Please, switch the Communism with the yellow-star-on-pink thingie.
I still stand on my point, we might aswell close Religion discussions. We can still make some small name changes.
DP sliders need to be fixed. Are you guys coming to an agreement?
-
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.
Please, switch the Communism with the yellow-star-on-pink thingie.
I still stand on my point, we might aswell close Religion discussions. We can still make some small name changes.
DP sliders need to be fixed. Are you guys coming to an agreement?
DP Sliders can't coexist with overlapping government types because they will contradict like Stalin with Marx. I will always stand by the truth, that Economy belongs in Religion because it is materialist conflict that has motivated all of history.
Until then this deformed halfbreed System 3 is a joke as laughable as calling Vietnam, which recently voted to allow the Politburo to conduct private enterprise, a radically socialist nation.
Until then this deformed halfbreed System 3 is a joke as laughable as calling Vietnam, which recently voted to allow the Politburo to conduct private enterprise, a radically socialist nation.
Not all of the wars were fought for materiel means, Germany wasn't exactly getting much for fighting Poland, especially when they gave the resource-rich part to Russia.
I always thought war was an extension of policy by other means, and that now adays it was fought for political reasons in particular. (IE : I don't like your government, good-bye.)
I always thought war was an extension of policy by other means, and that now adays it was fought for political reasons in particular. (IE : I don't like your government, good-bye.)
I don't know much about Germany's invasion of Poland other than an economic extension of power, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
And please, name one modern war in which the aggressor did not have economic advance as his motive? Saying you know what is best for foreigners and thus choosing their government, calling it "Helping International Democracy," when you really want, for example oil, does not qualify as an idealistic war IMHO.
And please, name one modern war in which the aggressor did not have economic advance as his motive? Saying you know what is best for foreigners and thus choosing their government, calling it "Helping International Democracy," when you really want, for example oil, does not qualify as an idealistic war IMHO.
All the Israeli-Arab conflicts, the Soviet-Afghani war, 3 Indo-Pakistani war and one Chinese-Indo war.
As well as
As well as
err... I didn't finish "as well as"
But, the problem is wars are fought for both reasons really, as I and others can list off economically-fought wars, too.
But, the problem is wars are fought for both reasons really, as I and others can list off economically-fought wars, too.
I doubt someone would attack another because the have planned ecomnomy. However, it's more likely that someone goes to war to put an end to a dictatorship.
i dont think they ment stopping planned eonomies when they said economical ware, i think they ment "invade iraq to gain oil"
Yeah, but CRC have CB on Reformed, and things like that would still happen in-game.
The Arab-Israeli wars were started by the Arabs to create a friendly country open to trade rather than the military equivalent of a crusader state on their borders.
Afghanistan has been a key point in South Asia for imperialists ever since the "Great Game" between Russia and England. The coup of the nominally pro-Soviet butchers that were running the country, and their replacement with a more moderate government that was more friendly to the USSR allowed the Russians to create another satellite state. Unfortunately for the Afghanis, Western and Soviet imperialist interest collided and the nation has never recovered from the subsequent war.
The Indo-Pakistani conflicts were fought over the control of Kashmir, IIRC.
The Sino-Indian/Indo-Chinese/whatever war was IMHO an extension and exertion of Chinese power. India and China were imperialistically colliding as nations ever since the Chinese annexation of Tibet, and the Indians happened to own a swath of a primary road between Tibet and Xinjiang.
The Iran-Iraq war was fought at a time in which Iraq was a puppet of the United States. Iran had been a rising star ever since the fundamentalist revolution, and the US sought to derail in any way its growth, because the America-hostile rising had ousted the Shah, who'd been little more than a US lapdog despite his names and titles. The US knew that the Iraqis would never be able to totally win, and thus it sought to weaken Iran with a bloody, protracted conflict. The Iraqis were convinced that they would at least expand their borders and powers with advanced US equipment, but despite early victories, once the war degenerated into brutal man-vs.-man fighting it became a matter of who had more meat for the grinder. The superior Iranian population was able to pull off a stalemate, but the Iranian economy was torn apart. Tragically, US goals were realized with millions of casualties.
Afghanistan has been a key point in South Asia for imperialists ever since the "Great Game" between Russia and England. The coup of the nominally pro-Soviet butchers that were running the country, and their replacement with a more moderate government that was more friendly to the USSR allowed the Russians to create another satellite state. Unfortunately for the Afghanis, Western and Soviet imperialist interest collided and the nation has never recovered from the subsequent war.
The Indo-Pakistani conflicts were fought over the control of Kashmir, IIRC.
The Sino-Indian/Indo-Chinese/whatever war was IMHO an extension and exertion of Chinese power. India and China were imperialistically colliding as nations ever since the Chinese annexation of Tibet, and the Indians happened to own a swath of a primary road between Tibet and Xinjiang.
The Iran-Iraq war was fought at a time in which Iraq was a puppet of the United States. Iran had been a rising star ever since the fundamentalist revolution, and the US sought to derail in any way its growth, because the America-hostile rising had ousted the Shah, who'd been little more than a US lapdog despite his names and titles. The US knew that the Iraqis would never be able to totally win, and thus it sought to weaken Iran with a bloody, protracted conflict. The Iraqis were convinced that they would at least expand their borders and powers with advanced US equipment, but despite early victories, once the war degenerated into brutal man-vs.-man fighting it became a matter of who had more meat for the grinder. The superior Iranian population was able to pull off a stalemate, but the Iranian economy was torn apart. Tragically, US goals were realized with millions of casualties.
Last edited: