Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft CEO Speaks out Against EA Move
Gamespot is reporting that Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot has spoken out against EA's "hostile action". From the article: "Considering the industry practice of communicating informally about such decisions, we were disappointed, to say the very least, that EA chose not to inform us of their specific plans beforehand." Further, Voodoo Extreme is reporting that a financial report may suggest the French government is going to assist Ubisoft in staying out from under EA's thumb.
Due to very irritating interstitial advertisements, here is the text of the second article:
French Government To Protect Ubisoft From EA?
December 30, 2004 - An AFX Financial report suggests that the French government may take steps to protect Ubisoft from acquisition by EA, should they decide to expand their 19.9% ownership:
The heads of the studios fear that a purchase of Ubisoft by EA would lead to the disappearance of the last decision making centre in France for the video games industry, La Tribune added.
Ubisoft said last night it is not in talks 'at present' with EA about the US company's recent purchase of a stake. 'In light of recent news spread by the press, Ubisofts board of directors reiterates that, in the absence of information from Electronic Arts regarding its intentions, the latter's acquisition of 19.9 pct of the groups capital is unsolicited and currently considered as hostile,' the company said.
Les Echos newspaper reported yesterday that Ubisoft will gather together some of its largest shareholders next week in a bid to convince them not to throw their weight behind EA.
-- Andrew Burnes
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
UBI can speak out against it all they want, but what they really need to do is give their current shareholders more reasons to hold onto the stock. Maybe they should have spent more time polishing Ghost Recon 2...
Isn't government interference a violation of France's WTO agreement?
The CEO's should decide it the old fashioned way-- controllers at dawn! UBI Soft, as the target, gets to pick the game...
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Maybe EA and Oracle should get together and swap takeover recipes.
Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
Why doesn't Ubisoft just send Sam Fisher to take care of EA for them? :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
... assist the reader by saying what this hostile action is, why it's occurring, where (France?) and so forth. The summary, as it stands, seems written for people who are already in-the-know, which is a foolish assumption in the face a global internet.
... it's not just for journalists any more!
Who, what, where, when, why, and how
... And it's much different in the States?
Hahahahahahahhahahahaha
Good laugh.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
France (and the rest of the EU) are already in violating of the WTO over the massive grants they've given, and are planning to give, Airbus. The US government says it's unfair, but they too have given (and will continue to give) massive grants to Boeing. I guess that complaint has got more to do with the fact that Airbus recently moved ahead of Boeing in number of aircraft being ordered, and the US is no longer the dominant player (IMO). Oddly enough, didn't the French also give a hand out to a server manufacturer a few weeks ago to keep them in business?
As opposed to EA's slave labour to remain competitive? Take your jingoism and shove it, it has no place here.
You bitch and moan about China's unfair trade practices and low labour costs, yet look the other way when EA does it?
...the similarities... the Borg and EA!
Even if you didn't know what was going on, it doesn't take too much brainpower to infer that EA is trying to take over Ubisoft...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
Eh.. you don't get what a hostile acquisition is? It's not terribly complex, basically EA went under the table and acquired 20% of a competing shop's stock. Generally they will let them know what's going on before hand. The fact that they were hush about it is an indicication that they are attempting to acquire a 50.1% or greater stake in the company, thus gaining a controlling majority and initiating a "hostile takeover".
There's a bunch of nuances involved with the whole thing, but thats the "for dummies" version.
Naturally this is concerning to the precarious French government as they would lose their primary stake in the game industry to a US company.
WTO launches US steel tariff probe 3 June, 2002
27 November, 2004 US vows to end banned tariff rule
That's Citroen and Peugeot, you patriotic fool.
A blog like any other.
It seems that EA can't stay out of the news these days but most of it isn't pleasant news either. It will be interesting to see what EA does and where its going in the near future.
I agree, and I didn't have any problem understanding the submission, but the original poster is right, it is uunnecessarily confusing.
It wouldn't have taken much to clarify that the "hostile action" was the sudden purchase of 20% of Ubisoft's shares by EA.
I've often been frustrated by similar submission, so I sympathize.
iana EA Employee, but it seems to me that EA Stopped being about games a long time ago... it's your typical board of directors type shop it seems to me now, who so happen to see videogames as a method of getting rich. I'm sure the people working on "the floor" care very much about their products, but I get the impression that at the top they will dop whatever they can to get the highest Return on Investment, not "make the best game possible"... I don't get the impression that they have any idea how to make the best use of the franchises they have other then sports and Sims, and even that is questionable. K done ranting, back to work for me
Because Ubi knows that EA's got all the football players from Madden 2001, 2002, 2003, 20004, and 2005 backing them up.
Not a big fan of the Splinter Cell games?
Those are Ubisoft.
Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot speaks his mind on the EA deal
With Electronic Arts the new owner of almost 20 percent of Ubisoft, you might expect that company's leader to wobble a bit in the unexpected limelight. Yves Guillemot does anything but.
Just five days before Christmas, with many game industry staffers already on vacation, Electronic Arts dropped an explosive bit of news on the wires. In a short press release, it acknowledged having purchased an estimated $85-$100 million worth of Ubisoft shares.
The move--a surprise to the vast majority of industry observers--gave it a 19.9 percent ownership position in one of its most daunting competitors. Wedbush Morgan senior analyst Michael Pachter told GameSpot, "I think EA is interested in Ubisoft's development talent and in its Gameloft investment [in wireless games]."
But is that all? "I don't know if EA wants to take them out," Pachter said, "but given that Ubi has a pretty strong set of licenses and great development--with a more Euro-centric sales profile--it's a combination that makes sense from EA's perspective."
Pachter clearly assesed the stock acquisition as something less benign than how EA had earlier portrayed it. "EA is not in the business of making passive investments in public companies," Pachter concluded.
Regardless of its motives, the builders of famous franchises that include Madden and Medal of Honor now own a block of Ubisoft shares second in size only to the chunk owned by the company's founders, one of whom is its CEO and president, Yves Guillemot.
We spoke to Guillemot shortly after the transaction was announced.
GameSpot: Yves, to most observers, EA and Ubisoft are arch rivals who compete for market share, mind share, shelf space, and talent. It's hard to believe the two parties can work toward common goals. Assuming all regulatory issues are cleared, your board of directors will have to acknowledge EA's wishes as they might other shareholder's. How do you expect this marriage to get on?
Yves Guillemot: Although EA and Ubisoft are both leading game publishers, I wouldn't say we are arch rivals. All players in the industry compete for market share, shelf space, and talent, but as the past few months have shown, the market is growing, and the more outstanding titles that hit the shelves, the more the market grows. So getting great games out there is a common goal that all publishers share.
GS: So how do you read the move by Electronic Arts?
YG: I have stated on the record that I view this action on the part of EA as hostile.
GS: Do you see malevolence at its core?
YG: Until we have further information we cannot say what EA's goals might be.
GS: How does having EA as a shareholder affect the issue of disclosure, specifically company strategy?
YG: In terms of the company's confidential strategy, that information is not provided to any of our shareholders. This has always been our policy, and we have consistently shown ourselves worthy of the confidence of our shareholders.
GS: Are there remaining shares of the company that are vulnerable to acquisition by Electronic Arts, and if so, is Ubisoft management considering options if EA were to become a majority shareholder?
YG: Ubisoft is a publicly traded company, with 22.8 percent of its voting rights held by the company's founders. Of the remaining capital publicly held, 13 percent of voting rights are in the hands of financial institutions and 44.5 percent are in the hands of small shareholders. The management is studying all its options under several different scenarios.
GS: Given this twist in the company's timeline, what does the future hold for Ubisoft?
YG: For the immediate future, we are still looking forward to a record-breaking fourth quarter, with the release of several titles which you [in the press] also seem to be eagerly anticipating.
GS: What about the long-term outlook?
YG: When looking at the longer-term, our only concern is the
Sam Fisher will infiltrate Electronic Arts headquarters under the cover of darkness. After gathering intelligence related to the hostile takeover, he will go to the roof for extraction. Alarms or civilian deaths will result in mission failure.
Rolls-Royce, Audi and Mercedes all depend on French engineering. The suspension used in Rolls-Royces and top-of-the-range Audis and Mercs is a licence-built knockoff of the Citroen oleopneumatic system.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy wine with hairy armpits.
Tsk, tsk. America wouldn't even be here without France. They financed America's Revolutionary War for independence and saved us at the last hour in the War of 1812.
Josh
Eh.. you don't get what a hostile acquisition is...
The word "acquisition" doesn't even appear once in the summary. Thanks for the "for dummies" version; too bad that wasn't what was originally submitted!
Just for clarification, you don't have to have a 50.1% or even a 50% stake to claim a takeover. Typically, anything in the 40% or greater range will give you controlling interest, as there usually isn't any one controlling interest with more.
There are quite a few companies out there who are run by a 30%(ish) controlling interest.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
FreedomWine and FreedomWomen? Sounds like the 60s all over again.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Or in the words of Eddie Izzard:
And most of Europe would be speaking German if it hadn't been for the United States.
Debt repaid. With interest. Thanks!
Here's what I hear has been happening in France... Every now and then some non-French company wants to buy a French company. The French government immediately steps in and makes a second French company buy the first French company the foreign company was interested in thereby creating a much larger French company which is no longer small enough for the foreign company to buy. When a German pharmaceutical company (Germany has some of the largest in the world) wanted to buy a French one the French government got a separate French pharmaceutical company to buy it instead. The intended effect of all these forced mergers seems to be to get France back into competition with other countries.
If you don't believe me look into the history of France Telecom which purchased Wanadoo, Orange, and Equant (the last two were previously foreign owned but operated in France). The thing about the purchases of these is that France Telecom now owes a billion euros back to the government for illegal subsidies.
Another classic example of Little Man's Syndrome is Vivendi Universal.
Direct away from face when opening.
They didnt do it because of their love for the Americans. They did it out of their hatred of the British.
You will find the French in the background of many American conflicts, manipulating the cards to the french advantage.
French and Indian War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, War between the States, (what were the two when we sent our farm boys to save their asses?), WW I, WW II, they were in Vietnam before the US came in. (we just got stuck with the bill). In recent history, we find them playing games in Iraq... And in current history, they are still playing games in Africa.
But, back to the subject at hand. Do they dare snub the WTO free trade initiatives over a video game company?
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
As opposed to USA's Microsoft Windows and extremely obese women? ;-)
How does one say, "Your participle is dangling," in French?
I've been a fan of the Madden football games for years.. I played the first one on my AT in CGA. Lately, there hasn't been much change to the games other than frilly add-ons like EA online. With their now exclusive contract with the NFL and this, I can easily say good riddance to a monopolistic company that doesn't seem to care anymore about making great games.
On the flip side, if Ubisoft is going to leave themselves open to a takeover, who are they to complain when it actually happens? I think this is underhanded by EA, but it's perfectly legal. Ubisoft may whine, but has no leg to stand on with regards to a formal complaint.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Sam Fisher vs. Football players? My money is on Sam Fisher.
In France, however, management has priority in the law. You might think that the shareholders control the company through a board of directors appointing the CEO and others in management, but the truth is under law the equity owners are extremely limited in making the kind of company-saving decisions that they can in the US. The result is an anemic economy.
This is a seperate issue from the French government offering to become specially involved, but is relevant to EA's ability to affect Ubisoft in the same way they would any other company in the US inwhich they owned 20% of the shares.
Burnout 3 rocks, the SSX series is good as far as snowboarding games go.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
And most of Europe would be speaking German if it hadn't been for the United States.
The may not be speaking German now - but they are sure under the German central-banks power with the Euro.
Germany finally got Europe united - just 50 years late and without the flashy uniforms.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
And we saved them in WWII when the gave up rather than take the chance of having Paris destroyed...
Sadly, EA more and more looks like the bullies in the Game industry. They behave like a monopoly, they are the largest and use all their weight to crush the competition, sell crapy products, exploit their staff and screw their customers.
Without our unmolested industrial capacity, the member states of the EU would all be either speaking German or Russian right now.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well we dared to do it over the steele industry (at the detriment of every other industry in our country that uses steele). And this has no negatives to them like that so I would imagine so.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
And Europe would have without our assistance?
Please. Continental Europe was firmly under Axis control prior to the United States involvement.
And yet, somehow, the EU still believes appeasement is the proper way of dealing with dictators.
Sam Fisher has the Fifth Freedom: The freedom to do whatever it takes to keep Ubisoft programmers from working 90 hours a week in an EA sweatshop.
There is a rumor that EA simply wants to get in on a new Ubisoft game. The premise of the game is that the player is the head of a French bank and collects fees from an Iraqi dictator who is supposed to be using the money in his account to pay for food and medical supplies for his people, but is really funneling it to terrorists and arms dealers.
You get bonus points for lobbying the UN to not sanction a war in Iraq so that you can keep collecting fees from the account.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041118-Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
If you don't want to lose control of your company, don't go public - it's really that simple.
Everyone likes to play by the rules as long as they're in their favor, but as soon as someone else gets the upper hand and threatens your (insert precious item here) the rules suddenly become unfair and need to be circumvented. Human nature I guess. Hooray for "free" markets though - greed really is the best motivation for human endeavors, right?
in Heaven, the police are British, the lovers are Italian, the cooks are French, the engineers are German, and it's all organized by the Swiss.
In Hell, the police are German, the lovers are Swiss, the cooks are British, the engineers are French, and it's all organized by the Italians.
Sorry something about french and engineering in the same concept just eludes me.
Yeah, you better send that green statue in NY harbor back to France, before it topples over.
What's with all the offensive France-bashing in this thread? Wait, this is a primarily American website? I would've thought geeks would be more intelligent about these things.
France suffered more than any other country in WWI, most of the war took place in France. They did not want anymore death and destruction. Millions of citizens had lost parts or all of their families to Germany in the first world war. So they had the choice of losing more the second time around, or surrender. They did try to defend Paris, but enough was enough.
I know Americans like to joke all the time about the French surrendering, but America has never had to fight a huge conflict (refering to modern conflicts) on it's own soil. Having a foreign military rip through it's cities and countryside.
Josh
France does not want to lose France based companies.
It is good that EU countries are now subject to the same buyout and then layoff trend that the USA went through in the 1980s.
The loss of companies that move out of France + the loss of jobs from buyout/layoffs will force France to actually support a pro-business environment instead of a entitlement burdened nanny state.
The euro has greatly facilitated free trade, free capital, and personal freedom.
what if all the slashdot readers out there pooled their ms shares? i know i own some through my 401k...not that that could be easily pooled...
shame the gooks beat you good in vietnam though (though you probably won the unofficial underage girl rape contest)
fuckin' rambo wankers
Ubi's also got the Rainbow Six team... And they've got guns.... lots of them.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
All I am saying is that the French government is not as altruistic as they would like people to believe. They are saying here that they are protecting the last bastion of gaming within France. So, I should believe that statement like I should believe that they did not want us to invade Iraq due to concerns about peace. Come on. They--and the Russians--were making money hand over fist off of this program without concern about the people of Iraq.
Certainly the republicans who have supported the war are enjoying the egg on France's face with this, but I do not make this point as a republican....because I am not a republican. I make this point because France is a bunch of socialist, cheese-eating, surrender-monkeys. Having the US get involved in war was okay by the French when their asses were getting brutalized by a dictator, but not okay when someone else is in that situation? Fine. I couldn't care less if the French like the US or not.
Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
With the continent conquered and the UK pretty much at Germany's mercy, just what part of their collective asses were the Western allies going to pull a victory out of?
The European powers didn't encourage their colonies to be industrial powerhouses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They financed America's Revolutionary War for independence
By "They" you mean "The Dutch" right? The Dutch did more to fund the US war of independance than the French ever did. The French gave us some weapons, and military support. But most importantly (from France at least) we got to give a big middle finger to England (we'll just trade with France then); which helped with negotiations.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Actually, it is Halliburton. And yes, I do have some information on them:
You can probably look for that CEO job here: http://www.halliburton.com/careers/index.jsp
Here is what you will be in charge of: http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/07/w e_455_01.html
But, be warned, as the CEO of Halliburton, you have those pesky democrats spreading lies about you.
Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
Wow!!! That looks like a quality pen. I wonder what the reserve is. I'm really suprised it has no bids. You should buy it!! Troll hata
Is this still true after BMW bought the rights to the Rolls name a few years back? I only read about that deal in passing; the details basically were that BMW got the name, VW bought all the assets, and BMW was looking up old Rolls Fan's to reverse engineer the cars into the 21st century. Just curious, that's all...
The Dutch did give us huge funding at the time, but they were not able to help us with military support. Most if not all of that came from France.
I did some more looking into Holland's connection with the US at the time. They really stuck their neck out for us, as doing so caused them to become a bitter enemy of England.
Really what I was trying to get at, is that without the help of a lot of countries around the world, the U.S. wouldn't be here now. It pisses me off when a lot of American's act as if these countries owe us. It's pretty much equal these days.
Josh
I would've thought geeks would be more intelligent about these things.
You must be new here.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
from ubisoft montreal. and not from france.
From: http://english.people.com.cn/200306/24/eng20030624 _118783.shtml
Mostly, their troops are glorified police officers. Their troops did not see anything like the action the US Special Forces saw in Afghanistan. In fact, most of their ground troops came into areas that had already been secured by the US.
Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
Don't you mean Sphincter Cell...sorry recurring theme with me on the name of this game.
"Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
They actually don't even need 50.1%. According to the interview the next largest stake is held by the initial founders- including the CEO- and it is only ~22%. EA would only need 24% or so to have a majority.
I heard something interesting recently wrt. the softwood lumber issue. It seems that some Canadian lumberyards close to the border are doing good business selling houses to Americans. Apparently it's cheaper to buy the house in Canada because when the peices get shipped over the border, it is taxed as a house, rather than as softwood lumber.
shame the gooks beat you good in vietnam though (though you probably won the unofficial underage girl rape contest)
fuckin' rambo wankers
Haha, mod parent up, that was awesome.
Anyhow, with the Germans doing things like this to France, it's not at all surprising they surrendered. They would have been obliterated otherwise. Is that somehow more noble than being occupied?
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
the whole north american continent would be called Canada, which wouldnt be such a bad thing.
The Canadians wouldn't get so irritated by being mistaken for Americans.
Look, I'm all for "US kicked ass in WWII", but the war was decided in the Soviet Union, at Stalingrad, iirc. It was the war of attrition against the soviets that Hitler couldn't win. Our massive D-day invasion resembled a nail in the coffin more than the coffin itself.
Like what I said? You might like my music
Ya know, I read a bunch of articles, but that had the cleanest text. I could have quoted Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html , but I figured people would accuse me of conservative bias.
Then, I thought about quoting the Sunday Times from the UK:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-12 91280,00.html but who knows who might own that.
I also thought about quoting a French source. http://www.investigateur.info/news/articles/articl e_2003_05_5_auchi.html, but I think I have made my feelings clear about the French.
Finally, I considered a source from Pittsburgh, http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middlee astreports/s_273762.html, but was afriad I would be branded a Steelers fan.
Every article said pretty much the same thing. I am sure the TImes article was cobbled together from other places. I am familiar with the moonies and find them to be quite different. But, that does not change the fact that the article was factually correct according to numerous other sources. If that was the only source, I would not have used it.Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
what if all the slashdot readers out there pooled their ms shares? i know i own some through my 401k...not that that could be easily pooled...
Reminds me of an idea I've had for a while: "Hedge against evil."
Find companies out there who have successful business models, yet do naughty things. You have a definite interest in them failing. However, if they do well, you'd want a piece of the action to compensate for how much worse they make your world.
Disney: Lobby for excessive copyright extensions.
Big Tobacco: Inspire stupid anti-tobacco ads.
Recording Industry: Fill my airwaves with complete and utter suck.
This idea is much like investing in foreign markets. When your own stock market falls, there's some chance it doesn't fall at the same time as markets all over the world. By diversifying your portfolio, you can smooth out your returns and hedge against drops in your national market.
However, the "hedge against evil" takes a more holistic approach to your investments. For example, I would like to have the "Happy Birthday" song hit the public domain so each restaurant doesn't have to have its own crazy song to signify that a cake is coming. However, I for one would listen to quite a few of those songs for an extra $1000 in my pocket courtesy of Disney.
Sam Fisher vs. Football players? My money is on Sam Fisher.
But what if da football players have Ditka on der side?
I'm thinking Fisher 0, Ditka and football players...147.
Da Bears.
Whatever and whoever the EA throws at us we can defeat. They have a weakness, you see.
When they go take a leak, you simply replace the bathroom door with a solid wall.
While I agree with the sentiment, the French didn't suffer the most in WW2. That honor (as measured by casualties and deaths) belongs to the Russians, who lost tens of millions of people due to poor supply management (ie they didn't have any) and the fact that Stalin didn't blink twice when it came to using his soldiers as cannon fodder. After the Russians, the Germans lost the most. Then it's the French.
You misread my post, I said the France suffered the most in WWI (World War I). Your right about WWII, the Jews and Russians suffered the most in that conflict.
Josh
More probably Russian.
Their attitude seems to be "You'll play what we develop and like it!" They forget to add "No matter how inferior a product it is!"
I say fsck EA. Unfortunately I don't think they'll be suffering Acclaim's fate any time soon.
No sig for you!!
Maybe they should thank Japan for dragging you in, since you weren't really willing ?
Napoleon came after the revolution. Don't try to tell me he was all about surrendering. Bad guy? yes. Pussy? no.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Craig Conway
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I fail to see how the issue boils down to even include France. To me, it's just another example of corporate greed.
If you don't like what a company does, don't buy their product. Let them know you didn't and why.
Napoleon came after the revolution. Don't try to tell me he was all about surrendering. Bad guy? yes. Pussy? no.
And yet, Napoleon's goal (independent of his method) was to overthrow tyranny and spread the spirit of the French Revolution throughout Europe. Interesting to look at this in a modern context, eh?
Well, most of those countries were monarchies. They saw North America as a source of huge wealth and figured they would be more likely to get a piece of that pie if they could break England's hold on it. The French and the Dutch both had colonists in the new world that they figured would allow them to exert influence in the new country. Otherwise that wealth would just allow England to fund armies and navies that could be used for conquest of nearby lands. Note the proximity of France and Holland to England.
It probably never occurred to those governments that the American experiment in democracy might survive and spread. After all, the power of their monarchies was blessed by God, wasn't it? That's something to keep in mind when somebody tries to justify offensive action by telling you that God is on their side.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Ah yes. But they're extremely obese women with shaven armpits. I mean, if you're into that kind of thing.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
And that big Tour Eiffel thing; the Danish built that, right? And this this silly thing. Yes, obviously the French know nothing of engineering.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Read the parent post again. He said France suffered the most in World War 1, not 2. In World War 1, the Russian revolution took the Russians out of the game before the end. But in WW1, the biggest casualties all took place in trench warfare on the western front. It took the french decades to find all the unexploded munitions on their territory. Heck, they are still finding unexploded WW1 munitions, let alone those from WWII. The British and Germans have their share of the latter too. But nearly two generations of frenchmen were wiped out in WW1. It was worse than the American Civil War as a percentage of the population lost. They just hadn't had time to recuperate by WW2.
Imagine if the US and Confederates had chemical weapons in the American Civil War, and then had to fight a second civil war in 1900. The only reason the Germans managed it is because the inflation and poverty caused by reparation payments from WW1 seemed worse than war.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
That was his stated goal. But yes, that makes the connection even more obvious.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
America has quite a few long standing differences with France, some of them inherited from Britain, and some of them as a result of France attempting to recapture superpower status after WW2. Despite those differences American and French culture both spring from Frankish/Germanic stock and are fairly comprehensible to each other, because of this we are major trading partners - I refuse to believe that a modern and sane nation would open a trade war for something as trivial as the hostile acquisition of a video game company.
Not sure how my expressing that opinion was flamebait, but my guess is that someone found it ideologically disagreeable and therefore an incitement to flame.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Without US food and materials (most notably the aforementioned trucks and jeeps, along with steel and aluminium), the USSR would likely have fallen. Let's not forget that before Stalingrad, the German army was poised to take Moscow. If they had done so, instead of turning away from Moscow, the outcome would have been very different (Germany would still likely have been eventually defeated, but we might have had a non-communist Russia and no cold war after 1945).
Wow, this has gone FAR off-topic. :)
I, uh, respectfully disagree. :) Most historians I've read, anyway, so naturally I agree (no alternate presentation of the facts), say that the harsh winter after the invasion is what drove Hitler out of Russia. He pulled back into Poland when he failed to take Moscow, and he failed at Moscow because Winter hit. The Germans weren't used to the hard winters Russia gets, so they weren't prepared. That gave the Russians time to rally a bit. Add to that that, when you get right down to it, Hitler committed one of the most well-known classic blunders. While it was a land war in europe, technically, the USSR is an Asian power, so he did get into a land war with an Asian power.
I'm not trying to say we weren't needed. We did a lot of damage to Japan, and we *won* against Japan, there's no doubt about that. We took Japan essentially single-handed (with help from Oceania). And we did a lot of damage in WWII. Had we *not* gone into Europe, Hitler would have been able to concentrate more fully on his USSR campaign, and he might well have won it. It all came down to one battle at Stalingrad, and it still took 3 years for the war to end after it. So, yeah, we did help a lot. We can take some credit for bailing Europe out of that mess, as well as rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan and shielding Western Europe against the commies. We can take a lot of credit for doing a lot of good things in the world. Let's just not take full credit for what the Allies accomplished as a group in WWII, ok? How about credit for our part? ;)
Like what I said? You might like my music
Canada
Thanks for coming along once whe add the german on the run
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
"We took Japan essentially single-handed "
Go read a real history book. you got your ass handed to you in Japan Until Canada , Australia and the Purple Heart Battalion joined and you won Japan by association because of the atomic bomb invented by the ally.
"as well as rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan "
In the 1980s, some historians began to argue that the Marshall Plan might not have played as decisive a role in Europe's recovery as was previously believed. The first person to make this argument was the economic historian Alan S. Milward. These critics have pointed out that growth in many European countries revived before the large-scale arrival of US aid, and was fastest among some of the lesser recipients. While aid from the Marshall Plan eased immediate difficulties and contributed to the recovery of some key sectors, growth from the post-war nadir was largely an independent process. European argue that a similar amount of reconstruction money could have been obtained by nationalizing the holdings of wealthy Europeans who deposited their money in US banks during World War II.
Also it is good to note that the United States contributed no more than $13 billion dollars from an initial promise of 35 Billion, not even half what they said they would pay.
"shielding Western Europe against the commies"
Reality is Both Communist and Capitalist have been destroyed by socialist. But thats another entire subject in itself.
"We can take a lot of credit for doing a lot of good things in the world"
Like what ? Most of the thing you claim you did where from real american aka Canada
"How about credit for our part? "
Yes thanks for coming along once whe add won.
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
that they would be speaking Russian.
SO all those divisions would have just been sitting there instead of finishing off Russia, right? Right?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
The US left Vietnam in 1973 (that is, signed a peace treaty). Saigon fell in 1975. What's wrong with this picture?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
"Fat chicks need love, too.
They just gotta pay."
Glen Quagmire
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Women shouldn't have any hair below their necks!
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Napoleon did bring about a period of relative peace in Europe during his reign, aside of course for his own antics, because Austria and the Catholic Church didn't wield quite as much power as they did before. Everything I know about history I learned from Europa Universalis!
Interesting point, and waaayy off-topic :)
Operations-wise, I believe we lost more battles in our shorter period of involvement than the others, so I disregard any claim that we went in and kicked ass and were the major cause for European liberation. But certainly, we added that extra layer of tension on Germany's supply chain and operations, which caused the Reich to buckle. We probably did buy Russia some time, but I'm not sure. Russian conscription really slowed Germany's advance.
I like your last statement. I've wondered this myself. Western Russia was pretty anti-semetic despite the number of Jews fighting in the Army, so Russians wouldn't have minded some of the Nazis' policies. Western Russians are actually several groups used to Russification by Muscovy, so picking up German probably wouldn't have been a tough decision. Germany had previously been the leader in social reform, so if Germany retook that position Belarussians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and others might have welcomed Germany over Stalin's Russia.
Yeah, the Pacific theater was definitely ours. Russia did play an interesting hand though. A day after Japan failed to surrender following our bombing of Hiroshima, the USSR declared war and invaded occupied Manchuria. By some accounts, the Japanese decided to surrender after that event.
Following that theory, the Japanese basically either admitted they could not fight a two-front war against two **extremely** pissed-off adversaries, or the Japanese thought it would be better to surrender to Capitalist Americans than Communist Soviets. After all, we saw what the Russians did to Berlin.