Frustrations with US tree

[hkrommel]

How about you post some of that data instead of saying "there are mountains of data which proves you wrong"? Can you provide me with evidence that the Republicans and Alf Landon was actually interested in helping out in the war in Europe without Roosevelt spearheading the "let's help the Allies" movement? I'm talking about the plausibility of the US joining the European front under an Alf Landon presidency from 1936, so do keep that in mind.

Landon fought against the Neutrality Act and argued that Britain should be given $5 Billion ($88 Billion today) outright rather than go through Roosevelt's lend-lease policy. He wasn't an isolationist, and actually was offered a position on Roosevelt's cabinet in 1940 but turned it down because he didn't support Roosevelt having a third term as President. This is just with cursory research.

To put it another way: In WWI the United States had far weaker reasons to join the war at all, and far weaker reasons to join the side it did, than it did in WWII. Are you honestly arguing that the US is less likely to fight the Nazis than the Kaiser? In what world is that a logically coherent position?

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Landon fought against the Neutrality Act and argued that Britain should be given $5 Billion ($88 Billion today) outright rather than go through Roosevelt's lend-lease policy. He wasn't an isolationist, and actually was offered a position on Roosevelt's cabinet in 1940 but turned it down because he didn't support Roosevelt having a third term as President. This is just with cursory research.

Nobody argued that the US isn't gonna do anything with a Landon presidency, my argument is that the US under Landon would have much less involvement in the European Front compared to a Roosevelt presidency, and especially with much less resentment against Germany. Furthermore the Republican party was much more isolationist (although not Landon himself) compared to the Democrats and Landon himself did not push for aiding the Allies as much as Roosevelt, leading to the argument of weaker American involvement towards the Allies war effort. I'm not saying that a Landon presidency would back off entirely from Germany, but it would be just as likely for a Landon America to wage a war against Japan without joining the Allies.

 

[lihp]

I've never seen USA declare on Germany through justification, it is always either from joining the Allies or through the NF tree.

I saw the US fabricating on Germany.

 

[Hermes]

Nobody argued that the US isn't gonna do anything with a Landon presidency, my argument is that the US under Landon would have much less involvement in the European Front compared to a Roosevelt presidency, and especially with much less resentment against Germany. Furthermore the Republican party was much more isolationist (although not Landon himself) compared to the Democrats and Landon himself did not push for aiding the Allies as much as Roosevelt, leading to the argument of weaker American involvement towards the Allies war effort. I'm not saying that a Landon presidency would back off entirely from Germany, but it would be just as likely for a Landon America to wage a war against Japan without joining the Allies.

Historically Germany declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, so Landon wouldn't have had a choice. Don't know what Landon's thoughts about the pacific were but the Japanese and the US would likely come to blows anyways.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Historically Germany declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor, so Landon wouldn't have had a choice. Don't know what Landon's thoughts about the pacific were but the Japanese and the US would likely come to blows anyways.

Yeah but in the game the German declaration of war on the US is always absent even in historical mode (it is always the other way around), and since the Pacific theater is home grounds for the US as opposed to Europe being a conflict fought on a faraway continent, it makes a lot of sense for US under Landon to prioritize against Japan than Germany. That's why I said in my earlier post that since Germany never declares war on the US, a US under Landon should be able to take another focus than "The Fascist Menace" declaring on Germany every game and declare on Japan for a change without joining the Allies. Right now, Roosevelt and Landon has the same foreign policy which is dull and the only difference between them is that you get to appoint an oil company for free with Landon and you get 50% drift defense. It would be interesting if different leaders had different foreign policies which you can branch off from but then again, Britain does the same thing under Halifax/Churchill as well...

 

[Dalnar]

I'm rather frustrated by the lack of pacific war after the WoT Japan overhaul. I did like 30 games since then and NEVER ever Japan went to actually attack Philippines and to try push out US from pacific. Playing USA atm is one of the most boring experiences in the game - and new focus tree is likely not going to change that.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

I'm rather frustrated by the lack of pacific war after the WoT Japan overhaul. I did like 30 games since then and NEVER ever Japan went to actually attack Philippines and to try push out US from pacific. Playing USA atm is one of the most boring experiences in the game - and new focus tree is likely not going to change that.

Yeah you're right, before they actually made some kind of effort to invade the Philippines though they still never invaded British Malaya or the DEI but now they don't even try to invade the Philippines. Instead, the current Japanese AI likes to send divisions to Europe to help push the Americans off from France and Greece which is quite ridiculous.

 

[Telenil]

I've seen Japan invading Pearl Harbor and the Philippines in one game out of five. It came really late, 1945 or so. They had taken Support the Kodoha, didn't attack China and joined the Axis.

 

[hkrommel]

my argument is that the US under Landon would have much less involvement in the European Front compared to a Roosevelt presidency, and especially with much less resentment against Germany.

[citation needed] Germany actually declaring war was rather pointless, the US would have gone to war against them regardless. People didn't resent Germany more because of it because they were largely at maximum resentment already.

Furthermore the Republican party was much more isolationist (although not Landon himself) compared to the Democrats and Landon himself did not push for aiding the Allies as much as Roosevelt, leading to the argument of weaker American involvement towards the Allies war effort.

Parse that out logically. Both parties pushed for large amounts of aid and in 1941 all but one member of Congress (who was a pacifist) voted for war. Why would they treat Germany differently? Your statement lacks logical premises to support its conclusion.

but it would be just as likely for a Landon America to wage a war against Japan without joining the Allies.

Major [citation needed] here. It was a global war with two major factions (broken into 4 in HOI for gameplay reasons).

 

[Telenil]

Japan and Germany had treaties, and Churchill had announced for a while that he would declare war on Japan at the first shot against the American. Realistically, there would never have been two separate wars, Roosevelt or no Roosevelt.

If Britain had made peace with Hitler in 1940, maybe the US could have left the Soviet on their own and fought separately against Japan. That's about the only situation where I can see two separate wars.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

[citation needed] Germany actually declaring war was rather pointless, the US would have gone to war against them regardless. People didn't resent Germany more because of it because they were largely at maximum resentment already.

The American public didn't like Germany, but they weren't willing to go to war over it before Pearl Harbour. Did the American populace care much about what was happening in Europe or what Germany was doing there? Had they did Roosevelt wouldn't need Pearl Harbour to join the war against Germany would he? If the American populace and congress were already at maximum resentment against Germany Roosevelt would have had no problem with involving America in the war prior to Pearl Harbour. How Roosevelt wasn't able to simply join the Allied War effort as they did in WW1 over sunk vessels just goes to prove what the American public felt about going to war in Europe over Germany.

Parse that out logically. Both parties pushed for large amounts of aid and in 1941 all but one member of Congress (who was a pacifist) voted for war. Why would they treat Germany differently? Your statement lacks logical premises to support its conclusion.

Landon suggested indirect aid in the form of cash while Roosevelt pushed for direct aid in the form of equipment and supplies. Indirect aid is much less involvement compared to direct aid - are the British going to make better use of cash or equipment to fight the Germans? Again your scenario only proves that the American congress voted for war after the German declaration of war which we already know. You just proved that Landon's form of aid was more indirect compared to Roosevelt's aid, which reinforces my argument that Landon's USA would have less involvement in Europe than Roosevelt's USA.

Major [citation needed] here. It was a global war with two major factions (broken into 4 in HOI for gameplay reasons).

Its one thing to declare war on Japan which attacked them directly being a threat in the pacific (US home grounds), and another thing to send troops to Europe to fight a European conflict on a faraway continent. Without FDR's strong resentment towards Germany and the German declaration of war there could also be a scenario of Landon's America fighting Japan alone without sending troops to fight the Germans as well. Sure they might be fighting on the "same side" of the war, but for sake of making Landon's USA different from Roosevelt's the US might as well have an option to form something like the Greater Asian co-prosperity sphere with the Philippines, as they actually do this if you exterminate the Allies before the US can actually get involved with anything. After all the basis of my argument of Landon's USA was to provide more variety with USA and its focus tree by suggesting a different path under a different leader instead of just going "The Fascist Menace" every single game.

If Britain had made peace with Hitler in 1940, maybe the US could have left the Soviet on their own and fought separately against Japan. That's about the only situation where I can see two separate wars.

That's probably something else which should be implemented in the game if Lord Edward Halifax is the leader of UK instead of Churchill.

 

[leubez]

I see AI US wouldn't dare to declare war on Germany when when they full annex SOV.

 

[hkrommel]

The American public didn't like Germany, but they weren't willing to go to war over it before Pearl Harbour.

The US was not yet ready for war, but the public was pretty close to ready.

Did the American populace care much about what was happening in Europe or what Germany was doing there?

Yes. Go look up some Gallup polls from the era.

Had they did Roosevelt wouldn't need Pearl Harbour to join the war against Germany would he?

He didn't "need" it, it was just a perfect rallying cry.

If the American populace and congress were already at maximum resentment against Germany Roosevelt would have had no problem with involving America in the war prior to Pearl Harbour.

Resentment =/= war.

How Roosevelt wasn't able to simply join the Allied War effort as they did in WW1 over sunk vessels just goes to prove what the American public felt about going to war in Europe over Germany.

You're forgetting about the Zimmerman Telegram. It's also not that Roosevelt couldn't, it's just that it would be unwise to before the public was fully ready. Again, they were almost there, but Pearl Harbor put them squarely in the "let's go to war" camp. Don't conflate couldn't with shouldn't.

Landon suggested indirect aid in the form of cash while Roosevelt pushed for direct aid in the form of equipment and supplies. Indirect aid is much less involvement compared to direct aid - are the British going to make better use of cash or equipment to fight the Germans? Again your scenario only proves that the American congress voted for war after the German declaration of war which we already know. You just proved that Landon's form of aid was more indirect compared to Roosevelt's aid, which reinforces my argument that Landon's USA would have less involvement in Europe than Roosevelt's USA.

Before Pearl Harbor. You have utterly failed to show any coherent reason why, once the United States was already at war, it would have refrained from joining the Allies or becoming involved in Europe. Nothing you've asserted, even if I take your assertions as true, logically results in that conclusion.

and another thing to send troops to Europe to fight a European conflict on a faraway continent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

Without FDR's strong resentment towards Germany and the German declaration of war there could also be a scenario of Landon's America fighting Japan alone without sending troops to fight the Germans as well.

Why? Why is Landon so fond of the Nazis that he wouldn't fight them? Why is his difference in opinion about the type of lend-lease anywhere close to a logical proof for this statement? You've shown no evidence this was even a possibility, that Landon would somehow ignore the Germans or not care about what's happening in Europe.


Let me spell it out for you logically.

Premise A: Alf Landon was somewhat softer than Roosevelt on lend-lease before Pearl Harbor.
Premise B: ???????
Conclusion: Alf Landon would not get involved in the European aspect of the conflict even though the US is already at war with Japan.

 

[Alliegorical]

Somewhat related to the subject everyone here is discussing, here's something that almost nobody seems to know (it's mentioned almost nowhere in any history of the war, or even of the US's role in the war prior to Pearl Harbor): at the 1940 Havana Conference, the US modified and expanded the Monroe Doctrine and convinced 20 other American nations to join in its enforcement. They all resolved that no territory in the Americas would be permitted to transfer to any other non-American power. Specifically, that means that if French, Dutch, or British colonies in the Caribbean, Belize, Newfoundland, or elsewhere in the western hemisphere had been transferred to any Axis power, or if any Axis power had occupied any of the same, then pretty much the entire western hemisphere would have immediately regarded that as an act of war.

While it would be a pain in the ass to implement with precision, eventually Paradox should probably model this in the game, perhaps with a Havana Conference decision for the US. It would require that any nation which has a capital outside of the Americas and owns territory in the Americas has capitulated. The trouble of course is that you'd need some pretty complex events to enable the US to enforce it, as well as a way to warn the Axis player(s) before they unwittingly annex Newfoundland after a successful Sea Lion. It would be tough from a game design point of view, but I believe the Paradox guys are up to the task.

 

[geckoman1011]

Ok, for you nitwits debating history, go to a different thread, please. Thats not the point here. For those of you who are trying to help me find a way to kill commies, ill get back to you with my findings when I have a bit more time. Currently with historical AI on (a rarity for me), Ive stopped short of Danzig or War, fascist Italy joined the comintern, and brought them into war with the allies. So so much for an epic slug fest between Germany and Russia.

 

[CarlvonClauswitz]

Somewhat related to the subject everyone here is discussing, here's something that almost nobody seems to know (it's mentioned almost nowhere in any history of the war, or even of the US's role in the war prior to Pearl Harbor): at the 1940 Havana Conference, the US modified and expanded the Monroe Doctrine and convinced 20 other American nations to join in its enforcement. They all resolved that no territory in the Americas would be permitted to transfer to any other non-American power. Specifically, that means that if French, Dutch, or British colonies in the Caribbean, Belize, Newfoundland, or elsewhere in the western hemisphere had been transferred to any Axis power, or if any Axis power had occupied any of the same, then pretty much the entire western hemisphere would have immediately regarded that as an act of war.

While it would be a pain in the ass to implement with precision, eventually Paradox should probably model this in the game, perhaps with a Havana Conference decision for the US. It would require that any nation which has a capital outside of the Americas and owns territory in the Americas has capitulated. The trouble of course is that you'd need some pretty complex events to enable the US to enforce it, as well as a way to warn the Axis player(s) before they unwittingly annex Newfoundland after a successful Sea Lion. It would be tough from a game design point of view, but I believe the Paradox guys are up to the task.

Not as hard as you think. Game already tracks current owners, there could be a condition like "Not in control of UK or France or US" or "IN control of Germany or USSR or Italy." I really think this could be done easily.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

The US was not yet ready for war, but the public was pretty close to ready.

The US wasn't yet "ready for war" when it joined the war either.

He didn't "need" it, it was just a perfect rallying cry.

The German declaration of War also served this purpose, which was exactly what I said.

Resentment =/= war. You're forgetting about the Zimmerman Telegram. It's also not that Roosevelt couldn't, it's just that it would be unwise to before the public was fully ready. Again, they were almost there, but Pearl Harbor put them squarely in the "let's go to war" camp. Don't conflate couldn't with shouldn't.

So you're trying to say that the Americans harboured the same resentment against a country which was rapidly expanding in Europe VS a country which declared war threatening their own country's soil? Then why mention the Zimmerman Telegram which posed a direct threat to US home grounds? Clearly the American people are more concerned and shows greater resentment towards a Germany which threatens its own home than a Germany that is expanding in Europe.

Why is Landon so fond of the Nazis that he wouldn't fight them? Why is his difference in opinion about the type of lend-lease anywhere close to a logical proof for this statement? You've shown no evidence this was even a possibility, that Landon would somehow ignore the Germans or not care about what's happening in Europe.

Less involvement =/= non involvement. I've shown evidence that Landon's policies were less direct than Roosevelt's so that is the basis of Landon's American having less involvement in the European front compared to Roosevelt's. I backed this up with the argument that the GOP was less inclined to help out in Europe compared to the Democrats. Sure the GOP was only a minor party during the era, but we're talking about a Landon presidency here. With Landon's presidency, the GOP wing under Robert A. Taft would have a much louder voice in parliament, leading to less US involvement in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party#1939–1952

Let me spell it out for you logically.

Premise A: Alf Landon was somewhat softer than Roosevelt on lend-lease before Pearl Harbor.
Premise B: ???????
Conclusion: Alf Landon would not get involved in the European aspect of the conflict even though the US is already at war with Japan.

Premise B: Isolationists and non-interventionists would have a much louder voice in parliament with a GOP presidency, as this group strongly supported the war on Japan after Pearl Harbour but would be much less interested in fighting on the European front than under a Roosevelt presidency.

Conclusion: Landon's America would be much less involved in the European front than Roosevelt's US and focus on fighting Japan and guard the pacific when its at war with Japan, though it will still send indirect aid to Europe but on a much lesser scale compared to Roosevelt's USA.

After all the basis of my argument of Landon's USA was to provide more variety with USA and its focus tree by suggesting a different path under a different leader instead of just going "The Fascist Menace" every single game. My goal is to explore more options for USA under a different presidency to enhance gameplay by providing more options.

 

[a_sophist]

After all the basis of my argument of Landon's USA was to provide more variety with USA and its focus tree by suggesting a different path under a different leader instead of just going "The Fascist Menace" every single game. My goal is to explore more options for USA under a different presidency to enhance gameplay by providing more options.

I'm fine with a non-Roosevelt presidency leading to a more non-interventionist USA vis-a-vis Europe for gameplay variety, but historically plausible theory crafting is a fool's errand. The Republican party itself was split regarding interventionism and never had anything approaching a majority in Congress (not parliament, which is a crucial difference regarding the Executive-Legislative relationship) during the relevant period. HOI isn't set up to model real internal politics, and when you can make the US communist in a couple years to facilitate unique campaigns, why worry about justifying a change in the "democratic" government type for the same purpose?

 

[Misaka_Complex]

I'm fine with a non-Roosevelt presidency leading to a more non-interventionist USA vis-a-vis Europe for gameplay variety, but historically plausible theory crafting is a fool's errand. The Republican party itself was split regarding interventionism and never had anything approaching a majority in Congress (not parliament, which is a crucial difference regarding the Executive-Legislative relationship) during the relevant period. HOI isn't set up to model real internal politics, and when you can make the US communist in a couple years to facilitate unique campaigns, why worry about justifying a change in the "democratic" government type for the same purpose?

Those were just my thoughts on how a Republican USA could change American politics in the run for gameplay purposes. With WTT we have Japan forming its own faction instead of joining the Axis for gameplay purposes so I was exploring a similar idea with the US forming something like a "Greater Pacific co-prosperity sphere" with the Philippines and maybe also with Australia, New Zealand and some other Pacific countries because one thing that most people agree on with respect to this thread is that the US focus tree definitely needs some rework. Currently the US tree has some allternative options like the "Pearl Harbour Gambit" but the AI never takes it and always goes with "The Fascist Menace" which is dull. I've even seen Communist Japan with WTT but the US always does the same thing every single game.

If we were to talk about plausibility a Landon presidency wasn't even plausible at all given Roosevelt's landslide victory, but there is already a Landon presidency as an option in the game so I was suggesting how this can be expanded on like how the UK under Edward Halifax could also take a different approach than Churchill's UK. Especially for the UK, there is no difference at all between Churchill and Halifax (not even in leader traits or stats) and it would be very interesting if it made some kind of difference because doing the same thing regardless of your choice defeats the purpose of choosing between Halifax and Churchill.

 

[mabus81]

I've never seen USA declare on Germany through justification, it is always either from joining the Allies or through the NF tree.

I have, but that was in 1.2 or something.