Asking Hitler to be calm is like asking a fish to do ballet after riding a bike. It would just spray water at you and send you to a concentration camp.
Nukes
- Thread starter Yazem
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Asking Hitler to be calm is like asking a fish to do ballet after riding a bike. It would just spray water at you and send you to a concentration camp.
Huh? I seen a documentary where they even tried to get the Jewish Ark as a weapon. So it seems they were willing to use Jewish things,. Indiana something.
One nuke decimating every aspect of an entire province, regardless of its size.
Using Nukes is just putting an "I WIN" button in the game. While it has historical significance, it does make for a rather dull game. It would be simpler to just say the allies win in 1946 if the axis haven't achieved it conventionally.
Well that's why we're trying to discus ways of avoiding nukes being used as a "click here to win" feature. We cant just say "Nope no nukes" because nuclear development was very important to the war efforts of the allies, axis, and eventually the communiturn. So what Paradox needs to do is make Nukes fun to use, without making them a "press this to win" button, and I think that maybe looking at games like Civ 5 may shed some light on ideas they could try out.
Actually that is not the whole truth. In the beginning of the war Hitler did listen to his generals(although he still made the final decisions, but at least he could be reasoned with) which is a big reason why Germany had such a huge success during the first years of the war.
Actually, from the conversation discussed in the link below, it probably would been closer to 3 or 4 bombs every month. Which still seems sufficient to destroy a large section of Germany by the end of '45.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/
Rather then have nukes in the game as a specific item, perhaps the game should have a dynamic end date which is researched by researching nukes. It will force the allies to devote research into nukes and prevents them from being used as an "I WIN" button.
You could even attach victory points to the discovery, so if the axis discover them, the game ends, and they get extra points. But probably only the Americans would be able to afford the price.
You could even attach victory points to the discovery, so if the axis discover them, the game ends, and they get extra points. But probably only the Americans would be able to afford the price.
Like in Arsenal of Democracy. Oh wait, they'll never implement all the good ideas of AoD.
But... nukes aren't an "I win" button? While they can devastate NU, you still have to occupy VP. Having the game end just because nukes were invented seems dumb, and like big-time railroading. Even more so, ending the game prematurely seems duller than having to hold out just long enough for the effect of nukes to take place. The tensest part of my Japan campaign took place after I started using nukes against the Soviets, when in my invasion of Crimea and the Caucuses only one or two provinces with more than one division in them, trying to pry 5 or 10 more victory points out of Soviet hands, which would have finished the campaign.
Well, the context of the statement needs to be taken into account.
If the context is "Nazis are great; fascism is brilliant, and Hitler was brilliant." "Well, not really, because we could spend all day listing the very obvious and pragmatic failings of the ideology in general and its execution in Germany" then it's a good statement to make. It's very educational to those who might not know.
If the context is, "Germany could have won the war if they only did this one thing (run a better science program without Hitler)," then it might also be a relevant point to make that this wasn't really in the cards if someone doesn't know. With a single-party state and an absolute ruler who is being given methamphetamine injections by his doctor and who doesn't really have a mind suited to scientific administration, the option to have a better science program with less Nazi interference wasn't something that could happen with the people in charge at the time and place.
If you are saying, "Nazi Germany couldn't have had legitimate elections and have been a peaceful laissez-faire democracy because it was run by Nazis," then yes, it's a silly thing to say, assuming you know anything about fascism at all. It becomes a tautology.
I'm going to say to you as a mod, and I hope you understand that your need for clarification has caused me to skirt into banned topics.
The Nazis couldn't run a nuclear program because much of the necessary science was invented by Jewish people. "What if the Nazis hadn't been anti semitic?" is a stupid question since then they would cease to be Nazis. They would be some other conservative party.
True, but unfortunately, Hitler didn't seem to listen to them at all later on. Which caused serious problems for everyone.
Haber, who was a Jewish scientist from Germany invented Zyklon B and the Nazis used that for multiple tasks including its intended use as a pesticide.
Don't worry about just making the factual statement: The National Socialist German Workers' Party was antisemitic.
I have no problem with that kind of statement; I don't think anyone at Paradox would deny the factual nature of that statement or be angry of you made that statement.
The rules are focused genocide, war crimes, POW camps, and that sort of thing. We don't have time to discuss why, but never feel that Paradox thinks there is something wrong with claiming that Nazis were antisemitic. It's discussions focused on how that antisemitism (along with a bunch of other things) was enforced in policy during the war that becomes a thorny issue.
I hate to say this, but let's be fair to the tenets of National Socialism as practiced in Germany during the 30s. If you examine the 25 Points program announced by Hitler in 1920, it is very clear that NSDAP was not just "conservative + antisemitism" or "conservative + racism." There were several policies/demands for change that clashed with conservatism as practiced in Germany (and many other places).
For example, the reason the word socialist is involved is because of the desire for the party to be more, well, socialist. This included demands for the nationalization of industries, abolition of certain kinds of debt, abolition of unearned incomes, the demand that every capable German be given a higher education, demands to outlaw child labor, demands to increase national health through programs, land reform (and abolition of land speculation), confiscation of war profits, and so on. Even Goebbels in his diaries mentions more than once that the party needs to become more socialist (pre-1935). They practically stole 1/3 of the socialist's platform and melded it with racial supremacy and totalitarianism. You can't really call it conservative.
Now, could Nazis have been Nazis without being antisemitic? No, it was a fundamental plank of their platform. In that time and place, you can't really separate the two. In a hypothetical world with a fictional country and fictional culture, there is no need for antisemitism as such in fascist ideology; however, fascism in every form I've ever seen it, requires a scapegoat for the ills of the state. If not antisemitism, then something else would have to fill that role.
With that said, I think that while you could make a case that the science itself being viewed as Jewish slowed down production, I consider the loss of scientists who left to be much worse. Nazi Germany practically shot itself in the damn foot when guys like Einstein decided it was time to leave or not come back when abroad. Germany's lack of access to certain materials useful in nuclear research and production was also a factor, but without the brains, no project of that kind could have been successful.
Well, a lot of people forget that Anti-semitism, while being a very major point of Nazi ideology, is NOT the only thing they preached.
The nazis also despised slavs, black people, homosexuals, etc. Mostly, though, a lot of rhetoric was directed at foreigners. At the Czechs, at the Poles, at the Russians, the communists, the French, the Danes, Nordics, etc. People who werent German. Now, Hitler has said before "If you want to be German, we will let you be German" or something to that idea, but at the very basis of it, Nazi ideology is about the Aryan German race above all others. It's just Jews happened to be others. So a better analysis would be "What if the Nazis did not follow Eugenics?" Then we would be talking about them being another strange mixture of Far right conservatism and Socialism.
But if they werent Anti-Semitic? Well, at least not to the point of the final solution? They would have been just another crazy dictatorship that almost conquers Europe. Just like Napoleon. But CERTAINLY nothing in the war would have went differently. They still wanted expansion, still wanted abolishment of Communism, etc etc.
Never get hung up on names.
Otherwise you're going to tell me that North Korea is actually Democratic since it's right there in the name of the country.
The Nazi party arose out of frustrated nationalism and the popularity of socialist ideas in Germany in the early 20's. That's when they got the name. By the time the 30's rolled around, the party had removed most of the socialist policy (which wasn't gaining popularity as much as nationalism was) and went for anti semitic anti marxist themes to get big business on board.
The party still had the name, but they weren't socialists any more.. Look at their friends, abroad? Were they supporting "fellow" socialists or were they supporting fascist parties?
Last edited:
Notice that this Thread went from discussing the use of Nukes in game, to discussing if the Nazis had the capability to make such things, to discussing the ideologies of Fascism XD ahh you guys
- Status