France better than Germany?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by De Gaulle
As far as France declaring war on Germany all the time, I do agree that France did it. However, these wars had been prepared and made inevitable by the actions and ambitions of Germany I believe.
Yes, France did declare war in 1939... after Germany had taken over Austria, the Sudetes and was sarting to gobble Poland. Who really was the agressor in this case? In civ III, we would call it being drawn in by an MPP...

While France's declaration of war in 1939 was justifiable, the situation was greatly France's fault in the first place. Had France and Britain (but especially France) not been so vindicitive in the Versailles peace terms, the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power would not have existed and WWII would probably never have happened.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"Preventable? Well, with Hitler at the wheel bent on conquering most of Europe I fail to see how it was preventable..."

when Hitler came to power Germany wasn't in very good shape, especially militarily. If his military buildup would have been stopped immediately, they could probably have had a case to force Hitler out of power, make a deal or keep troops stationed. Britain and France at the time weren't going to intervene until there was absolutely no doubt. I actually can't imagine what the top officials at the time were thinking.

OK, I agree with you but only with 20/20 hindsight... You are right but it is often very hard to do something like what you describe unless there is absolutely no doubt as you said (and by then it is too late). Look at Iraq in RL.

Originally posted by bobbo008

To the de Gaulle comments:

I never said he was stupid. His choice regarding Algeria wasn't much of a choice. He did kick NATO out, increased the military, and, if my sources are right, started the French nuclear program, with strong disapproval from most World powers. The French people did give him broad powers, and it is very commendable that he turned them down, however.

Yes, he did all these things because they gave France more of a voice on the international scene which he thought was a good/necessary thing. Otherwise, France would have turned into a satellite of the US like most other European countries. Countries fight militarily, diplomatically and economically for their own interests. It is just naive to think that your best interests can be defended by any other country. That's why he desired to be a friend of the US, but not their valet.

Originally posted by bobbo008

And yeah, he was a tank commander for the Free French. Would you happen to know if he encountered any Vichy French forces?

Actually, he was the leader of the Free French, not a tank commander. But he did lead a battalion of tanks in May 1940 in the original French army and was very successful at doing so.
He did order some battles between Allies against the Vichy French. Some were lost (Dakar,1941), others were won. He never forgave them for giving up against Germany.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


While France's declaration of war in 1939 was justifiable, the situation was greatly France's fault in the first place. Had France and Britain (but especially France) not been so vindicitive in the Versailles peace terms, the conditions that allowed Hitler to come to power would not have existed and WWII would probably never have happened.

Agreed
Everybody agrees nowadays that the Versailles Treaty achieved little more than setting the stage for WW2.

At the same time, I know that in the small village where I come from (about 700 inhabitants in 1914) there are 86 (!!) names of fallen soldiers on the War monument. This doesn't take into account all the crippled... It is difficult for me to imagine the devastation (both human&economic) this must have meant for most of the country. I imagine that resentment towards Germany must have been so high that the demand for harsh terms was huge.

I am not trying to justify this disastrous treaty, but just to understand how it came to be.

[Patroklos]

Germany, though it may not have started wars, finishes them and examining any of the conflics gives germany a 4 to 1 kill ratio. They may have lost some of those wars but it was obviously due to attrition not from lack of skill. Militaristic is most definetly a trait they possess.

Agressivness of 5 is only relevant it you are thinking of the ancient germaic tribes (which you might be doing and would make the agressivness more than rational). In the last 1000 years Germany has not been more or less aggressive than anyone else. In fact, the three most recent major wars they have been involved in, The Franco-Prussian (1877) WWI and WWII, were all started by France. Yes WWI can be blamed on all of them but it was France/Russia who decided to enact the alliance system. Germany was more than happy to allow an isolated Austo/Serbian or Austro/Russo war to take place. WWII austensibly should be blamed on Hitler, but then again that whole chain of events was brought on be French egotism at the negotiation table at the end of WWI. ALL major statesmen agree that WWII was started there.

As a side note, because I hate the Frenchies , they lost all three of those major wars. In the Franco/Prussian the Germans captured Paris and the emperor, and in WWI and II France's allies won and France got royaly beaten. Saying France won WWI or WWII is like saying the Dutch or Denmark did the same.

Thats what you get for being a cheese eating surrender monkey.

[Patroklos]

"My point exactly, they went around it because it denied them their numerical and material advantage. That was a pretty efficient counter-measure, I would say"

Not exactly true.

It is a fact that the best army in the world in 1939 belonged to France. It had numbers and material on its side, and had a vastly larger tank force than Germany. France's problem, the problem it has had since Napolean, is that it has incompotent leadership. Germany outfout France, and it bookies were taking bets alot of people would have laost alot of money.

A good example of French tactical retardation. There was no such thing as a french armor unit above battalion level, they were dispersed throughout the infantry units where they could be easily isolated and destroyed. The German Pazer DIVISIONS, slaughtered the French and they can't blame anyone but themselves. I actually give the most credit for the French defeat to the French, the Germans were just lucky.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos

In fact, the three most recent major wars they have been involved in, The Franco-Prussian (1877) WWI and WWII, were all started by France. Yes WWI can be blamed on all of them but it was France/Russia who decided to enact the alliance system. Germany was more than happy to allow an isolated Austo/Serbian or Austro/Russo war to take place. WWII austensibly should be blamed on Hitler, but then again that whole chain of events was brought on be French egotism at the negotiation table at the end of WWI. ALL major statesmen agree that WWII was started there.

Didn't you read my last post? I tried to give a glimpse of the amount of destruction suffered by the French in WW1. As you surely know, this war of attrition was fought at 90% on French territory. ~20% of the country was totally trashed with a huge loss of life and traumatism of the society. The main idea was to make Germany pay for all the damage caused. Bad Idea? Yes, really bad. Surprising that it happened? No, not all.
Unfortunately, in RL things seem to to follow a similar course of events since 9/11. "You hurt us? OK, we'll make you pay the price with mucho interest. " Further escalation/hatred ensues...

Originally posted by Patroklos

As a side note, because I hate the Frenchies , they lost all three of those major wars. In the Franco/Prussian the Germans captured Paris and the emperor, and in WWI and II France's allies won and France got royaly beaten. Saying France won WWI or WWII is like saying the Dutch or Denmark did the same.

Thats what you get for being a cheese eating surrender monkey.

You know what? France is still around (could that be a good example for culture flipping? ), largest country in Europe, and leading the EU with Germany. People do learn their lessons.
As for the cheese, you just don't know what you are missing...

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos

A good example of French tactical retardation. There was no such thing as a french armor unit above battalion level, they were dispersed throughout the infantry units where they could be easily isolated and destroyed. The German Pazer DIVISIONS, slaughtered the French and they can't blame anyone but themselves. I actually give the most credit for the French defeat to the French, the Germans were just lucky.

Yes, France was fighting a remake of WWI while Germany was fighting WWII... You know why? Maybe because we won WWI (yes we did despite what you say ) As a result the military leadership was worshipped and stayed in place 'til WWII. The situation was opposite on the German side... They got young blood and new ideas... Poor leadership can really do you in... I also still believe that equipment should not be assessed only numerically but also quantitatively.
For example in the Gulf War, Irak had similar numbers of planes and more tanks than the US. And also at least 5 times the number of soldiers, but it did them absolutely no good. Technology was the key enabler here.

[Patroklos]

Sorry De Gaulle, not trying to be hostile, sarcasm doesn't convey well through text.

"I also still believe that equipment should not be assessed only numerically but also quantitatively."

Also a fact recognized by all authorities was that the Allied tanks were technologically and capability wise superior to the German Panzers in 1939. The French/British Matilda is a good example, it was tactics that did the French in (the whole battalion spreading out deal). Planes, well, who was better is up for debate, I maitain they were equal in everything by tactics as far as the air is concerned (close air support). The debate pretty much ends up with everyone standing in awe of what the Germans did and sending France to the corner with a dunce cap, though Germany would earn that "honor" a lot more times by the end of the war.

I like cheese, just not monkeys.........

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Sorry De Gaulle, not trying to be hostile, sarcasm doesn't convey well through text.

No problem. I had surrendered anyway!

Originally posted by Patroklos

Also a fact recognized by all authorities was that the Allied tanks were technologically and capability wise superior to the German Panzers in 1939. The French/British Matilda is a good example, it was tactics that did the French in (the whole battalion spreading out deal). Planes, well, who was better is up for debate, I maitain they were equal in everything by tactics as far as the air is concerned (close air support). The debate pretty much ends up with everyone standing in awe of what the Germans did and sending France to the corner with a dunce cap, though Germany would earn that "honor" a lot more times by the end of the war.

OK, I see your point more clearly now. Tactics were bad, that's a fact.
To relate back to Civ III, would you consider that the allied were mostly depending on conscript troops while the Axis had veteran (Spain for the air force, Poland for all others) troops and leadership?

Originally posted by Patroklos

I like cheese, just not monkeys.........

I am glad you see the light.

[Patroklos]

This board is turning into a slightly lslower IM

As far as Civ III goes we can never get the traits right because every civ has been Industrious, Religious, Scientific or Expansionist at one point. I have never had a problem with the was the civs are balanced, and if I did I would jut do it myself via the editor.

The points everyone is expounding are centered around characteristics of WWII era cives, and these can be relevent only too a WWII mod or scenario. In that case I deal with the Allied (to include France) vs Germany problem by make German units powerful and expensive and Allied units weaker and cheap. It reflects botht the training and tactical superiority of the Germans as well as the atttrition strategy of the Allies, not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The points everyone is expounding are centered around characteristics of WWII era cives, and these can be relevent only too a WWII mod or scenario. In that case I deal with the Allied (to include France) vs Germany problem by make German units powerful and expensive and Allied units weaker and cheap. It reflects botht the training and tactical superiority of the Germans as well as the atttrition strategy of the Allies, not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

Looking forward to such a scenario. I suppose the allies will have a tech tree allowing them to get progressively better units as the war progresses to model RL WWII, right?
I have no problems whatsoever with the germans starting with better units...

Interestingly, the AI unability to mount successful overseas invasions means that the first part of the war (overrunning most of Europe bare England) will probably go according to plan.

[Action]

This thread is stupid.
Almost any of the civ traits could be applied to Germany. Two had to be picked, and they couldn't be duplicated.

expansionist: heck, they coined the term "lebensraum", and tried to expand repeatedly. Fits perfectly.

Militaristic: Until the post world war two era, Germany had an extremely formidable military, and they used it.

Scientific: During world war two they made major scientific breakthroughs and modern germany is also a scientific power.

Industrious: Today and during world war two germany has been an industrial world power.

Commercial: Modern day germany is a top commercial power. Isn't the main bank of the EU in Germany?

Religious: This one only sort of fits, but a case could be made; Martin Luther was German.

All 6 traits could easily be assigned to America as well, religious would fit even easier. So for civs like America and Germany where multiple traits fit they just picked the ones that weren't taken I'd guess.

Some civs only a few traits really fit so for those their options were limited and they needed to avoid duplicates.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by Patroklos
not to mention the general superiority of German equipment during the war (As I type this I am locking my door and making sure I have enough water and food to endure the siege of replies that statment is sure to generate). It works suprisingly well, and I ill show you when exams are over and I have a chance to start moding again .

I know a bit about air power in World War 2, and I will tell you why the Germans lost the air war. The Germans had 2 planes that were the staple of their air force: Me 109 and Focke Wulf 190. (The Fw even less so.) They never tried new fighter designs, they were happy with what they had and all new fighters they got were just upgrades on those planes. America, now, had the P-51, P-38, and P-40. These planes complemented each other much better than Germany's two fighters could, each complementing anothers weakness. And when the Me 262 rolled out, a plane which would have tilted the air in Germany's favor, Hitler ordered it to be used as a bomber. That was very fortunate for the allies. Another reason the Germans lost was short-sightedness. This could be seen in Poland, where they were thinking of a short war that would not last over a few years that would reinstate Germany as a world power. They did not think that the world would rise up against them, Hitler was too arrogant. This style of thinking resulted in dive bombers such as the Stuka and medium bombers such as the Me 110, the Dorniers and the Junkers. Short and medium range bombers are good for a short war in close proximity, but were not nearly as effective as B-17s which could fly in over great distances and delive a huge bomb load onto targets.

Ok, end of rant. You can come out now, Patroklos

[Patroklos]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, though I believe the FW190 to be superior to all allied fighters bar the P-51, and maybe the Thunderbolt (big maybe). I too believe that the failure to design a long range bomber with high payload was a major blunder by ther Germans, and the result was the loss of teh Battle of Britain. Once again though, even with the admition to the P-51's superior performance, numbers tell the tail. Loss to loss the germans still enjoyed a 4/1 ratio. This can be greatly attributed to the obsolete airforces of Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war, but still 4/1 is damning.

I am biased towards the Germans (if you couldn't tell), but I will admit that no matter how good your equipment or how elite your men, when one Tiger can take on fifty Shermans and destroy 20 odd of them (Normandy) and still you lose the day, you just got outproduced. Some say winning by attrition is ignoble, but then again as much as I admire the WWII German military, it lost.

[TheStinger]

The first FW190 were better then the spitfire at the time, latter versions(of the spitfire) matched it and from then on little improvements gave each fighter an advantage until a new one was thought up.

The Battle of Britain was not lost because of a lack of a long range bomber. It was lost because of superior stretery and tactics by the British and because of Radar.

The BOB was not about bombing it was about gaining air superiority to invade England.

[bongo]

Originally posted by solodar
The problem with the civs that still exist in the real world is that they have enough history to have had different characteristics at different times.

Firaxis seems to have picked one era and based the traits and the UU on that era.
solodar

Good observation, I'll call that a direct hit

An idea for civ4 would be to extend the current trait system a bit. Let every civ have a set of possible traits and UU's to choose from which were activated(and even changed) during the game.

For the Germans, when they discover religion why not let them have an unique wonder like 'reformation'(Remember Martin Luther?) which upon completion changed their trait to 'religious'.

Just a thought.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by solodar


The problem with the civs that still exist in the real world is that they have enough history to have had different characteristics at different times.

Firaxis seems to have picked one era and based the traits and the UU on that era. Germans have the Panzer UU so their traits fit the WWII era (trying to take over Europe and best scientific establishment on the planet -- check). France has the Musketeer and fits Sun King/Revolution period (cottage industry and mercantilism -- check).

solodar

I agree with Solodar on t his, although I do have believe that countries like France, Spain, Japanese and England with their colonies where more expansionistic and militaristic for much longer periods in their respective histories. They were very aggresive and have their own share of blood on their hands. But no memories of that part of history exist in the way the tho WW do and thus Germany is being stamped as that.

So long...

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by bongo



For the Germans, when they discover religion why not let them have an unique wonder like 'reformation'(Remember Martin Luther?) which upon completion changed their trait to 'religious'.

Just a thought.

but arguably Germany was MORE religious as the Roman Holy Empire than it was after the reformation.

[bongo]

Yes they were(bad example from me) but Martin Luthers thesis had great impact on christianity. Maybe the effect would be to make neighbouring civs loose 'religious' as a trait?

Anyway my point was that traits can change over time, depending on your actions(and priorities). Say, if you build lots of libraries in a short time you may trigger an age of enlightment, something like that.

[brianshapiro]

boris ,
i was half joking about alsace lorraine and the austrians. so i didnt really mean it (i called them poopooheadsafter all !!) . but anyway i would still anytime say that austria had a culture more academically oriented in the way france was and in fact was very close in ties to france for some period. germany had some intellectual worth but this stemmed from religion and politics , and for instance if you look at any list of 'important' germans, some are very important, most others are second-rate and some are obscure. and it happens that the important ones stand out from a very otherwise bleak cultural landscape. anyway i dont want detail my opinions in this topic

[brianshapiro]

acton ,
yeah and you could logically fit any list of traits with any person. but sometimes when you do that you miss the personality entirely. so for instance, with your list:

expansionistic : germans felt pressure to expand because europe was filled with major powers that had masses of overseas colonies. there is a theory that goes this way which terms the german pressure towards an 'internal empire'. for most of its history it was a set of dissociated states then only came to be n the 19th century and from then on for a short while tried to expand further.

militaristic: i mostly agree thats why i didnt complain about it.

scientific: some scientific breakthroughs over the last 100 years, many of them under military or industrial control, many of them in the long run will seem 'minor league' compared to other breakthroughs like 'the earth isnt the center'. but there are some very important ones, and it isnt altogether a bad trait.

industrious: military controlled industry became important in the 20th century, started industrial revolution late though and lacked before that a strong industrial foundation.

commercial: also a game trait

religious: it doesnt only sort of fit IMO, after all , most of the religious wars took place in germany, most of its important artworks, literature, etc were religious. this onmly ends modern day.


america wouldnt fit religious easier just because it had religious settlers and today there are debates which politically people tie to religion! after all the debates today about those issues move between freedoms and cultural values , and religion is just brought into this secondarily; any values at all which are argued to be cultural, moral, universal, are either by people ascribed to religion or otherwise explicitly support freedom. and many settlers were religious but most of these settlements were taken over by commercial ventures. there is a strain of religious sentiment in america but, it seems secondary to other cultural forces, ie they make religion come into play as an issue, and then religion never becomes too powerful or overbearing except through other issues

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
boris ,
i was half joking about alsace lorraine and the austrians. so i didnt really mean it (i called them poopooheadsafter all !!) . but anyway i would still anytime say that austria had a culture more academically oriented in the way france was and in fact was very close in ties to france for some period.

While Vienna was indeed a cultural center, overall what became unified Germany held far more cultural instutions, learning centers, etc. than the Austrian empire ever had. Leipzig, Nuremburg and Cologne were all major cultural centers. I think you're going on a false modern misconception that, pre-unification the German states were backwards. They certainly were not.

germany had some intellectual worth but this stemmed from religion and politics ,

Um, music, science and philosophy? Any list of the greatest names in science is going to have more Germans than probably any other nationality.

and for instance if you look at any list of 'important' germans, some are very important, most others are second-rate and some are obscure.

Who among those was second-rate or obscure? Not a single one of them is. Just because you may be ignorant of them doesn't mean they are less important. And certainly that list is a LOT longer than names you could muster for Austria.

and it happens that the important ones stand out from a very otherwise bleak cultural landscape. anyway i dont want detail my opinions in this topic

Bleak? You've got to be kidding me. You're going to back that assertion up, because it's just not true. Prior to WW2, Germany had always had a reputation as a center for culture and academics. It was seen as one of the most progressive lands in the world.

Germany has been a land of extremely important cultural, scientific, religious and social movements for well over a thousand years. Certainly on a par with the other great European powers.

You may not want to detail your opinions, but you're going to have to. I'd recommend reading some history on it first. An excellent book is A Handbook for Western Civilization by William H. MacNeil. While dry in style, it shows the parallel cultural developments in outline format for Western European civilizations. You'll see you couldn't be more wrong about Germany's cultural climate.

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The first FW190 were better then the spitfire at the time, latter versions(of the spitfire) matched it and from then on little improvements gave each fighter an advantage until a new one was thought up.

The Battle of Britain was not lost because of a lack of a long range bomber. It was lost because of superior stretery and tactics by the British and because of Radar.

The BOB was not about bombing it was about gaining air superiority to invade England.

If the Germans had a heavy bomber, radar would not have mattered so much. As you said, th battle was not about bombing, but you cannot achieve air superiority without bombing. Huge bombings wreck infrastructure, lower morale, and make it much easier to achieve air superiority. The Germans were using Me 110s and the like to bomb Britain.
These were barely bigger than the fighters that escorted them. They could not do sufficient damage to the British infrastructure, enabling them to withstand the fighter onslaught. if the Germans had invested into Heavy bombers instead of light fighter/bombers, the BOB would have turned out very differently.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
scientific: some scientific breakthroughs over the last 100 years, many of them under military or industrial control, many of them in the long run will seem 'minor league' compared to other breakthroughs like 'the earth isnt the center'. but there are some very important ones, and it isnt altogether a bad trait.

Have to disagree there. First, German scientists were leading the industrial world in the 1880s and 1890s, so there wasn't a military control factor. Second, you can hardly say that German scientist contributions will be considered "minor league," unless you're prepared the invention of the automobile, jet engine and theory of relativity will someday be seen as minor league...

industrious: military controlled industry became important in the 20th century, started industrial revolution late though and lacked before that a strong industrial foundation.

Actually, by the end of the 19th century Germany was the leading industrial power in Europe, outproducing Britain in most regards. It also had the largest and most efficient rail system in all of Europe, easily surpassing Britain's unplanned system. By 1913 Germany had the 2nd largest economy in the world, behind the UK.

religious: it doesnt only sort of fit IMO, after all , most of the religious wars took place in germany, most of its important artworks, literature, etc were religious. this onmly ends modern day.

One could also argue that it was German philosophers who helped destroy the stranglehold of religion, as many of them challenged the religious ideas of the nature of man and moved towards secular humanism. Certainly Marx and Engels helped in this regard.

And did most of the religious wars take place in Germany? I don't think you can really say that. After all, up until the Renaissance, almost all European wars took on religious connotations, and the most famous of them were the crusades, which didn't have much to do with Germany.

[brianshapiro]

boris,

i know about germanys academic institutions mostly notable because of teaching and teaching and scholastic methods , were very politically and religiously involved, and often didnt go beyond that to foster development sometimes because the methods were too stifled; no need to refer me to books its easy just looking at the reformation period to see how much during centered around universities and the main universities in europe actually, disciplined academic structures in the 19th c, then modern german economic theory and literary theory in the 20th c.

i know much of german theory is ignored by other western cultures for various reasons and also much of the historical culture , me i would say theres a reason for that other than mere politics

im not trying to belittle germany (the first two poopoohead posts were jokes) though i would when discussing germany historically underscore certain things i have about how german institutions were grounded and other facets of the culture surrounding them. to me someone pointing out the impressive list of philosophers and musicians in germany sounds like someone using copernicus as an argument for poland being an intellectual power or someone arguing rome was as intellectual as greece because of its many philosophers and literary figures. im only arguing personality characteristics not actual product. some might want to argue america as intellectual , and certainly its has many merits in this way, is the reason it sounds funny just because we talk of it in different ways or because of the way the culture fits
but then you have other cultures where it looks like children are inculcated in its values more directly [this i would ascribe to france at certain periods of history.]
also im not forgetting that any large power will have is share of important people.

austria has a small history of importance so i was joking about > germany as i said. but what i was serious about was the values during those periods

anyway i just dont think the argument im making is that important and is also halfbaked anyway espcially for here thats why i dont want to make this a full fledged debate

[brianshapiro]

[unless you're prepared the invention of the automobile, jet engine and theory of relativity will someday be seen as minor league...]
no i said there were some major ones, the theory of relativity was one . i dont think the invention of the automobile and jet engine though major social developments are major scientific breakthroughs in themselves

[Actually, by the end of the 19th century Germany was ]
Yah Germany and America both started the industrial revolution late and ended up being large players i wasnt arguing against that/ though that happened a lot because the countries developed more forceful institutions

[religion]
yes but even when religion was in italian culture it was the 'humanist' features that were more dominant popes collecting art etc. as i tried to half argue i think much of the german philosophy and art ,etc and academic tradition were grounded very steeply in religious and political language more than other countries.

germany helped over turn religionism and is no longer so religious . i was just arguing for the game feature of religious based on historical presence..


btw, i dont know if you see this too but to me it seems even now germany has as much a spiritual bleakness to it, transplaced from religion to existentialism then to absurdist art movements and theory later in the century.

[bobbo008]

"Yes, he did all these things because they gave France more of a voice on the international scene which he thought was a good/necessary thing"

All countries want that, but at what expense?

"I am not trying to justify this disastrous treaty, but just to understand how it came to be."

Obviously. When you get people, and they may or not be too bright, who lose so many people, you'd like them to pay as much as you can make them.

"Germany, though it may not have started wars, finishes them and examining any of the conflics gives germany a 4 to 1 kill ratio. They may have lost some of those wars but it was obviously due to attrition not from lack of skill. Militaristic is most definetly a trait they possess."

In both World Wars, over 2/3 of the casualties were Allied.

"Agressivness of 5 is only relevant it you are thinking of the ancient germaic tribes."

Might we go into Roman history, which travelled North and slaughtered peaceful Germanic villages. Does a name Julius Caesar ring a bell?

"I actually give the most credit for the French defeat to the French, the Germans were just lucky."

The French may deserve some credit for the loss, but I don't think the Germans were lucky, unless you say they were lucky all across Europe, like the two week battle for Poland.

"You know what? France is still around (could that be a good example for culture flipping? ), largest country in Europe, and leading the EU with Germany. People do learn their lessons.
As for the cheese, you just don't know what you are missing... "

France is the largest country in Europe with the exlusion of Russia, obvoiusly, and I think it's larger than Russia. And the French and Germans working together is great, even though some of the locals may not think so. As for cheese, I live in Wisconsin, so us and France form like...an axis of cheese.

"As a result the military leadership was worshipped and stayed in place 'til WWII"

Nice reasoning. Isn't that the trouble with contentment?

"Planes, well, who was better is up for debate, I maitain they were equal in everything by tactics"

Most people who flew both claimed them to be equal, with the obvious exception of German jets.

"This thread is stupid."

what? MY thread??

"Almost any of the civ traits could be applied to Germany"

You now fill my heart with pride, although I already pointed this out.

"The Germans had 2 planes that were the staple of their air force"

I agree, and they never even attempted a serious long-range bomber, just a lot of stupid multi-purpose things, etc.

"which upon completion changed their trait to 'religious'."

Hmm...maybe an internal struggle between Protestants/Catholics?

"By 1913 Germany had the 2nd largest economy in the world, behind the UK."

Tis now 3rd, after the U.S. and Japan and the 2nd largest exporter.

"the crusades, which didn't have much to do with Germany."

Our lovable Barbarossa drowned during the Crusades!

[Akka]

I'm just a bit amazed to see how most of this thread is based much more on a priori and clichés rather than true understanding of situations and knowledge...

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Yea, but twice in the past 90 years it have been the French, who declared war. They should have said: "We declare war, but please please please don't attack us, we're French!" May be this had helped.

France was allied with Poland. And they would have been next anyway. Who declares war has nothing to do with who is more aggressive.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
The Germans were using Me 110s and the like to bomb Britain.
These were barely bigger than the fighters that escorted them. They could not do sufficient damage to the British infrastructure, enabling them to withstand the fighter onslaught. if the Germans had invested into Heavy bombers instead of light fighter/bombers, the BOB would have turned out very differently.

Actually, the Me 110 was a fighter-bomber. Germany had some better level bombers, like the Ju 88, the Do 17 and the He 111. But they could in no way compete with the British and American ones.