The struggle for hegemony (1949) - A Darkest Hour Cold War Scenario

Dutchemperor said:

Will FRG still claim the 1919 German border, like they actually did untill 1990? I could help with the country info, especially with the Dutch one.

Click to expand...

datachild said:

I'm not sure if the eastern provinces of the borders of 1937 can still be viewed as cores in 1949. By 1949 the relocation of the former German inhabitants of this region by the Soviets was almost finished. The remaining native German population can hardly justify a core to that region. Claims however existed until the 1992.
If however after/during a war these changes are reversed the cores could be added by event. Of course this would mean great efforts and costs for Germany, very difficult this shortly after the last and possible during the next war.

Click to expand...

Hi you both.
Just out of curiosity, where did you get this info about the claims?
I'm grown up in germany, and everybody (that includes also politicans/newspaper etc..!) allways told that we live in the "new" borders and the old ones were obsolent with the war and at least with the "Treaty of Moscow (~1970)".

The only "open" question was ever officially only the reunification with the GDR(DDR).

Why they over and over again in treaties pointed out the "new" borders is beyond my knowledge. Last time was the reunification treaty in 1990..

So, maybe that was handled/told different in other countries?

Kind regards,
Chromos

And please give Germany grey as a map colour!

Chromos said:

I'm grown up in germany, and everybody (that includes also politicans/newspaper etc..!) allways told that we live in the "new" borders and the old ones were obsolent with the war and at least with the "Treaty of Moscow (~1970)".

The only "open" question was ever officially only the reunification with the GDR(DDR).

Why they over and over again in treaties pointed out the "new" borders is beyond my knowledge. Last time was the reunification treaty in 1990..

So, maybe that was handled/told different in other countries?

Click to expand...

its a classic de facto/de jure conflict

The yellow/Japanese is actually an accident.
In the country.xcl, FRG has "gray" as her colour, but to ink a country grey, "grey" has to be used. And since any country with a non-existing colour will get Nipponese yellow, FRG is accidentally yellow.

bestmajor said:

its a classic de facto/de jure conflict

Click to expand...

If someone is telling someone else not the information that he has but something else is a "classic de facto/de jure conflict"?

I just checked wiki. And there is also some information you wouldn't have got from the most FRG people back in 1989/90 or even now.. (Even not from the officials/goverment)
I remeber well that we get told only: that this borders are fixed once and forever.
And now I can read that that was not the case.. :wacko:

So "something" was/is not right in this "Republic" I live today..
IMHO "they"(politicans) feared the people back then and now..
And "de facto" it was a "integration" with "juristic definitsions/tricks" that will not stand the test of time. Sooner or later historians will find out..

I think it is bad for the germans and their neighbours, as the "definition/constitution" of the nowaday FRG is build on, well, a "creativ jurisitical construction" by the western part of the goverment of the FRG and the 4 major victors of ww2. (And well we all now what advocates can do if they get well paid.. )
And not build on all(!) the people of Germany that should have build a new constitution with all germans like it was written in the "Grundgesetz"(~=basic law, constitution of the FRG until 1990)..
So we were obviousliy, with only to mean well to the german people, "betrayed" by our own goverment..
But what the heck do I know about "historic chances/grand strategy"..

In regard to this Mod.
Maybe it is to consider that Germany(East/West) was under "allied" control until 1990.
So both german states are only puppets of NATO/Warsaw Pact?


Kind regards,
Chromos

You should make use of this mod:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?367768-Iron-Curtain-mod

I'd say that FRG cores on all of Germany (including what we have seceded to Poland after WW2) are correct, while the GDR should only have cores on the FRG. In the early years of the Federal Republic, all big parties fought for those territories to be handed back to the FRG, as the FRG is seen as identical with the German Reich, even today. So, if at all, the FRG should lose its cores on the now polish lands with the unification contract with the GDR in 1990.

Chromos said:

And not build on all(!) the people of Germany that should have build a new constitution with all germans like it was written in the "Grundgesetz"(~=basic law, constitution of the FRG until 1990)..
So we were obviousliy, with only to mean well to the german people, "betrayed" by our own goverment..

Click to expand...

This might not be the place to discuss things like this, that's why I'll keep it short: I totally agree. The official statement that the Basic Law has established itself as a constitution because the people participate in the democracy based on it (by voting) is pure nonsense. It still is a document that has the handwriting of foreign armies on it and has not yet passed the vote of the German citizen. For the Basic Law to become a true constitution, a positive referendum is necessary. If the Basic Law fails this referendum, a "new" constitution has to be written and to be accepted by all citizens of the re-united Germany.

Agree. Nato and Warshaw Pact might have clashed in the 40s or 50s. If the Nato would have won that war, it would IMO been plausible that the USSR gets dissolved, FRG gets GDR and the new western Poland, whereas Poland gets her eastern claims on USSR/Russia/Belarus.

chromos said:

If someone is telling someone else not the information that he has but something else is a "classic de facto/de jure conflict"?

Click to expand...

what i meant was that there are reasons to give those claims and there reasons not to do so. de facto this was polish territory as the whole border of UKR and BLR were moved westwards. nevertheless germany (de jure) gave up those claims officially only in 92 iirc (and Kohl made sure Genscher was signing those treaties).

so to sum things up you can do both remove those claims or keep them, depending on your definition of a claim in a hoi game (eg is a loyal population needed, etc).
interestingly if you watch the news from the 70s and maybe the early 80s, you'll see that the national weather report includes east prussia, and all these lost territories.

bestmajor said:

what i meant was that there are reasons to give those claims and there reasons not to do so. de facto this was polish territory as the whole border of UKR and BLR were moved westwards. nevertheless germany (de jure) gave up those claims officially only in 92 iirc (and Kohl made sure Genscher was signing those treaties).

so to sum things up you can do both remove those claims or keep them, depending on your definition of a claim in a hoi game (eg is a loyal population needed, etc).
interestingly if you watch the news from the 70s and maybe the early 80s, you'll see that the national weather report includes east prussia, and all these lost territories.

Click to expand...

Hi bestmajor,
thanks for clarification!
Thats one of the "weird" thinks that make me already wonder as I was a schoolboy.
All this talking about fixed borders and then you had still the borders of '37 in the schoolbooks.. :rofl:

Here's a link to some fine weather report of 1973:
All who want to hear strange german dialect are welcome to watch this.. - click me
Also it shows, even that a comedian "normally" include East-Prussia and Silesia in his "weather report"..

So, enough of this:
Back to modding!

Kind regards,
Chromos

bestmajor said:

so to sum things up you can do both remove those claims or keep them, depending on your definition of a claim in a hoi game (eg is a loyal population needed, etc).

Click to expand...

Isn't that what the difference between a claim and a core in DH is supposed to represent? That is, the Bundesrepublik should have claims on the relevant areas - since they still claimed them - but not cores (as there were not that many Germans or other potential supporters of being a part of the German state there anymore).

in the screen about the selection of nations there is an error...the italian flag is the monarchic one,but in 1949 Italy was allready e republic (since 18 June 1946)

Must...have...release............

Just to point out another, Opinion-based concern.

Palestine was not technically in existence in 1949. It was still a part of Jordon and was before the Occupation by Israeli forces.

Finland
Head of State: J.K Paasikivi
Ministers can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-August_Fagerholm's_first_cabinet
Chief of Staff: Aarne Sihvo
Chief of Navy: Eino Iisakki Järvinen
Chief of Air Force: Frans Helminen

Couldn't find out who was the chief of army at that time, but I hope these names I got here will help.

hurrryyyy and releaseeeeeee

Tankist/45 said:

Interesting concept, while i wouldn't say sovietunion is technologically far behind usa, MIG-15 was actually superior fighter in korean war. Not to forget ak-47.

Click to expand...

The MIG-15 was a very inferior aircraft compared to the F-86, as is displayed by the massive 10:1 ratio in favor of the F86.

During the Korean war, 792 MiG-15s had been shot down by F86-Sabres. Mig-15s shot down 78 Sabres. American fighter pilots thus established a ten-to-one kill/loss ration in their favor in no small part to superior machines of war. Will the kill ratio be more even had it have been exclusively Soviet pilots flying? Of this i have no doubt, G-suits developted by the Soviets however primitive in contrast to the US suits, would offer at least some degree of protection against blackouts occasionally suffered by MIG15 pilots.

The AK47 however is another story, and is one of the very few success stories of Soviet armament in the early cold war environment. Technically the weapon could hardly be called standardised in 1949. Had war erupted, both sides would have fought with primary WW2 weapons as they had been available in extreme surplus and the logistics in place.

However, it is still a measure of 'Soviet' (Really German, as was many inventions used by both spheres in the imminent aftermath of the war) small arms sophistication at the time. Was the AK47 superior to the M14? Well a lot of it depends. The M14 while having a significantly greater range, energy retainment (Stopping power at distance) and significantly better accuracy, may be called inferior simply because the AK47 was cheaper, and available first- as well as being an assault rifle.

There are very few examples of the Soviet Union being as advanced as the US in 1949, or the general time frame. Tanks, some small arms, and rocketry to name some of the few examples that are arguable. However, in things like tactical bombers, strategic bombers, interceptors, and fighters- every classification of aircraft the US leads the Soviet Union in.

It's not just aircraft designs and implemented models, but also economics, industrial, and manufacturing techniques. The Soviet Union used captured German technologies to jump start their modernisation process- already in progress since the 1930s. Soviet designs did not reach US levels until the 1960s, and even today have never managed to catch US designs.

In 1949, the technological progress of the Soviet Union left much to be desired in comparison to the United States.