Psycopaths in the drivers seat

WW2: Road to Victory is the first grand strategy release from IQ Software/Wastelands Interactive, which covers World War II in Europe and the Mediterranean. Hex-based and Turn-based, it allows you to choose any combination of Axis, Allied, Neutral, Major or Minor countries to play and gives you full control over production, diplomacy, land, air and naval strategy. Start your campaign in 1939, 1940 or 1941 and see if you can better the results of your historical counterparts. A series of historical events and choices add flavor and strategic options for great replayability.
Post Reply
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Michael the Pole »

I've been looking back on the last 6 or 8 months of posts and have come to the conclusion that a lot of what we have been arguing about can be distilled into the following statements:
Hitler was an irrational psycopath.
Stalin was a somewhat more rational psycopath.
The Allied political and military high commands were were more or less completely dominated, espescially in the pre-War years, by self-deluded idiots of the finest quality.

We're faced with the problem of trying to recreate a historical situation that was created by massive amounts of, at best, uninformed blind stupidity, and at worst by the kind of sick lunacy that would make Michael Meyers or the Jigsaw Killer blush. So at what point do we draw the line and say, "I'm not going to play while handicapped by that particular mistake." I think that this is the problem facing Doomtrader as he recreates hundreds of historical events.

And this is the bottom line - who do we see ourselves as "role playing" when we play RtV? Is it Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler or Stalin, or is it Eisenhower, Alanbrooke, Keitel or Zhukov? The problem, IMHO, is that if you're trying to play as one of the political leaders, espescially as Hitler, the war probably would never have happened! No rational, more or less omniscient, leader of Germany would have let himself get into the hopeless strategic position that Hitler, in his psycotic madness, insisted in leading Germany.

It is more or less a truism that democracys do not fight wars of conquest. Perhaps a more accurate statement is that non-pathogenic leaders do not fight wars of conquest. Hitler's achievements gained while taking advantage of the idiocy of the (primarily) English idiots in the three or four years before 1939, can argueably be seen as advantageous to Greater Germany, but it is widely agreed that he finally miscalculated when he pushed the Danzig/Gdansk question into open war with Poland. After that error, each miscalculation was wildly larger and more suicidal, until it seems likely that he was actively courting the final Götterdämmerung. But without that insanity, do we even have a simulation?

So I have discovered that I have changed my whole outlook on the question of who are we playing when we play WW2:RtV, and as a consequence, my position on the question of "historical events." The challenge in this situation is not seeing if we could win the war for Germany if we (as a "rational, more or less omniscient, leader of Germany") had control of the situation from September 1939. The challenge is, can we win the war standing in Generalfeldmarschall Keitel's shoes. Because, if a Churchill, a Mussolini, or even a Stalin (for instance) had been in Hitler's place, the World War would never have taken place. You can't have only some of the lunacy.

Well, perhaps you can. Assume that the March 1943 assasination attempt by Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff had succeeded. We know that the conspiracy that led up to the July 20, 1944 attempt on Hitler was resolved to seek immediate peace with the Allies. But a lot had changed for Germany in the 15 months since the Spring of '43. What would the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht have done in March, 1943 if Hitler was dead?

Now that would be a real challenging scenario.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by gwgardner »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

I've been looking back on the last 6 or 8 months of posts and have come to the conclusion that a lot of what we have been arguing about can be distilled into the following statements:
Hitler was an irrational psycopath.
Stalin was a somewhat more rational psycopath.
The Allied political and military high commands were were more or less completely dominated, espescially in the pre-War years, by self-deluded idiots of the finest quality.

Lots of stuff to comment on in your post, but I'll limit it to the above for now. Interesting what you said, given that I'm just now reading Pat Buchanan's new book, something like 'How Britain Lost an Empire and the West Lost the World.' The book has opened my eyes a bit on Churchill. I've read biographies of him, and realized that he was often prescient, sometimes completely right, sometimes awfully wrong. But I didn't realize how wrong till reading this book in which it outlines how Churchill was THE driving figure in the disarmament of Britain after WWI, while serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then of course only a few years later he was THE champion of re-armament.

User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Lots of stuff to comment on in your post, but I'll limit it to the above for now. Interesting what you said, given that I'm just now reading Pat Buchanan's new book, something like 'How Britain Lost an Empire and the West Lost the World.' The book has opened my eyes a bit on Churchill. I've read biographies of him, and realized that he was often prescient, sometimes completely right, sometimes awfully wrong. But I didn't realize how wrong till reading this book in which it outlines how Churchill was THE driving figure in the disarmament of Britain after WWI, while serving as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then of course only a few years later he was THE champion of re-armament.

Yeah, I really (well, not liked) let's say was enthralled by Buchanan's book, as I have been before by his works. When you finish that, Gary, re-read the last volume of Churchill's history of WWI to see his world view written in the very early 1930's. Makes a great contrast to Pat's 20/20 hindsight.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
User avatar
doomtrader
Posts: 5319
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by doomtrader »

I would rather say paths of psycos.
In my opinion there are two options. Hitler was so smart that is still beyond anybodys mind or he was one lucky bastard.

I think that second option has much more chance of beeing truth.

Hitler has got much more luck than anybody could pray for. Whatever he did he was always fine. I think that it was one of the reasons (and the ost importanat one) that make him proof about his own infallibility.


OTOH, When I'm playing games I'm not trying to jump into others shoes. I always say - Let's do it my way.
gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by gwgardner »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


Yeah, I really (well, not liked) let's say was enthralled by Buchanan's book, as I have been before by his works. When you finish that, Gary, re-read the last volume of Churchill's history of WWI to see his world view written in the very early 1930's. Makes a great contrast to Pat's 20/20 hindsight.

Haven't read it the first time! So many books, so little time (left).

User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

I would rather say paths of psycos.
In my opinion there are two options. Hitler was so smart that is still beyond anybodys mind or he was one lucky bastard.

I think that second option has much more chance of beeing truth.

Hitler has got much more luck than anybody could pray for. Whatever he did he was always fine. I think that it was one of the reasons (and the ost importanat one) that make him proof about his own infallibility.

I agree that he was a surreally (is that a word?) lucky sob! The list is so unbelievable that it almost makes you believe that he had supernatural assistance. And maybe that isn't so farfetched -- there's a story to the effect that Napoleon was overheard on the night before Waterloo arguing with a seemingly empty room to the effect that they had "had a deal."
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by BlueMak »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

And this is the bottom line - who do we see ourselves as "role playing" when we play RtV? Is it Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler or Stalin, or is it Eisenhower, Alanbrooke, Keitel or Zhukov? The problem, IMHO, is that if you're trying to play as one of the political leaders, espescially as Hitler, the war probably would never have happened! No rational, more or less omniscient, leader of Germany would have let himself get into the hopeless strategic position that Hitler, in his psycotic madness, insisted in leading Germany.


What if he was right? What if he had won the war? It's very easy to call him names about his strategic choices, from the safety of 60+ after he made them. If some things went in a different route, he could have won the war.
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Michael the Pole »

ORIGINAL: BlueMak

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

And this is the bottom line - who do we see ourselves as "role playing" when we play RtV? Is it Roosevelt, Churchill, Hitler or Stalin, or is it Eisenhower, Alanbrooke, Keitel or Zhukov? The problem, IMHO, is that if you're trying to play as one of the political leaders, espescially as Hitler, the war probably would never have happened! No rational, more or less omniscient, leader of Germany would have let himself get into the hopeless strategic position that Hitler, in his psycotic madness, insisted in leading Germany.


What if he was right? What if he had won the war? It's very easy to call him names about his strategic choices, from the safety of 60+ after he made them. If some things went in a different route, he could have won the war.

But that's my point. Anyone, involved in a knife fight with Winston Churchill and the largest commercial empire on Earth, who would dry gulch Joe Stalin and tha largest military force on Earth, (who was desperate to stay on friendly terms with Germany to the point of sending millions of dollars worth of badly needed strategic supplies each month,) who would then, for no reason other than simple bloodymindedness declare war on the United States and the largest industrial empire on Earth has put his country into a strategic situation that is so bad that it is difficult to see anyway it could be anything but ground into dust.
A rational psycopath such as Stalin could have waited and finished off these enemies one at a time with far superior results. Imagine the results if a German leader had simply taken Malta and sent another Panzer Corps to North Africa in April/May 1941 (while tidying up little problem areas such as Yugoslavia and Greece,) and Stalin continues to ship train loads of supplies to Germany.
After Churchill's government falls following the loss of the Suez Canal and Singapore in early 1942, Germany makes a reasonably tolerable peace with Halifax in response to his request for an armistice. In return for it's maritime Empire The UK agrees to maintain a friendly neutrality while Germany takes out the Soviet Union in the Anti-Comintern War with the aid of Vichy France, Spain and all of Eastern Europe combining with 60 million crazed Russian anti-communists. Stalin spends the rest of his life making sandals in Shaanxi Province.
Well, that's how it might have gone. But a rational German leader could have co-opted the Poles, the Czechs, the UK and the French (all of whom were rabidly anti-communist) into an anti-comintern faction in 1939 and saved himself a lot of trouble.
That's the problem with putting a rational leader in Hitler's chair -- just how far back do you go? How about someone shoots Alfred von Tirpitz in 1895 and the two extra army corps built by the Germans instead of the High Seas Fleet, combined with Great Britain's neutrality in the Serbian War of 1914-1916 forces Tsar Nicholas III to turn Russia's expansionism to the East.
WWII as we know it is the sole creation of Adolf Hitler's particularly deranged demons. Without Hitler to start the War, all is chaos. You could postulate scenarios were an assasination attempt removes him and places someone else in his chair in 1941 or later, but why would such a successor not have sought peace?
No, to have WWII as we recognize it, you have to have Hitler. Why not play the history with him in the driver's seat. The German player is Wilhelm Keitel, not Adolf Hitler.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by BlueMak »

I don't agree that you needed Hitler to have the war. While perhaps he was the catalyst, there were other forces already in place in Germany that had chances of creating something very bad (for peace). If there is someone to blame for the WWII that is the winners of the first world war. But they didn't learn from similar mistakes in the past and they still haven't learned anything worthwhile and continue to repeat old mistakes.

BTW, Germany and Hitler did not get involved in a knife fight with Churchill. Churchill was not in Hitler's plans. As far as Hitler knew, the british would just give more and more land to them, as long as they avoided war. If Churchill never came to power, if the british never declared war to German but instead left them conquer Poland, perhaps your suggestion of hitler focusing on the east would be true and Hitler not so crazy.
User avatar
Michael the Pole
Posts: 680
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 2:13 am
Location: Houston, Texas

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Michael the Pole »

It is easy to make generalizations like "there were other forces ... that had chances of creating something very bad (for peace.)" But it is a long, long step from resentment to war. I've made the same reponse to people arguing that the United States would have declared war on Germany if Germany hadnt declared war first. You're all dreaming.
In your case, the OKH was horrified by the prospect of war against the Allies, and one of the first assasination attempts against Hitler was undertaken for the sole purpose of preventing such a war (the Zossen Conspiracy.) The only man in German history since Bismark with the political stones necessary to overrule the General Staff on matters of war and peace was Adolf Hitler.
Hitler and the Germans were very much aware that going to war with Poland meant a general Eurpoean War. However, and in this they were quite correct, they believed that neither the UK or the French could do anything about it if they destroyed Poland. Hitler was convinced that the Allies were weak and corrupt, and that the British Empire could not survive another war. As Pat Buchanan's book makes clear, Hitler was totally correct. What Hitler missed was Churchill's coming to power, and Churchill's willingness to sacrifice the British Empire for Hitler's head. But by June of 1941 when he chose to attack Stalin, he knew all of that very well indeed. And in December 1941 when he declared war on the U.S., he knew it about Churchill AND Stalin. Both the attack on the USSR and the DoW against the United States were the acts of a lunatic.
"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8
Mike Parker
Posts: 578
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:43 am
Location: Houston TX

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Mike Parker »

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

...Both the attack on the USSR and the DoW against the United States were the acts of a lunatic.

I am not disagreeing with you on the lunacy of Adolph Hitler. I think he was quite mentally unbalanced, but on these two point I would say.

Attacking the USSR

Both Stalin and Hitler knew war was eventually in the offing. Hitler had banked a huge amount of his credibility on the destruction of the Comintern that he could scarcely back down, and in addition it was not just political it was not just creating an enemy, Hitler I believe had a genuine hatred of communism and a desire to see it eradicated. Hitler could no more have peace with the Communists than he could have stopped breathing. I had a philosophy proffesor that once made quite a powerful argument that the WWII conflict between Germany and the USSR was nothing more than a conflict between the right and left wings of Hegelian Philosophy.

And given Hitler's stunning victories up until Barbarossa (on land at least) I am certain he thought there was every reason to believe he would win and be able to eradicate his last continental enemy and secure the resources needed.

In retrospect it was egotistical and stupid, but living in that time without the benefit of hindsight, I am not so sure we would say the same, I assure you the Western Allies did not think it stupid, they prospect of a German victory against the USSR was frightening to say the least.

DOW on USA

By this time Hitler was deeply embroiled in his fight on the Eastern Front. The rampany US isolationism surely gave him the feeling that the US would be slow to respond, at least in Europe. His DOW was greatly motivated by his desire to see the Japanese reciprocate with a DOW and genuine war with the USSR. It was a foreign policy blunder that he believed he could convince Japan to violate its agreements with the USSR. Japan was still wincing over Zhukov's defeat of them years before, and now they had their hands full with Chine, the CommonWealth, and building containment perimeter with the US.

This act was again stupid, and not just in hindsight I would think. Even if the US would have been reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Europe it would most CERTAINLY have resulted in massive increase in aid to the UK and USSR, and would have made US naval assets fully able to engage the German U-boats. But a failure of judgement in foreign affairs is hardly just found in the case of Lunacy, and if Japan had begun a campain to seize Vladivostock and push west.. it might have even paid off fo Germany.
gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by gwgardner »

I don't believe that Hitler was looney. Rather, I think his life illustrates, as perhaps few others, the practically unlimitied capacity for a sane human to convince him or herself of the truth of ANY concept or ideology. The man was sane. His beliefs and goals were the very essence of evil, but he did not espouse them because he was crazy, but by choice. Therein lies his own evil.

Who among you has never believed with your heart and soul and mind in something, only to have the years show you the speciousness or untruth of that thing? And yet, would you call yourself crazy?

BlueMak
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:31 am
Location: Hellas
Contact:

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by BlueMak »

I agree he was not crazy.
I don't agree he was evil. Not because of what he did or wanted, but because I don't agree with the use of the word Evil. Ruthless, yes, racist, yes, even mass murderer, but not evil. I don't believe in the existance of "evil".
User avatar
Evildan
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:24 am
Location: USA

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by Evildan »

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

...Both the attack on the USSR and the DoW against the United States were the acts of a lunatic.

I am not disagreeing with you on the lunacy of Adolph Hitler. I think he was quite mentally unbalanced, but on these two point I would say.

Attacking the USSR

Both Stalin and Hitler knew war was eventually in the offing. Hitler had banked a huge amount of his credibility on the destruction of the Comintern that he could scarcely back down, and in addition it was not just political it was not just creating an enemy, Hitler I believe had a genuine hatred of communism and a desire to see it eradicated. Hitler could no more have peace with the Communists than he could have stopped breathing. I had a philosophy proffesor that once made quite a powerful argument that the WWII conflict between Germany and the USSR was nothing more than a conflict between the right and left wings of Hegelian Philosophy.

And given Hitler's stunning victories up until Barbarossa (on land at least) I am certain he thought there was every reason to believe he would win and be able to eradicate his last continental enemy and secure the resources needed.

In retrospect it was egotistical and stupid, but living in that time without the benefit of hindsight, I am not so sure we would say the same, I assure you the Western Allies did not think it stupid, they prospect of a German victory against the USSR was frightening to say the least.

DOW on USA

By this time Hitler was deeply embroiled in his fight on the Eastern Front. The rampany US isolationism surely gave him the feeling that the US would be slow to respond, at least in Europe. His DOW was greatly motivated by his desire to see the Japanese reciprocate with a DOW and genuine war with the USSR. It was a foreign policy blunder that he believed he could convince Japan to violate its agreements with the USSR. Japan was still wincing over Zhukov's defeat of them years before, and now they had their hands full with Chine, the CommonWealth, and building containment perimeter with the US.

This act was again stupid, and not just in hindsight I would think. Even if the US would have been reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Europe it would most CERTAINLY have resulted in massive increase in aid to the UK and USSR, and would have made US naval assets fully able to engage the German U-boats. But a failure of judgement in foreign affairs is hardly just found in the case of Lunacy, and if Japan had begun a campain to seize Vladivostock and push west.. it might have even paid off fo Germany.

I've only dabbled in history and political science. But how de we know it was a foregone conclusion that Germany would not win the war with Russia? My primary school history teacher tought us the Reason Hitler lost world WWII was that he chose to open up a 2 front war by invading Russia (simple terms for simple foke). But, I argued that the real reason Gemany lost WWII was that they Lost the invasion of Russia. I've watched documentaries surrounding the winter of 1941 and how that could be the primary cause for the Germany army's defeat in Russia. If you substitute a typical winter season in place of what I believe was the severest in 10 (or was it 20?) years, there might have been a different result. I'm pretty sure military historians would agree a total Russian defeat and loss of Moscow and Lenningrad in 1941, or early 1942, and who knows, who then "wins"? In hind sight can we really say the choice to invade Russia was an insane one?
Some Say Hitler was very lucky. Some might say he and Germany were actually very unlucky when the turning point arrived. Germany might be considered unlucky that Hitler listened to Goerhring and tried to bomb the British at Dunkirk instead of listening to the Army Generals that recommended he slam the Brits with tanks and arty. Some would say that Germany was unlucky that the weather turned favorable for the Allies on June 6, 1944 for the Invasion. Unlucky that the Brits with American help had just enough technology edge in fighters during the battle for the skys over Britain.

There are various cases for large misfortunes for both sides. I tend to think that Early in the War Germany had good smart leadership (Rommel, Guderian, many suppordinate Generals that understood Blitzkrieg warfare). All other major players took x amount of years before their leadership rose to the top, Patton, Zhukov... Some countries sufffered through less then stellar leaders. WWII was in many ways a General's war. I think some confuse the German "edge" in competent leaders as luck early in the war. Maybe? but maybe not? But if you asked the German High command Generals in the winter of 1941 what would be the number one "do-over" if they could change things. I would put money on the harsh winter of 1941 as #1. Not the choice to invade, not failing to defeat the British RAF, not even defeating the troops evacuating at Dunkirk. The loss in North Africa would be something more akin to a foregone conclusion and probably a very optomistic reach for Hitler, once they decided not to prioritize it and invade Russia.

Regarding DOW on the USA, I was also under the impression (being a dime-store historian) that Hitler did this weighing the results of the Barbarosa invasion and the desire to get better commitment from Japan vs Russia and the USA/Britain. If the 1941 winter was milder and/or if the invasion was going better, does he declare war on USA? maybe still to show committment to Japan? So it was a calculated mistake in both instances, but still a calculation.... or insanity?
Purge him before he purges you
gwgardner
Posts: 6909
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:23 pm

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by gwgardner »

With regard to the German declaration of war on the US, Weinstein believed that the decision was a cavalier one for Hitler, stemming from his experience in WWI and his belief that the US was a paper tiger. Yes, he hoped to gain points with the Japanese, but really he thought war with the US was no big deal.

Weinstien's reasoning goes like this: 1) After WWI Hitler, like so many other former soldiers, believed that they had fought well and gloriously, and that defeat was not inflicted by the Western Allies (in particular the US forces), but was a stab in the back from the socialists within Germany. 2) He believed that as in WWI the US would be late to the dance because their capitolist system was corrupt and inefficient.

Again, totally wrong, but not off his rocker.

User avatar
PitifulGrunt
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:52 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

RE: Psycopaths in the drivers seat

Post by PitifulGrunt »

These discussions are fantastic.  They should be published if for no other reason than to perhaps peak the historical curiosity of the average idiot.
 
One of the things I think left out of the discussion has to do with how the Allies & Russia responded to what Hitler was doing even before the invasion of Poland but most certainly immediately following it. "Peace in our time" and all that.  I agree that if Hitler had not been in power in Germany, WW2 may never have happened. At the same time I think the allied governments let Hitler get away with expanding the war.  What would have been different if England, France, and Belgium had lived up to the alliance with Poland and instead of fighting the phoney war, actually advanced East of the Maginot Line to cripple the enemy? Would France have fallen at all?  If not, is a German invasion of Russia even remotely possible?
If you are going to go through hell, keep going. - Churchill
Post Reply

Return to “WW2: Road to Victory”