Hearts of Iron IV - 29th Development Diary - 16th of October 2015**Read OP before posting**

[wingo]

This would mean that Finland would have to declare a separate war against Soviet Union, which would then increase world tension. And as stated in the dev diary:

First of all, a democracy can not start a war against a democracy, so you need to switch to become fascist or communist. Democracies are also limited by the fact that they can’t justify against a nation that has not increased the World Tension.

That would mean that at that point a democracy could justify a wargoal. However, the first sentence says the opposite that they couldn't actually declare war on Finland. Could we get a bit more expanded explanation from the devs that at which point can a democracy declare war/justify wargoal and against which countries. It seems quite confusing at the moment.

1. Finland would not declare on democracy, but on communist (dictatorship) country, so no problem there
2. Finland would already have cassus belli - cores lost in Winter war, so no need to justify war

Podcat said democracies only cannot justify war against other democracies, but can declare war if they already have wargoal (so no USA-Canada war unless one of them becomes fascist/communist, but UK can get a wargoal against Norway and declare war thanks to national focus which are meant to override general rules for specific scenarios).

 

[Mathrafalovich]

This will be great for Kaiserreich.

 

[Axe99]

Your ideas about what is an invasion is true just your mind. I already said that it was an invasion and I quoted some "facts". Here it is written INVASION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland.

The thing about Iceland and Norway is that, even if the democratic peace theory (which I don't subscribe to, like most IR theories it's far too simplistic) was true, wouldn't be applicable cases. Both were actions taken out in the context of a far larger conflict - they were hardly imperialist actions by an expansionist United Kingdom looking to control more of the coastline of the north sea for itself. Rather, they were counters to a threat from a continental power that they were locked in conflict with. It's a very, very different situation from a straight-up war between two nations - the factors influencing the actions (or planned actions) are not factors in democratic peace theory, and the actions don't fall under the theory. Regardless of whether democratic peace theory is correct or not, the UK's planned or realised actions against Iceland, Norway and Finland are not arguments for or against the theory. Hence, national focusses are better ways to handle these exceptions (what would be even better would be some kind of casus belli that allowed invasion when a nation was considered strategically significant - this way, you cover Vichy Madagascar and Vichy Syria as well, for example - I'm curious as to how these will be handled in-game).

 

[yonderTheGreat]

Arguing that a peaceful occupation isn't an invasion is pedantic at best.

The UK violated Icelandic sovereignty, such as it existed. Simple as that. Germany claimed the exact same thing in Denmark the previous month. UK pressing that claim gives contemporary legitimacy to Germany's claim.

Obviously we know better after-the-fact, but we're talking about the actions, not the results. Obviously, the Denmark situation is different than the Iceland situation... but an invasion is an invasion.

If you want to be pedantic, then that's fine. "a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. " is the definition of an invasion. And that's literally what happened.

Let me ask this... if Iceland had resisted, is there any doubt what the UK would have done? They were prepared to kill Norwegian soldiers to gain control (yes, I full acknowledge that this wasn't standard Imperialism BS... this was in the context of total war w/ the Nazis) of Norway. Iceland was AT LEAST as important as Norway (just look how vital it was in the Battle of the Atlantic).

But yeah... it's a good discussion. I'm enjoying it and learning a lot (for example, I didn't know Operation Fork took place literally on May 10th... I'm curious what Churchill said about it).

 

[Cardus]

Arguing that a peaceful occupation isn't an invasion is pedantic at best.

The UK violated Icelandic sovereignty, such as it existed. Simple as that. Germany claimed the exact same thing in Denmark the previous month. UK pressing that claim gives contemporary legitimacy to Germany's claim.

Obviously we know better after-the-fact, but we're talking about the actions, not the results. Obviously, the Denmark situation is different than the Iceland situation... but an invasion is an invasion.

If you want to be pedantic, then that's fine. "a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. " is the definition of an invasion. And that's literally what happened.

Let me ask this... if Iceland had resisted, is there any doubt what the UK would have done? They were prepared to kill Norwegian soldiers to gain control (yes, I full acknowledge that this wasn't standard Imperialism BS... this was in the context of total war w/ the Nazis) of Norway. Iceland was AT LEAST as important as Norway (just look how vital it was in the Battle of the Atlantic).

But yeah... it's a good discussion. I'm enjoying it and learning a lot (for example, I didn't know Operation Fork took place literally on May 10th... I'm curious what Churchill said about it).

Correct, if I come to your place with an armed squad and you don't fight but you only scream that is considered "peaceful". Am I legitimate to stay there until when I deem it is required?

PS

The unarmed Germans were captured without incident.

 

[agus92]

The thing about Iceland and Norway is that, even if the democratic peace theory (which I don't subscribe to, like most IR theories it's far too simplistic) was true, wouldn't be applicable cases. Both were actions taken out in the context of a far larger conflict - they were hardly imperialist actions by an expansionist United Kingdom looking to control more of the coastline of the north sea for itself. Rather, they were counters to a threat from a continental power that they were locked in conflict with. It's a very, very different situation from a straight-up war between two nations - the factors influencing the actions (or planned actions) are not factors in democratic peace theory, and the actions don't fall under the theory. Regardless of whether democratic peace theory is correct or not, the UK's planned or realised actions against Iceland, Norway and Finland are not arguments for or against the theory. Hence, national focusses are better ways to handle these exceptions (what would be even better would be some kind of casus belli that allowed invasion when a nation was considered strategically significant - this way, you cover Vichy Madagascar and Vichy Syria as well, for example - I'm curious as to how these will be handled in-game).

I completely agree. And I would love to see improved diplomacy in the future, specially including a strategic casus belli system.

 

[safe-keeper]

Invading a country to turn it into a Nazi dictatorship is different from invading and occupying an island simply to protect it from being invaded by Nazis, don't you agree?
Also, yes, Germany said that's why it invaded Denmark. Germany said a lot of things. They also dressed up German soldiers in Polish uniforms in an attempt to make the invasion of Poland seem like a response to Polish aggression.

 

[Cardus]

Invading a country to turn it into a Nazi dictatorship is different from invading and occupying an island simply to protect it from being invaded by Nazis, don't you agree?
Also, yes, Germany said that's why it invaded Denmark. Germany said a lot of things. They also dressed up German soldiers in Polish uniforms in an attempt to make the invasion of Poland seem like a response to Polish aggression.

First you claimed that as the British invasion was not resisted with the arms then it was NOT an invasion. This is wrong based on both: definition of invasion and historical FACTS. Now you claim that what matters is if the government is turned into a Nazi dictatorship or not.

Your statements are judgmental. To prove that once more you are wrong, below you can see that at least until 1943 Denmark government cooperated but was NOT turned into a Nazi dictatorship.

Danish government quickly surrendered. World War II in Denmark was characterized by economic co-operation with Germany until 1943, when the Danish government refused further co-operation and its navy scuttled most of its ships and sent many of its officers to Sweden, which was neutral

 

[safe-keeper]

First you claimed that as the British invasion was not resisted with the arms then it was NOT an invasion. This is wrong based on both: definition of invasion and historical FACTS. Now you claim that what matters is if the government is turned into a Nazi dictatorship or not.

I don't see how the two contradict each others.

Your statements are judgmental.

'k.

To prove that once more you are wrong, below you can see that at least until 1943 Denmark government cooperated

What were they supposed to do, fight the Nazis to the last man, Iwo Jima-style?

 

[Lifthrasil]

Invading a country to turn it into a Nazi dictatorship is different from invading and occupying an island simply to protect it from being invaded by Nazis, don't you agree?

In principle: Yes
In-game terms: does it make a difference? The computer doesn't know if you "just want to protect" iceland, or if you are going to conquer it. For the AI, that's exactly the same thing, unless there is a function in the game that allows peaceful deployment of troops into neutral nations (like military access). As long as Iceland doesn't grant UK military access, any occupation WILL be counted as an invasion (and rightfully so) and thereby be against the devs rules.

 

[Cardus]

I don't see how the two contradict each others.

Open your eyes please.

What were they supposed to do, fight the Nazis to the last man, Iwo Jima-style?

Can you read below please?

at least until 1943 Denmark government cooperated but was NOT turned into a Nazi dictatorship.

 

[safe-keeper]

In principle: Yes
In-game terms: does it make a difference?

Absolutely. I imagine the occupation of Iceland to be handled by event/decision or national focus, while the invasion of Denmark will need to be an actual invasion.

 

[agus92]

@safe-keeper @Cardus

Hello there. My two cents: you're both right. Iceland soil got invaded: yes. Iceland sovereignty: not so much (therefor no political invasion). We are looking at a military invasion to force a military acces agreement, but without much more influence to politics/regime. It sits in a middle ground, something the game is not able to simulate dynamically right now.

In HoI terms this is NOT an invasion, but an event/focus following a demonstration of force (place x landing ships in Reikjavik, for example). I wish bullying was more dynamic than that, though.

 

[Cardus]

@safe-keeper @Cardus

Hello there. My two cents: you're both right. Iceland soil got invaded: yes. Iceland sovereignty: not so much (therefor no political invasion). We are looking at a military invasion to force a military acces agreement, but without much more influence to politics/regime. It sits in a middle ground, something the game is not able to simulate dynamically right now.

In HoI terms this is NOT an invasion, but an event/focus following a demonstration of force (place x landing ships in Reikjavik, for example). I wish bullying was more dynamic than that, though.

That's fine. Can you say the same for German invasion of Denmark (at least until 1943)?

 

[Praetori]

That's fine. Can you say the same for German invasion of Denmark (at least until 1943)?

Iceland was not an independent country but a part of Denmark through union. With Denmark in German hands it could be said that Iceland itself was but an unoccupied part of Denmark up until the point the British invaded (and invade they did even though it was peaceful).
The entire discussion is pretty silly as the UK would never have declared an outright WAR on neither Denmark/Iceland or Norway and thus such mechanics are null and void in any case. In the case of Finland it would work as Finland was allied to Germany and at war with the USSR which out of need had befriended the UK (again making the mechanics work).

Special cases like occupying Narvik and northern Sweden could be handled by events or national focuses simply enough.

 

[Cardus]

Iceland was not an independent country but a part of Denmark through union. With Denmark in German hands it could be said that Iceland itself was but an unoccupied part of Denmark up until the point the British invaded (and invade they did even though it was peaceful).
The entire discussion is pretty silly as the UK would never have declared an outright WAR on neither Denmark/Iceland or Norway and thus such mechanics are null and void in any case. In the case of Finland it would work as Finland was allied to Germany and at war with the USSR which out of need had befriended the UK (again making the mechanics work).

Special cases like occupying Narvik and northern Sweden could be handled by events or national focuses simply enough.

It seems that we repeat the same mistakes over and over

The Danish–Icelandic Act of Union, an agreement with Denmark signed on 1 December 1918 and valid for 25 years, recognised Iceland as a fully sovereign state in a personal union with Denmark

A personal union is the combination of two or more states who have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct

 

[Praetori]

It seems that we repeat the same mistakes over and over

Not really. You do realize that Iceland was not a foreign political independant nation at the time and that all it's foreign politics were handled from Copenhagen as part of Denmark?
It kinda put Reykjavík in a precarious spot when Copenhagen was flooded by Germans, it wasn't until 1944 that they declared themselves a sovereign republic.

In in-game terms that means there wouldn't even be an Iceland to declare war upon but as a holding of Denmark (then occupied by Germans thereby allowing Allied forces to occupy the area).

And yet again to avoid any confusion. I'm only bringing it up in regard to HOI mechanics and not AFK historical politics, ethics, morals or anything else.

 

[FOARP]

Absolutely. I imagine the occupation of Iceland to be handled by event/decision or national focus, while the invasion of Denmark will need to be an actual invasion.

Exactly: we can argue about this until the cows come home, but at last you need to decide how the game will model this: modelling the occupation of Iceland as a declaration of war followed by a military invasion in HOI would be an utter nonsense. I question the motives of anyone who argues otherwise.

 

[safe-keeper]

Special cases like occupying Narvik and northern Sweden could be handled by events or national focuses simply enough.

Now that you say so, a decision that gave Narvik (only) to the UK would solve things wonderfully. Along with a second decision to abandon Narvik if neccessary.

Edit: then of course there would be the option for Norway to declare war on Britain and join the Axis if they took Narvik. Which I feel the AI should have a very low chance of doing, but it should be there as an option.

 

[Aeroclub]

Come on guys, this whole discussion of whether these examples are valid or not is moot for one simple reason:
Regardless of what you think of the democratic peace theory, within the game's timeframe there has surely been more Democracy vs Democracy conflict than, say, Communist vs Communist. So no, having this "no democracies war" rule while allowing it for the Commies just makes it more ahistorical, not less.