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. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Ever hear of T-34s, the best tank in history? Katyuhas MRLs? Georghi Zhukov? Timoshenko? Vassili Zeitsev?

    They were the biggest and best army on Earth by the end of the war. Apart from the factors listed above, they were the most battle-hardened. I suspect ideology might have blinded you. Some americans like to tell Europeans "if it werent for us you guys would be speaking German right now". Actually it was the Red amry who saved Europe, not the Americans or Brits
     
  2. Kadasbrass

    Kadasbrass Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    Indiana: the state, not the country
    Rosevelt did more then just fight WWII. Remember he reigned in a time when countries around the world were slipping to either fascism or communism and tried to keep the United States from following a similar path. Revolution happens when people have nothingleft to lose, Rosevelt reformed the government so they had something to lose.

    As for the whole who won WWII, Russia did most of the work in the European theater, Moscow came close to falling (which would of lead to the whole "would the Russian people listen to a government in retreat" problem), Russia was supplied by the United States during the war. No one person/country made victory a sure thing. Just some roles are better known then others or overlooked.

    As for Lincoln, he was the type of President that either you loved, or flat out hated, and the numbers were closer to 50/50 then most are willing to admit. The only reason he was nominated for President in the first place was because the convention was held in Chicago, where his campaign manager packed the place with observers who shouted his name over and over.

    While president he was treated by the press as badly, if not worse, then the current president. After his death, the national grieving was as much a result of genuine love as it was from guilt of what had been said and done. Similar to another so-called great president of the 20th century (nothing against JFK, just personally I don't think the 3 years he held office showed much greatness, he wasn't a bad president, and he was above average, but wasn't around long enough for greatness).

    But what did Lincoln do? He did end slavery, a task he had no intenting of doing when he entered office. Since in order to end slavery he originally needed the states to pass an ammendment, which would of required a greater number of free states. Which is what he goal was as president, to end the expansion of slavery into new and future states. So that sometime in the future, well after his own term as president, there would be enough support to pass such an ammendment (which most likely would of tiggered a civil war if one had not happened before hand).

    Had the south managed to win some huge early victories and managed to secede from the union, then Lincoln would of gone down in history as the worse president, even lower then the 15th president who did nothing as states started to leave the union.

    Its a good thing he didn't lose the war, since I'd never be able to flip a penny when I/we can't make a decision and say "Lincoln never lies; heads we go ahead, tails we consider other options."

    Now I don't try to belittle Lincoln. I do think of him as one of the top three presidents of history. I just try to look at everything as they really happened as opposed to what is commonly precieved as what happened.
     
  3. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    It could also be argued that the USSR was also the biggest contributor to the Nazi onslaught in 1939-1941. Not only would the invasion of Poland have been geopolitically impractical, if not impossible, without Soviet-German collusion in the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement (including its secret protocols that divided roughly half of Europe into German and Soviet zones), but it should also not be forgotten that right up until June 22, 1941, Stalin was supplying Hitler with vast quantities of agricultural and strategic materials, especially oil.

    Going even further back, during the Weimar Republic days of the 1920's, the USSR allowed Germany to circumvent restrictions on military construction and training by allowing Wehrmacht officers to secretly train and experiment on Soviet soil.

    Then there is the fact that many of the reasons for the massive casualties suffered by the USSR were largely self-inflicted. Of particular note were Stalin's savage purges of his officer corps in 1938 and his adamant refusals to heed Western warnings of Nazi intentions all through the spring and early summer of 1941. To say nothing of the use of penal battalions or commissars...

    This doesn't detract from the USSR's overwhelming contributions to Allied victory and the horrendous price they paid in lives and money, but merely offered to provide a little perspective. Not to accuse you in particular of this, but much as many on this forum tire of the "USA won teh war1!!!" attitude, I also get tired of the constant praising of Stalin's morally repuslive regime.
     
  4. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Psst. Take a look at a $10 bill... ;)
     
  5. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    Sorry I can not allow this to pass. The Red Army did not save Europe. That is like saying amputating my arms saved me an infection (when I could have just taken an anti-biotic).

    For all the “good” the Red army performed saving Europe was not one of them.

    Europe was “saved” by only one man…. Churchill. Long before the Russians were attacked Brittan stood alone. The Battle of Brittan began in 1940 over a year before Russia entered the war… It was the defiant act of one man leading his nation which saved Europe… and not just at the time… it is his actions which can be traced throughout the 20th century that can be viewed as the beacon of liberty oppressed peoples most admired (except if you lived in India :) ).
     
  6. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708

    Britian, France and the US also ignored German re-armnament. It seems to have been onofically agreed they could re arm. staklin had no choice but to sign the pact, the western allies refused point blank to give him a proper alliance, they refused. and once Poland was invaded, the moral thing to do would have been to not participate, but the tactical thing was of course to have a buffer zone. I'm not saying this was right or forgivable, but form a toally proactical point of view it woulsd have been extremely stupid for stalin to allow hitler to take all Poland, when it was clearly doomed anyway. Yes he made idiotic mistakes by ignoring the warnings, and supplying the Nazis was an unforgivable crime.
     
  7. Silver Marmot

    Silver Marmot Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    235
    I'm pretty sure Lincoln was the leader in the Civ III. It's always good to change things up a bit, and Washington and FDR are certainly not bad choices for American leaders (though the New Deal kind of sucked, arguably).
     
  8. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Hmm... you might not see him that way if you were Irish and he had sent gunboats up the Liffey to shell the uprising... or if you were Iraqi. I'm paraphrasing here, but I read a quote from him once about "seeing no reason not to use poison gas on tribes of 'ni@@ers in Iraq"...

    what were the Brit casualties in WW2? Was it close to 28m? Or was it about 600,000? Where did most German soldiers die? the Eastern front? Or in Normandy? some people cannot accept an army or natkion they were brought up to percieve as the enemy might have been a bigger contributor to WW2, even when you can pull out the statistics to prove it. Sad really
     
  9. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    OK, but there's a big difference between ignoring re-armament and actively supporting it, as the USSR did for Germany in the 1920's.
    (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Reichswehr ).

    I basically agree with the rest of your post.
     
  10. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276
    And... The only reason he was never a President (beside the whole getting shot by Vice President Aaron Burr thing) was the move by Jefferson's gang to block him by the requirement of being born within the country, which of course did not exist when Jefferson was born and you could make a claim that Hamilton being born in the Caribbean was very little difference… But then again there was the whole death thing that got in the way too. :)
     
  11. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708


    Hmmm... true, but remember, at this stage there wasnt any real indication Germany would end up as it did. the govt was democratically elected, and it looked as if Germany would never again rise to threeaten Europe. but I take your point. sorry about the applaing spelling BTW, you'd never guess I was a native English speaker
     
  12. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    Fair enough. And don't worry about the spelling - as long as I can understand what someone's saying, I could give two sh*ts about their spelling.

    I'm also in Ireland - County Cork - though not a native. Beautiful country.
     
  13. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708

    Explains the avatar :goodjob:
     
  14. Halt

    Halt Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    276

    I started to explain with the reference to India ( as I could be much longer winded as to the view he was held in Europe with regards to the War and after against Communism), that you need to exclude his well known prejudices when it comes to the Empire as he was a Victorian Age character and can not be judged without an understanding of his flaws.

    As to the Russian dead... Most were Civilian and most of those died not at the hands of the German's but at the feet of the indifference and incompetence of their leadership... Long before Zuhkov.. there were a string of “political appointees”.

    I am not discounting the great shared sacrifice of the Russian people. But while Stalin was allied with Hitler, America was not in the war, France had fallen… Brittan stood alone. Yet… Alone they stood… One man was responsible for saving Europe… His name was Churchill.
     
  15. bovinespy

    bovinespy Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    310
    All true. But just to be a wise-ass, there's also this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon_P._Chase. :p
     
  16. sansloi37

    sansloi37 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Portland OR
    My family is from Scotland...:crazyeye:

    "There is a bloody sea in between!"

    A little levity...maybe...
     
  17. slobberinbear

    slobberinbear Ursine Skald

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,657
    Location:
    Foraging in your trashcan
    :blush:

    I stand corrected. Forgot about ol' Hamilton. Thanks for the correction, but what about my point? Ben Franklin for CIV leader!
     
  18. RedRalph

    RedRalph Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    20,708
    Bizarre falsehood... in any case, even if you were making the point the Brits stood alne asgainst the Nazis (Which they did), you cant ascribe that to one man. what about the RAF, the royal navy, the French resistance, the dutch and Belgians? they are due their credit too
     
  19. sansloi37

    sansloi37 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Portland OR
    "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill regarding the RAF
     
  20. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    Let's jump right in...

    Of note, Lincoln was in the very first Civ... I remember playing it on the Amiga, and here comes a light blue transport and PLOP out pops a tank next to my Legion and I the speakers start to pop with the Battle Hymn of the Republic, and there's Abe announcing "Hello, I've come to kick ass..."

    Historically, Lincoln and Washington are considered almost universally to be the top tier of those who have held office. The country, as it stands, would not be as it was without either of them. Without Washington, you may not even have a United States. Additionally, his example of leadership in office, and declination of monarchic title, signaled the beginning of a new era. Lincoln preserved the Union against a reluctant (believe it or not) and war weary public and determined Southern rebellion. He also was arguably the finest orator in American history, and his words rank up with Jefferson's in the Declaration of Independence as the finest of modern times.

    The Soviets bled the Wehmacht dry... but also vice versa. Soviet manpower pools were extremely low at the end of the war. These facts meant the US/UK did not meet the full fury of the German army at Normandy. By the same token, the defense of the Western wall meant the Soviets weren't faced with 30-50 additional German divisions. US/UK involvement meant an end to the war, rather than a stalemate in the East. Russian involvement meant the US/UK could liberate France.

    Just be glad it worked out like it did...

    Venger
     

Share This Page