• 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.
Yeah I know but:
- other socialist republics of the USSR, as well as Vietnam, and China had very similar flags. That represents the unity of communism which is stronger than borders and nationalities.
- I just believe that combining stars&stripes, which basically represents the rampaging power of capitalism on Earth, with communist symbols, is wrong. Like, when the communists came to power in Russia they did not combine communist symbols with the old flag, or the eagle, they just scrapped the whole thing. Certainly because the Tsarst Empire was pretty much the symbol of evil for all leftists and then this "niche" was taken over by USA.
- I think it would be cool to see American communists fighting together/against Russian communists under almost the same flags.

Anyway it's merely a suggestions; after that it's your choice :) You can even take my flag and modify it in any manner you wish for what that matters.



hmm, you've given me alot to think about, thank you. :)
 
Part IV

votecomm.jpg


Washington DC, November 26, 1939.

"Greetings comrades, a lot have happend since last. Comrade Olson, can you please give us a short summary of what have happend in the world since last time?
"Of course comrade." said Olson. "First of in Spain, the fascist lackey Franco overthrow the former capitalist government so one bad thing was replaced by another.
In June the fascist imperialist Japan attacked the innocent and peaceful china, we immideatly send supplies to the poor chinese, soon after we'd send supplies the Japanese attacked and sank one of our ships! The Japanese begged us for forgivness and offered us money for the loss of the ship. We've accepted their apology, for now... Other news are that we started the training of 210 000 marines who we've deployed along the western coast. We've also start to build 4 new super heavy battleships which will be the best ships in the world, so far we've completed 2 of the 4. The German dogs have been very aggressive in their politic and have annexed Austria and half of Czechoslovakia and have set up a marionette governement in the other half. In August our soviet brothers made an outrageous deal with them, agreeing on to split Poland between them, and on 1st of September the German troops invaded Poland. Soon after the attack the alliance of capitalism declared war on Germany, maybe this war will bring something good with it.
One Week ago our brothers in the Soviet Union declared war on the capitalist lackeys Finland after an insult by the finnish and it went something like
"Go and [something something] drink your vodka and [something something] while I [something something] your mother". Our brothers couldnt take this insult so they are at the moment teach the finns a lesson.



ScreenSave2-2.jpg

ScreenSave5-1.jpg

ScreenSave10-1.jpg

ScreenSave15-1.jpg

ScreenSave18-1.jpg

ScreenSave21-1.jpg
 
Flag #1.

This one will take a lot of suspension of disbelief :) All the private gun ownership we have in the US...
 
Flag #1.

This one will take a lot of suspension of disbelief :) All the private gun ownership we have in the US...

It's like reading Pravda...

Sure, all opposition has been crushed...right.

:rofl:
 
i agree with Amallric

well with market crush in 1929 i think it would be possible to take over western world where usa had regression soviets had superior progression... just like now china has
 
I must be stupid but... say what? I dont get it :confused:

It is a popular idea in the USA that if any oppressive government tries to take power the people will be able to rise up and revolt because of private gun ownership.

Silly idea in my opinion, since many dictatorial regimes have allowed private gun ownership (Nazi Germany for example) and no mass uprising occurred there, but it is an often cited reason for less gun control.

But I digress and get a bit off topic. I'm looking forward to reading more of this AAR. :)
 
It is a popular idea in the USA that if any oppressive government tries to take power the people will be able to rise up and revolt because of private gun ownership.

Silly idea in my opinion, since many dictatorial regimes have allowed private gun ownership (Nazi Germany for example) and no mass uprising occurred there, but it is an often cited reason for less gun control.

But I digress and get a bit off topic. I'm looking forward to reading more of this AAR. :)

aha, ok. I didnt know that :)

I might do an update tonight. not sure tho
 
It is a popular idea in the USA that if any oppressive government tries to take power the people will be able to rise up and revolt because of private gun ownership.

Silly idea in my opinion, since many dictatorial regimes have allowed private gun ownership (Nazi Germany for example) and no mass uprising occurred there, but it is an often cited reason for less gun control.
You are a fool if you actually believe that. An unarmed man is a slave, an armed man is a citizen. Ask the British in 1776 whether they would have preferred Americans to be unarmed, ask the Romans during the revolt led by spartacus... The truth is there for all to see. Governments by their very nature are oppressive and always become more so. It is the right and the duty of citizens to instigate a revolution against the government when it acts against the interests of those citizens, and to replace the government with one that served the interests of said citizens. The right of revolution thus essentially acts as a safeguard against tyranny.

Writing in The Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Stephen Halbrook demonstrates that German Jews and other German opponents of Hitler were not destined to be helpless and passive victims. (A magazine article by Halbrook offers a shorter version of the story, along with numerous photographs. Halbrook's Arizona article is also available as a chapter in the book Death by Gun Control, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.) Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.

The Weimar Law on Firearms and Ammunition required a license to engage in any type of firearm business. A special license from the police was needed to either purchase or carry a firearm. The German police were granted complete discretion to deny licenses to criminals or individuals the police deemed untrustworthy. Unlimited police discretion over citizen gun acquisition is the foundation of the "Brady II" proposal introduced by Handgun Control, Inc., (now called the Brady Campaign) in 1994.

Under the Weimar law, no license was needed to possess a firearm in the home unless the citizen owned more than five guns of a particular type or stored more than 100 cartridges. The law's requirements were more relaxed for firearms of a "hunting" or "sporting" type. Indeed, the Weimar statute was the world's first gun law to create a formal distinction between sporting and non-sporting firearms. On the issues of home gun possession and sporting guns, the Weimar law was not as stringent as the current Massachusetts gun law, or some of modern proposals supported by American gun-control lobbyists.

Significantly, the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933. While some genocidal governments (such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) dispensed with lawmaking, the Nazi government followed the German predilection for the creation of large volumes of written rules and regulations. Yet it was not until March 1938 (the same month that Hitler annexed Austria in the Anschluss) that the Nazis created their own Weapons Law. The new law formalized what had been the policy imposed by Hitler using the Weimar Law: Jews were prohibited from any involvement in any firearm business.

On November 9, 1938, the Nazis launched the Kristallnacht, pogrom, and unarmed Jews all over Germany were attacked by government-sponsored mobs. In conjunction with Kristallnacht, the government used the administrative authority of the 1938 Weapons Law to require immediate Jewish surrender of all firearms and edged weapons, and to mandate a sentence of death or 20 years in a concentration camp for any violation.

Even after 1938, the German gun laws were not prohibitory. They simply gave the government enough information and enough discretion to ensure that victims inside Germany would not be able to fight back.


Under the Hitler regime, the Germans had created a superbly trained and very large military — the most powerful military the world had ever seen until then. Man-for-man, the Nazis had greater combat effectiveness than every other army in World War II, and were finally defeated because of the overwhelming size of the Allied armies and the immensely larger economic resources of the Allies.

Despite having an extremely powerful army, the Nazis still feared the civilian possession of firearms by hostile civilians. Events in 1943 proved that the fear was not mere paranoia. As knowledge of the death camps leaked out, determined Jews rose up in arms in Tuchin, Warsaw, Bialystok, Vilna, and elsewhere. Jews also joined partisan armies in Eastern Europe in large numbers, and amazingly, even organized escapes and revolts in the killing centers of Treblinka and Auschwitz. There are many books which recount these heroic stories of resistance. Yuri Suhl's They Fought Back (1967) is a good summary showing that hundreds of thousands of Jews did fight. The book Escape from Sobibor and the eponymous movie (1987) tell the amazing story how Russian Jewish prisoners of war organized a revolt that permanently destroyed one of the main death camps.

It took the Nazis months to destroy the Jews who rose up in the Warsaw ghetto, who at first were armed with only a few firearms that had been purchased on the black market, stolen or obtained from the Polish underground.

Halbrook contends that the history of Germany might have been changed if more of its citizens had been armed, and if the right to bear arms had been enshrined it Germany's culture and constitution. Halbrook points out that while resistance took place in many parts of occupied Europe, there was almost no resistance in Germany itself, because the Nazis had enjoyed years in which they could enforce the gun laws to ensure that no potential opponent of the regime had the means to resist.

No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.

One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive.
 
You are a fool if you actually believe that. An unarmed man is a slave, an armed man is a citizen. Ask the British in 1776 whether they would have preferred Americans to be unarmed, ask the Romans during the revolt led by spartacus... The truth is there for all to see. Governments by their very nature are oppressive and always become more so. It is the right and the duty of citizens to instigate a revolution against the government when it acts against the interests of those citizens, and to replace the government with one that served the interests of said citizens. The right of revolution thus essentially acts as a safeguard against tyranny.

well doesnt americans have more hardcore robberies with all those guns? I don't want to be afraid of the people in my country (sweden) because they might run around with a gun in their pocket.
 
well doesnt americans have more hardcore robberies with all those guns? I don't want to be afraid of the people in my country (sweden) because they might run around with a gun in their pocket.
:rofl: I have never been robbed. I have only had to shoot my gun once, not counting military duty. The time I shot as a civilian, it was to kill a "pit bull" that had been chasing my kids. I did tell the owner he would be next when he got pissed off about me shooting his dog. I told him a leash would have been cheaper than a funeral.
 
:rofl: I have never been robbed. I have only had to shoot my gun once, not counting military duty. The time I shot as a civilian, it was to kill a "pit bull" that had been chasing my kids. I did tell the owner he would be next when he got pissed off about me shooting his dog. I told him a leash would have been cheaper than a funeral.

I dont mean personal robberies but but robberies against banks and such. and why kill the dog and not just report it to the police, in sweden you can just report it and they check it up and if it's true they'll put the dog to rest. well I understand you as a father but I still wouldnt like to walk around and be afraid of being shot at by some nut who have a gun.

And you dog story, well both your method and the swedish polices method have the same result but I think its wrong that people should be allowed to carry firearms.

Anyway, let's drop this, it have already gone to far away from the topic
 
Oooh, I likes this AAR!

I vote for flag 6.