1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

President Abe (Us, not Japan)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by RedRalph, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. Slobadog

    Slobadog King

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    711
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Alright here is a list of all the countries that deserve credit for helping out in WW2. :)




    Poland:
    United Kingdom
    British Indian Empire
    Crown Colonies‎
    Australia
    New Zealand
    France
    French overseas territories
    South Africa
    Denmark
    Norway
    Belgium including
    Belgian Congo.
    Luxembourg
    Netherlands including
    Dutch East Indies
    other Dutch colonies.
    Free France
    Greece
    Kingdom of Yugoslavia (briefly a member of the Axis)
    Soviet Union
    Tannu Tuva
    Panama
    United States
    American Samoa
    Guam
    Commonwealth of the Philippines
    Puerto Rico
    U.S. Virgin Islands
    other unincorporated U.S territories
    Costa Rica
    Dominican Republic
    El Salvador
    Haiti
    Honduras
    Nicaragua
    Republic of China
    Guatemala
    Cuba
    Czechoslovakia
    Peru
    Mexico
    Brazil
    Ethiopia:
    Iraq: (formerly a member of the Axis)
    Bolivia
    Iran:
    Italy: (formerly a member of the Axis)
    Colombia
    Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
    Lebanon
    Romania: (formerly a member of the Axis)
    Bulgaria: (formerly a member of the Axis)
    San Marino:
    Albania:
    Bahawalpur:
    Ecuador:
    Paraguay:
    Uruguay:
    Venezuela:
    Turkey:
    Lebanon:
    Saudi Arabia:
    Finland: (formerly a member of the Axis)
    Argentina
    Chile
    Mongolian People's Republic
     
  2. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,745
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    I think any knowledgeable reader would be tempted discredit your WW2 knowledge after reading this bit, which is blatantly false. First, France could not extend the Maginot Line along the Belgian border without Belgian cooperation or agreement, and the Belgians insisted on their neutrality, as usual, even though that never seemed to help them. Second, the Maginot Line was supposed to channel Germany's attack through Belgium, and both the French and British plans were to throw the bulk of their forces into Belgium to fight the Germans off. As it turned out, Germany made the crazy but brilliant gamble of sending its Panzer armies through the Ardennes to cut off the main French and British armies. After that, fighting on was very difficult, especially due to the French military command structure. Some of the French did fight on, that's why you get the Free French, who did well in the Italian theatre later on.

    Even Wikipedia can give you this information.
     
  3. GeneralMatt

    GeneralMatt Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Canada
    The USSR was a major part, but I doubt that the UK would have fallen. It was possible, but not a certainty.

    1-They still controlled the seas
    2-The were starting to knock the Luftwaffe out of the skies with radar helping and all that stuff.

    It doesn't matter how many tanks you have if you cannot get them to were they are needed, Napoleon learned that also and decided to invade Russia to..
    That channel really helps you know..

    But then even if it had fallen we would have kept fighting from Canada, where all the UK's Gold was shipped you know (To the Bank of Montreal I think it was, a very undercover operation). And then Australia after that.

    But he also ran out of tanks thanks to Montgomery and the 8th army.

    And the phony war was actually between the declaration of war in '39 and the Germans push that lead to the evacuation I should know the name of..

    Every nation brought separate assets to the table.

    The USSR: Large populace that after they realized the Nazi's hated them were willing to fight the Germans, and large stretches of land great for a defensive delaying war as it turned out.

    The US: A Massive economy, one started would supply pretty much every force of the allies, and provide moral.

    The UK and Commonwealth: A great will to not be beaten, plus the Royal Navy which along with the Commonwealth fleets kept even the possibility of the war not being a loss their through the darkest hours of the war. They were the only countries to be at war pretty much the whole war.

    Germany: Hitler being extremely dumb and sending his troops into Russia, they say history repeats itself, I wonder if he ever heard of Napoleon

    China: Pretty much the same as Russia, though they needed support worse.

    And you could list anyone.

    Anyways..
     
  4. Thyrwyn

    Thyrwyn Guardian at the Gate

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    State College, PA
    George Washington never won a battle, but he won the war.

    The USA did not win the Revolutionary War in the sense of defeating the enemy on the field of battle. They succedeed (largely through diplomacy eg: France) in limiting the amount of effort Britain was able to or willing to invest in the fight. America earned its independence because we made it too costly to keep us. It had little to do with soldiers and everything to do with generals and politicians.
     
  5. onedreamer

    onedreamer Dragon

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    6,580
    Location:
    Torino - Italia
    Italy deserves credit for helping the Allies even when it was with the Axis. Without its rampant losses Germany wouldn't have wasted so many resources in Africa. :lol:
     
  6. zienth

    zienth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    79
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Roight! The Red Army, driving American trucks, built in factories built to proper building codes by ex-slaves, illegally freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which was signed by (getting back to the original topic here) Abraham Lincoln. Which is why he's a leader in Civ IV.

    Are we done now?

    Zienth
     
  7. meatwad4289

    meatwad4289 Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    595
    Wow you really have been tempted by propaganda. One of the plans proposed to Lincoln, and carried out,(The only reason the Emancipation Proclamation was created) was to spread propaganda making the split seem about slavery, thus the EP was created, propaganda spreads, England ends it's support of the CSA.

    Here's the thing, and I mean this should tell you right away, the WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. Yes Slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the main issue or in the top 10 issues. The Confederate Constitution ended the slave trade, almost completely, the only international trade of slavery was to be solely with the United States. The First act of Jefferson Davis as President of the CSA was to veto a bill that favored expanding slavery. Jefferson Davis had been anti-slavery, however, He understood why it was necessary to filter it out over time, because the South's infrastructure and economy depended upon it. The Confederate Constitution set a time of 20 years in which slavery would be mostly eradicated, and the Southern Economy would not be harmed. 70% of Southern soldiers did not own slaves, why would they fight for it. Most of the people in the south that owned slaves owned only one or two, in most cases they were treated well, and far differently than the story book view of whips and chains. Although this did happen, theres no denying people are abusive, but o na grand scale it didn't happen half as much as we believe, as matter of fact it only happened about 30% of the time, United States Government in the 1880's to 1900's conducted research on former slaves, Slave Narratives, where in which less than 30% of former slaves had anything to say bad about their former master. I'm not defended the institution of slavery, I personally find it disgusting, But it was a necessary evil. Even Lincoln knew this, thats why he didn't end slavery.

    Maybe if you ever picked up a book johnny, you'd understand what the war was about. As soon as I get my books unpacked at my new house I'd be happy to share with you both sides of the story.


    ...

    As I have said time and time again, Lincoln the Symbol was a great man and great leader, Lincoln the man was not a good leader. Believe me I love America, and I'm glad the country came back together, but I will always question whether or not it was right thing to do at the time.
     
  8. Ahimsadharma

    Ahimsadharma Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    145

    Sorry, i disagree. I do not see any relevance of Belgium agreeing with France or not- The French and the Germans did not agree or cooperate with each other, yet each nation plopped down a defensive line at each other's border ( The Maginot line and the Sigfried line).
    I don't see what Belgium has to do with France building bunkers & anti-tank traps 15 km inside their own borders.
    The reason France didn't build the Maginot line along Belgian border is because Hitler had pledged to respect the neutrality of the low countries ( Holland, Luxemburg and Belgium) and the French/British brought Hitler's deception.
    If you remember, before WWII began, France-UK were in 'appeasement mode' to Hitler and his expansions ( Ainschluss, absorption of Sudetenland, eating away into Poland & Checzoslovakia etc).
    In the 1930s, Hitler was very keen to lobby for British support (it is no secret that Hitler wanted Britain at his side and most of British nobility supported Hitler-just that Churchill and the elected govt. stood in the way) and France banked on Hitler respecting the neutrality of Belgium or risking war with Britain as defence enough along the Belgian border.
    Before the war started, nobody had expected the German military to so thoroughly crush British infantry in the continental war.

    If one thing that gave away Hitler's plans was the Seigfried line, which Hitler extended along the entire western border of Nazi Germany. But France was bluffed by Hitler and that is why i said France was rather stupid to not extend the Maginot line with the Belgian border.
     
  9. Evil Twin

    Evil Twin Demented Sociopath

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    403
    Location:
    No. 10 Downing Street
    My 0.2$:

    George Washington is not a civ leader. He should never have been chosen as a civ leader.
    He was a general. A military leader. Only chosen as first President because he won the war. But winning wars isn't the sole definition of a leader.
    If they wanted a leader from that era, it should have been Thomas Jefferson. Great man, often overshadowed thanks to the fact that he didn't kill anybody.
     
  10. Gaius Octavius

    Gaius Octavius Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    4,016
    Ha ha... It's a good thing you guys weren't around when we had all those "BTS Fallacy" threads... sheesh!

    If we had a DNFTT smiley, I'd probably use it now.

    BTW, brilliant post, zienith. :lol: :rolleyes:
     
  11. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Never seen the title of a thread become completely redundant while it was still on page 1 before
     
  12. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,745
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    That is not the correct way to look at it. The French and the British fell for no tricks with regards to Belgium. They knew that the Germans either had to attack the Line directly or had to go through Belgium. As can be seen from their war plans, they did not sit behind the Line and wait for the German attack (which would actually have been better on hindsight). They were prepared to drive off the Germans through Belgium.

    However, when building the Line, there were indeed political considerations to be made. France was not exactly on friendly terms with Germany and Italy, and hostilities could reasonably be expected from the political circumstances and historical precedent. It's like the US building a missile shield aimed at Iran. They couldn't just build it along the border with Belgium. What excuse could they have come up with for that? Politics like this is why Russia objects to the proposed location of the US missile shield today, even if it's clear that the shield would not be able to stop the Russian arsenal. I doubt Britain would have been happy with the French pointing their guns towards Belgium before there was any sign that a war is imminent. And why was there a need to extend the Line to cover the border fully unless they were expecting to lose in a direct confrontation? The French army was reputed to be the most powerful in the world at that time. The Line was just to make the job of defending the border easier and focus the main efforts onto one front to save on manpower, in which the Germans had the advantage.
     
  13. dante alighieri

    dante alighieri Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Oberammergau, Germany
    Thats interesting, but irrelevant to my statement. I was speaking of soldiers in general in answer to another posters comments, not the Revolutionary War.
     
  14. Thyrwyn

    Thyrwyn Guardian at the Gate

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    State College, PA
    . . . and I used an example (relevant to the original discussion, even), illustrating that your statement RE: "soldiers in general" was in direct contrast with the historical record.
     
  15. Jperkinson

    Jperkinson Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    George Washington was a great leader (IMHO) because he stepped down after two terms. Setting the two term precedent. Relinquishing that kind of power in itself is a great act.... Also his Farewell address speaks volumes about the man.

    Jefferson should also be in... Much more than Abe or FDR.
     
  16. tomaalimosh

    tomaalimosh Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Romania
    Actually... the main cause for the sucess of Hitler's invasion of France, was the fact that France (being, as you said, reputed to have the strongest army), didn't expect to have any breach in the defensive, and thus had absolutely NO reserves to plug an eventual breach in the frontline.
    If the panzer attack through the Ardenes would have been met by a strong reserve force a day or two after the breach, the frontline could have stabilized again, and the supply and communication lines of the western part of the Allied front would have remained intact.

    So... Overconfidence = not so good :p ... this is why one can lose battles with 95% chances to win (ingame I mean :) )
     
  17. johnny5000

    johnny5000 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    97
    I'm well-read in history. We've just come to different conclusions.

    I disagree. I think nearly every issue the south comes up with, whether its states rights, tariffs, cultural differences, industrialization, etc. It all boils down to the south's economy being based on slave labor, and it crippled the rest of their economy because free men can't compete with slave labor.

    You make it sound like they were world-leaders in this regard. The international slave trade was largely dead by this point in time.

    I'll admit I'm not familiar with this, so if you could provide more details here I'd appreciate it.

    I don't know how you can say he was anti-slavery, since he owned slaves.
    Sounds really anti-slavery to me. Also, in 1860 Davis submitted six resolutions to the Senate, including the right to maintain slavery in the South. Again, sounds really anti-slavery.
    And yes, the economy depended on it, which is why they were fighting to preserve it.


    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
    Here is the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States.
    Would you kindly point me to the section that eradicates slavery after 20 years? I can't seem to find it. It's in the same constitution that says this, though:
    " No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"

    The constitution prohibited the Confederate Congress from abolishing or limiting slavery in Confederate territories.

    One of the things the south was complaining about is the North's refusal to expand slavery into to the western territories. Most southern soldiers may not have owned slaves, but they had the dream of one day holding slaves. And they believed in the institution of slavery and institutionalized racism.

    Wow, well you don't need to be so condescending.
    I'm well aware of both sides of the story, I just think that modern pro-confederacy historians are overlooking the giant elephant in the room.

    Here's a few more historical perspectives:
    According to historian Kenneth M. Stampp, each section used states' rights arguments when convenient, and shifted positions when convenient.[20]

    Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[21]

    The historian William C. Davis also mentioned inconsistencies in Southern states' rights arguments. He explained the Confederate Constitution's protection of slavery at the national level as follows:

    To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.[22]

    also:

    From Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens's "Cornerstone Speech," Savannah, March 21, 1861:
    “ (Thomas Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.
     
  18. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,745
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    Maybe you know this, but that doesn't contradict what I said.
     
  19. Bird Brain

    Bird Brain Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    40
    Location:
    Virginia
    As an American I agree totally. Not that I'm angry at Firaxis or anything (it's just a game :) ), but if I had to pick the two most important presidents I would definitely choose Washington and Lincoln. After that I think things are open to debate. FDR is an okay choice for number three, but you could make strong arguments for a few other presidents as well . . .

    In vanilla I felt the same way about some of the other civs, like Rome for instance. How could they leave out Augustus? I've studied plenty of Roman history, and Augustus is *definitely* the most important Roman leader. At least he squeaked his way into the expansion . . .

    Anyway I'm glad Lincoln eventually made it in because he certainly deserves to be there. I wish some other civs had received additional leaders as well (even if trait combinations had to be duplicated) since there are still plenty of great leaders missing for other countries :( .
     
  20. tomaalimosh

    tomaalimosh Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Romania
    It was not meant to contradict, just to emphasize that it was not because the line of defense wasn't complete - because it was replaced with a very strong force - but because the entire alied army was commited otn that line. and it was obvious that once a weak point in the line would be found, and enough force would be commited there, the line would break, and all hell would break loose (without reserves).

    I've red this in a book written by Churchill, and he says that the brits were not aware that the french had 0 (zero) reserves, until it was too late.
     

Share This Page