Higher level Strategy

[Like2frolick]

Why America Didn't jump into the first two World wars, and grind them into a halt.

Okay. You're playing Cic. You are...one of 6 surviving Civs. And you're losing. You're not quite "Last" but you're not Number one. Indeed, There are two civs which are MUCH bigger and more advanced then you.

For simplicity, we'll call them "Allies" and "Axis".
Now. The Allies and Axis go to war. They're on the other side of a large ocean, and pretty quickly, they both expend an enormous number of units against defensive lines.

What do you do?

Do you hop in, and take your own losses? HELL No! You stay right where you are, and build up! So when they finish massacring each other, you're at least in a position tough enough to fight the survivors.

S'what we did in the world Wars.

And.......a LOT of History is on a relatively small number of things. Go to the History Channel. Watch for One day. You'll discover the vast majority of History stuff is about WW2(We call them the "Greatest Generation"...because they're still around. When they die, we'll call em "them damn crazy bastadges")

Or the Civil war. Which was weird. ::Grin:

[The Andy-Man]

i am guessing that the reason that most histrory is focused on WW2 is because it is very recent, there are people still alive and we have photo's and movies of what happend (i mean as in front line stuff, not Kelly's Heroes)

I dont think they had radio or TV when Queenie Liz the 1st was alive.

Also, The americans harp on about world freedom and demorcracy, did they defend that by not joining in? If the allies had mentioned this, they would have had little excuse to not to join (in my opinion)

[reds4ever]

sorry andy but these are the FACTS, in chronological order

1) pearl harbor
2) america declares war on japan
3) germany declares war on america

you are making the mistake of judging historical situations with the benefit of hindsight, these events did n't UNFOLD they just HAPPENED, if america could have stayed in a limited, one front war with japan it may of (certainly congress was for that option), it probally goes down as Hitlers biggest mistake to declare war, he misjudged american popular opion and thought war with america was enevitable so he tried to save face by declaring first.

[reds4ever]

apologies,skipped your post like2frolic, but youre exactly right, only one country came out of WW1 and WW2 (same war with a long cease fire) with it's economy and infrastructure intact...

[The Andy-Man]

if the americans didnt want to fight the Germans, they didnt have to bother sending troops. look at a map, you will see that in between germany and america is a big see and france tom and dont forget the english channel. The onlt trouble that the germans could have caused the americans would have been u boat attacks.

There was no way There could be any bombing runs on the USA, or any transportation of soldiers.

and yeah, if neither war had happened then america would never have been a superpower, impirialism would still be alive (or only dying out now) and so on.

The 2 wars cost Europe everything and gave it all to the USA.

[reds4ever]

your'e missing the point, you are still looking at it from a military point of view, not economic, where as america was coming out of a depression and did n't need another european war the british had no choice. you have to read history page by page not 'thats what happened why did'nt they stop that?"

[The Andy-Man]

wasn't the depression global?

[Scouse Gits]

Andy-Man, You are assuming that nations act according to some 'conscience'. In reality, there is a thing known as 'Realpolitik', which, at its simplest, runs something like this -- Nations are lead by politicians, the single most important thing to a politician is to get re-elected, if following the nations 'conscience' will result in re-election - great, but if it might not - go hang the conscience!

[The Andy-Man]

i know that!
Isn't it the ideals of Machievelli?

But you would have atleast thought that the US would have sent a 1000 or so ground troops and not just sonme guns...

[Like2frolick]

Andy-Man....I don't think you're quite grasping the point....

The American public DID NOT WANT ground forces overseas. Period. Not A division, not a brigade, not a regiment, not ONE US SOLDIER.

Period.

So we didn't send anyone. Sending GUNS is a way to help without sending soldiers. ::Grin::

[The Andy-Man]

i know they didnt want to, i only said they should have done. :doitnow:


and back to the cost thing, after the first war, didn't america have the largest rewserve of gold?

[EdwardTKing]

Andy-Man says

"if the americans didnt want to fight the Germans, they didnt have to bother sending troops. look at a map, you will see that in between germany and america is a big see and france tom and dont forget the english channel. The onlt trouble that the germans could have caused the americans would have been u boat attacks.

There was no way There could be any bombing runs on the USA, or any transportation of soldiers. "

You are forgetting von Braun who project managed the Appollo
mission in the 60s. Back in ww2 he was developing long range V2 missiles to bomb London. Many people in the USA think they thought up the A bomb first themselves; but the Manhattan project depended upon european scientists and uranium ore from british empire.

The Germans were researching nukes too. So if britain and russia had all fallen; the nazis would have nuked the good old USA (and burnt the new york jews too)

[The Andy-Man]

another reason for america to join the war earlier.....

[Blaupanzer]

The U.S. had, in fact, violated neutrality through the Lend-Lease Program before it entered the war. Trading war goods to one side (worse: lending them the assets for later repayment) and not the other generally takes a nation off the neutral list. Germany declared war because it regarded itself as already at war with the U.S. and because the Axis Treaty required that the three major signees keep united on whom the enemies are.

In general, the U.S. did not regard its intervention in WWI as any particularly great success. We took losses without much in return (a couple of protectorates in the Pacific). We also didn't join the League of Nations. So, from our point of view, we were wise to heed Washington's advice to avoid foreign entanglements. We got officially involved when we did based on decision-making in Japan not Washington, D.C. Like a civ game with your nation in democracy, most war-like moves were "overruled by the Senate."

History is best understood by looking at it from the perspective of the decision makers at the time. Whether they were wise or not is something we know. But at the time, they were trying to puzzle it out based on what had happened before. The future was unknowable. Sending American boys to fight in Europe seemed to be a waste of time to Americn politicians in 1940. Those countries just keep bickering, who's free and who isn't seems random, and the U.S. had no real vested interest. (Due to the depression, Europe was a very small market for civilian goods. Profits on weapons were much higher when sold to third parties than to the U.S. Government.) All this led to heavy resistance in Congress to entering the war.