Government type that influences production

[Tiberius]

I must defend Venger. Why? Because I lived in communism and I really know how it was and how it worked. Believe me, I know it and I HATE communism.
I think it's not a good idea to turn this discussion into an ideological dispute, but for a good modelling, Civ3 needs a few true facts about communism (maybe you guys don't know what is propaganda and what is true about communism; well, I will tell you).
I never played as communist in Civ, mainly because I hate it, but that's not changing the fact that communism had a bad model. The most stupid fact was that in communism you had 0 corruption. PLEASE! That's really stupid. In communist countries, corruption was (is) the law! Ask any former communist citizen.
When you are talking about Russia, don't forget they were ALWAYS a great power, especially military power. They use a huge amount of their resources for military development. No matter what form of goverment Russia had, has or will have. They are a millitaristic, conqueror nation, and their ace always was/will be the army. So it's pointless to compare weaponry, and science hasn't too much in common with this. However we all had the possibility to see the "great" russian military power in their latest wars in Afganistan and Chechnya. And I was in the romanian army, which is of course only a shadow of the russian army, but the principles, the organization, the training methods, all are the same. Actually they forced us to adopt their model. Well, I can tell you that the equipments are in a terrifying shape (in the 89'th "revolution" half of the tanks didn't even start!) and the officers are more often drunk than awake.
About production: yes, in short terms communists increased production. How? Through a forced industrialization. They built a lot of factories, forced the peasants to move in the cities and work in those factories. And now, after 50 years of "glorious" development of the communist economy and science, those factories became pieces of junk, nobody want to buy them or their products, and they are still working just because you can not throw in the street hundreds of tousands of inocent men and women. So don't talk to me about communist science. They had much more stolen than developed. By the way, communism MUST have a spying bonus. I apologize for the great scientists that communists countries also had, but they had no conditions to work, except for military purposes.
You must understand one very important thing: in communism, the leading people were not the great thinkers, or scientists, or managers. NO. The most important quality of a leader was the loyalty to the Communist Party. In every domain. And they were bad professionals, bad leaders and very often stupid and sneaky people. Those pieces of **** left to us a ruined country. That's why the communist countries performed bad in almost every chapter of civilization.

Here's my proposal for communism:
1. production: bonus, but only for a limited amount of time, then gradually decrease
2. food: penalties
3. science: medium (maybe with bonus for military reseach and penalties for domestic research)
4. trade: great penalties
5. military: bonus (not military power bonus, but social acceptance, free units)
6. spying: bonus
7. crime: low
8. corruption: high
9. happiness: it's a tricky one, because for sure people weren't happy, but the propaganda worked fine, so they were content (for a time, at least).

[The Joker]

Tiberius:

Very nice to get a view from a person that has actually seen communism from the inside.

You are definately right that the communist system was not good. I, however, see the need for a seperation of the communis economics and the fact that the communist countries were actully oligarchies. There actually were a few democratic communist countries in eastern Europe for a few years in the 50s untill USSR took it all over.

I agree on having communism have a lot of corruption, and so it did in SMAC.

I still think it has bonuses, though. The production bonus should definately be there, and it should be large too. And I don't think it should be just for a while. There is a large difference between productive capabilities in the real world, and the production in Civ. I think the GNP actually resembles the economy of Civ games. This means primarily consumer goods etc. On the other hand the production (shields) in Civ games are more an indicator of how fast the government can build things that they want to be built.

In economy communism should of cause have a penalty. It is very, very bad in producing consumer goods, as planned economics are per definition not good at making supply and demand match (the market of a capitalist economy is the best at this). On the other hand a communist economy is good in production (what I want when I want it). As the government is in charge of the economy it can also decide what factories to build, and therefor fast begin constructing what it wants.

I disagree on Russia having always been a great power. In WW1 the russian army was litteraly slaughtered by the germans. The russians didn't stand a chance. After the revolution the commies very fast started an industrial revolution, and in WW2 - only 20 years later - the russian army could actually beat the german one.

I also think that it is important to seperate the communist system in the individual communist countries. I know that overall USSR was in charge, but some countries were worse than others. East Germany, for instance, was a disaster in the 80s, lead by 90 year old men with no capabilities at all. I think that Chaochesco (Im pretty sure I didn't spell that right) was a pretty bad leader too. He made his wife professor or something, even though she was illeterate. He was a terrible, terrible man. But it is wrong to assume that all the communist leaders were so.

[The Joker]

Grier:

You should read the SE Models from The List v2.0. They are highly developed and complex. I think Civ3 should have an advanced SE model in stead of the Civ2 type governments.


Korn:

You are asking more questions than you are answering!

I think that democratic communism (socialism to use Marx's term) should work. I would also like Civ3 to have actual communism (Marx's utopia), it should just be very hard to obtain.

Socialism in the 20th century sort of killed itself when Lenin and the others removed the democratically elected parliament and took absolute control in november 1917. Untill then the country was actually democratic (alhthough only in Petersburg and Moscow as the rest of the country was in the middle of a civil war.

I think the reason that the Communism in Russia didn't work could have been the nuclear bomb. As the bomb prevented a serious war between the superpowers the Russian system, which was a better war system than the capitalism, were useless. In stead the world situation ended in peace, where trade and economic power were more important. And in such a world capitalism is far superior to communism.

I definately think that communism should be the best choise in a civ world. As we are rewriting history in civ games most possibilities should be, well possible.

A good way to describe the effect of communism is by having your people have an Individualism rating between 0 and 100. 0 being very nonindividualistic, 100 being very individualistic. Your SE setting's effect would be partly determined by your people's Individualism rating. Using this system could not only enhance the SE system, as different SE settings would be best for different populations. If you had a low Individualism rating a communist economy would give happyness, a democratic gov types would give corruption and a capitalist economy would not give very much trade. With a high Individualism rating a communist economy would give corruption, a nondemocratic gov type would give unhappyness and a capitalist economy would give a lot of trade. All other SE settings would also give different effects.

On top of this the Individualism rating of your people would be effected by your SE settings. While a nondemocratic gov type and a communist economy would lower the Individualism rating to a certain point, a democratic gov type and a capitalist economy would make it rise.

Using this system the situation in Russia in the 20th century can be described very realistically using Civ methods. Before 1917 the system in Russia was a monarchy with a feudal structure. This made the Individualism rating of the people very low. This way, when the communists came, the communist economy worked well and the nondemocratic gov type didn't cause much unhappyness. But it also made sure that the Individualism rating of the people didn't rise.

Through the 80s especcially things like Sattelite TV made the Russians aware of the western system, and demanded a change. This could be described as the west using propaganda (sort of) to make the russians unhappy about their system. But when the change came suddently to democracy and capitalism the russians still had the low Individualism rating. This made it so that the democracy gave a lot of corruption (there's even more corruption in Russia now than 20 years ago) and a low amount of trade, as it's people couldn't work in a capitalist economy.

If Firaxis use a system like this, where the people is actually a part of the SE model, I think that Civ3 could become a far better game, as it would resemble reality much more.

[The Joker]

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM I'll take a few John Ford films with my free press over Pravda any day of the week.

The main problem is, that the US in the 50s didn't have free press. McArthyism actually made it illegal to be a communist!! That has nothing to do with free press. In my SE Model there is a number of laws independant of the governments. These are, among others, use of propaganda and freedom of speech. Both of these can be set on low, medium and high. Each of these have their own SE effects. This way you can have a democracy with low or medium freedom of speech (I would say that while USSR had use of propaganda on high and freedom of speech on low, the US had use or propaganda on high and freedom of speech on medium - these were both in the 50s).

There are a lot of nondemocratic things about the US. How about the fact that black people in the south states couldn't vote untill the 60s? Or that only 4% of the grown male population could vote around 1800 (In USSR everybody could vote. Sure there were just one party - unlike the US's 2 (DEMOCRACY!!) - the different candidates had different policy)? Or that the US supported loads of dicatorial leaders, most of these as evil as Hitler in the third world up to 1989?

Face it. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in international politics. There's just the most powerful. And power is justice.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM Yeah, like those damn third world living Saudi's - we are taking them to the cleaners! Every time I filler'up at $1.70 a gallon I think of how I'm standing on the backs of those oppressed sheikdoms...

You just pay $1.70 a gallon??? Man, I pay like twice that! I know that the Saudi's isn't the best examble (although the US did kill 100.000s of innocent Iraqians to resque a dictatorial little country so you could save £0.10 a gallon on gas). But what about the Venezuelans? They have oil, but not at all as much of it as the Saudi's. Oil is their primary export good, and when the oil price drop they are in deep ****. There are loads of other exambles.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM That's peculairly incorrect. We don't want to import their tech? We are importing their PEOPLE for Christ's sake. What salient product does India have to offer the world but 1 billion Indians? Rattle off the net exporters of raw materials to the U.S. who we are abusing. Don't just say we do it, LIST SOME and what we are stealing from them.

India has a high amount of programmers. Bangalore is the Silicon Valley of Asia. I am not saying that the US or the west is litterally abusing the third world countries. But the relative cost of raw materials has fallen the last 50 years. And as the third world countries don't export anything else they get poorer and poorer. I don't want to go out and find statistics unless it becomes absolutely neccesary. But you could read any book on international economics (not some book just on theory though), apart from a book written by some american from Lousiana voting on the republican party who thinks that if africans are poor it is just because they are dull. Most scientists agree on this. The whole WTO discussion and the reason the negotiations broke down is because of this.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM I am stunned. Do you think there is an internet startup in Rwanda that can't get going because the US is taxing their product? That's nuts. Do you know what the U.S. imports mostly? Oil. Cars. Electronics. Textiles. From OPEC, Canada, Japan, Mexico.

Of cause there is no internet companies in Rwanda. But there is companies that are not neccesarilly high tech, which are trying to establish actual manufaturing of goods in the third world countries. And these companies have a lot of dificulty coming in to the western markets due to the duty.

And the problem with looking at what is mostly imported is, that these raw materials are very cheap, so they don't score high on those statistics. They are, however, very important to the western economies. If the third world countries cut off all supplies to the western world the western economy would collaps within months. On the other hand, the third world economies would continue going (maybe apart from needing a few Rolls Royces and AK-47s) if the west cut them off.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM Did you pick up a pamphlet on the UC Berkley campus and read this stuff?

Why, is Berkely a socialist university? (I am not an american so I have no idea). I am actually an economics student (freshman) at the University of Copenhagen.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM Just...not...true...minerals have spot market prices, they are not bought for pennies. A great deal of mining is nationalized in developing countries. The one's getting rich are those in power. See Zaire (now the Congo again), Nigeria, etc...

Of cause the western coorporations are in alliances with the local elite. Without this they would not be able to work there. But the profit made by the local elite is pennies compared to the profit made by the coorporations.

Besides, minerals are not at all expensive. Not compared to the stuff they make from it.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM Yep, we're just The Man trying to keep the brothers down...we wan't to keep Zaire poor. Because that way they can't buy any of our value added goods. See, an information and service economy only has value added goods. We don't sell raw materials, just finished materials and services. This way, if we buy chromium from Zaire for 10 cents and pay their laborers 10 cents, we can use it to produce items we can't sell to anyone but ourselves. Nuts.

Not at all. We can easily live off selling all our stuff to each other and ourselves. From an economic viewpoint it is a clear advantage to have someone you can pay almost nothing for something you need. Sure, it's nice to have someone to sell to, but there's more than 1 billion people in the western world. Plus an elite in the third world. Combined I would say that there is about 1,5 billion (or more) attractive consumers in the world. It is true, however, that in some cases we want to expand our welfare to other people. Like the expandation of the EU into eastern Europe. This is clearly from the thought that if we get them in we can sell our stuff to them and we will all become richer. But it doesn't work if you try to make everybody get richer.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-17-2000 08:49 PM I'd say not. The economy is evolving into an information economy, where no one gives a rats ass about the Bauxite price in Uzbekistan.

We need raw materials to build the computers and broad band lines we need for our information economy. And a lot of that still comes from the third world. Besides, despite of it's great potential the new information economy is really unimportant in today's economic situation. Although many IT companies have a stock value that is 50 times larger than your average african country they still just have 20 coworkers, a $10 million sale and a $9 million loss. They are just not important compared to the big ones in business.

I'm not saying that it will continue to be this way. The information economy will propably be a very important factor in 10-20 years. But it will continue to be an add-on to the economy. Without the normal economy below it will not function. It is like that even though the industry is now more important than the food production the industry will still not funcion without food. At the same way the information economy will not function without the goods. And these still rely on cheap raw materials from the third world.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited May 18, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 05-18-2000 01:16 AM my question is that in civ3 could a communistic system ever work?

Honestly no, but the point would be to capture a balance of gameplay in the rules that gives some of the "advantages" of communism with some of the "disadvantages", to give you the feel of a global game and what it'd be like to lead a communist state. The Soviet Union came and went in an instant historically, so even including it at all may be somewhat questionable. I have a feeling that in 200 years people will be saying "Soviet who?", but because it is contemporary to us, it's much more significant.

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Venger your argument style is pointless and "word to word" not "point to point". See the forest not the trees pal.

Well, feel free to ignore my remarks should you find them distressing to read.

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists then you said: He continued work on the V series...Seeing as the last one (atomic) was the biggie, regardless of the ME262, they were finished and then: I'm stating that alot of research did continue, including the most important research, the atomic bomb, the race for which they lost due in large part to the loss of Jewish scientists. Only Atomic bomb I say!

The only real technology race that mattered in the 40's was the race for the atomic bomb. Had the United States not invaded Europe until 1945, and the Germans had a stalemate in the East, do you think for one moment that Berlin wouldn't have been the 1st city wiped off the face of the earth?

quote: Was Germany defeated because of Atomic bomb? NO. Germany lost the war because of Hitler's stupidity and stubborn interference.

Germany lost the war because they had no way to win, period. Nazi romanticists like to play "what if" and "only if Hitler hadn't", alot. The fact of the matter is that Germany could not with it's resources fight the United States and Soviet Union.

And if you want stupid, Hitler wasn't half as stupid as Stalin. Hitler didn't almost win, Stalin almost lost. The overpowering idiocy of Soviet pre-Barbarossa policy is staggering.

quote: Hitler's halt order on military research made all the necessary front line weaponry less-developed during very crucial period and many strategists focus on these as major fact for Germany's defeat not the loss of Jewish scientists! So what's the point of saying "Germany never recovered"?

Because they never were in a position to develop the only weapon that could have possibly saved them.

quote: Also you said: There is not a single field where Soviet science was (I believe I said more) advanced So I said: I heard that US jet propulsion tech is one year ahead of Russia but Russian rocket tech is one year ahead of USA too I proved that your previous statement is wrong but you replied with these

You proved? Please show me the proof you offered.

quote: (more of I said) Sure, who has cheap ass boosters, an empty flight schedule, and needs hard currency? I would offer that as a more likely explanation for that. What country is developing deep space exploration tools, single stage oribiters, I mean the real meat of the next step for mankind? Hubble, X-33 anyone? That's means you are admitting you were wrong with your first statement and Why are you bringing something new I never pointed out?

No, I am rebutting your argument that the country that launches the most satellites has the most advanced space program. No more, no less.

quote: That's your definition of "junk". So do you have much junk around you?

Lots of it. I bet the junk computers in my garage are more advanced than half the systems on Mir...

quote: (I said)Same basic plane. Russian military expenditures are such that damn near every "new" piece of Russian military equipment is a knockoff of an old one. Look, it's a new Su-37! Or is that a 35? Or a 33? Or a 30? Or a 27? Now you are showing your lack of knowledge about wepons. Confused?

He he, no, but you're about to make a fool of yourself...

quote: Mig21 short-range fighter Mig23 fighter Mig25 reconnaisance fighter Mig27 fighter/bomber Mig29 interceptor Mig31 long-range interceptor Su25 Attacker Su27 interceptor Su35 interceptor

What, did you get your Revell model airplane catalog out? The Su-35 is a DERIVATIVE of the Su-27. Same airframe. Same mechanical chassis. It has a slightly larger radar, slightly more powerful engines, updated fire control, etc. The Su-30 is another derivative. So is the Su-33, a naval variant. So is the Su-34. And the Su-35. They are all FLANKER DESIGNATES. The same basic freaking plane. Russia cannot afford new platforms and designs, so they have to knock off the Su-27 platform.

Care to dance a little more on this topic? I assure you I'm not confused.

quote: And it is well known Su35 is far better than F15.

Cough...cough...well known. By who? Have you ever sat in the cockpit of either aircraft? Do you know any fighter pilots who have flown either aircraft? Do you know anyone who has an air combat kill in either aircraft? Where is this well known knowledge from?

quote: Also you failed to notice what Dalgetii was tyring to say which was "Ka-50 attack helicopter" and said Mi24 Hind? confused?

You mean the helicopter he couldn't name?

quote: Mi-24 Hind Mi-28 Havoc Ka-50 (don't remember) I heard AH64 series are no match for Ka-50.

Oh, you HEARD this. From the same people who tell you the Su-35 Flanker is superior to the F-15.

It's the other way around by the way. The 64D Longbow far surpasses any other helicopter made. No other copter can equal it's all weather performance, weapons and fire control system, or has demonstrated full weapons load manueverability like the 64D.

The chopper you should be comparing it to is the Ka-52, which is the two seat variant of the Ka-50.

quote: Soviet emphasis was on numerical superiority due to qualitative inferiority Now you see there is no point of bringing "killing ratio" since USSR and USA have different military doctrine.

Oh, I'm pretty sure the Russian Air Force model is "try not to get shot down". Those silly Syrians got it backwards! And Libyans! And Iraqis!

quote: Who said Su27 and Su35 would be swatted against their US counterparts? or you just made that up without any hard evidence. If you are up to F22(too expensive)maybe but not with those F-16,F-15 and F-18.

Those shitty F-15 and F-16 aircraft dropped 5 Mig-29's in Yugoslavia and 30 Iraqi aircraft including 4 Mig-29's, before they snuck them to Iran before they were all shot down. Have some light reading here:

Click me to read about shitty American planes getting lucky shots on advanced Iraqi Soviet-built aircraft

quote: Again, I said USSR understood "total war" very well then you are bringing up new things which I would never disagree.

Well...alrighty then! They sure did learn about war the hard way...

quote: How convenient! be responsible with what you state.Don't just make some sort of escape route for every time for what you say.

Are you American? Because if so you must have heard someone say "I love it" in a sardonic manner. If not, that'd make some sense that you may not understand it. "I love it" is usually accompanied by head shaking when stated in sarcastic response to a ridiculous or outlandish remark...

Venger, ever the ugly American...

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 05-18-2000 10:10 AM I must defend Venger. Why? Because I lived in communism and I really know how it was and how it worked. Believe me, I know it and I HATE communism.

Nuff said. The regime of Nicolae Ceausescu was particularly brutal (the West spells his name 80 different ways, I stole the first one I found! )

quote: Here's my proposal for communism: 1. production: bonus, but only for a limited amount of time, then gradually decrease 2. food: penalties 3. science: medium (maybe with bonus for military reseach and penalties for domestic research) 4. trade: great penalties 5. military: bonus (not military power bonus, but social acceptance, free units) 6. spying: bonus 7. crime: low 8. corruption: high 9. happiness: it's a tricky one, because for sure people weren't happy, but the propaganda worked fine, so they were content (for a time, at least).

My replies:

1. Production as is (should be no bonus for railroad, but that'll unbalance the game)
2. Food like Monarchy (should be -1 but that'll unbalance the game)
3. Hmmm...bonus for military research...interesting thought.
4. No Dem/Rep bonus is enough, Soviets could enforce trade with client states...
5. I think all military units should be 20% cheaper under communism.
6. Can't argue there, but I'd like less powerful spies in Civ3.
7. Only if military units are present, i.e. 4 unhappy made content for every unit in the city.
8. Actually, I'd make this the same as Republic's corruption.
9. Yep, unhappy to content, not happy.

But, we have to make sure you can at least play in this government, so we may have to trim back the negatives...

Venger

Venger -

Cool down dude, God loves you

Ok about your WWII comments. I happen to disagree with you on nearly everything you said.

FOA: Hitler's major mistake in the first place was to attack Russia. He had the cease fire, he had Stalin eating out of his lap, he had Europe in his hands...until Barbarossa. I agree it was possibly the most successful part of Hitler's war campaign (besides Blitzkrieg), but it was also the most premature and foolish. If he had waited to secure Europe and the British Isles first, Russia would've been a cinch.

Hitler's main flaw was his poor plan for England. He ordered an air attack on London and didn't follow it up at all. He basically gave up on England. If he had conquered Southern England, America would have had much more trouble getting to Europe to attack and D-Day would never have occurred. Which ties into another flaw - the poor defenses of the Atalantic Wall. True it was impossible to defend the entire French/German/Dutch/and Norweigen coasts, but if he had done a better job it would've been the most effective part of Hitler's WWII.

His secondary flaw would be his pride. During Barbarossa, Hitler ordered that his units take over Stalingrad, which had no strategic value. He lost many units who guarded and came to reinforce the city. Historians say he wanted the city simply to show his power over Stalin.

I don't have time to comment about everything you posted about, but much of it I don't agree with, and I see many others do not as well.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Venger]

quote: I'll take a few John Ford films with my free press over Pravda any day of the week. The main problem is, that the US in the 50s didn't have free press. McArthyism actually made it illegal to be a communist!!

ARGGHHH!! That is factually INCORRECT! It was never against the law to be communist! The McCarthy hearing were investigations into (supposed) communist activities in the government, army, and media. It was NEVER against the law to be a member of the communist party.

quote: There are a lot of nondemocratic things about the US. How about the fact that black people in the south states couldn't vote untill the 60s?

ARGHH!! Factually incorrect AGAIN!!!

quote: Or that only 4% of the grown male population could vote around 1800 (In USSR everybody could vote. Sure there were just one party - unlike the US's 2 (DEMOCRACY!!) - the different candidates had different policy)?

ARGGH! Factually incorrect AGAIN! Let's take 1824 as an example:

Total votes cast: 360,000.

Assuming your figure, that means the male population at the time must have been 9 million. Well, the 1820 census indicated the whole damn population was 9 million. That doesn't include those who didn't vote, couldn't vote, or were too young to vote.

quote: Or that the US supported loads of dicatorial leaders, most of these as evil as Hitler in the third world up to 1989?

I cannot imagine a dictator as evil. How can you compare Manuel Noriega and Ferdinand Marcos to FREAKING HITLER????

quote: Face it. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in international politics. There's just the most powerful. And power is justice.

I disagree. It's not all relative.

quote: You just pay $1.70 a gallon??? Man, I pay like twice that!

Do you get a tube of KY jelly with every fillup?

quote: I know that the Saudi's isn't the best examble (although the US did kill 100.000s of innocent Iraqians to resque a dictatorial little country so you could save £0.10 a gallon on gas).

Oh GOD ALMIGHTY NOT THAT AGAIN. Look, what do we care oil price wise which totalitarian shiekdom or muslim Sunni or Shiite group has the oil? It wasn't like he was going to take Kuwait's oil and never sell it...the world economy relies however on stable energy from oil producing nations. Kuwait wasn't the concern. Saudi was. And oil price wasn't a concern. Oil blackmail was.

quote: But what about the Venezuelans? They have oil, but not at all as much of it as the Saudi's. Oil is their primary export good, and when the oil price drop they are in deep ****. There are loads of other exambles.

Venezuela nationalized their oil industry as did every other oil producing country (with the U.S. and U.K. as some notable exceptions). They control their own fate on this, sink or swim, I don't care.

quote: But the relative cost of raw materials has fallen the last 50 years. And as the third world countries don't export anything else they get poorer and poorer...the whole WTO discussion and the reason the negotiations broke down is because of this.[quote] The problem with developing countries - they don't want to develop. The U.S. and European economies took CENTURIES to develop. It required social and economic policies and forces ages to shape the environment to support robust capitalism. Some countries manage it: Japan, Korea, etc. But they have ancient cultures and social structures which allow rapid infusion into the advanced global economy. Eritrea does not. [quote]Of cause there is no internet companies in Rwanda. But there is companies that are not neccesarilly high tech, which are trying to establish actual manufaturing of goods in the third world countries. And these companies have a lot of dificulty coming in to the western markets due to the duty.

Nonsense. How come cheap Chinese goods can get in? MFN helps, but if a country wants to make and sell the US cheap goods that are in demand, no tariff is going to come in the way.

quote: And the problem with looking at what is mostly imported is, that these raw materials are very cheap, so they don't score high on those statistics. They are, however, very important to the western economies.

Oil is the only good the west is ridiculously dependent on. The U.S. doesn't manufacture steel and things made from raw material all that much anymore...

quote: Did you pick up a pamphlet on the UC Berkley campus and read this stuff? Why, is Berkely a socialist university? (I am not an american so I have no idea). I am actually an economics student (freshman) at the University of Copenhagen.

Heh, it's close. Very left. Academia is the last bastion of socialism in America, because every other sector expects results...

quote: Of cause the western coorporations are in alliances with the local elite. Without this they would not be able to work there. But the profit made by the local elite is pennies compared to the profit made by the coorporations.

So who has the power? Look at all the nations that nationalized industry, especially oil. Why shouldn't a country who develops those resources profit? You act as if it's to the exclusion of domestic production. Sorry, there is no Phelps Dodge in Madagascar.

quote: But it doesn't work if you try to make everybody get richer.

I disagree. First, your English is better than half of the American's who post here...

Second, the key to advanced economic development is the velocity of money. You DO try and get everyone richer. More disposable income means more monetary velocity.

If I sell you a shoe, you give me 10 dollars. Now, if I buy socks from you, I give you back the same 10 dollars. Now you buy pants from me for the same 10 dollars. That same 10 dollars is now 30 dollars of production. For a service economy, velocity is CRITICAL, both domestically and abroad. Movement of money creates wealth, absolutely needed now.

quote: We need raw materials to build the computers and broad band lines we need for our information economy. And a lot of that still comes from the third world.

But at what expense to them? Are they not going to be able to string nationwide fiber or forge a re-entry cone on a reusable space rocket because we are robbing them of bauxite?

A good , if long, discussion.

Venger

[Par4]

Hey hey I'm back I have been puking my guts out for the last 4 days and was too tired to type and think. Now I'm back with pizza I'm not gonna comment of the zaire rwanda stuff cuz I don't know a lot about that, but I do know about russias military.

Russia spends $1billion a year in the military department. The United States spent 277billion this year and before was more during the 80s. American manufacturing of planes, tanks, ships war stuff is over a 10x if not 100x of russias and if we got in a war that we needed more stuff sooner we would just build more plants. Russia is a very polarized country, pop and manufacturing wise. Its all in the west or east coast. Also northern part of the country, where many raw materials were gathered is being deserted because the soviet governments paid the people to live there but now in the russia 'democracy' the people aren't paid by the state and there materials are drowned out of the market by cheaper western and asian materials. The American military is highly trained and enjoys high morale, most of the time, I can say this as a fact as I visit coast guard, air force, army, and navy bases regularly with my father, he works for a military contractor. If Bush wins the elections(he will, Gore is a dull boring guy with few new ideas on health care, education, military, international affairs, economy, social security, all clinton policy, none of the clinton charisma IMO) he said(and he will IMO) increase military spending to raise pay of enlisties and get the parts for the planes(bad stuff when more fighters crash from bad parts than enemy fire).

The f15 is old, almost 3 decades. The f16 is almost 3 decades old, both 70s planes. The F22 program will be completed, faster once China does something and shoots a bunch of planes out of the air and people realize we need stealth. The SU 35 russias newest plane is all about style not ability. It hovers with its rotating nozzles it has move able wings(can't remember name!! think f14 americans) but its max speed I think is around 1300(last I heard) compared to the f22 which was reported to get 1800-2000 on afterburner(it wouldn't use afterburner though because that loses stealth). And the SU 35 doesn't have stealth. Its expensive too a little too much for that 1 billion budget of russias. Try taking the SU 35 up against a super Hornet then see who wins.

Super Hornet>SU35

Missiles
New American made missle are better than modern day russian. AIM 128 can be launched at over 150 miles with lock(don't know metric sorry) and hit the target within 4 minutes, I think probably less. I would like to see a russian missile do that. American planes are being upgraded with new radar and computers now(can't afford new ones, stupid budget cuts)to allow better ground and air attacks.

This is irrelivant though as 1v1 doesn't matter the US could walk all over Russia once theatre ICBM d gets finished(not the missile interceptor the 747 laser one, air force smart, army stupid, army wastes money).

I'm running on my memory of the stuff I read so if something is wrong tell me I have a pile of crap in my room and I don't wanna go searching for my documents to get authors and ranges and exact dates just go with 70s or 1800 its pretty close, normally.

sources
US military specs and declassified docs
Janes stuff, games, old copy of all the worlds aircraft 1982, articles on the net
Encyclopedia of modern military weapons
American missiles(something like that)
Popular mechanics F22 issue
bunch of books and mags I can't remember
CNN report on russian military strength 1996

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-18-2000 07:22 PM Venger - Cool down dude, God loves you

Heh...breathing deeply now...

quote: Ok about your WWII comments. I happen to disagree with you on nearly everything you said.

Suprise!

quote: FOA: Hitler's major mistake in the first place was to attack Russia. He had the cease fire, he had Stalin eating out of his lap, he had Europe in his hands...until Barbarossa. I agree it was possibly the most successful part of Hitler's war campaign (besides Blitzkrieg), but it was also the most premature and foolish. If he had waited to secure Europe and the British Isles first, Russia would've been a cinch.

I don't see where we disagree here. Except on the latter part - Russia was never going to be conquerable. Indeed, the first stages of Barbarossa were extremely successful. Which is why people seem to think Hitler just got unlucky in the winter. Nope. He got lucky in the summer.

quote: Hitler's main flaw was his poor plan for England. He ordered an air attack on London and didn't follow it up at all. He basically gave up on England. If he had conquered Southern England, America would have had much more trouble getting to Europe to attack and D-Day would never have occurred.

He ordered a disastrous air war on England. What makes people think a seaborne invasion of England was going to be some piece of cake for Germany? See the invasions of Crete and Malta by Germany for details.

Overlord was a tremendously risky proposition, and that was WITH allied naval and air superiority. The Germans would have neither.

quote: Which ties into another flaw - the poor defenses of the Atalantic Wall. True it was impossible to defend the entire French/German/Dutch/and Norweigen coasts, but if he had done a better job it would've been the most effective part of Hitler's WWII.

If the defenses had been better, we'd have landed in South France. Or Spain. Or Portugal. It didn't matter.

quote: His secondary flaw would be his pride. During Barbarossa, Hitler ordered that his units take over Stalingrad, which had no strategic value. He lost many units who guarded and came to reinforce the city. Historians say he wanted the city simply to show his power over Stalin.

As if the Russian forces he met there wouldn't have been in action elsewhere.

Venger

[Par4]

Hehe ooops forgot to post on the thread topic. Go SE I agree with the SE ideas.
Original isn't it.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

"suprise"

For someone who claims to be accurate on everything, check your spelling .


Oh trust me, more's coming. I just had to pump out sarcasm when I saw the chance



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

Venger - I love to argue which means this thread is making my day

Ok, here we go again...

I'd like to first make a few concessions.

First off, you're right about McCarthy. That is a very misunderstood topic in US history.

SOA: Blacks could legally vote in the south in the 60s, it was Jim Crow laws and poll taxes/literacy tests that made them unable to vote. So you're right on that.

Gulf War: I agree with what you said there. Kuwait, ha, we could care less. It was Saudi we were protecting. Kuwait was a scapegoat.

Ok some factual info: The guy from Denmark who pays about 4 dollars per gallon for gas is making an accurate statement. The sweeds as well, they pay up to 4$ a gallon due to socialist govt. (I believe Denmark is)

Ok, now down to what I like best...

FOA: my post about Hitler's Folly was simply leading into what I disagreed with you about. (you mentioned not seeing where we disagreed). But yes, the Soviets were conquerable. He just went about it the wrong way at the wrong time. Infact, they would've been a pushover. Portugal and Spain were Nuetral. Southern France and Western Italy were also defended by the Atlantic Wall so not they wouldn't have invaded there. Plus, Meditteranian was dominated by Axis ships.

I think the problem with your opinion(s) on this thread are that they are Americanized. You don't realize you've been filled with Propoganda since you were just a little bitty Venger. Some of us have chosen to view the world as it is, not as the US wants it to seem. I suggest opening your mind a little. By the way, your Russian facts about drinking are bullshit. Where'd you find them? And last I heard, Drunk Driving was punishable by Death in the USSR.

I love this thread, don't you?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

didnt mean 2 post this
------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
[This message has been edited by Par4 (edited May 18, 2000).]

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-18-2000 09:11 PM Ok some factual info: The guy from Denmark who pays about 4 dollars per gallon for gas is making an accurate statement. The sweeds as well, they pay up to 4$ a gallon due to socialist govt. (I believe Denmark is)

It's damn near all tax...

quote: Ok, now down to what I like best... FOA: my post about Hitler's Folly was simply leading into what I disagreed with you about. (you mentioned not seeing where we disagreed). But yes, the Soviets were conquerable. He just went about it the wrong way at the wrong time.

He attacked at exactly the RIGHT time. Examine the actions of Stalin leading up to the war. Russia would never be more vulnerable. That's the thing, Germany already got good timing and luck. Which explains their early success. Wait another year, what makes you think Russia

quote: Infact, they would've been a pushover.

I wish you'd support that with some facts.

quote: Portugal and Spain were Nuetral.

Spelling? No, I'm sure you know how to spell neutral. You mistyped it. I know how to spell surprise. I mistyped it.

Oh - and regardless of neutral status, Spain was not going to oppose a U.S. landing.

quote: Southern France and Western Italy were also defended by the Atlantic Wall so not they wouldn't have invaded there.

Huh? We'd already invaded Italy. How far west are you talking? And Germany could not defend the entire European coastline.

quote: Plus, Meditteranian was dominated by Axis ships.

Huh? What Axis ships?

quote: I think the problem with your opinion(s) on this thread are that they are Americanized. You don't realize you've been filled with Propoganda since you were just a little bitty Venger. Some of us have chosen to view the world as it is, not as the US wants it to seem. I suggest opening your mind a little.

My mind is open, open is not equivalent to pliable.

quote: By the way, your Russian facts about drinking are bullshit. Where'd you find them? And last I heard, Drunk Driving was punishable by Death in the USSR.

Sigh...how can you call them that? Do you have any facts to counter them? No, of course not. Is this the type of openmindedness you want?

Go here:

Drink up Ruskies

Let's drink to Glasnost, comrade...

Hey, I bet we can drink ethanol...

Hey buddy, wanna drink *hic*

I'm not as think as you drunk I am

I'll just pass out here in the snow and freeze to death...

Care for more? It's tragic. It's cultural and systemic.

Venger

[Youngsun]

Since it seems there are some communication problems, I will make myself clearer than ever before.

I don't like "Communism" nor "Nazism"! got it? I'm against some of Venger's points not all his ideas OK?

There are so many reasons why Germany lost the War becasue of Hitler but by Atmoic bomb.

1.First he diverted his forces too soon(England had to be subdued or neutralised first before operation "Barbarossa".)
2.He declared a war against USA(fatal strategic mistake)
3.Dunkirk evacuation was possible because of
Hitler's halt order on Panzer corps near there.(Hitler wanted a diplomatic solution on England)
4.Operation Barbarossa was a failure from the beginning.(Hitler's overconfidence & incorrect infomation about USSR's potential armed reserve->hugh manpower,the Siberians)
5.Failure to take the most decisive and strategic point of Russia(Moscow)at right moment(Hitler's interference->attacking Caucassus)
6.Only Germany was never geared up to its full potential for total war, whereas USSR,UK,USA,Japan were.(it was for later stage of the war but it was too late)
7.Too many unnecessary "hold" order to the front line troops which were facing an annihilation.
8.Too many stupid interferances on armament industry as well as military research.

quote: Because they never were in a position to develop the only weapon that could have possibly saved them.

Same perception and same logic with those Nazi Germans during later stage of the war. Germany lost the war because of that kind of illogical way of thinking. They thought "if we bomb London more often" or "if we have something to scare the allies" can be the way to achieve victory. In fact, Hitler was the one spreading this kind of thinking from very early stage of the war.

Again you are up to my word not point. I ask you this now once and for all: CAN YOU SAY "There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced"? no more woggle giggle Venger! just simple answer "yes" or "no"!

quote: No, I am rebutting your argument that the country that launches the most satellites has the most advanced space program. No more, no less.

Did I say "SPACE PROGRAM"? I recall I said "ROCKET TECH". why do you change my word?

quote: I bet the junk computers in my garage are more advanced than half the systems on Mir.

Then bring those junk to NASA and shoot up you own space station. I wonder why one US based firm contracted with Russia for Mir for long term commercial use.

and I don't see your "killing ratio" mentioning SU27 or SU35. also Pilot quality was not counted with your examples. Imagine the outcome if those Syrians piloting F16,F15,etc and the Israelis piloting Mig29,Su27,etc.

quote: so you must have heard someone say "I love it" in a sardonic manner

Posting something on forum is much different from face to face talking which can be easily understood with facial expression or tone of voice. You should have known that and I assume you are pretty confused with face to face taliking from written statement.

[Urban Ranger]

Sorry to butt in your debate but I would like to get a word in edgewise.

Most of you are saying that Communism doesn't work and points to the Soviets as an example. The problem with this is you are confusing an idea with its implementation.

From somebody who has taken Political Philosophy, Communism works great in theory.

Lets look at it in another way. How many tries did it take before the first heavier than air craft completed a successful flight? How many times did Edison stumble before he found the right material for light bulb?

[The Joker]

"In theory communism works!"

-Homer J. Simpson.

I currently haven't got time to read and reply to all this, although I am looking forward to it (this discussion is great!). Tomorrow propably.

[Tiberius]

quote: my question is that in civ3 could a communistic system ever work?

I think that historically speaking, communism shouldn't appear in CIV3, because it lasted less than 100 years (~70), which historically means nothing.

quote: could those positive and negative effects be modeled in a way that encourages game balance while still be fairly true to history?

no, couln't, except if the negative effects are minimized and the positive ones (if it was any) maximized.

quote: There actually were a few democratic communist countries in eastern Europe for a few years in the 50s untill USSR took it all over.

Please! A communist country CAN'T be democratic. It's true that some eastern european countries had democratically elected parlaments after the wwII, with the communists having some votes (never the majority), so they were NOT communist countries. Then came the frauded elections with some sovjet help, and all became communist countries under sovjet ruling. Of course after took power, they throwed their political enemies in prison and NEVER hold free elections again. I think everybody heard about the "Gulag". Some countries with democratic tradition tried to break free, but they didn't succeded (for ex. Hungary in 1956).

quote: On the other hand the production (shields) in Civ games are more an indicator of how fast the government can build things that they want to be built.

That's true, but how can a government quickly build something if the factories are old, the technologies are obsolate, the productivity is low, the workers are often drunk and they are more interested in stealing rather then working, and if they're working they're doing it by fear, not for money. (I'm describing a typical communist factory in late 80'th). That's why I talk about graduate decrease. But maybe if the communist model will have a low trade and low science, these 2 will model good enough the facts I'm talking about.

quote: I disagree on Russia having always been a great power. In WW1 the russian army was litteraly slaughtered by the germans

When I say always, I mean "historically" always. Did you forget the endless wars between the russians and austro-hungarians, turks and others for supremacy in the Balcans, for example? Do you remember where did Napoleon lose? In Russia. And I'm pretty sure the story is the same for Asia, too. Think to the territory they have: the biggest country in the world! And how: I think by conquer.

quote: Instead the world situation ended in peace, where trade and economic power were more important. And in such a world capitalism is far superior to communism.

Exactly. But it's not only about trade and commerce. It's also about freedom, free will, human rights, etc; and maybe the US is not the paradise on earth, but in all this categories is a much, much better place than Russia (or USSR). (well, I never was in USA, but I was a few times in Germany, and I was also in Hungary; it's amazing to see how fast a country can develope after they break free; Romania is another story, we have much more Russian and turk influence than Hungary, which follows the german civ model).

quote: I definately think that communism should be the best choise in a civ world

I'll take it as a joke. But I can't laugh.

Finally, about Nicolae Ceausescu (congrats, Venger, you spelled it correctly, and win the great prize ). The sad is not that he was brutal, but the fact that such man could became the leader of a country (he was a shoemaker; sounds familiar?). His wife was doctor, member in the Romanian Academy, and she had only 4 (four) classes! Believe me, that was the whole system doing: promoting stupid, sneaky, corrupt, incompetent people in leading positions. The surprize is not what they did there, but how they get there.

[Tiberius]

quote: "In theory communism works!"

Just because bullshits like this millions of people lived 50 years in misery, lie and hate (if lived). If you want to try it, then try it on yourself. Why don't you go and live a few years in North Korea?
Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision.

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited May 19, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

This is becoming one of my favorite threads; I like the fierce discussion. I think a decade of historical research would be necessary to answer at least some of the questions presented.

Dear Joker (and others),

Did you read my post about the Russian revolution in the Revolutions(and the start of new empires) thread? I admit its quite long; but it proves Russia before 1917 certainly wasn't "feudal" in any way. The Russian monarchy before 1905 -the year the first Duma was granted after a succesful revolution- can best be described as a Despotism.

quote: Then I would like to point out that the serfs were liberated in 1861 in the reign of the 'liberal' Alexander II(1855-1881), one of the more able Russian monarchs though not a strong personality, during the period of the so-called Great Reforms. The peasants became personally free at once, without any payment, and his landlord was obliged to grant him his plot for a fixed rent with the possibility of redeeming it at a price to be mutually agreed upon. If the peasant desired to redeem his plot, the government paid at once to the landowner the whole price, which the peasant had to repay to the exchequer in 49 years. By 1880 only 15% of the peasants had not made use of the redemption scheme, and in 1881 it was declared obligatory. The landowners tried, but in vain, to keep their power in local administration. The liberated peasants were organized in village communities governed by elected elders. The following citations do come all from the books of Pipes. 'There exists a widespread impression that before 1917 Russia was a "feudal" country in which the Imperial Court, the Church, and a small minority of wealthy nobles owned the bulk of the land, while the peasants either cultivated minuscule plots or worked as tenant farmers. This condition is believed to have been a prime cause of the Revolution. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth: the image derives from conditions in pre-1789 France, where, indeed, the vast majority of peasants tilled the land of otheres. It was in such Western countries as England, Ireland, Spain, and Italy (all of which happened to avoid revolution) that ownership of agricultural land was concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, sometimes to an extreme degree. Russia, by contrast, was a classic land of small peasant cultivators. Latifundia here existed primarily in the borderlands, in regions taken from Poland and Sweden. At the time of their Emancipation, the ex-serfs received approximately one-half of the land which they had previously tilled. In the decades that followed, with the help of the Land Bank, which offered them credit on easy terms, they bought additional properties, mainly from landlords. By 1905, peasant cultivators owned, either communally or privately, 61.8 percent of the land in private possession in Russia. As we shall see, after the Revolution of 1905 the exodus of non-peasant landowners from the countryside accelerated, and in 1916, on the eve of the Revolution, peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine-tenths of the arable land.' (source: R.Pipes:'The Russian Revolution',1990)

Now I quote the Joker:

quote: I disagree on Russia having always been a great power. In WW1 the russian army was litteraly slaughtered by the germans. The russians didn't stand a chance. After the revolution the commies very fast started an industrial revolution, and in WW2 - only 20 years later - the russian army could actually beat the german one.

I agree almost out of habit with all opinions of the Joker, but this is really untrue. From the reign of Peter the Great(1682-1725) -who by the way would be a far better choice as leader of the Russians, instead of that terrible Lenin- Russia was always considered a Great Power. Read Kennedy (or any other good study)! It is always possible that a Great Power is defeated in war by another Great Power.
Britain and the Russian empire in the end did defeat Napoleon. After the Congress of Vienna(1815) Russia expanded far to the west, annexing Poland and lots of other territory. It became the stongest continental power; the other Great European Powers were Britain, France, Austria and Prussia.
During the nineteenth century the balance of power shifted, mainly as a result of industrialization. Britain, already the strongest of all, was the first to industrialize; France and Germany followed, but Austria and Russia began rather late with Industrialization, which indeed caused a change of the position of power of Germany and Russia. But her status as a Great Power was never in doubt, nor was the position of the far weaker Austria-Hungary. The French put all their hopes on Russia to seek revenge on the German empire for the defeat of1870, another example showing that a Great Power can lose a war and still remain a Great Power!

I'll use my Pipes again:
'In this connection, it is often ignored that the economic development of the United States also benefitted greatly from foreign investments. European investments in the United States in mid-1914 are estimated to have been $6.7 billion, twice the capital invested by Europeans in Russia. "In considerable measure the funds for the national expansion and development of the United States," writes an economic historian, "had been obtained from abroad." And yet the role of foreign capital is rarely mentioned in American histories and never led to charges that it had made the United States a "colony" of Europe.

The opening phase of the Industrial Revolution in Russia got underway around 1890 with a rapid spurt in industrial production. Some Western European economists have calculated that during the decade of the 1890s Russian industrial productivity increased by 126 percent, which was twice the rate of the German and triple that of the american growth. Even allowing that Russia started from a much lower base, the rise was impressive. Between 1890 and 1900, the value of Russian industrial output more than doubled (from 1.5 billion to 3.4 billion rubles).

In 1900, Imperial Russia was the world's largest producer of petroleum, her annual output exceeding that of all the other countries combined. It is generally agreed by economic historians that on the eve of World War I, by which time the value of her industrial production had risen to 5.7 billion rubles, Russia had the fifth-largest economy in the world, which was impressive even if, proportionate to her population, her industrial productivity and income remained low. Thus, in 1910, Russia's per capita consumption of coal was 4 percent of the American, and of iron, 6.25 percent.

The Russian army was, first and foremost, the guarantor of the country's status as a great power. The military establishment was to an even greater extent than the bureaucracy the personal service of the autocrat, if only because the Tsars took a very personal interest in the armed forces and favored them over the bureaucracy, whose interference and pressures often annoyed the Court.

With a standing army of 2.6 million men, Russia had the largest military establishment in the world: it was nearly equal to the combined armies on active service of Germany and Austria-Hungary (1.9 and 1.1 million, respectively).

The most that one can say is that a revolution in Russia was more likely than not, and this for several reasons. Of these, perhaps the most weighty was the steady decline of the prestige of tsardom in the eyes of a population accustomed to being ruled by an invincible authority -indeed, seeing in invincibility the criterion of legitimacy. After a century and a half of military victories and expansion, from the middle of the nineteenth century until 1917, Russia suffered one humiliation after another at the hands of foreigners: the defeat, on her own soil, in the Crimean War; the loss at the Congress of Berlin of the fruits of victory over the Turks; the debacle in the war with Japan; and the drubbing at the hands of the Germans in World War I. Such a succession of reverses would have damaged the reputation of any government: in Russia it proved fatal. Tsarism's disgrace was compounded by the concurrent rise of a revolutionary movement which it was unable to quell despite resort to harsh repression. The half-hearted concessions made in 1905 to share power with society neither made tsarism more popular with the opposition nor raised its prestige in the eyes of the people at large, who simply could not understand how a ruler would allow himself to be abused from the forum of a government institution. The Confucian principle of T'ien-ming, or Mandate of Heaven, which in its original meaning linked the ruler's authority to righteous conduct, in Russia derived from forceful conduct: a weak ruler, a "loser", forfeited it. Nothing could be more misleading than to judge a Russian head of state by the standard of either morality or popularity: what mattered was that he inspire fear in friend and foe -that, like Ivan IV, he deserve the sobriquet of "Awesome". Nicholas II fell not because he was hated but because he was held in contempt.'

It is true indeed that Russia suffered most humiliating defeats during WWI. Yet they contributed in a rather indirect way to the victory of the Allies.

'To the Russians, 1915 brought unmitigated disaster, as painful politically and psychologically as militarily. They had lost rich lands that had been under their rule for a century or more, as well as Galicia, which they had conquered recently. Twenty-three million of the Tsar's subjects -13 percent of the Empire's population- came under enemy occupation. The defeats dealt a hard blow to the morale of Russian troops. Soldiers who had fought smartly against the Germans the preceding fall and winter now came to regard the enemy as invincible: the mere sight of a German helmet sowed panic in Russian ranks. The Germans, it was said, "could do anything". One effect of this sense of hopeless inferiority that spread in the Russian armies in 1915 was a readiness to surrender. In 1915 the Germans and Austrians captured over one million Russians, whom they sent to work in the fields. Russian troops began to show signs of demoralization. To appease them, General Ianushkevich unsuccesfully urged the government to issue a pledge that after victory every war veteran would receive twenty-five acres of land. Officers were heard to grumble about the failure of France and Britain to help Russia with diversionary attacks as Russia had done for their benefit the year before.

The old Russian army was no more. By the fall of 1915, the frontline forces were reduced to one-third of what they had been at the start of hostilities, 870,000 men at most. Nearly all the cadres of the Russian army of 1914, including most of its field officers, were gone; so was a good part of the trained reserves. It was now necessary to induct reserves of the Second Levy and the National Militia, made up of older men, many of them without previous training.

And yet it can be argued that the splendid German victory of 1915 led to the German defeat of 1918. The 1915 offensive on the Eastern front had had a double objective: to destroy the enemies's armies in Poland and force Russia to make peace. It attained neither goal. The Russians managed to extricate their forces from Poland and they did not sue for peace. The German High Command, summing up the lessons of the 1915 campaign, concluded that given the willingness of the Russians to sacrifice lives and territory without limit, they could not be decisively defeated. This conclusion led Germany to put out peace feelers to Petrograd. Second, the 1915 campaigns gave the British the breathing spell they needed to assemble a citizen army and place their industrial establishment on a war footing. {Remember my War/Peace SE choice?} When, in early 1916, the Germans resumed operations in the west, they found their opponents well prepared. For all its brilliant battlefield successes, therefore, the German campaign of 1915 must ultimately be classified as a strategic defeat, both because it failed to attain its military purpose and because it lost precious time. The debacle of 1915 may well have been Russia's greatest, if unintended, contribution to Allied victory.

Civilians, however, rarely think in strategic terms. The Russian population knew only that its armies had suffered a humiliating defeat, one of the worst, if not the worst, in their modern history. They were fed by the press an unremitting diet of disaster stories. From the moment the Germans launched their April offensive until they suspended operations half a year later, the country was in a state of mounting outrage. This at first found outlets in a quest for scapegoats; but as the extent of the debacle became known, clamor arose for a change in the country's political leadership. By June 1915, the spirit of common purpose that had united the government and opposition in the early months of the war vanished, yielding to recriminations and hostility even more intense than the mood of 1904-05 when the Russians were reeling from Japanese blows.

Military historians have observed that in war demoralization and panic usually begin, not at the front, but in the rear, among civilians who are prone to exaggerate both defeats and victories. So it was in Russia. Measures were taken to evacuate Riga and Kiew, and the government discussed the possible evacuation of Petrograd itself. In May 1915, a Moscow mob carried out a vicious anti-German pogrom, demolishing stores and business firms bearing German names. Anyone overheard speaking German risked lynching. The public clamored for heads.'

I think Tiberius's analysis of Communism is a sound one. I'll quote an important remark:

quote: You must understand one very important thing: in communism, the leading people were not the great thinkers, or scientists, or managers. NO. The most important quality of a leader was the loyalty to the Communist Party. In every domain. And they were bad professionals, bad leaders and very often stupid and sneaky people.

Accountability is one of the greatest strengths of democracies. In autocratic regimes people in power as a rule don't need to give account.

Because I love statistics and believe they can prove something (-but what?-) I'll give some figures.

Infant mortality rate (per thousand live births) ~1900, ~1950, ~1980
Sweden: 96 / 22/ 7.0
Great Br: 145 / 33 / 10.8
France: 149 / 53 / 9.0
United St: 162 / 33 / 10.9
Japan: 151 / 60 / 6.6
Russia: 260 / 81 / 27.7
Mexico: ?? / 96 / 60
Brazil: ?? / 107 / 79
India: 232 / 127 / 130
Iran: ?? / ?? / 108.1
Nigeria: ?? / 87 / 124

Expectation of life at birth ~1900, ~1950, ~1980
West Eur: 47 / 67 / ??
Sweden: ?? / 71.5 / 76
Engl+Wal: ?? / 68.5 / 73
France: ?? / 66.5 / 74
United St: 48 / 68.5 / 74
Japan: ?? / 58 / 76
Russia: 32 / 64 / 69
Mexico: ?? / 49.5 / 65
Brazil: ?? / 54 / 59.5
China: ?? / 46 / 64
India: 23 / 41.5 / 45.5
Iran: ?? / 42.5 / 57.5
Nigeria: ?? / 34.5 / 47.5

Estimated adult literacy rates in 1950
North Africa: 10-15%
Tropcl and Sth Afr: 15-20%
North America: 96-97%
Middle America: 58-60%
South America: 56-58%
Sth West Asia: 20-25%
South Ctr Asia: 15-20%
Sth East Asia: 30-35%
East Asia: 50-55%
Nth & West Eur: 98-99%
Central Eur: 97-98%
South Eur: 79-80%
UnSoSoRe: 89-90%
Oceania: 90-95%
(sources: C.M.Cipolla:'The Economic History of World Population',1962; R.Cameron:'A Concise Economic History of the World',1989)

Sweden, democratic and socialist, always gets very good statistical figures, though the difference is rather marginal.

Many have tried to prove that communism automatically ends in disaster and poverty. Yet in many democratic countries the government interferes in the economy, without disastrous effects. Perhaps the opposite is true: poor countries have a much greater chance to become communist and accept a dictatorship. Though Marx may have thought otherwise, there was never any serious communist following in Britain!

[Az]

quote: Originally posted by Tiberius on 05-19-2000 09:39 AM Just because bullshits like this millions of people lived 50 years in misery, lie and hate (if lived). If you want to try it, then try it on yourself. Why don't you go and live a few years in North Korea? Did you read George Orwell's "1984"? That was supposed to be our future, in the communists vision. [This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited May 19, 2000).]

Do I see Reinforcements for Venger ?

btw North-Korea is no communism . its the plainest simplest despotism , hiding under the pretence of Communism . anyway , ppl that say that Communism is plain despotism are wrong , even for this reason :
in communism -the goal is the good of the people , maybe implemented in a rather bad way sometimes , but the goal is good .

In despotism the goal is the Welfare of the Elites.



S. Kroeze :

quote: I think Tiberius's analysis of Communism is a sound one. I'll quote an important remark: quote: You must understand one very important thing: in communism, the leading people were not the great thinkers, or scientists, or managers. NO. The most important quality of a leader was the loyalty to the Communist Party. In every domain. And they were bad professionals, bad leaders and very often stupid and sneaky people. Accountability is one of the greatest strengths of democracies. In autocratic regimes people in power as a rule don't need to give account.

oh , really ? well you should really come visit Israel some time .....

that's all for now .

------------------
Prepare to Land !
[This message has been edited by Dalgetti (edited May 19, 2000).]

[Tiberius]

quote: the goal is the good of the people

Tell me a single goverment type that is not telling that they are working for the good of the people.

quote: ...maybe implemented in a rather bad way sometimes , but the goal is good

Sometimes? Can you tell me one single example when it was implemented in the right way?

quote: In despotism the goal is the Welfare of the Elites

That's true, just communist countries always ended in despotism, because some people were always more equal than the others.
And finally, the fact that something is working in theory means nothing, especially if it was tried in the real world and failed.

[S. Kroeze]

Dear Dalgetti,

It seems you want to make a very clever and important statement. Could you please be more specific? At the moment I can only guess what your point will be.
Thanking you in advance,

Sincere regards!

Ok, I'm back...

I know that this all had a point, but I'm beginning to lose sight of what that was, so I'm going to respond to Venger and then continue on with some statements that Grier made during the post.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM It's damn near all tax...

Yah...Socialism has it's benefits, but at what cost!

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM He attacked at exactly the RIGHT time. Examine the actions of Stalin leading up to the war. Russia would never be more vulnerable. That's the thing, Germany already got good timing and luck. Which explains their early success. Wait another year, what makes you think Russia

If I was in Hitler's position (no I do not support Nazism, but if I was trying to win the war) I would have conquered Europe, North Africa, and Great Britain. Never declared war on US (That was a tragic mistake) and if Japan complained - to hell with them. If he had waited until he secured Europe under German control - Yes, I do believe Russia would've been a pushover. Germany didn't attack when Russia was at it's weakest, just when they were gullible. Stalin wouldn't have done so much to prepare for war with Germany during the time he conquered Europe. Hitler could have easily dooped the entire Russian government into believeing a joint control of Eurasia, and then taken over. That's just my view. He blew it, to many countries at war at one time, Germany was to small to handle it.


Yes, I know Spain would have gladly let the US land and invade Germany, because they were scared to be "next". But the Pyrenees were fortified along with the Atlantic wall. Southern France was defended by a wall. It wasn't THE Atlantic Wall but it was similar, and usually the two are used together as "the Atlantic Wall". Western Italy meaning the little portion that touches France.

There were Axis ships in the mediterranian.

Russia is in a state of Anarchy, so I think we should give that to their credit when talking about Alcohol abuse. The children in Major cities like Moscow are at war with each other (It's the Pro-Nazis versus the rappers) And the government is being rebuilt from scratch (what a tole Communism played on Russia) But drinking in the US isn't even a simple drink anymore. People go to sporting events and brag about how many beers they drank. Highest I heard was at a Flyers hockey game - 22 8 oz Beers. (BTW: There's a posted limit of two per customer) That's 176 ounces of beer!!! His friend next to him drank 18. So between the two of them they drank 320 ounces. Wanna know what else - They both drove seperate cars home. I think drinking problems are found in both the US and Russia.

BTW: The spelling crack was just a joke, I figured it was a simple typo

Ok, Grier I noticed you gave a system about different government types...I liked it, but I had a change or two that I see fit. Looking for comments on this b/c I think it would serve a lot of purpose in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-18-2000 6:13 PM Dictatorship: Very high stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, low science, low diplomacy, low production. Monarchy: High stability, med crime, average military, high trade, low science, high diplomacy, medium production. Communism: Medium stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, medium science, medium diplomacy, high production. Democracy: Low stability, high crime, expensive military, very high trade, high science, high diplomacy, high production. NOTE: Stability represents how stable a form of government is at its inception, all governments would grow more stable over time.

Ok, I think Dictatorhip, Monarchy and Communism should become less stable with time. Similar to real world (who supports Dictatorhips today? Cuba maybe, but they're "Communist")

Than Republic and Democracy get stronger with age.

What about fundamentalism? I say it shouldn't become stronger or weaker but I know there are many views on Fundamentalism.



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

Ok, I'm back...

I know that this all had a point, but I'm beginning to lose sight of what that was, so I'm going to respond to Venger and then continue on with some statements that Grier made during the post.

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM It's damn near all tax...

Yah...Socialism has it's benefits, but at what cost!

quote: Originally posted by Venger on 05-18-2000 11:55 PM He attacked at exactly the RIGHT time. Examine the actions of Stalin leading up to the war. Russia would never be more vulnerable. That's the thing, Germany already got good timing and luck. Which explains their early success. Wait another year, what makes you think Russia

If I was in Hitler's position (no I do not support Nazism, but if I was trying to win the war) I would have conquered Europe, North Africa, and Great Britain. Never declared war on US (That was a tragic mistake) and if Japan complained - to hell with them. If he had waited until he secured Europe under German control - Yes, I do believe Russia would've been a pushover. Germany didn't attack when Russia was at it's weakest, just when they were gullible. Stalin wouldn't have done so much to prepare for war with Germany during the time he conquered Europe. Hitler could have easily dooped the entire Russian government into believeing a joint control of Eurasia, and then taken over. That's just my view. He blew it, to many countries at war at one time, Germany was to small to handle it.


Yes, I know Spain would have gladly let the US land and invade Germany, because they were scared to be "next". But the Pyrenees were fortified along with the Atlantic wall. Southern France was defended by a wall. It wasn't THE Atlantic Wall but it was similar, and usually the two are used together as "the Atlantic Wall". Western Italy meaning the little portion that touches France.

There were Axis ships in the mediterranian.

Russia is in a state of Anarchy, so I think we should give that to their credit when talking about Alcohol abuse. The children in Major cities like Moscow are at war with each other (It's the Pro-Nazis versus the rappers) And the government is being rebuilt from scratch (what a tole Communism played on Russia) But drinking in the US isn't even a simple drink anymore. People go to sporting events and brag about how many beers they drank. Highest I heard was at a Flyers hockey game - 22 8 oz Beers. (BTW: There's a posted limit of two per customer) That's 176 ounces of beer!!! His friend next to him drank 18. So between the two of them they drank 320 ounces. Wanna know what else - They both drove seperate cars home. I think drinking problems are found in both the US and Russia.

BTW: The spelling crack was just a joke, I figured it was a simple typo

Ok, Grier I noticed you gave a system about different government types...I liked it, but I had a change or two that I see fit. Looking for comments on this b/c I think it would serve a lot of purpose in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-18-2000 6:13 PM Dictatorship: Very high stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, low science, low diplomacy, low production. Monarchy: High stability, med crime, average military, high trade, low science, high diplomacy, medium production. Communism: Medium stability, low crime, cheap military, low trade, medium science, medium diplomacy, high production. Democracy: Low stability, high crime, expensive military, very high trade, high science, high diplomacy, high production. NOTE: Stability represents how stable a form of government is at its inception, all governments would grow more stable over time.

Ok, I think Dictatorhip, Monarchy and Communism should become less stable with time. Similar to real world (who supports Dictatorhips today? Cuba maybe, but they're "Communist")

Than Republic and Democracy get stronger with age.

What about fundamentalism? I say it shouldn't become stronger or weaker but I know there are many views on Fundamentalism.



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Venger]

quote: I don't like "Communism" nor "Nazism"! got it? I'm against some of Venger's points not all his ideas OK?

I'll try not to hold your disagreements against you...

quote: There are so many reasons why Germany lost the War becasue of Hitler but by Atmoic bomb.

His loss cannot be directly attributed to the atomic bomb. What if's are indeed somewaht irrelevant. But in the world of what if, realize that as soon as it was developed, the war was over.

quote: 1.First he diverted his forces too soon(England had to be subdued or neutralised first before operation "Barbarossa".)

Only was to neutralize was for Hitler to pursue Sea Lion, which had a rather low prospect of success.

quote: 2.He declared a war against USA(fatal strategic mistake)

Frankly, whether he declared or not, Hitler was at war with the U.S. in late 1941. U.S. LendLease and other material aid was more important than troops at that early juncture. I don't consider this a real factor.

quote: 3.Dunkirk evacuation was possible because of Hitler's halt order on Panzer corps near there.(Hitler wanted a diplomatic solution on England)

Not sure what the long term impact really would have been had they pressed the attack on the BEF.

quote: 4.Operation Barbarossa was a failure from the beginning.(Hitler's overconfidence & incorrect infomation about USSR's potential armed reserve->hugh manpower,the Siberians)

Agreed, Germany had numerous strokes of luck just to enjoy the early successes of Barbarossa.

quote: 5.Failure to take the most decisive and strategic point of Russia(Moscow)at right moment(Hitler's interference->attacking Caucassus)

Not sure how important Moscow truly was. He wanted the oilfields...

quote: 6.Only Germany was never geared up to its full potential for total war, whereas USSR,UK,USA,Japan were.(it was for later stage of the war but it was too late)

Certain sectors certainly were. There are some somewhat exaggerated stories about life in Germany during the war.

quote: 7.Too many unnecessary "hold" order to the front line troops which were facing an annihilation.

Certainly didn't help. The Germans developed very effective retreat and defense tactics, they'd have extended the war slightly had they been allowed to utilize them sooner...

quote: 8.Too many stupid interferances on armament industry as well as military research.

Well, that's nationalized socialism for you. And for the complaints to interference, German military industry was fairly resourceful under Speer.

quote: Because they never were in a position to develop the only weapon that could have possibly saved them. Same perception and same logic with those Nazi Germans during later stage of the war. Germany lost the war because of that kind of illogical way of thinking. They thought "if we bomb London more often" or "if we have something to scare the allies" can be the way to achieve victory. In fact, Hitler was the one spreading this kind of thinking from very early stage of the war.

The atomic bomb isn't "something to scare the allies". It was the penultimate weapon. Germans should be thankful it wasn't bult a year earlier, cause it'd been dropped all over Germany...

quote: Again you are up to my word not point. I ask you this now once and for all: CAN YOU SAY "There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced"? no more woggle giggle Venger! just simple answer "yes" or "no"!

Soviet sciense was advanced in some fields, yes.

That's not the same as being more advanced. That's where I dispute...

quote: No, I am rebutting your argument that the country that launches the most satellites has the most advanced space program. No more, no less. Did I say "SPACE PROGRAM"? I recall I said "ROCKET TECH". why do you change my word?

I think they are fairly concommitant.

quote: I bet the junk computers in my garage are more advanced than half the systems on Mir. Then bring those junk to NASA and shoot up you own space station. I wonder why one US based firm contracted with Russia for Mir for long term commercial use.

Because they can? Mir is not useless, just rickety.

quote: and I don't see your "killing ratio" mentioning SU27 or SU35. also Pilot quality was not counted with your examples. Imagine the outcome if those Syrians piloting F16,F15,etc and the Israelis piloting Mig29,Su27,etc.

Soviets had not exported Flanker or Super Flanker aircraft to those nations at the time.

quote: so you must have heard someone say "I love it" in a sardonic manner You should have known that and I assume you are pretty confused with face to face taliking from written statement.

I still don't see how you can take it any other way...

Venger

[Venger]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-19-2000 06:11 AM Sorry to butt in your debate but I would like to get a word in edgewise.

Everyone's welcome...

quote: Most of you are saying that Communism doesn't work and points to the Soviets as an example. The problem with this is you are confusing an idea with its implementation.

If it cannot be implemented, doesn't that kinda mean it doesn't work?

quote: From somebody who has taken Political Philosophy, Communism works great in theory.

From a *** Laude graduate of the UT-Dallas school of Government and Politics, there is no such thing as "working in theory". Either it works, or it doesn't. Communism does not work. Can not work. Will not work.

quote: Lets look at it in another way. How many tries did it take before the first heavier than air craft completed a successful flight? How many times did Edison stumble before he found the right material for light bulb?

How hard can you try to make a pig fly?

Venger

[Venger]

Tiberius:

It's always interesting to listen to someone who has lived under a communist regime respond to what we may call communist apologists.

For some reason, academia and the college years create a caustic reaction in the minds of youth, leading to a blind romanticism for communist policy. It's interesting to see the neophytic vision challenged by real world experience, paid at a price too high for any of us to imagine. Your input is very valuable, as you've seen firsthand the effects of an utter absence of liberty and self determination.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is like a drug to some segments of American college-age youth, only the lessons of life can act as an antidote...

Venger
P.S. DAMN I'm screwing up my typing tonight...
[This message has been edited by Venger (edited May 20, 2000).]