Danzing or War: Danzing ? Should this be possible?

[shri]

Now, now, let's be fair to the Nazis. It's not like any important financial people in Germany thought there was an alternative economic policy to rearmament and conquest...

Well, except for this guy. The Reich Minister of Finance and the Reich bank President. But what would he know about these things?

But it was exactly due to Hjalmar 'Genius' Schacht that Germany had the financial muscle to re-arm, it was his Keynesian-Schachtian brand of econonomics which took them from depression to adequacy.
MEFO Bills, Barter agreements, Delayed payments were all his ideas not from Goering certainly.

 

[Jazumir]

Money is hardly ever correctly modeled in any game. At least not in any i have seen so far.

Following this thread (and trying to steer it back to topic, which is, you know, HoI4), it seems that money played a major role in driving germanies expansionsism, once the rearmament had reached a certain level. So then: Should troops in HoI cost maintainance in money, and that to such a degree, that once you got an army, you better use it, or else you will be crippling yourself (at least for germany)? Should countries be allowed to go into debt (not only with each other, but with their banks/population)? Should these debts be the origin of money (as in real life, pretty much) - meaning some (most? all?) countries start with some debts and the sum of them equals the money in circulation globally, which only increases, whenever a country signs up for more debts (at an ever increasing interest rate)?

For all these apologetic posts found in this thread might be good for one thing: They show, how germany ´felt´ pushed to act agressively, once it had its army half way up. Sticking with the status quo for a prolonged time, while also trying to maintain and even expand the armed forces simply seems to have not been an option for germany, not least for monetary reasons. If that is true, then it follows, that the amount of ´apeacement´ that could have been expected from ceding Danzig depends on the impact on the financial outlook of germany - and its willingness to keep growing its military instead of consolidating. If acquisition of Danzig means that the finances can take the strain of continued rearmament for another half year (f.e.), then the next step of aggression of germany is to be expected within that time-span.

EDIT: This could also give the yardstick for the events leading up to ´Danzig or War?´: If Germany rearms (which the AI will) it will run into financial problems, and whenever those reach critical levels, it triggers an event. This would be like going from a hard script (AI triggers DoW between sept1st and 3rd 1939) to a soft script (AI-Germany rearms at a pace, that will probably force it to trigger DoW around end of summer/early autumn 1939 - and the other events at according dates before that).

---

Edit2: Now, the deciding factor weather those events will be accepted could be your own threat - so you have to continously build up your army in order to have a decent chance to get austria, czechoslovakia, memel and possibly danzig or more without triggering general war. By building up said threat, in order to be able to trigger those events without risking general war, you will also have built up the need to trigger them and the means to face general war, should it still happen against the odds.

The events could be ´de-sequentialized´, meaning you are free to choose which to take first (some may include others, like going to 1st vienna directly would entail the german acquisition of the Sudetenland, and some fictional upped demand against poland would include Danzig), but the probabilities of triggering general war with each are skewed in a way, that would promote the historical path (e.g. Austria requires way less threat on your part than czecheslovakia, by default, to lower the chance of allied intervention) and with each one you have already triggered, the others get ´more expensive´. Wether these probabilities of allied intervention are openly displayed should be a matter of chosen difficulty level, btw (yet, better combined with intelligence/espionage).

As for money: Each province (or at least some) could have a ´credit potential´, which defines how much money you can create out of it. You do that by selling bonds for interest. When you sell a bond, credit potential is evenly subtracted from your provinces and the acquired sum put into your treasury, from which each month the interest flows back into the provinces. The rest can be used for trade, promotion of international relations, conducting intelligence, boosting equipment research in factories, and paying your soldiers. When you run out, you cant do these things anymore. Bad things happen, especially when you fail to pay your soldiers.

 

[Porkman]

stuff

A better money mechanic would be nice to have, but I've always thought that in these games, we are George Marshall not Roosevelt. Economic policy isn't in our task book.

Also, there would have to be too many different monetary models running around the world. The Soviet Union would use an odd one while China would be perpetually bankrupt. All of that was important, but it's far, far too complex to model adequately. For one country, it would be ok, but since it would have to apply to everyone, it would be way too complex.

 

[Jazumir]

I´d agree, Porkman, if the game started in 1939. But since it usually starts in 1936 and the build-up leading to the war is an important part of it, i´d say, so should be economic (or rather: financial, in this context) policies.

China being perpetually bancrupt (or at least constantly short on money, by ways of low credit-potentials), for example, could be just the way to nerf it. Like in: Give it huge, but unreliable (due to ´underpayment´) armies and have japan get bogged down in them.

 

[SFSLovenought]

Also, there would have to be too many different monetary models running around the world. The Soviet Union would use an odd one while China would be perpetually bankrupt. All of that was important, but it's far, far too complex to model adequately. For one country, it would be ok, but since it would have to apply to everyone, it would be way too complex.

But that sounds really interesting (to me)
After reading your post, I actually want to know more about how the Soviet financial system worked, or how the Kuomintang/Warlord/Communist regions of China compared to each other economically.
I remember hearing that one or two of the warlords were actually fairly good rulers, and their economies did better than the rest of China. I can't remember who they were though. (was it the guy in charge of Guangxi?)

I think it would be great if I could learn more about the worlds economies through the game, that wouldn't be boring at all.

(I realize I am probably the minority though)

 

[Porkman]

I´d agree, Porkman, if the game started in 1939. But since it usually starts in 1936 and the build-up leading to the war is an important part of it, i´d say, so should be economic (or rather: financial, in this context) policies.

China being perpetually bancrupt (or at least constantly short on money, by ways of low credit-potentials), for example, could be just the way to nerf it. Like in: Give it huge, but unreliable (due to ´underpayment´) armies and have japan get bogged down in them.

My worry with that is there is no way to make a monetary mechanic that would scare the majors away from approaching bankruptcy (so severe penalties!) without making the penalties so severe that China becomes a walkover.

THis was one problem with unmodded AOD with regards to China. In that game, money was tied to manpower and China started the game with 3000. This meant that the 1936 ROC could fully fund research, lower dissent, put all forces on full readiness, run spy missions, and buy supplies/raw materials. It was too easy. CCIP for AOD gave China only 300 MP at the start and that fixed the problem, but it was an example of a mechanic that had worked well for the major countries crashing when it hit a smaller one.

The other problem is the credit worthiness of the countries being lent to. Many loans were gifts that weren't expected to be paid back while other countries were able to continue purchasing on credit despite being bankrupt. I feel like the game would have to either have a "credit worthiness" score for each country that aplied globally, which wouldn't work. Or it would have to give each country a unique credit score in relation to all the other countries. So Venezuala has a credit score in relation to Germany, which is different from their credit score in relation to the US, which is different from their credit score in relation to Uruguay.

 

[Jazumir]

Allow me to weave on a bit (i am really on ´that mood´, lately):

- Neutrality would determine how much of the credit potential you can tap into, in an anti-proportional relation: The lower the neutrality gets, the more the nation will be willing to go into debt for military purposes. Triggering germany´s agressive moves would lower the neutrality not only of the allies, but also of germany (enabling new credit).

- Consumer goods demand could be related to untapped credit.

Example: A province has a base credit potential of, say, 5. Our nation´s neutrality is rather high still. Say at 80%. So, out of those 5, we could draw 1. We do that, by issueing a nationwide bond at the value of 20% of the nation´s total potential, the comsumer good demand of the province would drop by 20%, and we´d get 1 Money from this province (+ the money from all the other provinces we control), for which we´d have to pay a monthly interest back to our population, which in turn will bring its credit potential and consumer good demand back up slowly.

 

[DicRoNero]

Now, now, let's be fair to the Nazis. It's not like any important financial people in Germany thought there was an alternative economic policy to rearmament and conquest...

Well, except for this guy. The Reich Minister of Finance and the Reich bank President. But what would he know about these things?

He's one of the most moot and foggy people I ever read. In his memoirs he managed to completely avoid any solid criticism of Hitler's views on economy and just put that he knew nothing of it. Given how Hilter basically "eliminated worker's right to starve", effectively doubled their salary and was super close to providing a car to each working man, that sounds ironic. The likes of mason Schacht in (pseudo) democractic countries achieved literally nothing within the same timeframe.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Given how Hilter basically "eliminated worker's right to starve", effectively doubled their salary and was super close to providing a car to each working man, that sounds ironic.

Have you heard of this drink? I am told it is quite good.

 

[Sarius1997]

View attachment 106610

Have you heard of this drink? I am told it is quite good.

One can say many bad things about Hitler (ok, almost exclusively bad things), but his economic policy was quite good.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

People like Schacht or von Seeckt were the key figures who oiled the German war machine (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-responsibility-12-03) Hitler could never do anything without many talented people doing their jobs well. The smartest ones among them later betrayed Hitler (only after when it was clear that the war was lost) and tried to get alibi by conspiring against him. Some even made it to NATO structures, like Hans Speidel or Reinhard Gehlen.

as for the ideas that the war could have been prevented by seceding Danzig, they are unfortunately wrong. People at the time did not have the knowledge we have - for example about the plans outlined already in 1937 in the Hossbach memorandum, or the carefully prepared false flag attack in Gleiwitz.

 

[Smerka]

Hitler could never do anything without many talented people doing their jobs well.

Every country realise on talented people, so acting like only German needed them is false, without a talented person planning D day would it have been possible?

 

[Secret Master]

But it was exactly due to Hjalmar 'Genius' Schacht that Germany had the financial muscle to re-arm, it was his Keynesian-Schachtian brand of econonomics which took them from depression to adequacy.
MEFO Bills, Barter agreements, Delayed payments were all his ideas not from Goering certainly.

Don't misunderstand my point.

My reading of Tooze and other scholars (and keep in mind my background is not economics or history, so I'm not the expert) is that the rearmament pace and scope undertaken by Germany in the late 30s was unsustainable. There had been an economic recovery under Schacht, and the fruits of that recovery were used to fuel rearmament, but don't confuse the cart and horse. The recovery was the horse that pulled the rearmament cart, but Schacht kept warning the leadership that the pace could not be kept up forever.

Looting wealth from Czechoslovakia gave Germany a reprieve, which was just used to further rearm. That should not be confused with "Germany could continue rearmament at that pace without facing an economic crisis in the future."

He's one of the most moot and foggy people I ever read. In his memoirs he managed to completely avoid any solid criticism of Hitler's views on economy and just put that he knew nothing of it. Given how Hilter basically "eliminated worker's right to starve", effectively doubled their salary and was super close to providing a car to each working man, that sounds ironic. The likes of mason Schacht in (pseudo) democractic countries achieved literally nothing within the same timeframe.

I'm not sure a person can be moot. Are you telling me his argument is moot? Not having read his memoirs (are they available in English?), I can't address his criticisms or lack thereof of Hitler's policies.

But I am confused by something in your post. You call him a mason, but as far as I know, he was a banker, not a guy who worked as a stonemason. Did you mean he was a freemason?

 

[DicRoNero]

as for the ideas that the war could have been prevented by seceding Danzig, they are unfortunately wrong. People at the time did not have the knowledge we have - for example about the plans outlined already in 1937 in the Hossbach memorandum, or the carefully prepared false flag attack in Gleiwitz.

That's assuming we *have* the knowledge. But we don't. Let us not forget that while defeated Germany was looted of its every single paper sheet, many docs of the winners are still kept secret and are likely to remain so till the end of time. But some things should be clear regardless - like if one is peaceful, he isn't developing strategic bombers.

I'm not sure a person can be moot. Are you telling me his argument is moot? Not having read his memoirs (are they available in English?), I can't address his criticisms or lack thereof of Hitler's policies.

But I am confused by something in your post. You call him a mason, but as far as I know, he was a banker, not a guy who worked as a stonemason. Did you mean he was a freemason?

Yes, his narration is vague when it comes down to telling the reader about Hitler's assumed incompetence in economy. I read him in Russian translation from German, the memoirs in English are likely to be "Confessions of the Old Wizard", 1956. They start with him leaving the prison dressed in a fur coat. In summer.

Yes, a freemason. He confesses of being one in these very memoirs.

 

[LodovicoAriosto]

Every country realise on talented people, so acting like only German needed them is false, without a talented person planning D day would it have been possible?

exactly. my point is that the Danzig question was not just a Hitler's personal whim but a part of a greater plan which aim was to secure autarky by controlling Eastern Europe so that Germany could not be strangled by the British. The things start to get interesting when we realize that sane, mainstream and educated economists reached a conclusion that achieving those goals by force was the best course of action and that the whole bureaucratic apparatus worked towards it. these things cannot be changed over night.

with the same level of simplification we could pretend that WW1 started because Gavrilo Princip assassinated Franz Ferdinand and ignore loads of evidence that Austria sought hard to get into war to avoid or delay its disintegration.


DicRoNero: well, I think that nazi Germany and Soviet secret archives is probably the most relatively extensive publicly revealed secret info ever. Of course, much got lost or destroyed but still the publicized evidence about their motivations, plans etc. is IMO larger than in case of countries which were not defeated or which did not go through major constitutional crisis (Italy in 1990) in the last century.

 

[Jazumir]

Just in case anyone still considers what i wrote above: I had a change of mind in that i would only have officers take payment. I´d probably generate those with money as well (take some MP, time, and money -> officers + payment cost for them). As i´d handle research in factories and HQs with leaders, experience and occassionally money as well, the province property ´credit potential´ could replace leadership, entirely. I´d also like VPs to go, and surrender status and victory conditions be calculated by a combination of remaining factories, MP-centres and credit-potential.

 

[Porkman]

That's assuming we *have* the knowledge. But we don't. Let us not forget that while defeated Germany was looted of its every single paper sheet, many docs of the winners are still kept secret and are likely to remain so till the end of time. But some things should be clear regardless - like if one is peaceful, he isn't developing strategic bombers.


Yes, his narration is vague when it comes down to telling the reader about Hitler's assumed incompetence in economy. I read him in Russian translation from German, the memoirs in English are likely to be "Confessions of the Old Wizard", 1956. They start with him leaving the prison dressed in a fur coat. In summer.

Yes, a freemason. He confesses of being one in these very memoirs.

Wait, wait, developing weapons in peacetime isn't all that peaceful? Say it ain't so!

Luckily, Hitler's Germany never did any of that.

 

[Jazumir]

So, Porkman, what if bancruptcy would just make your officers run away excpect like NU/2% (the diehard loyals) or so? Would that be severe enough to make majors avoid it and at the same time not cripple china (on div-count steroids when compared to 3) so much that it becomes a insta-walkover?

I mean, wasnt every government corrupt and china just not in the position to afford it? I mean, it would kind of model corruption and disloyalty (due to lack of prize for commitment).

 

[bos]

The following political cartoon from 1938 might have a reasonable follow-up sequence for Germany, if the game wants to support an ahistorical result for Poland where the war does not immediately start.

https://cartoonimages.osu.edu/index...B-A575-4BFA-8005-CF676FD41345&imageWidth=1000

 

[DicRoNero]

Wait, wait, developing weapons in peacetime isn't all that peaceful? Say it ain't so!

Luckily, Hitler's Germany never did any of that.

That's right what I'm talking about. Germany adopted some programs of getting ready for a future war by 1943 and after the WW2 was rendered a super evil warmonger. All the others did the same in no less extent and somehow (by winning the war, apparently) became the peacekeepers.

Saying that economy of National Socialist Germany would have collapsed without the war is like saying that massive increase of German wealth by 1938 happened because of the Germans having produced some tanks and planes, as if those are bread and butter. Neither makes sense. The economy would collapse only in case of blockade, since Germany itself had very little share of the resources required to run its factories, the rest was brought from the outside.