Guarantee is dumb

[Opanashc]

Yeah it's pretty hard to avoid wars when you attack/annex/threaten your neighbors with reckless abandon

Uh-huh, German attack on Poland was totally preventable by USSR. Never mind, that Berlin decided to attack before talks of Molotov-Ribbentrop. It wasn't western democracies, that fed Third Reich Austria and Sudetenland and rest of Czechoslovakia - it was communism. It wasn't Warsaw that declined help, it was Moscow that didn't offer it.
Nice alternate universe you got yourself there.

 

[hkrommel]

Ok, Mr Reading Ed, how did the alleged plan to avoid *a* war fail in 1939, as opposed to any other year when *a* war started?

It failed when Stalin invaded Poland and barely avoided open war with Japan.

 

[hkrommel]

Uh-huh, German attack on Poland was totally preventable by USSR. Never mind, that Berlin decided to attack before talks of Molotov-Ribbentrop. It wasn't western democracies, that fed Third Reich Austria and Sudetenland and rest of Czechoslovakia - it was communism. It wasn't Warsaw that declined help, it was Moscow that didn't offer it.
Nice alternate universe you got yourself there.

Only idiots accept offers of "help" from Stalin.

 

[cat013]

It failed when Stalin invaded Poland and barely avoided open war with Japan.

You mean when Stalin seized completely undefended ex-Poland, but deliberately escalated Manchurian-Mongolian skirmish into a major battle between USSR and Japan? Your lack of knowledge is about as amazing as your readiness to call other people idiots (maybe the two are connected).

The real Stalin, of course, had zero problem with the general idea of sending the Red tanks anywhere. He started doing it in 1929 - the earliest year he had political power to to that. It was very particular kind of war he was trying to avoid - a war that would put USSR against multiple majors (any WW1 like scenario).

 

[Opanashc]

Only idiots accept offers of "help" from Stalin.

And only idiots would accept help from western democracies after Sudetenland.

 

[hkrommel]

You mean when Stalin seized completely undefended ex-Poland, but deliberately escalated Manchurian-Mongolian skirmish into a major battle between USSR and Japan? Your lack of knowledge is about as amazing as your readiness to call other people idiots (maybe the two are connected).

The real Stalin, of course, had zero problem with the general idea of sending the Red tanks anywhere. He started doing it in 1929 - the earliest year he had political power to to that. It was very particular kind of war he was trying to avoid - a war that would put USSR against multiple majors (any WW1 like scenario).

Yes, I do mean when Stalin invaded and annexed portions of the sovereign nation of Poland without provocation and thus entered a war. Entering wars means you aren't avoiding them. Either way my original point, which you have thus far ignored in your feeble attempts to define and redefine the parameters we're discussing, was that in general the Soviets were aggressive in all the aforementioned instances, not specifically in 1939 (though they were then too)

And only idiots would accept help from western democracies after Sudetenland.

I agree, but for different reasons. "Help" from Stalin meant basically becoming a puppet state. The reason to not accept "help" from Britain and France was more that they were unable to come to the rescue of some nations for practical reasons.

 

[Opanashc]

Yes, I do mean when Stalin invaded and annexed portions of the sovereign nation of Poland without provocation and thus entered a war.

Oh, poor innocent "hyena of Europe" (I am quoting Churchill, by the way). Country, which as soon as it was created (or reborn) started wars with all its neighbors for territory. If only it accepted the Kerzon line in 1920.

 

[cat013]

Either way my original point, which you have thus far ignored in your feeble attempts to define and redefine the parameters we're discussing, was that in general the Soviets were aggressive

Your "original point" was to misread Opanashc as if he stated that Stalin's plan was to avoid "Not the war, but war in general." (yes, you even put it in italics), to which you started to argue vehemently. Though I believe that we wrote enough already to realize that he never meant anything like that.

Yes, I must admit that I didn't understand at first what exactly your were arguing about. I thought you were trying to disprove the actual statement that Stalin was hoping to avoid the 1939 scenario. See, I prefer not to presume that other people are dumb (at least until they start splitting hair over articles and call me dyslexic). I believe I must apologize for this misunderstanding.

 

[hkrommel]

Oh, poor innocent "hyena of Europe" (I am quoting Churchill, by the way). Country, which as soon as it was created (or reborn) started wars with all its neighbors for territory. If only it accepted the Kerzon line in 1920.

Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Your "original point" was to misread Opanashc as if he stated that Stalin's plan was to avoid "Not the war, but war in general." (yes, you even put it in italics), to which you started to argue vehemently. Though I believe that we wrote enough already to realize that he never meant anything like that.

Yes, I must admit that I didn't understand at first what exactly your were arguing about. I thought you were trying to disprove the actual statement that Stalin was hoping to avoid the 1939 scenario. See, I prefer not to presume that other people are dumb (at least until they start splitting hair over articles and call me dyslexic). I believe I must apologize for this misunderstanding.

1. I never misread him. He said "a war" and in the context of his statement meant war in general from my understanding. I haven't been convinced by anything you've said on the matter so I don't think you're on the same page yet.

2. If Stalin was hoping to avoid the 1939 scenario then he shouldn't have agreed to the MR pact, plain and simple.

3. I never called you dyslexic, and it's hardly splitting hairs when that article changes the entire meaning of a sentence and the substance of a claim. Communicating with precision is important.

I can see you're getting into the ridiculous (I called you dyslexic? Really? Quote that.) here and you haven't given me a reason to respect your arguments as of yet, so unless there's anything new this will be my last reply to you.

 

[Opanashc]

Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Poland acted like it could play in the big league, got what it had coming. I don't feel sorry for it. Everybody is guilty, so don't go blame one side or the other.

1. I never misread him. He said "a war" and in the context of his statement meant war in general from my understanding. I haven't been convinced by anything you've said on the matter so I don't think you're on the same page yet.

The way you YOU understood it. Yes, you are not on the same page as me, yet have these notions.

2. If Stalin was hoping to avoid the 1939 scenario then he shouldn't have agreed to the MR pact, plain and simple.

And have a two-front war instead, with Germany AND Japan? War with Germany was inevitable - Hitler was preaching lebenstraum in the east for years at that point.
Stalin wouldn't have had to make that decision, if France and England didn't sacrifice Czechoslovakia to Germany! Stalin was dealt a bad hand, he had to choose. You are so superior with your post-fact knowledge. Why should have Stalin shed blood of his nation for people who PROVED to be traitors?

 

[hkrommel]

Poland acted like it could play in the big league, got what it had coming. I don't feel sorry for it. Everybody is guilty, so don't go blame one side or the other.


The way you YOU understood it. Yes, you are not on the same page as me, yet have these notions.

And have a two-front war instead, with Germany AND Japan? War with Germany was inevitable - Hitler was preaching lebenstraum in the east for years at that point.
Stalin wouldn't have had to make that decision, if France and England didn't sacrifice Czechoslovakia to Germany! Stalin was dealt a bad hand, he had to choose. You are so superior with your post-fact knowledge. Why should have Stalin shed blood of his nation for people who PROVED to be traitors?

1. Or I could blame both, and I will. Two wrongs don't make a right.

2. "A" is different than "the". In that context it totally changed what you meant. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.

3. Wow. Sounds like you're quoting Pravda there. Anyways, who says the Soviets would have to be involved at all? They could have let Germany be the aggressor against Poland, Britain, and France and *not* invaded a nation without provocation. No need to declare war on Japan or Germany.

4. Yes, war between the Nazis and the Soviets was inevitable, and it was a matter of who would strike first. I have no problem with a preemptive strike if war is imminent. If the Soviets attacked the Germans in 1940 I wouldn't bat an eye because it would be justified. The Soviets attacking Finland? Not so much.

 

[Opanashc]

1. Or I could blame both, and I will. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ok. Start with blaming yourself then.

2. "A" is different than "the". In that context it totally changed what you meant. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.

I wish to see you speak your third language, before taking lectures.

3. Wow. Sounds like you're quoting Pravda there. Anyways, who says the Soviets would have to be involved at all? They could have let Germany be the aggressor against Poland, Britain, and France and *not* invaded a nation without provocation. No need to declare war on Japan or Germany.

Germans almost made it to Moscow from Brest. Where would they end up, if they started from Minsk?

4. Yes, war between the Nazis and the Soviets was inevitable, and it was a matter of who would strike first. I have no problem with a preemptive strike if war is imminent. If the Soviets attacked the Germans in 1940 I wouldn't bat an eye because it would be justified. The Soviets attacking Finland? Not so much.

After Finland refused to give up land, that was Russian before Finland was surrendered by Sweden in 1809 (and compensated to boot) and after provocations? Gulf of Tonkin, just different actors.

 

[hkrommel]

Ok. Start with blaming yourself then.

Oddly enough I'm not actually a sovereign nation-state who has illegitimately violated the sovereignty of another. If this somehow comes to pass, you'll be the first to know.

I wish to see you speak your third language, before taking lectures.

That wouldn't be a problem if you didn't react the way you did. There was a difference between what you said and what you meant to say. I took the correct interpretation of what you said, which was different than what you meant. The correct response on your part would be to point out the inconsistency and offer clarification. Instead, you got defensive and criticized me even though the problem was in your ability to communicate what you meant to say, rather than how I interpreted what you said. You certainly get a lot of grace since English isn't your first language, but it's still your responsibility to recognize mistakes when you make them and clarify those, rather than attack someone who is simply interpreting the words on the page.

Germans almost made it to Moscow from Brest. Where would they end up, if they started from Minsk?

Who knows? It's an entirely different "what if" scenario involving so many branching possibilities that it's realistically impossible to answer that question.

After Finland refused to give up land, that was Russian before Finland was surrendered by Sweden in 1809 (and compensated to boot) and after provocations? Gulf of Tonkin, just different actors.

Moscow was controlled by France in 1812. Should France still have a valid claim to it? Would France be justified in declaring war if Russia doesn't surrender the land the French held in 1812? That logic doesn't hold. Your comparison is also irrelevant, since we're not talking about moral equivalency, but rather the morality of the situation at hand. Stop deflecting, start dealing with the incident being discussed.

 

[CrazyZombie]

If Stalin was hoping to avoid the 1939 scenario then he shouldn't have agreed to the MR pact, plain and simple.

Are westerners organically unable to think for a couple of minutes as state leaders, they blame? I know that you are always saint, even when commit a genocide, but that is some really high level of hypocrisy.

We are Stalin. Leader of only socialist state on the Earth, and having lot's of problems because of it: both "democrats" and "fascists" don't like us much. Germany is rebuilding it's might, openly violating Versailles treaty, and noone cares. Maybe because program of nazi regime is built around claiming land on the East. Our land up to the Urals.
We help to the lawful government in Spain in it's civil war agains fascist rebels. "Neutrality" of France and Britain leaves free hands for Germany and Italy. Civil war is won by fascists. Great!
Germany literally annexes Austria. Noone cares.
We suggest collective security pacts to Britain and France. Each time, we do this, they find plenty of reasons not to sign such treaty. We succeed to sign a security pact between us, France and Czechoslovakia. Good. As soon as Germany starts claiming Czech land, France declares that it is not their problem, literally violating the pact. We declare that France can go and f*ck itself - we are ready to help to Czechoslovakia anyway. Poland refuses to provide us a military pass for fully legitimate help. Maybe because they also have plans to steal some Czech land with some industrial objects. Czechoslovakia is fed to Germany and a bit to Poland. France and Britain are happy - they manage to avoid war, letting Germany to move East.
Summer 1939. It is obvious that Germany will continue it's game of annexations. We again suggest to France and Britain collective security pact. They agree to negotiate but send men who are not authorized to sign anything. Great!
And at this time German Foreign Secretary arrives. He suggests us the treaty to define spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and non-agression pact. Germans for sure will violate it earlier or later, but still, we can win some time with it. While Germany will be busy with France and Britain for some years, we will rebuild our army, rearm it, prepare mobilization plans.

Will you refuse such offer even if it comes from pretty aggressive Germany?

 

[hkrommel]

Are westerners organically unable to think for a couple of minutes as state leaders, they blame? I know that you are always saint, even when commit a genocide, but that is some really high level of hypocrisy.

We are Stalin. Leader of only socialist state on the Earth, and having lot's of problems because of it: both "democrats" and "fascists" don't like us much. Germany is rebuilding it's might, openly violating Versailles treaty, and noone cares. Maybe because program of nazi regime is built around claiming land on the East. Our land up to the Urals.
We help to the lawful government in Spain in it's civil war agains fascist rebels. "Neutrality" of France and Britain leaves free hands for Germany and Italy. Civil war is won by fascists. Great!
Germany literally annexes Austria. Noone cares.
We suggest collective security pacts to Britain and France. Each time, we do this, they find plenty of reasons not to sign such treaty. We succeed to sign a security pact between us, France and Czechoslovakia. Good. As soon as Germany starts claiming Czech land, France declares that it is not their problem, literally violating the pact. We declare that France can go and f*ck itself - we are ready to help to Czechoslovakia anyway. Poland refuses to provide us a military pass for fully legitimate help. Maybe because they also have plans to steal some Czech land with some industrial objects. Czechoslovakia is fed to Germany and a bit to Poland. France and Britain are happy - they manage to avoid war, letting Germany to move East.
Summer 1939. It is obvious that Germany will continue it's game of annexations. We again suggest to France and Britain collective security pact. They agree to negotiate but send men who are not authorized to sign anything. Great!
And at this time German Foreign Secretary arrives. He suggests us the treaty to define spheres of influence in Eastern Europe and non-agression pact. Germans for sure will violate it earlier or later, but still, we can win some time with it. While Germany will be busy with France and Britain for some years, we will rebuild our army, rearm it, prepare mobilization plans.

Will you refuse such offer even if it comes from pretty aggressive Germany?

I'll ignore that logically absurd insult as long as it's the only one.

You seem to be confused about the nature of this debate. Opanashc is claiming that Soviet actions were justified in terms of moral legitimacy, whereas you're claiming they were pragmatically sound. Those are two entirely different arguments, one hinging on moral justification and the other on power, territory, and resources. I haven't engaged with the pragmatic argument as of yet, nor am I particularly interested in doing so at this juncture.

Specifically relating to the 1939 scenario, Stalin wouldn't be under obligation to attack Poland if he hadn't signed the MR pact. Basically he wouldn't be obligated to engage in unjustified aggression without it. It may very well be that it was pragmatically the right choice (who knows what would have happened without it), but that's a different debate with a host of unknowns and what-ifs.

 

[CrazyZombie]

I'll ignore that insult as long as it's the only one. You seem to be confused about the nature of this debate. Opanashc is claiming that the Soviet actions were justified in terms of moral legitimacy, whereas you're claiming they were pragmatically sound. Those are two entirely different arguments, one hinging on moral justification and the other on power, territory, and resources. I haven't engaged with the pragmatic argument as of yet, nor am I particularly interested in doing so at this juncture.

Problem is that use of "legitimacy' category is incorrect in general in the talk about Interbellum. Everyone violated rules and international laws when thought that it is "pragmatic".

 

[hkrommel]

Problem is that use of "legitimacy' category is incorrect in general in the talk about Interbellum. Everyone violated rules and international laws when thought that it is "pragmatic".

Morality doesn't go away if people ignore it. Neither does justice.

 

[Santjago]

Morality doesn't go away if people ignore it. Neither does justice.

Wow, you are almost as smart as my bear (the bear is a little smarter, cause he can play the balalaika, but the level of knowledge and the general mode of reasoning are quite similar).

 

[hkrommel]

Wow, you are almost as smart as my bear (the bear is a little smarter, cause he can play the balalaika, but the level of knowledge and the general mode of reasoning are quite similar).

It's a little odd that you keep a pet that's more intelligent than you.

Edit: to the broader point, there have been centuries of scholarship and theories regarding just war written by people much smarter than you or I, so to think you can dismiss that with a simple insult is the height of arrogance.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

This is stupid. No matter what country I play if I start to fabricate a claim Britain or France guarantee them. This makes playing minors aggressively impossible.

To prevent majors interfering in minor actions around the world, you could set the threshold at 25% if a major is involved, 40% if it's a minor fabricating on a minor. It wouldn't help with the China issue, but a Saudi Yemen war or a Peru versus Ecuador fight could work, at least early in the game.

edit - Sorry, the US still has guarantees on the Americas. For the Peru-Ecuador thing to work, Monroe Doctrine would probably have to be restricted to externals-only until WT gets higher, or America gets militarized through NF.

p.s. (Neither helps historicity THAT much, since the real life Ecuador-Peru war happened after the world war was raging hot already, but a change like this should help with your particular problem playing no-rules multiplayer.)