Supposedly FDR (about the President of Nicaragua), but it may be apocryphal, as it has also been attributed to Acheson and to Dulles.
Guarantee is dumb
- Thread starter Dracolithfiend
- 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.
Supposedly FDR (about the President of Nicaragua), but it may be apocryphal, as it has also been attributed to Acheson and to Dulles.
It also sounds very much like something Patton would have said (or that some might have said about him. 
)
Then again, he tossed around "son of a bitch" as if it were simply a synonym of fellow or chap.
)Then again, he tossed around "son of a bitch" as if it were simply a synonym of fellow or chap.
Last edited:
...and nobody cares about the original subject anymore
But I like how we discuss an IRL war between two US allies in the same thread where IG UK and France rush to give unconditional blanket guarantees to Estonia and Bolivia.
But I like how we discuss an IRL war between two US allies in the same thread where IG UK and France rush to give unconditional blanket guarantees to Estonia and Bolivia.
What about the Soviet Union guaranteeing France before the start of WW2 before 1939? This basically nullifies the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and forces Germany to fight on two fronts as soon as they want to start their westwards aggression.
That one suddenly makes perfect sense. In 1939 Stalin was running two negotiations in parallel. The one with UK and France came to a stalemate, so he signed with Germany instead. For some reason devs decided not to have any NFs related to this alternative, but a guarantee should work as a crutch.
Again, either you choose to play wide open games with no house rules or you choose to have some. Even Public single session pickup games can have house rules.
You cannot both have the complete freedom for people to do what they want, i.e. no rules, and at the same time expect not to have things that you do not like happening. It would be even worse if the game itself was more restrictive. Then the people who like absolute freedom would be up in arms.
To me your points all say, "have a few basic house rules."
Except that I wasn't talking about house rules in MP, it was just an exchange of opinion regarding the guarantee system applying to certain countries.
So your options are:
A. Railroading, imprecise, potentially ahistorical restrictions on guarantees which make minors and non-Democratic nations too powerful.
B. House rules or self-restriction.
If you don't like the current system that much, just tag over to the guaranteeing nation(s), give them the amount of PP via console they need to remove the guarantee, then remove it and tag back. It takes about 15 seconds.
Guarantee's in them self aren't dumb but when it's countries that are totally removed from the main crisis in Europe and present no strategic benefit to the UK or France you do have to wonder why they are raining on your parade.
The thing is that the UK and France were global empires, so the only places that don't have strategic importance to them are the Americas, and those are of strategic importance to the United States.
They were but during that time period they also had bigger fish to fry. If France is on the verge of collapse and the UK is getting bombed they really shouldn't be worrying too much about Tibet and Nepal having a scuffle.
While at war with Germany, they contemplated bombing Baku oilfields belonging to SU. That should tell you something.
Yeah but OP is referring to pre-war guarantees I'm pretty sure.
That sounds like a contingency plan if it looked like the Germans would take them or if hostilities with the USSR broke out over other matters.. Unless there's specific evidence that they would bomb them anyways I don't find that surprising since countries plan for just about everything.
I never found guaranteeing to be a problem in SP at all. Also I'm not sure if cheat codes are available on Ironman, and I always play on Ironman mode in SP since it saves hard drive space keeping the save to one file. My laptop runs on a 30g SSD on C drive so disk space on C is extremely limited.
I see what you're saying but my point is more that other factors dont seem to play a part. If sealion was successful and the last few British provinces were in North America it would still be guaranteeing people.
Last edited:
No, they planned it specifically against Stalin. And they put special effort into making sure Hitler was aware of that. I would say this whole Winter war nonsense was fought solely to convince Hitler that Stalin cannot possibly decide to come and help France. (Everybody expected it to be WW1 take 2, not the factual WW2)
I would consider a nation only to be "crippled" when it can’t do what it could do historically.
Actually the UK in the context of the Argentina-UK war could not expect US aid. The NATO treaty specifically protects only against attacks in Europe or North America, or against vessels north of the tropic of cancer. The Malvinas/Falklands are a bit south of that
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_5
Well no crap they planned it against Stalin, the question is whether they intended to execute the plan without provocation. Also why would the Allies make their plans available to the Nazis? I'd like to see a source on that.
Also are you saying that Stalin fought the Winter War so he wouldn't have to fight France? I don't think Germany was in any position to force him to, and the M-R pact dealt specifically with Eastern Europe to the best of my knowledge.
He is saying, that Winter War was fought to demonstrate that SU cannot help France by attacking Germany from the east. In my opinion, that logic is false, but it is fairly sound.