I think something like the above "D" would be a bare minimum for a "peace" agreement between Germany and Russia.
-
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.
I think something like the above "D" would be a bare minimum for a "peace" agreement between Germany and Russia.
Ok. Just might be like that. The first account that I have on hand conserning Archagnel operations date to late March 1941 when Buschenhagen and von Falkenhorst included Finns to the planning table.
Now that I think about it. The AOK Norwegen was under direct command of the OKW as rest of the Barbarossa front was under the command of OKH. So there might be some difference between these two views. OKH might have been more prone to consider things purely on military perspective as OKW reckons more of the big strategic picture.
Or something similar. Interesting indeed.
Right, then yes B + C ( + A / half of A) would be the best solution.
But you still have to explain why the Russians would accept that as a peace agreement.
Lol accept the peace agreement, why should they do that? The bitter peace made in HOI 2 would have also never happened in the real world. The point is that I don't want to conquer the whole USSR in the WIF mod (Which is even a more unrealistic option then the bitter peace), so I'm setting some borders, so USSR can stay in the game even after they get defeated (So they are still a partial threat). I never claimed the soviets would accept peace, the idea of Germany was to establish a defensive line and to destroy the rest of the soviet war industry with their air force (So they would greatly diminish their war waging capability, which would make them less dangerous). And option D you made is no option for me.
Exactly, so all these historical arguments about the German "best case" objective are pretty much not founded in fact, so I don't know why the argument is being made in those terms. Though I disagree that the Russians would never have surrendered, it is just that there were no terms that either side would have agreed to, at least with the German leadership being of the mind that they were.
Stalin is reported to have made overtures in July 1941. But a Russia without any Russia in it, would simply not have been acceptable, any Russian leader who proposed such a thing would have been removed the next day. Everything east of the Urals is basically annexed Russian territory. The BP being proposed in the HOI game is something akin to making a peace with Germany where "Germany" exists in Poland only. Just not acceptable. At the point where those terms can be exacted upon the defeated foe, is actually total conquest.
Stalin is reported to have made overtures in July 1941. But a Russia without any Russia in it, would simply not have been acceptable, any Russian leader who proposed such a thing would have been removed the next day. Everything east of the Urals is basically annexed Russian territory. The BP being proposed in the HOI game is something akin to making a peace with Germany where "Germany" exists in Poland only. Just not acceptable. At the point where those terms can be exacted upon the defeated foe, is actually total conquest.
What are you talking about? I never claimed anything here. Thats why I wont discuss this with you. I just wanted to hear the opinion of the people, on what they think is the best of 4 options I have posted. So either you can make your "vote" on the options I have given on post 1#, or you can at least stop wasting your energy on trying to prove something, which wont change anything.
Don't get so sensitive. I am primarily talking about this:
Basically, the point is that whatever "plans" the Germans may have had are completely irrelevant to "Bitter Peace". The argument is that the German plan serves as a 'historical" basis for determining what would have happened, and can be used as a "factual" basis for establishing what would have happened, once the "peace" was won. My point, is that the above plan is indeed a plan predicated on "total victory", not a negotiated "peace", bitter or otherwise.
Its obvious that we both agree that those terms would be completely unacceptable to any Russian leadership, communist, Stalanist or otherwise.
Therefore, any rendition of the "bitter peace" event is as good as any another, and indeed, since none were really possible unless they include a return of the Russian heartland, they are all equally fake. Any (such as yours) that adds territory is far more realistic than the original. I propose "D" as an alternate minimum realistic result of a peace agreement.
Those who are arguing, against your proposal, on the basis of German proposals based on "total victory" constitute "factual evidence" for the terms of peace are even more of a "fanatsy output" than your proposal, since the "bitter peace" is set up as a negotiated peace, not total destruction of the Soviet government, which remains intact after the peace, albeit, without Stalin. The German proposals are based on the total destruction of the governing order, and do not require any negotiation, or peace agreement.
Those proposal are less "historically accurate" than yours, since they don't take into account the existence of Russian objectives. "Peace agreements" and "total victory" are two different things. The first is negotiated, ala a "bitter peace" the second, simply imposed by force.
In short, the German proposals being discussed above as a basis of establishing alternative historical "fact" are irrelevant to "acttion_a = accept the conditions", because they are in game play terms actually "action_b = No peace with the bolsheviks!"
Basically, the point is that whatever "plans" the Germans may have had are completely irrelevant to "Bitter Peace". The argument is that the German plan serves as a 'historical" basis for determining what would have happened, and can be used as a "factual" basis for establishing what would have happened, once the "peace" was won. My point, is that the above plan is indeed a plan predicated on "total victory", not a negotiated "peace", bitter or otherwise.
Its obvious that we both agree that those terms would be completely unacceptable to any Russian leadership, communist, Stalanist or otherwise.
Therefore, any rendition of the "bitter peace" event is as good as any another, and indeed, since none were really possible unless they include a return of the Russian heartland, they are all equally fake. Any (such as yours) that adds territory is far more realistic than the original. I propose "D" as an alternate minimum realistic result of a peace agreement.
Those who are arguing, against your proposal, on the basis of German proposals based on "total victory" constitute "factual evidence" for the terms of peace are even more of a "fanatsy output" than your proposal, since the "bitter peace" is set up as a negotiated peace, not total destruction of the Soviet government, which remains intact after the peace, albeit, without Stalin. The German proposals are based on the total destruction of the governing order, and do not require any negotiation, or peace agreement.
Those proposal are less "historically accurate" than yours, since they don't take into account the existence of Russian objectives. "Peace agreements" and "total victory" are two different things. The first is negotiated, ala a "bitter peace" the second, simply imposed by force.
In short, the German proposals being discussed above as a basis of establishing alternative historical "fact" are irrelevant to "acttion_a = accept the conditions", because they are in game play terms actually "action_b = No peace with the bolsheviks!"
Last edited:
Hello reality check
. I'm not proposing or claiming anything here, whats wrong with you? Its a vote, its not something to be discussed over, I just want to see which option of the 4 options would people chose no matter if they are realistic, because I myself like all 4 options and have a hard time choosing. So either make your vote or stop it (Or I will call a moderator).
. I'm not proposing or claiming anything here, whats wrong with you? Its a vote, its not something to be discussed over, I just want to see which option of the 4 options would people chose no matter if they are realistic, because I myself like all 4 options and have a hard time choosing. So either make your vote or stop it (Or I will call a moderator).Oh. If its not something to be discussed over, then why did you state in the OP:
Moreover, why is the thread called: "I need your opinion about something."
The reality check here is simple. People are justifying their opinions about the shape of "action_a = accept the conditions" on the basis of what the Germans would like to have happened if they chose "action_b = no deals with the Bolsheviks".
In other words any plans the Germans might have had about the shape of post war Russia are completely irrelevant to a discussion of what should be in "bitter peace" agreement, since there was no plan for "peace" with the Bolsheviks. There is no historical basis for "action_a = accept the conditions." It is an utter fantasy, therefore, you make it up as you like..
My argument is that if you are going to accept the notion that the German player should be allowed to be of a different mind than the historical German leadership, and actually accept "action_a", then it should actually be something that might just be conceivable acceptable to a Russian leadership.
Notice what it says: "accept the conditions". Whose conditions? The Russian conditions for peace of course.
And this is indeed the nub of the whole strategic paradox for the German player, either utterly destroy Russian (and Soviet power) so that it can never contest control of the east again, or relinquish the Russian heartland and in so doing create the basis of for a future Russian state, which would doubtless at some point challenge German authority. The plan to completely smash Russian society was quite overt. Sure, why not allow the German player alternatives to that? Those alternatives would necessarily also mean relinquishing large amounts of territory to direct Russian control, far more than A, B or C.
So obviously my vote, is all of that, and more.
Moreover, why is the thread called: "I need your opinion about something."
The reality check here is simple. People are justifying their opinions about the shape of "action_a = accept the conditions" on the basis of what the Germans would like to have happened if they chose "action_b = no deals with the Bolsheviks".
In other words any plans the Germans might have had about the shape of post war Russia are completely irrelevant to a discussion of what should be in "bitter peace" agreement, since there was no plan for "peace" with the Bolsheviks. There is no historical basis for "action_a = accept the conditions." It is an utter fantasy, therefore, you make it up as you like..
My argument is that if you are going to accept the notion that the German player should be allowed to be of a different mind than the historical German leadership, and actually accept "action_a", then it should actually be something that might just be conceivable acceptable to a Russian leadership.
Notice what it says: "accept the conditions". Whose conditions? The Russian conditions for peace of course.
And this is indeed the nub of the whole strategic paradox for the German player, either utterly destroy Russian (and Soviet power) so that it can never contest control of the east again, or relinquish the Russian heartland and in so doing create the basis of for a future Russian state, which would doubtless at some point challenge German authority. The plan to completely smash Russian society was quite overt. Sure, why not allow the German player alternatives to that? Those alternatives would necessarily also mean relinquishing large amounts of territory to direct Russian control, far more than A, B or C.
So obviously my vote, is all of that, and more.
Last edited: