Who is going to play the game after 43???

[Raverdave]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian

And he won't be playing WitP after 1943, either, along with the other groups mentioned.

But I will.

Don't forget Paternakski......you are on my Dancecard.

[barbarrossa]

ORIGINAL: PzB

The most experienced player should play Japan if there's any interest in having a balanced game.
As I've stated before, it will be very difficult to motivate oneself to play a game for several real time years if there's no hope. (Posted something about drowning rats in jars with lids on earlier...)

Playing the Allied side you KNOW that you only have to survive the initial storm, then all kinds of goodies will flow into your armory and enable you to kick some serious a$$ - no matter how well your esteemed opponent has played. From the other side of the fence, the situation will be the exact opposite one. I bet a lot of usually very determined ppl will find it hard to get through the last few years of the game.

So choose your opponent with care...
I will only play WitP against persons I know from the forums and previous UV games.

Damien, I can't agree with you, the Axis powers could not have won the war. It would take a long and exhausting paragraph to explain that in detail, so I'll go for the short version.

After studying the war in Europe for many years, this is very much what I've concluded with;
The war would not have started unless Hitler 'happened', but Germany could in reality never hope to win a war started by Hitler and led by Hitler.

If you say that 'dumb mistakes from the top' prevented Germany from winning, you should also be aware exactly who made up 'the top'. I'm pretty sure most of you can guess just that; Adolf, Adolf, Hitler, Adolf Hitler, Hitler Adolf & Adolf.
Grøfaz (Grøsster Feltherre zu alle Zeiten) was the puppet master and controlled virtually everything of importance in Germany during the war.

No single person, no matter how skilled, could fill all the roles Hitler held. If you add that Hitler didn't have anywhere near the necessary skills required to be even CinC of the Whermacht, and was more or less psychotic at times, it would be possible to conclude that Germany could never have won the war as long as he held all the positions he did.

The war in the Pacific was a disaster for Japan, only the Army really wanted a war, the Emperor and the Navy opposed it as best they could. Officers that were not blinded by national feelings and divine meaning KNEW that Japan could not win a war against America - Yamamoto included. Here is a quote by Rear Admiral Ugaki Matome, CoS of the Combined Fleet on November 3rd 1941.

"Do they come to gaze up / At the fleet in full dress - / This shoal of horse mackerel?" "Am informed that the date for the signing of an agreement with the army has been fixed for somewhere between the eight and the tenth (here refering to the coming attack on Pearl). Everything is OK. Die, die all of you! I will die too, for my country!"

Joining ranks with Germany in reality sealed Japans faith. Only 13 months after the attack on Pear, the Allies drafted the 'unconditional surrender' term at Casablanca. Although not a very wise one, it meant that Japan could never hope to successfully negotiate a separate peace with its foes. I can hardly see how any other possible successes achieved by Japan in 1942 would have changed this. If Japan had fought a perfect war, it would still have been hammered into submission by no later than the end of 1946.

These are only my personal conclusions, but I can assure you that I've put a lot of thought and consideration into them.

Mike, can't you put a lid on those fanboy remarks of yours? They're in the process of being etched into your fingerprints, and soon you'll not be able to type anything without starting a sentence with them [;)] ....and yees, I'm tired of them. [>:]

If Hitler had gone to war after the Panther and Tiger had come on line with the rest of the Wermacht intact in numbers such as it was at the time say, 1940 but with upgraded armor and aircraft of the '43 timeframe and hadn't started the war yet, the Japanese quite probably would have strolled into Singapore and Hong Kong[:D].

Provided Brest-Litovsk had been honored by both sides.

oh well.......speculation speculation[:D]

[barbarrossa]

So you are an Axis fanboy or what?[&o][:D]

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian

And he won't be playing WitP after 1943, either, along with the other groups mentioned.

But I will.

Don't forget Paternakski......you are on my Dancecard.

Hey I want to play him. The email quotes would be a riot.

[joliverlay]

Reply to Mogomi:

You wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian.

My assertion was about the Carthagenians, not Hannibal. As I said, I belive that Carthage was settled by a group of Semitic peoples sometime called the "sea peoples" or was later established as a Greek colony. Modern Libia is certinly inhabited by caucasians today. As to your statement, I would certinly like to hear the source. I recall a contraversy over a film about Hannibal arising over the fact the character of Hannibal was not to be caucasian. However, I've read nothing by Livy, Polybius, Herodotus suggesting that he was not a decendent of a greek colonist or a semite.

[j campbell]

Mogami,

The IJA was in favor of an attack- -Sugiyama who was on the high command as chief of staff IJA (i believe) was vehemently in favor of an attack (he was also the same individual that had promised the emporer that the china incident would be over in 1 month)

You are correct in your ascertation that the Japanese initiated hostilites in 1931 with the chinese in order to secure manchuko (this was done by an large by the Kwangtung army on its on volition). however, the main incident that renewed and increased the "China incident" was the Marco Polo bridge shooting exchange that was almost certainly precipitated by chinese communists on the china side-they shot after the cease fire had been arranged. Japane then went overboard and expanded hostilities.

Nevertheless-what was the main concern of the Americans what went on in China?? the Japanese certainly were not acting in the manor of Mother Theresa but the USA wanted market share or trading interests or whatever because they made china and a possible conflict with Japan a large part of their foreign policy. that is why i always laugh when people say Japan started the war with the USA on Dec 7 -in my opinion the war had started long ago-people often think japan just woke up one morning and said-"lets go bomb pearl harbor" without ever researching the events that lead up to this operation.

[ColFrost]

I for one, will be playing the game the entire way through, although I will probably lose horribly (check with Madflava13, mbatch, Nomad, if you doubt that veracity).

Not only is quitting when you are losing the height of rudeness, the best time I ever had was when all was lost, and I pulled something out of my rear, and it worked.

So, remember all you who read this, when this game comes out, and you need a patsie, remember ColFrost.

I didn't chose this name and the Icon for no reason.

It's not whether you win or lose, it's what how you fight that makes the difference.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Reply to Mogomi:

You wrote: Sorry to burst your bubble but Hannibal was not caucasian.

My assertion was about the Carthagenians, not Hannibal. As I said, I belive that Carthage was settled by a group of Semitic peoples sometime called the "sea peoples" or was later established as a Greek colony. Modern Libia is certinly inhabited by caucasians today. As to your statement, I would certinly like to hear the source. I recall a contraversy over a film about Hannibal arising over the fact the character of Hannibal was not to be caucasian. However, I've read nothing by Livy, Polybius, Herodotus suggesting that he was not a decendent of a greek colonist or a semite.

Hi, Carthage was founded in 815BC by colonists from the city of Trye. (Carthage means "New City" Tyre was founded around 3000BC The Fact that Libya today has fair skined people means nothing (Was there not a Gothic Empire in North Africa? And Spain? Once upon a time 10 percent of Portuguals population was black but it has been mixed out of existence. (Argentina as well)
Paintings from Eygpt recording commerce with Carthage paint them redish brown. In the same painting other envoys from other lands are yellow. Greeks are painted with fair skin. (The Eygptians in the first painting are also redish brown.)
I don't know what the big deal is here. The Romans don't seem to have reported skin color (I don't think it mattered much to them)
The Army of Hannibal was prehaps the most diverse ever to take the field.

The word Semitic means nothing. It does not refer to race and was not even a word before the 18th Century.

Sorry it was the Vandals in North Africa. On October 19, 439 A.D., an army of Vandals and Alans, led by their king Geiseric, entered Carthage, one of the greatest cities of the whole Roman Empire and the second city of the Western Empire. Within three years, Gaiseric consolidated a North African Vandal kingdom, encompassing the former Roman provinces of Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, and Tripolitania, that was to survive for nearly a century.The loss of North Africa was a severe blow to the beleaguered Western Empire. Not only was Rome's main grain supply cut off, but the Vandal fleet based at Carthage soon controlled the western Mediterranean. The Vandals took Rome itself in 455 and plundered it for two weeks. In fact, the Vandal kingdom was to outlast the Western Roman Empire. So on top of the Romans being there for several hundred years you have the Vandals. Any wonder there are fair skinned people there today?

[joliverlay]

Mogomi:

The oldest pottery unearthed in Carthage is Greek. The inhibatants came primarily from the Eastern Med.

J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London, 1977) p. 240; Picard, The Life and Death of Carthage, pp. 34ff.


If you look at portraits of Hannibal on coins from Carthage they look much like the people of Lebenon, Israel, Palestine today.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Mogomi:

The oldest pottery unearthed in Carthage is Greek. The inhibatants came primarily from the Eastern Med.

J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London, 1977) p. 240; Picard, The Life and Death of Carthage, pp. 34ff.

If you look at portraits of Hannibal on coins from Carthage they look much like the people of Lebenon, Israel, Palestine today.

Hi, The people in those parts today are not the people who were there in 800 BC (or even during Hannibals time)
Of course they came from the eastern Med where do you think Tyre is?

Nothing about Carthage appears to me to be Greek. They certainly had contact and trade with them. I think they had more contact (and mingling so to speak) with the native population (by native I mean those peoples they found there when they settled after moving from Tyre) By the time of Hannibal the formerly native peoples would be "pure" Carthagian.

[Ron Saueracker]

Should this stuff not be reserved for the Mediteranean game?[:)]

[joliverlay]

Mogami:

I love your work on UV and WITP, but IMO on ancient history you are grossly incorrect.

I found ALL of your arguments about Hannibal/Carthage, Portugal, Argentina, and Egyptian Paintings in an article about an movie project written by a journalist named Richard Poe (RichardPoe.com). It was about having a minority actor potray Hannibal. I can't believe anyone would use a news writers uncited commentary justifying political correctness over the opinions of historians. I know of three major well referenced theories for the origin of the Phonecians. 1. They came from India, perhaps after a clash with the Arians. 2. They were similar to the Semites in the current Middle East. 3. They were Celtic. Their language included elements of Greek and other Eastern Med. languages. None of these views are consistant with your assertion. You have not burst my bubble, but you have demonstrated a desire to make a politically correct point. Why?

[mogami]

I'm not sure where it is heading or why it is important. I've seen people post things like the Moors were not black. (ruins Othello) because the Spanish today are not black and the Moors held a large portion of Spain. And Sicilians don't want to think the Carthaginians were dark because they occupied Sicily. (Part of the dispute with Rome)

In fact it is the constant conflict between the Greek City states of Sicily and Carthage that makes me doubt any Greek origin for Carthage. The Greeks went to extremes destroying Punic cities (Alexander and Tyre) While Carthage destroyed Greek cities it took. The Greeks did not have a habit of destroying their own cities. (The one instance I can find helped begin the Peloponnesian War. ) But even this most famous of wars did not result in Sparta destroying Athens after the war.

[joliverlay]

OK Ron,

Your Right. This is not the place.

Mogami can reply to my criticism of his sources if he wishes, and I'll let it rest.

I would like to post on another subject mentioned above. I don't belive anything the Axis could have done could have won the war, short of mass production of the atomic bomb. Perhaps a stalemate was possible. According to the Axis production guy (his name escapes me) some did propose the mass use of nerve gas to Hitler. Since we only had chemical agents and they had advanced nerve agents, this might have produced a stalemate, but I'm not sure. There as also the possibility of a stalemate before Kursk, but the Russians and Germans could not agree on a border and thus a separate peace. IMO Germany lost the war for two reasons. Russia was willing to lose 25 million citizens, and American could outproduce the Axis even if Britain failed.

As to playing Japan in the end. Winning the game is certinly possible even if the war is lost. The losing position can be a challenge. I expect that judicious use of Kamakizi, and mid war prepositioning of large garrisons with supplies my greatly slow the allied effort.

[mogami]

Hi, I don't know about Mr Poe but I don't need to cite anyone to arrive at what I've posted.
I think (if I understand you correctly) your saying that the people in Hannibals time in those locations are the same as today. My response has been and remains that I don't think the people in those areas are the same today as they were then.
There are vast areas occupied today by people other then those one would have found 1000 years ago. The Med being one of those areas that has seen much traffic.
The people in France today are not the ones the Romans fought. The people in Germany were not there in the time of Hannibal. The Middle East has seen at least 4 changes in major race since the time of Hannibal. (Am I still quoting your web page? If so go check his sources he likely has some good ones)

I don't know what the purpose of this is. I maintain that there were many powerfull non white groups in history. Prehaps not in the age of colonization (the modern one since most of history is one group colonizing the area occupied by another group)

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Mogomi:

The oldest pottery unearthed in Carthage is Greek. The inhibatants came primarily from the Eastern Med.

J. N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London, 1977) p. 240; Picard, The Life and Death of Carthage, pp. 34ff.


If you look at portraits of Hannibal on coins from Carthage they look much like the people of Lebenon, Israel, Palestine today.

Carthage was founded by Phonecians.

[mogami]

I think they were Trojans.

[madflava13]

I can certainly vouch for Col. Frost's consistency in getting turns out... I'm working on one right now, actually.

I cannot vouch for him being a "patsie" - our game is quiet as we both stock up our bases and forces, but his sub deployments are playing he11 with my transports... If you play him, make him play with IJN sub doctrine ON... hehe.

[mdiehl]

The Germans weren't going to win WW2 vs. the UK, US, and USSR led by ANYONE. It's odd to me how everyone assumes that things would have gone substantially better for the Wehrmacht if Hitler had not been running the show. Purely from a "how much expansion by when" point of view, Hitler was the best person to be in charge through 1940, because the general staff pretty much considered all the things that Hitler ordered through 1940 to be, well, likely to lead to disaster.

Leaving aside the "no retreat" orders to 6th AG in late 1942, you still have a nation with an army that amounted to a WW1 Army with some armored accoutrements supported by a logistical system that would have seemed appropriate for the Army of the Potomac. You still have the most inefficient procurements and design program among the major European powers, with a hyperabundance of vehicles with varying armaments, designs, wheel sizes, track sizes, and capabilities compounding all the logistical problems. You still have a Gauleter production system that was, well, dedicated both to croneyism and to the production of highly specialized designs (like the PzVI and to a lesser extent the PzV) that were mechanically unreliable and difficult to service in the field.

There really isn't much the Germans could have done to avoid defeat. They were outgunned, outmaneuvered, out supplied, by late 1942 out-generalled, and by June 1944 wholly out-talented. They were still dangerous, but the Germans lost all hope of victory when they went after the USSR. Probably lost all hope of victory when they did not sue for an armistice after the fall of France. Maybe that's the only point where not having Hitler in charge would have made much of a difference.

[sven6345789]

actually, just about every army in europe was equipped according to WW1 standards in 1939 (exception being the british). What the Germans had going for them was a strategy on how to use the new assets that had become available (Tanks, stronger airplanes) to best effect (Blitzkrieg). The French on the other hand praised their artillery above everything else.
Actually, you always try to fight the next war along the lines you won the last one. It is the looser who starts to think about a different strategy (after all, the last one didn't work).
You are correct on the economic nightmare taking place behind the frontline. Germany never was such a solid block during the Nazi dictatorship as the foreign countries believed. It should be viewed more like a feudal state, with every little Fuehrer trying to wrestle some power from one of the other little Fuehrers. a constant chaos, with Hitler being the sole referee.