Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

It's a Long Way to Paris: National France in 21st Century

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I say split Libya right down the middle. Western part goes to National France, while the eastern bit goes to Egypt.

Also, nice to finally see that asshole Mugabe go down with his rogue syndie state. The UoA fought far better than I thought they would, but you were able to finally crush them.

So, what is going to happen to all of that land now? Is it all to become part of a greater National France, or will you create some smaller puppet states further south?
 
General Mileena Amides says give Libya to Egypt, for a sexier border! Plus gaining more IC would help your comrades in Cairo.
 
Split Libya in half, and keep some of the old UoA, liberate the rest.

Those Brazilians are no match for the might of the Entente! :mad:
 
I hope that the ground isn't being laid for another war in North America in a few years time, thanks to Canada essentially imposing the borders by dictat every other country has something to be unhappy about and there are going to be a lot of people unhappy with their new rulers.

I say give Lbya to Egypt, it'd probably be easier to pacify under Egyptian rule.
 
As for Africa, keep it all. The Canadians have overstepped thier authority. The United States would be completely justified to attack to get New England back.
 
Screw the Americans! If it wasn't for Canada, the Australasians, and the French Republic, McChrystal and Petraeus would be breaking stones building the chomsky/obama syndicalist victory monument in Denver. The USA didn't win the war, it was the other Entente states. They owe Canada and the rest of the Entente everything for their very existence. If they want to challenge the authority of the rest of the entente, they will get slaughtered by Canada, Nat France, and the Confederates.

They should be thankful for what they did get back. And besides, they don't have nukes. If they turn on the Entente, I would have no problem with seeing Canada and France lay waste to the USA's major cities.

Once again, screw the Americans. Their incompetent leadership resulted in them losing almost all of the rump territory they had. They have absolutely no right to complain when it was the rest of the entente that saved their yankee asses. If they wanted all of their 1937 borders restored, then they should have done a better job fighting for it!!!

EDIT: I just had an interesting idea. To curb the American's anger, perhaps Canada could give them a promise. If the USA stays a full member of the Entente and helps defeat Mitteleuropa, give them the promise of a plebiscite or referendum in New England and Alaska. Have the people of these regions vote on whether they want to remain part of Canada, or join the USA. I think that should go a long way to helping ease the American's minds. But of course, this plebiscite must happen only when Mitteleuropa is completely defeated, not earlier. That sound good?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that it's not just the US government that's unhappy with the border arrangements, the Confederacy and Mexico also have issues with it and while they can't exactly attack Canada unilterally the Germans must be trying to woo them heavily right now- the Kaiser can promise whatever he wants in North America as he has no existing interests there.

Imposing settlements on your allies and justifying them on the basis that you have a stronger military at this present moment is a bad idea, and threatening nuclear annihilation is an awful one. It's going to fracture the Entente long into the future, and Canada will probably run into problems in the long term as it likely does not have the capacity to maintain a dominant position in North America.

Plebistcites in any disputed areas are a good idea, in my opinion that's what should have been done in the first place.
 
Zhuge Liang said:
The problem is that it's not just the US government that's unhappy with the border arrangements, the Confederacy and Mexico also have issues with it and while they can't exactly attack Canada unilterally the Germans must be trying to woo them heavily right now- the Kaiser can promise whatever he wants in North America as he has no existing interests there.

Imposing settlements on your allies and justifying them on the basis that you have a stronger military at this present moment is a bad idea, and threatening nuclear annihilation is an awful one. It's going to fracture the Entente long into the future, and Canada will probably run into problems in the long term as it likely does not have the capacity to maintain a dominant position in North America.

Plebiscites in any disputed areas are a good idea, in my opinion that's what should have been done in the first place.
Click to expand...

I agree about the plebiscites; they could help cool the North American climate.
 
I still think it is ridiculous that the USA and the Confederates think they have the right to be so outraged considering how the war unfolded for them. The Confederacy and the USA just gained tons of new territory and industry all thanks to the efforts of the Canadians, the French, and the ANZAC's. Both the USA and Confederacy would have been beaten and subjugated by the CSA and Mexico if it was not for the efforts of the rest of the Entente states.

They owe Canada, France, and Australasia everything for their survival. They should at least be thankful enough to stay with the Entente until Germany and the rest of Mitteleuropa is defeated in the future. Only then I think should some new treaties or plebiscites be held to determine what the final borders of north america should be.
 
Is there any particular reason there should be a delay in holding the referendums? It'd probably be better to get them out of the way before the war with Germany so as to reduce the chance of any sudden betrayals and/or internal unrest in the middle of the war.
 
The Yanks and Dixies can always be kept inline by the threat of restoring Mexico's old boundaries - You know Oregon, Oklahome etc ;)
 
Kaiser_Mobius said:
I still think it is ridiculous that the USA and the Confederates think they have the right to be so outraged considering how the war unfolded for them. The Confederacy and the USA just gained tons of new territory and industry all thanks to the efforts of the Canadians, the French, and the ANZAC's. Both the USA and Confederacy would have been beaten and subjugated by the CSA and Mexico if it was not for the efforts of the rest of the Entente states.

They owe Canada, France, and Australasia everything for their survival. They should at least be thankful enough to stay with the Entente until Germany and the rest of Mitteleuropa is defeated in the future. Only then I think should some new treaties or plebiscites be held to determine what the final borders of north america should be.
Click to expand...

What people should be grateful for and how much they let that affect their decisions are never in tune. Korea listens to USA does everything it says, right? North Korea and China?

Canada's ascendancy over the USA is an accident of this history. The USA (historic territory) has a larger population and is similarly advanced. Canada artificially splitting it into pieces is from without is silly and bound to draw resentment.

It would have to be done via plebiscite, (though the confederacy wouldn't agree to it seeing as how very few in the Northeast or Alaska would choose the confederacy over the US if given a choice.
 
Canada taking part of the RL USA isn't so far fetched in this game's scenario though. New England has not been part of the USA for approx 70 years, and was liberated from syndie rule by Canadian, French, and Australasian troops. Besides, the US government in this game has essentially admitted that it can not restore all of its pre 1937 borders. Look for example at Petraeus selling the entire state of Oklahoma to the Confederacy.

I guess if a plebiscite is going to happen, then Asalto can decide whether he wants one now or later. However, it would not surprise me to see New England and Alaska voting to stay with Canada in light of how the war unfolded.
 
I have an idea. If plebiscite are organised in the new canadian state, Québec should ask for one too! In this reality, with a little help from National France, maybe could Quebec could help the USA to insist on people choice and right to rule.
 
Quebec has nothing to do with the partitioning of the USA. I see no reason why they should get any referendum.

Besides, IRL, every time Quebec has voted for independence it has failed. I can't see why it would succeed in TTL as well. Also, Nat France trying to push things like Quebecois independence is ridiculous. They should not risk alienating a strong ally just for quebec, similar to how France treats the issue IRL. France does not interfere and does not take sides, I cant see how Dassault would benefit from deviating from that policy.
 
Kaiser_Mobius said:
Quebec has nothing to do with the partitioning of the USA. I see no reason why they should get any referendum.

Besides, IRL, every time Quebec has voted for independence it has failed. I can't see why it would succeed in TTL as well. Also, Nat France trying to push things like Quebecois independence is ridiculous. They should not risk alienating a strong ally just for quebec, similar to how France treats the issue IRL. France does not interfere and does not take sides, I cant see how Dassault would benefit from deviating from that policy.
Click to expand...

I agree that National France wouldn't have anything to gain by stirring up trouble in Canada and therefore shouldn't do so, and Canada certainly isn't going to agree to any referendum in Quebec unless it absolutely has to but there is the potential for trouble in Quebec. I'd guess that nationalist sentiment there is inflamed by the dominance of British interests and the focus on reclaiming Britain- I doubt many would be prepared to die to restore the British monarchy.
 
Agreed, but that can easily be eliminated by giving the Quebecois an exemption from Conscription or something similar. Quebec IRL has a a pretty high degree of autonomy due to Canada's federal system of government, which gives lots of power to the provinces. IIRC, this system exists within Canada in this scenario as well. The Quebecois, although having some legitimate grievances, are not victims of some oppressive totalitarian fascist Canada, and do not need full independence as a solution to those problems.
 
Screw the Americans! If it wasn't for Canada, the Australasians, and the French Republic, McChrystal and Petraeus would be breaking stones building the chomsky/obama syndicalist victory monument in Denver. The USA didn't win the war, it was the other Entente states. They owe Canada and the rest of the Entente everything for their very existence. If they want to challenge the authority of the rest of the entente, they will get slaughtered by Canada, Nat France, and the Confederates.

They should be thankful for what they did get back. And besides, they don't have nukes. If they turn on the Entente, I would have no problem with seeing Canada and France lay waste to the USA's major cities.

Once again, screw the Americans. Their incompetent leadership resulted in them losing almost all of the rump territory they had. They have absolutely no right to complain when it was the rest of the entente that saved their yankee asses. If they wanted all of their 1937 borders restored, then they should have done a better job fighting for it!!!
Click to expand...

You could argue that. But on the other paw, the US even now still have alot more people and will have alot more industry since you gave them back the rust belt. Yes, Canada has a stronger military and nuclear weapons... Today. What about later? Let's not poke the sleeping dog in the eye. I'm not saying you should hand over New England with a smile and a nod or even at all. But I will say a happy America will be more an asset then a resentful scheming America. Plus a United States with a grudge could evolve into a terrifying enemy given the right leadership. If you don't want to deal with this, well you shouldn't have given the US so much then. Nor should you depend on the Confederates to balance them, especially since a rational US leader might decide to simply bury the hatchet and worry about it later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back