer being too cold to too warm, not that there's ever a chance of me being too warm here (though does anyone ever notice... that when it's cold outside it tends to be ****ing roasting inside? in school and stuff, because they put the heating on too high >_< I ****ing hate that) and there's a lot of snow in Sweden... though you'd probably get bored of all the snow after about a week ¬_¬. Then again... the thought that Sweden is like... snowed under is probably only true for the more northern parts... not that place down south were most live... Scania I think.

Anyway, I'd probably say America like many. I mean, huge country, lots of resources, inhabited by people that could be easily slaughtered with guns and soon glossed over in history... <_< hey it's true...

and that's why I always used to be America in CivII. Well mostly because I was crap and a wuss - America had an isolated continent to itself if you didn't put the Aztecs on.

[QUOTE=Seanirl]
Pretty cold in Sweden though, isn't it? Then again... I prefer being too cold to too warm, not that there's ever a chance of me being too warm here (though does anyone ever notice... that when it's cold outside it tends to be ****ing roasting inside? in school and stuff, because they put the heating on too high >_< I ****ing hate that) and there's a lot of snow in Sweden... though you'd probably get bored of all the snow after about a week ¬_¬. Then again... the thought that Sweden is like... snowed under is probably only true for the more northern parts... not that place down south were most live... Scania I think.
[QUOTE]

I live in north Sweden, there is alot snow. But there doesen't get colder then -15 anymore (celsius). Stupid global warming. And in south Sweden there is no snow at all almost. Not even in december-february. Im glad I live in north Sweden.
And we got hot summers. In south Sweden I think its very hot in summer sometimes. 25-35+ celsius is much in my opinion.

I dont know if I have answered here in this thread before but..
I think Sweden is very lucky. Not much modern war, very good economy (but things is going bad now, i belong to the first generation that has it worse then the last. And economy has been going down. Stupid capitalists)
Decent climate, very good geographic position, very free country, most equal country in the world (but it should be more equal, rapers are not geting punished becouse the girl was drunk for example...****ers! :mad: )

Wouldn't the indigenous population have something to say about the whole "never been invaded" with regards to Australia? ;)




Ever heard of Terra Nullis?

It was what the British colonists declared on landing in Australia in 1788 to establish Botany Bay, the first European settlement in mainland Australia. It means there are no people here.

The aboriginals have a flag a all that, but most other Australians dont really give a crap because all they are seen at doing is lying about in the city, with a cask of cheap wine and asking for passing pedestrians for a ciggarette.

Oh well since you say they don't count they can't then :rolleyes:

This nation was on the verge of destruction by an alliance of Arab nations several times, is a prime target of hate and terror nowadays and without luck, strong belief and ingenuity the Jews could have lost their hopes of a state of their own and their very lives for the next decades for sure.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that they're stealing Arab land and ****ing missiles at them. Yeah, poor Israel. Surrounded by Arabs and only about a billion US provided tanks, apaches and missiles to protect them.



Israel did not have "about a billion US provided tanks, apaches and missiles to protect them" at their inception. They wouldn't even have all of the military tech that they do now if they weren't under constant threat from their neighbors, either.

And the land that was "stolen" was taken during preemptive strikes against nations that were about to attack them. The nations that lost their land deserved to lose it. Do not make Jordan and Egypt out to be victims.

israel is defintley the most luckiest nation in the world. they are surronded on all sides by arabs who hate them, and in every war nearly take them over. all israel had in the war of independence was a small army with guns that were relativley out of date and only a few copies of each. from then on, israel beat all the odds in every war. even in ancient israel. massada. 1000 jews held off the romans with only rocks as weapons. every fight israel pulled a victory out of their ass. btw seanirl, israel barely had an army, defintley no tanks or missles. i also don't think in every war to an extent were they lucky, like the 6 day war i believe. lines of syrian tanks were on the israeli border supported by their air force. israel had skill ;) they sent their air force to elimanate the syrian air force, giving them air superiority and just needed to pick off the tanks.

israel is defintley the most luckiest nation in the world. they are surronded on all sides by arabs who hate them, and in every war nearly take them over. all israel had in the war of independence was a small army with guns that were relativley out of date and only a few copies of each. from then on, israel beat all the odds in every war. even in ancient israel. massada. 1000 jews held off the romans with only rocks as weapons. every fight israel pulled a victory out of their ass. btw seanirl, israel barely had an army, defintley no tanks or missles. i also don't think in every war to an extent were they lucky, like the 6 day war i believe. lines of syrian tanks were on the israeli border supported by their air force. israel had skill ;) they sent their air force to elimanate the syrian air force, giving them air superiority and just needed to pick off the tanks.


Masada might not be a good example of Israeli triumphs, as it fell to the Romans. However the Macabee revolt is a much better one. With smaller numbers, less trained and less equipped troops Jews were able to defeat Antiochus's force of greek soldiers trained and equipped in the styles of Alexander the Great. WOO Macabees.

Hmmm my vote goes to Europe in XIII century. The death of one man stood between them and the gates of hell. The death of Chingis Khan was one of the events that helped Europe to be what she is today. She was prospering while other world nations tried to fight Mongolian occupation...

actually, if you want to constrain the success of European civilization to the character of one Asian man, you should not pick Genghis Khan but rather Timur-i-Lenk (Tamerlane). He delayed the advancing Ottoman turk's conquest of Europe by about 50 years... enough for Europe to discover America (a great source of raw materials) and a trade route to India (which pulled the trigger to the decline and fall of the Ottoman and Persian empires). Without Timur-i-Lenk Europe might well have been a province in the Ottoman empire. Who knows, but it's a reasonal guess.

Ever heard of Terra Nullis?

It was what the British colonists declared on landing in Australia in 1788 to establish Botany Bay, the first European settlement in mainland Australia. It means there are no people here.
And the way the concept was applied assured everyone that there wasn't.

It took until the 1950's before the Australian aborigines were offcially defined as something more than part of the continents' fauna.

So of course there were no people there. Just animals...

Australia has been one of the worst killing grounds in colonial history.:(

Hmmm my vote goes to Europe in XIII century. The death of one man stood between them and the gates of hell. The death of Chingis Khan was one of the events that helped Europe to be what she is today. She was prospering while other world nations tried to fight Mongolian occupation...

eh... if Europe in the XIII was prospering i'm not a Chinese Fanatic in Nesing... XIII means 15th century rite? :(

No that means 13th century i.e years 1200-1299.

I thought Europe only began to prosper at the end of the 14th century? After the trauma of the Black Death...

I thought Europe only began to prosper at the end of the 14th century? After the trauma of the Black Death...
High middle ages from ca 1000-1350. Very prosperous, massive reclaiming of land for agriculture, rapid urbanisation, all that cathedral and castle building, new agricultural innovations, new crops from the Mid East, universities by the hundreds etc.

The Black Death put a dent in the development. OTH it seems to have meant pretty profound social changes. All the cheap labour from rising demographic figures made the wealth in the High MA, but not necessarily for common people. After the BD the supply of labour became a problem, and the commoners could make terms. It also meant an impetus for rationalisation and more economic modes of prodution.

The real prosperity came to Europe in the late 1400's and the 1500's and arguable onwards till today. This was due to the European seafarers who found a boat passage to india (thus cutting out the middle men in the middle east) and who found the Americas (where many reasources could be found) and Africa (where there where slaves for the taking).

actually, if you want to constrain the success of European civilization to the character of one Asian man, you should not pick Genghis Khan but rather Timur-i-Lenk (Tamerlane). He delayed the advancing Ottoman turk's conquest of Europe by about 50 years... enough for Europe to discover America (a great source of raw materials) and a trade route to India (which pulled the trigger to the decline and fall of the Ottoman and Persian empires). Without Timur-i-Lenk Europe might well have been a province in the Ottoman empire. Who knows, but it's a reasonal guess.


Actually, eastern half of Europe was destroyed by Mongols.
When it comes to Tamerlane - I'm not sure.
I think Turks had more luck than Europe in that matter.
But I think that Muslim world had a great luck.
When Christian or Christian-friendly Mongol leader Hulagu just started conquering Syria with his army, the news of Great Khan's death forced him to back off from the scene, leaving Kitboga, and surely much smaller army, as it was needed in the east. And so, Egypt was saved.
Also, if Mongols invaded 10 years earlier, when St Louis was marching on Cairo...

Definitely I think Arabs are the luckiest nation ever.
If they attacked Byzantium and Persia a decade, two earlier or a decade, two later...

Saudi Arabia. Huge amounts of oil!

And huge amounts of nothing else, lol.

And the way the concept was applied assured everyone that there wasn't.

It took until the 1950's before the Australian aborigines were offcially defined as something more than part of the continents' fauna.

So of course there were no people there. Just animals...

Australia has been one of the worst killing grounds in colonial history.:(

Yeah there is porbably about 1 million deaths through this. But you name one continent in the world that hasnt had more than this?

And huge amounts of nothing else, lol.


Oil woud be enough. But there are two holiest cities of Islam there, it's the centre of Islam. And it means political infuences, esp. if combined with money.

Oil woud be enough.

Oil is not always beneficial to a nation. In most cases (Saudi Arabia included) it is actually one of the causes of the many problems within that nation.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=110907

(in case you're wondering, I'm referring to my post on the subject... just scroll down)

Interesting. But it's a limitation of the benefits of oil, nothing more.

All nations which were not invaded in WW2, nations with resources like oil. I vote for Switzerland, because none wanted invade them in ww2 and they were in Central of West Europe. And Austria and Finland after their luck againist communists.

Interesting. But it's a limitation of the benefits of oil, nothing more.
did you read my post?
A new book from the Open Society Institute points out that resource-poor countries grew two or three times faster than resource-rich countries between 1960 and 1990 (even after adjusting for differences in population, initial income per head and other variables). Revealingly, the resource-rich countries began to lag only after the 1970s-in other words, only after oil wealth startd to pour in.

An oil bonanza causes a sudden rush of foreign earning; t