Formable Nations?
- Thread starter that-guy-is-it
- 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.
Well, the goals of germany, japan and italy were clear. Germany wanted the Tausendjähriges Großdeutsches Reich (thousand year greater reich), Italy wanted to rebuilt the roman empire and rule the mediteranian and Japan wanted to rule the pacific. We got that mechanic in Victoria and Europa Universalis aswell, so i dont see an reason why this shouldnt be possible in HoI IV aswell.
The UK, if turned facist, could seek to reform the british empire and reclaim the old territory for example.
The USA, if turned facist, could seek to be the lone ruler of the american continent for example.
The UK, if turned facist, could seek to reform the british empire and reclaim the old territory for example.
The USA, if turned facist, could seek to be the lone ruler of the american continent for example.
- 1
What old territory? In 1936, they still owned it all. Or am I missing parts of the Empire that had fallen off?
Unless you mean annexing the United States and Ireland?
- 5
I guess the problem is that in Vicky2 or EU4 you race to form your larger nation and then you still have time to play as that nation.
In HOI4 unless the game is really simple, then you at best get 2-3 years. Maybe it could be an automatic victory decision, if you form the Reich of Hitler's vision you have essentially won anyways.
In HOI4 unless the game is really simple, then you at best get 2-3 years. Maybe it could be an automatic victory decision, if you form the Reich of Hitler's vision you have essentially won anyways.
- 2
I would love to see the United States of the Americas (hopefully under democracy, but that would be wishful thinking)
- 1
I agree. Would like to see perhaps the Grand American Alliance, made up of all the independent countries in the western hemisphere.
Our mission: To liberate Canada and the rest of the Hemisphere of british and european imperialism. The japs also got to go. Ze Australians too.
- 1
You won't take us without a fight!I agree. Would like to see perhaps the Grand American Alliance, made up of all the independent countries in the western hemisphere.
Our mission: To liberate Canada and the rest of the Hemisphere of british and european imperialism. The japs also got to go. Ze Australians too.
- 3
-Commander Price, the Japanese are on Australian soil!
-We will crush them like dingos!
-But commander, they have emu brigades!
-...organise a peace conference.
-We will crush them like dingos!
-But commander, they have emu brigades!
-...organise a peace conference.
- 1
This is fantasy that does not belong to serious historical games like HoI.
If Columbia somehow miraculously managed to annex all the territories of the old Gran Colombia, and rename itself, there'd still be tons of revolts and the whole thing would soon come crumbling down.
I seriously doubt Italy would have been renamed to New Rome had the Axis won the war. The Roman Empire was just used as inspiration and propaganda. The government had enough trouble trying to uphold a common Italian identity (as opposed to regionalism that was and to a degree still is strong in Italy). "Hey let's call ourselves Romans instead of Italians" is just the fantasy of some Rome-inspired teenage boy that not even the Fascists would actually carry out.
Same with renaming the USSR - nonsense. The whole reason Russia was officially renamed to the USSR (although everyone still called it Russia, because that's what it practically always was) was because eventually all the nations of the world were to join this "happy family of soviet socialist countries", hence: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The only name changes adding all of Europe to the USSR would bring, would be on the oblast and constituent republic level. Therefore these name changes would not even be represented in the game (unless you count renaming cities and towns).
- 6
- 1
No clue why Columbia would form Gran Colombia. They conquered Canada, the US, and Mexico and saw it as a logical step up?
- 1
ACTUALLY, the USSR(Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was not just Russia. You have to remember that the USSR was a federal republic (like the US) Russia itself was the RSFSR(Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) it was made up of 15 different "states" (like in the US) like the:
RSFSR (Russia)
TSFSR (Transcuacasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, later split into 3 (Armenian SSR (Armenia), Azerbaijan SSR (Azerbaijan), Georgian SSR(Georgia) in 1936)
UkSSR (Ukraine)
BSSR (Belarus)
Uzbek SSR (Uzbekistan)
Kazakh SSR (Kazakhstan)
Kirghiz SSR (Kyrgyzstan)
Lithuanian SSR (Lithuania)
Latvian SSR (Latvia)
MSSR (Moldova, Transnistria)
Tajik SSR (Tajikistan)
Turkmen SSR (Turkmenistan)
Estonian SSR (Estonia)
So no, the whole USSR thing was not just a name change for Russia. it was mostly done because now instead of being one imperial state(i.e the Russian empire), it was several soviet republics, all subordinates of the central federal government of the Soviet Union (like the federal government in the US, tho the USSR federal government had much much more control over it's subordinate republics)
- 4
- 1
- 1
You're telling me things I know. Basically you're seeing, but not observing. I'll try to explain:
For all intents and purposes the USSR was synonymous with Russia. Russians were the driving force behind the state, Russian was the lingua franca, Russians defined the culture of the country, and non-Russian minorities were persecuted and Russified. Sure, there was the odd Georgian and Ukrainian on the "throne" (General Secretary), but that doesn't mean much, when they all (until Gorbachev) exercised the Great Russian policies the state had exercised since the times of Ivan the Terrible. In fact the federal status of the USSR had little more than nominal meaning until Gorbachev's reforms, which led to the whole system coming down. You can't democratise a system built on dictatorship, after all.
- 3
- 1
- 1
It was not nominal at the beginning. All these countries fell off during revolution, granting them some autonomy was necessary to bring them back.
Ideology wasn't about Russian culture, it was about universal 'communist' culture. People who didn't fit into that were persecuted regardless of their nationality. Russian language was promoted simply because it was already most common language.
P.s. You do remember Stalin was Georgian, right?
- 3
well, what did you expect? this is not something that was solely a problem in the USSR, this happens almost everywhere where you have a majority population, like the US, do they oppress minorities? yes, one example is native Americans, they technically have their own nations who are governed by the US federal government, a government that has oppressed them for as long as it has existed, attempting to erase their culture and languages, and americanizing their people. Japan's erasure of the indigenous Ainu population of Hokkaido, and their colonial policies in Korea, and in WW2. this happens everywhere that there is a majority population.
and to be fair, Russian be the "lingua franca" of the USSR is not really an oppressive policy, it was simply convenient and logical, Russian was the most commonly spoken language in the USSR, Russia was the largest of the soviet republics both in terms of land, population, and economy, and Russians were the majority population
that is simply not true, monarchies are nothing more than hereditary dictatorships, many of those have been successfully democratized.
also it is worth to point out that in the "referendum on the future of the Soviet Union" in 1991, 73% of the Russian population (77.8% in total in the entire USSR) voted to keep the soviet union and it's communist system (tho with democratic reforms) also according to a survey last year 55% of Russians today miss the USSR
- 1
Those countries were brought back by arms, not by feint promises of autonomy. The Bolsheviks fought for every bit of land wanting to secede from the Russian Empire (e.g. arming and inciting a Communist rebellion in Finland). Meanwhile good ol' Lenin was publicly announcing that any nation and peoples willing to declare independence is free to do so and will not be opposed, while in practice doing the exact opposite. About half of the nations wanting independence from Russia actually managed to keep it - through arms. Others, like Ukraine and Belorussia, fell to the RKKA. Soviet Russia was federalised on paper and officially turned into the Soviet Union just to give it legitimacy. Legitimacy that only those who were naive enough would buy into.
You're right, it wasn't about Russian culture. The Russian Communists butchered their own culture. But they didn't replace it with anything universal, even if that was the intention of some idealists. Which brings me to my point: Warm and fuzzy ideologies are one thing, what's happening in real life is another. The Russians colonized places like the Baltic nations, Kazakhstan, Karelia, Crimea and to an extent the Ukraine, etc. By the late 70s countries like Latvia and Estonia were 50% Russian. Had the USSR not collapsed when it did, Estonians and Latvians would now be a minority in their own country. Kazakhstan had similar figures. In fact even today the populations of these countries are 30-40% Russian, which is a direct result of active Russification during the Soviet era.
Now these are cold hard historical facts. I don't see how the original intention (what ever it might be) of Lenin, Trotsky and the other original Bolsheviks changes what happened in practice.
Yeah, I mentioned the odd Georgian General Secretary, and also mentioned that that in itself does not mean much. Actually come think of it, your post doesn't really refute anything that I said. Maybe I shouldn't even have bothered to reply, hah.
EDIT:
Not necessarily. I don't mean to brag, but Finland is a good example of very good treatment towards a sizeable minority, in this case our Swedish-speaking minority. To such an extent actually, that it isn't necessarily a good thing for the majority population. Then again we're a small country with no imperial past and therefore no inherent tendency to delusions of grandeur that involve forceful assimilation or getting rid of minorities in ways we're not allowed to talk about on these forums.
I wasn't referring the language as an oppressive policy (although come think of it, teaching only Russian in schools in native areas like Udmurtia, Mari-El etc. is oppressive), I was citing it as an example of how Russian the USSR in practice was. The oppressive part was more referring to things that we unfortunately are not allowed to talk about here.
Fair enough, you're partially right. But do consider the fact that the few constitutional monarchies that are still around, have gone through a "democratisation" process that has lasted for decades or even centuries. I can't think of a single country of any meaningful size with an absolute monarchy that rapidly devolved administrative power and still kept the monarchy as at least the nominal head of state.
In any case the point was, that you can't build something with violence and brute force, hold it together with terror, and then expect it to stay intact when you loosen the leash. The Russians may have wanted to keep the USSR (understandably so - like I said, it was a de facto Russian state), but the non-Russian people under them never wanted to be there in the first place, and they took the chance to get out as soon as it appeared.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1