I'd like to see government types that increase the production or the food output

quote: Originally posted by Andz83 on 05-13-2000 05:04 PM Well, in Civ2 we had two governemnt forms that raised the trade amount: republic and democracy I'd like to see government types that increase the production or the food output Communism/Fascism would be predestinated for this, weren't they?

Well, two parts to the question...

1) The governments need to have tradeoffs that balance against each other and avail strategies that can be successful in each without being unbeatable.

2) Communism is possibly the WORST government for production, food, or research. The USSR, North Korea, China, Cuba, etc. are all excellent examples. All are net food importers, all have standards of living under what we would consider reasonable (see if your local North Korean retailer has ToT on the shelf. Or even has a shelf), all have technology that laughably lags behind western standards.

Fascism is kind of tricky, as it isn't neccesarily a form of government as opposed to a trait. People like to equate Nazism to Fascism, which is not really correct, although some traits are common between them. Nazism had more in common with Stalinist Communism than any other major government in Europe (stooge in Italy notwithstanding).

If one wanted a fascist government, I would offer benefits of reduced unhappiness, free support for two units, maybe a special unit (security troops) that can reduce unhappiness in any city by 4 (important when capturing cities). As a disadvantage, science should take 2 extra turns REGARDLESS of light bulb production (Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists), higher rates of barbarians (resistance by undesirables), and negative diplomatic tendencies (countries tend to be hostile).

Communists...well, frankly the current Civ2 communist unit is really unrealistic for the government, but if it were realistic (1/2 science, -1 food, -1 shield), who'd choose it? Maybe reduced unhappies, security troops, immunity to diplomatic pressure...

You must be joking! Go check out "units and democracy". Dalgetti and I just went through how Communism should be changed to lose food and GAIN shield and science production. We have HUGE posts about it.

And to whoever made the post about two free units under facism, I agree. But I'd actually make it more than two. Or full support for a certain unit (similar to Fundy)

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 05:58 PM Venger - minus one shield?? minus 1/2 science??? "reduced unhappies"?!?!?! You must be joking! Go check out "units and democracy". Dalgetti and I just went through how Communism should be changed to lose food and GAIN shield and science production. We have HUGE posts about it.

Incoming!!

I've read them. They are historically inaccurate. Soviet Communism COLLAPSED. It literally shriveled up and blew away. Soviet Communism depleted the entire Soviet gold reserve, once the world's largest. It's GONE. The Warsaw Pact dissolved, all traces of empire gone overnight. And you want to compare production now, after Soviet central planning utterly destroyed the entire country for 70 years, to it's production while it was busy exhausting it's resources? After the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the removal of Belarus, the Ukraine, and the Baltic states from the picture? The damage done is going to take a generation to fix, unfortunately.

That the country collapsed like a house of cards should show everyone the mirage that was the Russian Bear.

Science? You must be kidding. There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced. Space? Their program was far less successful than ever thought, now that Soviet archives show the massive level of resources used and the number of setbacks they had. Mir, anyone? Military? Dear Lord, please examine the burning hulks of Iraqi and Syrian equipment destroyed by the Israeli's in the eighties and the U.S. in the 90's. The East Germans in particular had to thank God Almighty they weren't ever called upon to be the front line for what was going to be M1A2 and A-10 target practice...Medicine? Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were breeding grounds for the new resistant strains of tuberculosis. They did however have a huge smallpox and anthrax germ warfare facility. Industry? Russian industry was never able to create consumer goods, durable goods, or foodstuffs in any quantity or quality to satisfy domestic demand, much less actually EXPORT anything. Nearly all Soviet exports were of raw minerals or military equipment (much of which currently has numerous NATO created holes).

As to reduced unhappiness, it's not so much a result of bliss and euphoria as it is of police control and Russian historical culture, where self determination and liberty had never occurred.

quote: And to whoever made the post about two free units under facism, I agree. But I'd actually make it more than two. Or full support for a certain unit (similar to Fundy)

That was me. I think two is enough personally, but I could be talked into three...the other benefits make it a balanced government if you can swallow the concept of fascism personally...

You say "mir" I think "Challanger". The US and USSR both had their aviation failures. And Challanger was in 86. The Soviets had just as many nuke's (ok, if you want to be accurate - more) and more subs deployed in more places across the globe.

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-14-2000 06:31 PM Your post supports my view on Communist production.

Hmmm...I didn't think so. How about this - military units are produced at a 20% discount under communism. Hey, that's sounds pretty good!

quote: Everything in between was simply your view on the collapse and failures of Communism in Russia (which btw I completely agree on). The fact that they depleted all of their resources in 70 years SHOWS how their production dramatically increased.

Problem is, EVERY nation experienced ridiculous growth since the advent of the production line and the automobile. GNP figures show the US smashed the USSR in that field. But, let's not quibble on that...the concept is to capture the essence of the Soviet/Communist government to give it the right balance of effects that you feel like you're playing (against) them, but in a way that neither unfairly helps or hurts you in comparison to other governments...

quote: And none of the information was inaccurate.

My quibbles:
1917 Russia was Europe's sleeping Giant and nothing more
Communism under Stalin turned them into a major industrial power house

quote: You say "mir" I think "Challanger". The US and USSR both had their aviation failures. And Challanger was in 86.

I really don't want to compare space disasters, as A) they had many more, and B) that wasn't my point. Mir wasn't a disaster, just a piece of junk.

quote: The Soviets had just as many nuke's (ok, if you want to be accurate - more) and more subs deployed in more places across the globe.

This is kinda pointless, because nuke counting get's absurd after about 100 deliverables ...

BUT...most Soviet MIRV's couldn't hit water if they fell out of a freaking boat. Every Soviet Typhoon or Yankee that sortied had a LA class on her ass - first thing that was to be done under declaration of war was to sink every Soviet submarine made. Bombers...forget it.

BUT...you can't them all, which is kinda the point! So from that perspective...

If anyone is interested they should read the SE models from The List v2.0. They are all highly complex, but very realistic and playable.

On the Communism business I would think that communism would get a production bonus (both for units and other stuff). During WW2 the Soviets pumped out tanks at a tremendeous rate, far faster than any other civ. And that was even though a large part of their productive capabilities had been destroyed by the nazis. On the other side they should get a trade penalty, which in the real world is shown by the system's incapability to produce consumers goods, and to meet the demands of the people.

I think that it is pointless to discuss the soviets military strength compared to the USA. They were not at all as weak as Venger described. The Soviet MIG 29 was by far the best fighter of it's time. It was much better than both the F14, 15 and 16. The russians had more (and better, I think) tanks than the US, and more subs.

But no matter what both sides (and all others) would be completely destroyed if a war between them ever came.

but , here they come . the inaccuracies .

you said that the Israelis blew up Soviet equipment in th 80's . the reason for that humiliating defeat lies not just in the tanks , but abount the tanks Syrian T-72's(old . old . old ) didn't stand a chance IsraEl's hot-from-the-oven in that time Merkava MBT ( proud production of the local military Industries complex))

second : ( also , very proudly ) Israel's soldiers are far better trained than Syrians.

now about this :

quote: The East Germans in particular had to thank God Almighty they weren't ever called upon to be the front line for what was going to be M1A2 and A-10 target practice.

oh really ? with a force ratio of 1:10 MBT's
(if not higher)
the soviets couldn't lose ! anyway that Abrams MBT is a nice piece of craft but dont forget : Soviets have T-90's . and keep in mind that 1:10 ratio.

and A-10's ? well I'll give you a name of a SAM model called S-300. this baby eats chumps like Warthog for breakfast . it also can take an F-117 as a treat .... :P

and yes the MiG is a better aircraft than the F-16 . it's only minus is a pretty weak Missle system , if I am not mistakin'.

and about failures in space . don't forget that "MIR" was designed for 3 years of service only. Its failures are results of poor supply , by the New regime . ( I would describe it in Civ Language as between-goverment-anarchy ) .

dont forget that the Western Democracy is feeding itself from .... 1 billion ppl living for less than a dollar a day ( as RATM video said ) . yep . that's what you call western standards ,huh ? oh maybe it's foregn corporations taking over . cheap jobs . almost a slave labor .

damn , Venger . you just don't know . if some1 lives in luxury , another person lives in poverty . yes . It's sad but it's true .

P.S. to kill some more myths in your heart, Venger :
- It doesn't always snow in Russia .
(as shown in any american movie)
- Russians don't Hit Hi-Tech equipment in order to fix it . ( as shown in Armageddon )
-Russians aren't always drunk.
-Not all Russians are Attached to the KGB .

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 05-15-2000 03:05 PM Venger : I protest . first of all as The Joker said both sides would be completely destroyed in a case of a war .

Nuclear yes, convetional no. The Germans would take the brunt of it though...

quote: but , here they come . the inaccuracies . you said that the Israelis blew up Soviet equipment in th 80's . the reason for that humiliating defeat lies not just in the tanks , but abount the tanks Syrian T-72's(old . old . old ) didn't stand a chance IsraEl's hot-from-the-oven in that time Merkava MBT ( proud production of the local military Industries complex))

So slap an M1A1 on. The Merkava isn't all that grand unless in Mk3 form. The Israeli's actually used a whole slew of M60A3's if I'm not mistaken...The T-90 is a T-72 with prettier paint. And examine that 79-0 Syrian vs. Israeli air force count.

quote: second : ( also , very proudly ) Israel's soldiers are far better trained than Syrians.

Can't argue with that. But consider the training level of British and American front liners to Warsaw Pact forces that are exactly how dependable?

quote: now about this : oh really ? with a force ratio of 1:10 MBT's (if not higher) the soviets couldn't lose !

Of tanks likely to be lost at ridiculous rate to AT fire from enemy armor and Apache/A-10. You pity the T-72, what do you think was the most numerous tank on the German front?

quote: anyway that Abrams MBT is a nice piece of craft but dont forget : Soviets have T-90's . and keep in mind that 1:10 ratio.

I am duly unimpressed by the T-90, really a derivative of the T-72. Bad fire control, bad mobile fire, bad power to weight ratio. Now mind you, I wouldn't want to walk in front of one, but I'll ride in 70 tons of M1A2 before I wedge my ass in a T-90.

quote: and A-10's ? well I'll give you a name of a SAM model called S-300. this baby eats chumps like Warthog for breakfast . it also can take an F-117 as a treat .... :P

There are a number of S-300 designates, most designed for higher altitude interception.

In addition - forward deployment of AA units is problematic in an armored thrust as close support aircraft from NATO will be primarily operating over their own territory and the very front line, assuming a WP advance. To put AA in such advance locations make them highly vulnerable to ground attack. Also, keep in mind the near ridiculous amount of CM available especially in a compressed front, I'd be suprised if half the guided weapons from either side worked...

Note that nearly all NATO craft lost in Bosnia and Iraq were due to ye old flak.

quote: and yes the MiG is a better aircraft than the F-16 . it's only minus is a pretty weak Missle system , if I am not mistakin'.

79-0. Nuff said. Also - what's the point of building a fine aircraft if you can't arm it? AMRAAM is an excellent AA system.

quote: and about failures in space . don't forget that "MIR" was designed for 3 years of service only. Its failures are results of poor supply , by the New regime . ( I would describe it in Civ Language as between-goverment-anarchy ) .

Heh...MIR is an example of the penultimate of Soviet technology. Yikes!

quote: dont forget that the Western Democracy is feeding itself from .... 1 billion ppl living for less than a dollar a day ( as RATM video said ) . yep .

Are you referring to food? Western democracies are net exporters of food. Third world countries (including many former Soviet republics and of course nearly all Soviet client states) are net importers. Drop by Uncle Kim's place in North Korea and share a grain of rice with him.

quote: that's what you call western standards ,huh ? oh maybe it's foregn corporations taking over . cheap jobs . almost a slave labor .

Slave labor, I LOVE IT! Obviously multinational corporations are taking these people out of whatever high wage paying job they had before to make them work at $1 a day...of course, never mind what that money buys.

quote: damn , Venger . you just don't know . if some1 lives in luxury , another person lives in poverty . yes . It's sad but it's true .

Not quite. We can all be millionaires. But if we were, who'd work? Being a millionaire wouldn't be worth anything, because you'd need to pay $1000 for anyone to bother to make you a Big Mac. It's relative, just like that $1 a day paycheck. If $1 buys food for the family, isn't that the important part?

quote: P.S. to kill some more myths in your heart, Venger : - It doesn't always snow in Russia . (as shown in any american movie)

It doesn't always snow in Canada either - but would you describe Moscow as warm or cold climed?

quote: - Russians don't Hit Hi-Tech equipment in order to fix it . ( as shown in Armageddon )

Shit, Americans do! And by God, sometimes it works! Not that Russians have hi-tech equipment...

quote: -Russians aren't always drunk.

Alcoholism is rampant in Russian society. It's a shame.

quote: -Not all Russians are Attached to the KGB .

The KGB doesn't exist anymore. The FSB does though...

Venger

Unless you can get someone else on your side on this thread to back you up, I'm afraid you have a very small case.

hell if I am not mistakin' , in some battle the Israelis found the Egyptian Armor fleeing even before engaging battle. Israelis crushed egyptian armor at a 1:3 ratio and agree with me that the Patton is no killer and is not superb to the T-62 .

The Merkava Mk 1 was NOT a modified Patton .
Actually it's basic design hasn't changed in all designs from Mk1 to Mk3 . anyway the Mk3 is equal to the West-German Leopard ( last models ), and the British Challenger ( also the last model )

about the planes and SAMs . american SAM' lose in a sure way to the Soviet.
I just remember during the gulf war ...
Patriot SAMs " defended " us ....
I am not sure they've even hit one Warhead

....
Planes ... well . AMRAAMs are great . but I am sure that Soviets had their own missiles.
...

and haven't you checked out Soviet choppers . just don't say Hinds coz I dont mean them. chopps like .... Ka-?? I don't remember . ( ok I admit . I DONT remember ! )
or planes like the Su-25 ... ( does the same as the Warthog )

or ATGMs ... anyway ...

about ppl : When I said live in poverty I didn't mean amount of money . you know that if there is plenty of money and no goods the money value falls . Remember Post-War Germany ? Remember carts full of cash ?
well what I actually meant was ... ahh never mind coz you won't change your mind anyway .

OrangeSfwr :
give me a 5 !

Andz83 :
You still can't understand what have you started , right ?

quote: . Nazism had more in common with Stalinist Communism than any other major government in Europe

Nazi German style
Private ownership:yes
Centralised economic planning:yes
Not regulated price control:yes

Soviet style
Private ownership:no
Centralised planning:yes
Not regulated price control:no

Western Europe style
Private ownership:yes
Centralised planning:no
Not regulated price contorl:yes

I see more similarities with Western style.

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists

But still managed to develop rocket and jet engine. actually Me262 would be in production line by late 1942, if Hitler did not order general halt on military research during early stage of WWII.(he thought the war would be shorter)

quote: There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced

I heard that US jet propulsion tech is one year ahead of Russia but Russian rocket tech is one year ahead of USA too.

quote: Russian industry was never able to create consumer goods, durable goods, or foodstuffs in any quantity or quality to satisfy domestic demand,

That's right and my corporation model exactly simulate this kind of situation.

quote: Mir wasn't a disaster, just a piece of junk.

But at leat only working manned space-station
and the first too. bi-planes are pieces of junk compare to modern day air planes but their historic significance as pioneers never be underestimated.

quote: The Soviet MIG 29 was by far the best fighter of it's time

what about Su27 and Su35? they too are superb indeed.

quote: Slave labor, I LOVE IT!

I must agree with ... well virtually everybody on this thread, that Venger is showing a classic examble of ignorance, caused by american anticommunist propaganda. What a shame!

The USSR had it's succeses and failures and so did the US. USSR, for instance, had a far better health sector than the US ever had. Although this is all in the past...

And it is VERY true that a very important reason that we in the west can have our current lifestyle is the exploitation of workers in third world countries (a communist would say it was the only reason!!).

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-16-2000 08:06 AM My god you people know a lot about weapons!

quote: I must agree with ... well virtually everybody on this thread, that Venger is showing a classic examble of ignorance, caused by american anticommunist propaganda. What a shame!

quote: The USSR had it's succeses and failures and so did the US. USSR, for instance, had a far better health sector than the US ever had. Although this is all in the past...

quote: And it is VERY true that a very important reason that we in the west can have our current lifestyle is the exploitation of workers in third world countries (a communist would say it was the only reason!!).

I am not a communist but I'll say this any way : it's not the only reason . I don't know what is the reason .
the fact is that Communism brought the Russia a Giant Leap ahead . It virtually saved it from getting stuck in the 19th century . Stalin ( believe me I hate this guy . He put some of my ancestors to jail .)
was the one to introduce literacy to everyone.

quote: I do not quite understand the reason for mentioning the millionaires thing. The concept is called inflation, and avoiding it is what is propably causing Greenspan to raise the interest rate soon.

Venger just didn't get at all my poverty concept .

Youngsun:
I loved your Corporations Idea ! pics incuded ! wow . what an investment .

everybody :
I wanted to post a whole a new military model ... but the thing got stuck . 3 times ! and I forgot to make saves ... that model was so great . but I got frustrated of writing it all over again.

I could use some help . could you plz contact me ?

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-15-2000 10:49 PM Venger - I'm sorry but I don't agree with a single thing you've said during this entire argument.

Certain things don't require agreement, but rather are factual. Look them up.

quote: I would suggest rechecking all of your "facts" and get out of your one frame americanized view. And you're quote about Russian drunks ~ take a look at America!!!

I'm sorry if my historical and factual observations don't agree with your political ideologies.

Want some facts?

Russians consume more alcohol than any other people in the world.

Russians consume twice the amount of alcohol as Americans per capita.

Suicide and Alcoholism are leading causes of death - the average life expectancy for the Russian male is 56 years (mid 90's figure).

One of the highest non-natural causes of death in Moscow during the winter is drunks freezing to death.

Want more? Hit any search engine and find links galore. The ncpa web site has some good quick articles on Russia through the 90's.

quote: For God's sake alcohol is worse here than it is In Russia. Especially when drunk driving is punishable by death!!!!!

Factually untrue. How can you make such statements? You have absolutely no basis in fact to make them!

quote: Unless you can get someone else on your side on this thread to back you up, I'm afraid you have a very small case.

Why not do some research on the topic? I assure you even the lightest amount of looking will reveal your errors.

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-16-2000 08:06 AM My god you people know a lot about weapons! I must agree with ... well virtually everybody on this thread, that Venger is showing a classic examble of ignorance, caused by american anticommunist propaganda. What a shame!

Yep, all propaganda. If only I lived in Moscow during the times of Pravda, I could have read uncensored, balanced news about world and political events, helping me to shape more favorable opinions of the Soviet Union and their glorious successes.

quote: The USSR had it's succeses and failures and so did the US. USSR, for instance, had a far better health sector than the US ever had. Although this is all in the past...

COUGH HACK...Oh my GOD. I can't believe anyone had the balls to claim the Soviet Union had a far better health sector than the United States. Check infant mortality rates, life expectancy, any figure you want. Russian sanitoriums are breeding resistant strains of tuberculosis and other communicable diseases.

And you want to distance Russia's current situation from Communism? What do you think ruined the country in the first place?

quote: And it is VERY true that a very important reason that we in the west can have our current lifestyle is the exploitation of workers in third world countries (a communist would say it was the only reason!!).

Sheer, pure, and utter nonsense. What part of our lifestyle is subsidized by third world workers? Agriculture? No, domestic production feeds the U.S. Technology? No, domestic and developed countries produce that. Heavy industry? No, automobile, aircraft, shipbuilding, production is domestic, don't try and sell me on the maquiladoras either. Light industry? No, forging and other medium level industries are mostly domestic and require extensive infrastructure. Textiles? Well, China produces a hell of alot of T-shirts. Yep, that's it, the entire U.S. lifestyle built on the backs of Chinese prison workers who make stuffed Pokemon toys and T-shirts.

quote: I do not quite understand the reason for mentioning the millionaires thing. The concept is called inflation, and avoiding it is what is propably causing Greenspan to raise the interest rate soon.

The point is that you will always have varied social strata. You cannot have a nation of the wealthy. You will always have rich and poor. The difference is in what we consider "poor". If a poor person has a car, TV, and three squares, then I would offer that's a far cry better than any other time in history.

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti on 05-16-2000 06:46 AM Venger: That 79-0 ratio during the 80's was because of awful training of the Syrian pilots.

Who trained them?

quote: The Merkava Mk 1 was NOT a modified Patton . Actually it's basic design hasn't changed in all designs from Mk1 to Mk3 .

Unless you consider the move from the 105 to 120 significant, which I absolutely do.

quote: anyway the Mk3 is equal to the West-German Leopard ( last models ), and the British Challenger ( also the last model )

The Merkava is a fine tank, in Mk3 form.

quote: about the planes and SAMs . american SAM' lose in a sure way to the Soviet. I just remember during the gulf war ... Patriot SAMs " defended " us .... I am not sure they've even hit one Warhead

They hit numerous warheads (scuds), but that didn't necessarily stop the inbound weapon from causing damage. The patriot was never designed for this regardless...

quote: Planes ... well . AMRAAMs are great . but I am sure that Soviets had their own missiles.

They did, which relied on Russian electronics and production techniques. Seeing as we can't go back and start a shooting war in 1985, it's hard to know exactly how it would have worked. Although I maintain we can see where the equipments been used and get a good idea...

quote: and haven't you checked out Soviet choppers . just don't say Hinds coz I dont mean them. chopps like .... Ka-?? I don't remember . ( ok I admit . I DONT remember ! ) or planes like the Su-25 ... ( does the same as the Warthog )

Maybe you refer to the Hind?

quote: about ppl : When I said live in poverty I didn't mean amount of money . you know that if there is plenty of money and no goods the money value falls . Remember Post-War Germany ? Remember carts full of cash ? well what I actually meant was ... ahh never mind coz you won't change your mind anyway .

Change my mind about what? I understand the value of money, I do not understand what you are trying to say however.

quote: Youngsun said: I see more similarities with Western style.

You listed all of three items. Let's include:

Centralized power.
Nationalization of industry.
One party system.
Dictator.
Anti-semitism.
Intolerance of political dissent.
Purges of military ranks.

If you think Nazi Germany in any way resembled Belgium or England more than the Soviet Union, you are way off base. Why do you think Stalin was Hitler's lap dog? They were damn near mirror image governments.

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists But still managed to develop rocket and jet engine. actually Me262 would be in production line by late 1942, if Hitler did not order general halt on military research during early stage of WWII.(he thought the war would be shorter)

He continued work on the V series as well as submarine development and atomic bomb work. Hitler had finite resources to devote to said production - what would have not been built had he moved to Me262 jet production, which may not even have been feasible come 1943? Seeing as the last one (atomic) was the biggie, regardless of the ME262, they were finished.

quote: There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced 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 think if we want real evidence, let's see what country sells more commercial airline jets...

quote: That's right and my corporation model exactly simulate this kind of situation.

I have not seen that model, is it listed in this or another thread?

quote: Mir wasn't a disaster, just a piece of junk. But at leat only working manned space-station and the first too. bi-planes are pieces of junk compare to modern day air planes but their historic significance as pioneers never be underestimated.

Point taken, it may be junk, but it is historical junk!

quote: The Soviet MIG 29 was by far the best fighter of it's time what about Su27 and Su35? they too are superb indeed.

Argh...hack...cough... What is the current total AA kill count of all Mig-29's ever produced? I am fairly sure that Mig-29's have ZERO air combat kills. Now, compare that to any front line NATO fighter. God, even the Mirage (Drek!) fighters have a higher count (I believe the Mirage scored a kill or two in the Gulf as flown by either Qatar or Oman).

quote: Slave labor, I LOVE IT! You must be joking!

I meant that as in "Slave labor, I love how ridiculous that is". I certainly do not advocate slavery. Well, maybe love slavery...

quote: If you think Nazi Germany in any way resembled Belgium or England more than the Soviet Union, you are way off base. Why do you think Stalin was Hitler's lap dog? They were damn near mirror image governments.

I should have made it clear that I said them on purely economic sense and if you include other aspects then there is no point of arguing. Anyway its my fault that I did not specify it and did not understand what you were up to on the previous post.

quote: He continued work on the V series as well as submarine development and atomic bomb work. Hitler had finite resources to devote to said production - what would have not been built had he moved to Me262 jet production, which may not even have been feasible come 1943? Seeing as the last one (atomic) was the biggie, regardless of the ME262, they were finished.

What happened to your previous statement? Are you defending this or not?

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists

quote: I think if we want real evidence, let's see what country sells more commercial airline jets...

You not saying whether you agree or disagree.... and have a look who get more contracts for launching a satelite(I heard it's Russia)

quote: I have not seen that model, is it listed in this or another thread?

It's on another thread named "Corporations".

quote: Point taken, it may be junk, but it is historical junk!

Only future generations who will live in the World which has really advanced space-tations compared to Mir have the right to say "it's a piece of junk" not you! How arrogant! Can you imagine People in early 20th century saying Wright brothers' plane is piece of junk because they think there will be better airplane which will be built later on? Keep in mind you are one of the contemporaries with Mir.

quote: Argh...hack...cough... What is the current total AA kill count of all Mig-29's ever produced? I am fairly sure that Mig-29's have ZERO air combat kills. Now, compare that to any front line NATO fighter. God, even the Mirage (Drek!) fighters have a higher count (I believe the Mirage scored a kill or two in the Gulf as flown by either Qatar or Oman).

First of all, I did not say Mig-29 things.(Joker defend this please) You did not comment on Su27 nor Su35. You always bring "killing ratio" thing but that's not all which make good weapon. Most of all, USSR had different military doctrine than USA and her allies. Whereas the latters were highly concerned on casualties taken every time just like you, USSR concerned to have most cost-effective weapons regardless of human casualties. And for Russian governmnent's point of view, US and allies style armours and figthers are not fit into this categories so they were treated like "BAD WEAPONS" & "TOO EXPENSIVE" compared to what they can do. If killing ratio thing is the only important thing that we have to consider for actual battlefield then why not build SUPER-DUPER tanks or SUPER-HYPER fighters regardless of their cost? SU27 and SU35 as far as I know the most cost-effective intercepters in the World. Remember total war and limited conflict are completely different things and USSR knew damn good about this.

quote: I meant that as in "Slave labor, I love how ridiculous that is". I certainly do not advocate slavery. Well, maybe love slavery...

and yes . the Russian Aircraft are much more cost-effective than the US ones . but actual
human losses are pretty lowered with the invention of the ejection seat.

quote: God, even the Mirage (Drek!) fighters have a higher count (I believe the Mirage scored a kill or two in the Gulf as flown by either Qatar or Oman).

hmmp. about mirages . dont forget the 6 day war ( by Israel ) they were the main fighting force . they've scored ..... 400 kills versus the Egyptians ? but that doesn't count coz the Egyptians' Aviation was all blown on the runway .

everybody check out my New military Unit model . ( posted on a separate thread )

First of all I have never said that the USSR didn't use propaganda. They did. But the thing that most americans don't realize is, that the US used just as much propaganda! I have seen some american propaganda movies from the 50s, and they're just as terrible as the antisemite nazi propaganda. The movies is about how the russians are really evil, and that communism is invented by the devil and such. On top of this there is a movie intented for kids, in which they are shown how to avoid getting killed in a nuclear war. All they have to do, it seems, is to get down on the ground and lie there. The movie even had a very happy song called "Duck and Cover"!

Second I do not want to explain every economic aspect of the exploitation of the third world, so I'll try to give a short overview. As the third world countries are undeveloped they are primarily exporting raw materials. And by this I do not just mean bananas. Most of the raw metal, oil and other to the western production very important raw materials are actually imported from third world countries. This, of cause, doesn't have much future, so they are trying to start out some more hightech (or even middle or low tech) companies, to get other stuff to export. Unfortunately for them the western world doesn't want them to export anything but raw materials, as this gives the west acces to cheap raw materials and it stops the third world countries from competing with the west in areas where the west produce stuff.

To stop the third world from taking advantage of their cheap labour and produce hightech goods that could very easily compete with the goods produced in the west, the west has made a special differentiated duty. When importing goods from the third world the duty gets higher the more fabricated the good is. So when exporting raw materials there is very little duty, and when exporting high tech stuff the duty is very, very high.

This is one of the fundamental parts of the exploitation of the third world. This way the west can make sure that the third world continues to export very cheap raw materials to the west, so the west can export expensive manufactured goods (primarily weapons and luxury items to the elite, as the average population in these countries can't afford much).

On top of this the western coorporations, which are the main producers of these raw materials in the third world, can continue to pay the workers a very low salary, and take all the profit back to their homeland in the west. Most of the investments that the coorporations make are also in the western world, as it is in the coorporation's interest to keep the third world countries undeveloped, so that they can continue to pay their workers a low salary.

All this combined means that the third world countries get very little investment, and therefor very little development. And this is because of the western world.

To finish off I must state that I am not a communist, nor a socialist. I am, however, aware of the facts of the current economic situation.

quote: and have a look who get more contracts for launching a satelite(I heard it's Russia)

quote: originnaly mentioned in SouthPark Hey look , this guy is a communist!

and then they kicked his -S- .
that means something, right ?

quote: originnaly posted by The Joker First of all I have never said that the USSR didn't use propaganda. They did. But the thing that most americans don't realize is, that the US used just as much propaganda! I have seen some american propaganda movies from the 50s, and they're just as terrible as the antisemite nazi propaganda. The movies is about how the russians are really evil, and that communism is invented by the devil and such. On top of this there is a movie intented for kids, in which they are shown how to avoid getting killed in a nuclear war. All they have to do, it seems, is to get down on the ground and lie there. The movie even had a very happy song called "Duck and Cover"

The Joker :
I remember one movie " what will happen if communism will occur tomorrow " , or something like that . It shows some ppl looking like Soviet Party executives busting into Radio stations , printed press buildings etc .. and then soldiers come to ppl's houses and make them march at the 1st of May ( Intl. Workers' day ) parade....

Also ppl were put in jail just because they were communists . it has been said that it isn't worth the risk. every communist is a spy . Is that reasonable ?

The termine for that was ... McCarthyism or something like that right ?

about economics :

The things you said were the same things I wanted to say .

P.S. btw , in current tech. levels if all ppl would live the western life style the Planet's eco-system. but Venger just don't say that the Corporations give a damn about ecology.

P.P.S. and the last , Venger : do you really think that the West would manage to build that new Space Station without both Russian Modules ( soviet scetches ) or Russian Long-Term-Personnel-space-dwelling techs and experience ( also soviet ) ?
Half of that station is Russian !

quote: I should have made it clear that I said them on purely economic sense and if you include other aspects then there is no point of arguing. Anyway its my fault that I did not specify it and did not understand what you were up to on the previous post.

No prob...

quote: He continued work on the V series... What happened to your previous statement? Are you defending this or not?

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.

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists and your last statement itself contradicting your previous point.

Huh?

quote: I think if we want real evidence, let's see what country sells more commercial airline jets... You not saying whether you agree or disagree.... and have a look who get more contracts for launching a satelite(I heard it's Russia)

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?

quote: Point taken, it may be junk, but it is historical junk! Only future generations who will live in the World which has really advanced space-tations compared to Mir have the right to say "it's a piece of junk" not you! How arrogant! Can you imagine People in early 20th century saying Wright brothers' plane is piece of junk because they think there will be better airplane which will be built later on? Keep in mind you are one of the contemporaries with Mir.

Dude, junk is junk. They are fixing this thing with SUPER GLUE now. Super glue. Mir wasn't even the first long term occupancy space station. I'll take 100 shuttle missions over floating Mir space debris any day. That said, Mir is still an important accomplishment. Still junk though...

quote: First of all, I did not say Mig-29 things.(Joker defend this please) You did not comment on Su27 nor Su35.

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?

quote: You always bring "killing ratio" thing but that's not all which make good weapon. Most of all, USSR had different military doctrine than USA and her allies. Whereas the latters were highly concerned on casualties taken every time just like you, USSR concerned to have most cost-effective weapons regardless of human casualties.

Soviet emphasis was on numerical superiority due to qualitative inferiority.

quote: SU27 and SU35 as far as I know the most cost-effective intercepters in the World.

I'd say landing your plane is more cost effective than being shot down. What's the point in sending up cheap plane after cheap plane if they are going to get swatted?

quote: Remember total war and limited conflict are completely different things and USSR knew damn good about this.

They massed as the only means of victory. They were never goign to match NATO technology or command and control technology in the air, on the sea, or in the ocean. Best example of this - compare an Ticonderoga Aegis cruiser to a Kara class. The Soviet ship is littered with delivery systems. The AEGIS looks bare, using the VLS. It's versatility makes it the more powerful ship though. Not to mention the fire control system...

quote: Your first post did not give that impression and I rather say it's still highly provocative.

"I Love It" is part of the vernacular, you can either accept that or not. I stated bald faced that it was in no way advocating slavery of any kind. That you continue to call it "provocative" seems to indicate you'd rather make false assumptions rather than accept on it's face what it means.

quote: Originally posted by The Joker on 05-17-2000 09:10 AM First of all I have never said that the USSR didn't use propaganda. They did. But the thing that most americans don't realize is, that the US used just as much propaganda!

I'll take a few John Ford films with my free press over Pravda any day of the week.

quote: As the third world countries are undeveloped they are primarily exporting raw materials. And by this I do not just mean bananas. Most of the raw metal, oil and other to the western production very important raw materials are actually imported from third world countries.

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...

quote: This, of cause, doesn't have much future, so they are trying to start out some more hightech (or even middle or low tech) companies, to get other stuff to export. Unfortunately for them the western world doesn't want them to export anything but raw materials, as this gives the west acces to cheap raw materials and it stops the third world countries from competing with the west in areas where the west produce stuff.

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.

quote: To stop the third world from taking advantage of their cheap labour and produce hightech goods that could very easily compete with the goods produced in the west, the west has made a special differentiated duty. When importing goods from the third world the duty gets higher the more fabricated the good is. So when exporting raw materials there is very little duty, and when exporting high tech stuff the duty is very, very high.

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.

quote: This is one of the fundamental parts of the exploitation of the third world.

Did you pick up a pamphlet on the UC Berkley campus and read this stuff?

quote: This way the west can make sure that the third world continues to export very cheap raw materials to the west, so the west can export expensive manufactured goods (primarily weapons and luxury items to the elite, as the average population in these countries can't afford much).

Do you have any RAW DATA? I thought we wanted their cheap labor, not their cheap raw materials. Like copper. Oh wait, we produce the largest amount of copper in the world (with Chile). Aluminum. Nope, us again. Keep going. Those raw materials we DO import we get from those third worlders in Canada. And from South Africa, another third world nation... Look it up. The US Geological Society has tons of data. I've read it.

quote: On top of this the western coorporations, which are the main producers of these raw materials in the third world, can continue to pay the workers a very low salary, and take all the profit back to their homeland in the west. Most of the investments that the coorporations make are also in the western world, as it is in the coorporation's interest to keep the third world countries undeveloped, so that they can continue to pay their workers a low salary.

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...

quote: All this combined means that the third world countries get very little investment, and therefor very little development. And this is because of the western world.

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.

quote: To finish off I must state that I am not a communist, nor a socialist. I am, however, aware of the facts of the current economic situation.

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.

quote: Guess that didn't end up very short after all...

They never do...mine especially...

lets say that each time you play civ3 on an earth map it is like shaping an alternate reality...so the question is could communism work?

when i say communism i mean marxist economic theory and soviet econopolitical practice

lets say that in england in the 1890s that the communist party won control of the government using the democratic process (Marx said that this was possible) and instead of the politburo we have the british parliment trying to make economic policy using Marx's theory's as a guide (i am assuming popular support for the communist as long as they don't demolish the economy...rule by performance not police) so how could you describe that scenario using civ2/SMAC concepts?

or what if by some very odd occurance einstein, fermi, and oppenhiemer(sp?) had of all died at birth and the atomic bomb was never discovered but WWII still took place...then how would a late 1940s conventional war in europe between the US and the USSR have shaped up (allied and satellites included) could the commies have killed the daytraders?

or what if the Soviets had of been able to get all of their missles in cuba operational and krushchev had of traded the missles for west berlin at an extream loss of face for the americans, could that have changed the tide of the cold war?

why did the Soviet system fail so bad? could those negative effects be modeled in civ3? were there any positives to the Soviet system? could those effects be modeled in civ3? could those positive and negative effects be modeled in a way that encourages game balance while still be fairly true to history?

those are questions i would like to see answered

Your very first statement:

quote: Germany never recovered from the loss of Jewish scientists

then you said:

quote: He continued work on the V series as well as submarine development and atomic bomb work. Hitler had finite resources to devote to said production - what would have not been built had he moved to Me262 jet production, which may not even have been feasible come 1943? Seeing as the last one (atomic) was the biggie, regardless of the ME262, they were finished

and then:

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

Also you said:

quote: There is not a single field where Soviet science was advanced

So I said:

quote: 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:

quote: 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?

quote: Dude, junk is junk. They are fixing this thing with SUPER GLUE now. Super glue. Mir wasn't even the first long term occupancy space station. I'll take 100 shuttle missions over floating Mir space debris any day. That said, Mir is still an important accomplishment. Still junk though...

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

quote: 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?

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

And it is well known Su35 is far better than F15. Also you failed to notice what Dalgetii was tyring to say which was "Ka-50 attack helicopter" and said Mi24 Hind? confused?

Mi-24 Hind
Mi-28 Havoc
Ka-50 (don't remember)

I heard AH64 series are no match for 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.

quote: I'd say landing your plane is more cost effective than being shot down. What's the point in sending up cheap plane after cheap plane if they are going to get swatted?

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.

quote: They massed as the only means of victory. They were never goign to match NATO technology or command and control technology

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

quote: "I Love It" is part of the vernacular, you can either accept that or not. I stated bald faced that it was in no way advocating slavery of any kind. That you continue to call it "provocative" seems to indicate you'd rather make false assumptions rather than accept on it's face what it means.

Ok so here are my ideas for the advantages/disadvantages of various governments;

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.

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.

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.

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 shit. 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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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 shit. 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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

-Homer J. Simpson.