lolwut? I don't know if I should be glad or sad that it isn't just in here in Sweden general historical knowledge has taken a nosedive amongst the general population.
Does US ever take over the Allied faction?
- Thread starter heliostellar
- 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.
I think it doesn't really help that the eastern front was, to put it mildly, incredibly horrifying to the point of being almost incomprehensible to a modern audience. It's a difficult time to celebrate or to feel good about.
British and American war films, even during and from pretty early after the war ended, tend to be about the war. They're heroic stories about characters doing awesome things and blowing up bridges and shooting Germans. Soviet war films (at least until much later on) tended to focus on people and the mundane elements of their experience during the war. The heroism is in simply trying to stay alive and stay human. Perhaps for this reason, many soviet war films were internationally critically acclaimed, but not many people outside the USSR watched them.
Last edited:
lolwut? I don't know if I should be glad or sad that it isn't just in here in Sweden general historical knowledge has taken a nosedive amongst the general population.
I'm exaggerating a tad, but here's my inspiration:
Skip to 0:20 if you aren't interested in hearing jokes about artichokes.
Wow, my history knowledge was nowhere near as good as I thought it was. I never knew there was an ostrich at the heart of it.
But anyway, back to the original topic, I'd have to go with the suggestion made earlier (cannot remember by whom), that in SP games faction leadership should simply shift to the human player whenever he joins a faction. And in MP it would probably be cooler to implement a kind of votekick mechanism. For example if GER, ITA, and JAP are all human Axis players and the Italy player wants to DOW Greece, he could issue a DOW diplo action which would pop up a yes/no vote box for the GER and JAP players. If one of them agrees with ITA, its a majority and Greece is doomed. If not, then ITA can go sit in the corner for a little quiet time.
More accurately there's always *every history ever recounted by anyone*, and then the real one which nobody knows.
It's shocking how so many Europeans are still in denial 75 years later. When the US entered the war it took the lead for the Western nations. That's not debatable - not opinion - not subjective - that's what happened. Sorry. I could list all sorts of sources and data, but that's a waste of time for something so obvious. USA was not a military superpower (but was an economic superpower) at the outset of the war but emerged one. As did USSR. Britain did not - the mantle was passed. I'm a big fan of Britain and it's glorious history, but facts are facts. No need to get feathers ruffled about it though that always happens in these forums ("it's your American textbooks!")
Butthurt Texan! Chill out boy, you're going to get mad too if I tell you the USSR did more to win the war than the USA? Because I think that too!
Having been born and lived in Germany for some time, that is a common view there, and parts of Central to Eastern Europe.
But on a more important note, I only see the need to pass leadership if the leader of the faction has capitulated and there is another major in the faction, in this case the United States should become the new leader, as she would need to make the decisions about who to join the faction and ect.
Last edited:
And?
Britain during the war was the most powerful it had ever been in its history, including the points at which it had supposedly been a superpower. Issues like colonial independence and the labour movement were, for the most part, temporarily put aside in order to fight the war. The mobilisation in Britain was more complete than in the USA (the country effectively became a planned economy for the duration of the war). As a result, industrial production was higher than it had ever been before despite the submarine blockade and the damage caused by strategic bombing. The main reason for Britain's decline after the war was the need to reconstruct the economy after the enormous effort required to fight the war, but that in and of itself wasn't a factor during the war.
Politically, Britain was one of the three (or four, because Roosevelt believed that the ROC would be a global power after the war) powers which made up the core of the allies and, considering that two of those nations were the USA and the USSR, it constituted the ideological middle ground within the alliance. Noone is pretending that Britain was the most powerful or decisive nation in the war, that honour undeniably goes to the USSR which, again, in case it wasn't clear was a member of the allies in real life. But the USA did not "lead" the allies, where the major powers of the allies cooperated they did so willingly.
Except for Herodotus.
Plutarch too
On a more serious note this whole argument about "faction leaders" is stupid. It's totally irrelevant historically and is just a game mechanic that could use some reworking.
Umm, no. It didn't happen. Not remotely. USA and the UK more or less led jointly, which is to say cooperatively. Key leadership positions were filled by members of both nations' armed forces, sometimes with an American in the senior slot, sometimes a Brit. But never did the USA lead alone, or even primarily, at least not in the European theater. In the Pacific theater, different equation.
No. They weren't. USSR had a nicely worded treaty of alliance with the USA and another with the UK; they were a Lend-Lease recipient; USSR and the Allies had a common enemy; and the leadership of the Allies conferred on various strategic matters with the Soviet leadership numerous times, but the USSR was never a member of the Allies in any real sense. That was a principle factor in the assassination attempt against Hitler near the end of the war; some of his generals wanted to surrender to the Allies as soon as possible to avoid the risk of their entire homeland falling to the advancing Soviets, who they knew would be far, FAR more harsh. It was also the reason Stalin get quite miffed a short time before that, when he first learned that the Allies had not even informed him that they were trying to secure the surrender of all Axis forces in Italy.
Now the Soviets were envisioned as one of the key United Nations as early 1941, and they were one of the "Big Three". But Soviet operations were never coordinated with Allied operations; they were two separate, friendly but non-allied forces who were fighting a common enemy, but doing so without common strategy or coordination. And for darned sure Soviet forces never went into battle alongside Allied forces in joint combat operations. Heck Stalin even recalled his ambassadors from both the USA and UK in 1943 when he learned that the Allied invasion of France wasn't planned to happen until May of 1944. Doesn't sound at all "allied" to me, that.
No, I think you'll find if you read accurate sources that they actually ate Ferdinand's archduke.
Actually, decolonization happened because those peoples actually fought for their freedom and because the leadership of former empires gradually realized that holding on to former colonies was going to cost more in both political and economic capital then it was ever going to bring in. Decolonization was a long drawn out process, it didn't happen overnight in 1945. The writing wasn't even on the wall till the Suez crisis 11 years later, and even then the US only sided with Egypt because they misunderstood the political situation in the Middle East.
Declaration by United Nations said:
The Soviet Union was technically a founding member of the allies, the existence of which was formalised by the above declaration. Before that, the term "allies" was used informally to denote all the nations opposed to the Axis powers, which included the Soviet Union after 1941. After the above declaration, this informal definition was not really used. Italy never joined the allies, for example, despite being at war with Germany after 1943. The Soviet Union, however, did join the allies .
It makes total sense for the allies, the comintern and the chinese united front to be separate things in game, as it denotes those patterns of military cooperation during the war (and also, if the soviet union had fallen, it's unlikely that an allied victory would have resulted in its restoration, same with the KMT). But in real life both the Soviet Union and China were also formally members of the allies.
Last edited:
That's completely false. You're forgetting about the Anglo-Soviet Invasion of Iran, No. 151 Wing RAF over Murmansk, the Normandie-Niemen Regiment (which served on the Eastern Front for the whole war), and the torpedo bombers of the No. 144 Squadron RAF and No. 455 Squadron RAAF operating over the Arctic Sea, all of which operated alongside and in coordination with Soviets, sometimes even mixing Soviet pilots into their ranks (particularly No. 151 RAF).
In game, Stalingrad is fought between the Comintern and the Axis. I'm not sure what all this talk about the USSR has to do with the price of tea in China.
Also, not sure why people are disagreeing with my literal quotes from the BBC. Folks, that's the UK's government-owned broadcaster. If you don't like their version of history, then take it up with them.