• 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.
Rubbish. The UK was probably the country that best weathered the depression. It's true that the British economy lost traction relative to the US and Germany, but that was unavoidable. And while it's true coal and other staple industries had a hard time this was more than offset by rapid growth in the new industries such as aircraft and cars.

Well, I`m no expert on economy, my opinion comes mostly from charts in Paul Kennedy`s "Rise and fall of great powers" and some other minor sources. There I saw UK with a very slow growth during the first half of century.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You will have a problem with Imperial Preference in Canada if Mackenzie King is Prime Minister. King was a continentalist since he worked a couple decades in the US with the Rockefellers. He opposed R B Bennett’s proposal for Imperial preference and scrapped the whole thing when he came to power at the end of 1935. He then was quietly trying to get free trade with the US because he remembered what happened to the Liberals in 1911 when they proposed free trade out loud. They were soundly defeated and King who was just an MP lost his seat. After he defeated Bennett he opened up more trade to the US but always hesitated going for free trade.

It doesn’t really matter how bad it is in the US. King was friends with the Rockefellers and trade with Canada would help them out.

In Canada you might have to find a way to get King and the Liberals out. Maybe if you had his eccentric ways exposed to the public. He had a preference for communing with spirits, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, his dead mother, and several of his Irish Terrier dogs, all named Pat.

Getting a Conservative government in Canada will greatly help keep Canada in the Commonwealth.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
trekaddict - I wouldn't be so worried but the cliche count is already fairly high (unreliable Frenchmen, weakened America, Italy fighting badly, etc) and I do try and avoid tired old cliches like the plague. :D

Carlstadt Boy - You realise that just saying that is bound to offend several economic type chaps. After poking around in economic theory I've discovered two relevant points;

1. You can't get two economists to agree on anything. At all. Ever.
2. Keynesian Economics is not the Economics of Keynes. What the man actually said and what those words have been used to justify are very different things.

Jape - Indeed a good defence in the Far East will help ties there. As will not ending up in the EEC/EU; if Britain is going to subsidies overseas farmers it's much better they be Australian and New Zealand ones who will appreciate it than French ones who wont. ;)

Canada though will be tricky, geography is just so dominant. And thanks for the compliment.

Duritz - I think you're right, though I confess my desire to drop economic realism is as much motivated by the fact I'm not sure in-depth economic theory action would be a good read (that and the fact I'd probably get it wrong ;) ).

RAAF air-porn? I think I can mange that. :D

Mordhiem - I'd certainly agree Britain got through the depression better than many, I'm led to believe coming off gold early helped in that regard (on which note TTL the US is still on gold :eek: ). Equally peak coal production was 1913 and never recovered post-war, all the old export markets found new supplies and the constant threat of nationalisation (and terrible labour relations) kept the industry hobbled.

Nathan Madien - Update after next we'll see the Amsterdam Conference, where US Vice-President White will explain to the world what 'Moral Neutrality' means. Good enough? (I guess that might depend on what he says.)

Carlstadt Boy - I've been told that such figures tend to under-estimate the contribution of financial services and so on. Given that the start of the 20th Century saw London become pre-eminent in such matters (while Germany and the US experienced more industrial development) the figures are, perhaps, somewhat suspect.

If more focus on metal bashing over dominating maritime insurance and financial chicanery would have helped the country is a different question. However it does keep happening and I suspect it's matter of culture and, apparently, commercial law that drives metal bashers to the Rhineland and financiers to London.

Atlantic Friend - I'll bear that recommendation in mind.

Maximus101 - I was aware King wasn't keen on it and would probably work towards free trade given half a chance. However Al Smith was from the protectionist wing of the Democrats so I imagine he'd be a much more protectionist President than the anti-tariff FDR. Indeed without Hull pushing one-to-one most favoured nation trade deals I'm not sure what the mechanism would be for lowering trade barriers with Canada.

Thus I don't think King has a lot of choice, with the Republicans back in the White House the barriers are going to stay up for the next few years and I think King will be forced, despite himself, to forge links with Britain or risk an electoral backlash.

Vann the Red - You say abject whore, I say man of taste and discretion. It's a matter of perspective.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, speaking of unreliable Frenchmen... well.....I might have to use that one too.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well, speaking of unreliable Frenchmen... well.....I might have to use that one too.

Judging from recent experience, "unreliable Frenchmen" mean "people telling us something might be trickier than we thought, but being drowned out by a choir of über-Patriots". :D
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Judging from recent experience, "unreliable Frenchmen" mean "people telling us something might be trickier than we thought, but being drowned out by a choir of über-Patriots". :D

More as in being a snobby up-nosed General who has a knack of pissing of allies.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
More as in being a snobby up-nosed General who has a knack of pissing of allies.

But sticking with them nonetheless, which was more than could be said of Horace Wilson in 1962.

But yes, I get your point. How dared he think he had any right to pursuing an independent policy? We all know that's NOT what democracies fought for after all! ;)
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
But sticking with them nonetheless, which was more than could be said of Horace Wilson in 1962.

But yes, I get your point. How dared he think he had any right to pursuing an independent policy? We all know that's NOT what democracies fought for after all! ;)

Well, going to an allied country and actively encouraging a minority in that country to break away ain't so hot either. :D

But enough of that. Ze French will stay aboard for the time being.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well, going to an allied country and actively encouraging a minority in that country to break away ain't so hot either. :D

It's bad manners indeed. A bit like, having one allied country's intelligence service keeping close ties with groups which have tried to assassinate you. Bad, bad, bad manners...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, speaking of unreliable Frenchmen... well.....I might have to use that one too.

That seems to be common in British AARs.

trekaddict - I wouldn't be so worried but the cliche count is already fairly high (unreliable Frenchmen, weakened America, Italy fighting badly, etc) and I do try and avoid tired old cliches like the plague. :D

There's also the "America liberates Europe all by herself while Britain sits all nice and snug in North Africa" cliche.

America: We're going to free Europe, Britain! What are you going to do?
Britain: Drink tea in Tunis. If we get ambitious enough, maybe we will invade Norway.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
That seems to be common in British AARs.
Common in any non-French AAR really, though that's mainly the fault of the French AI.

Ahh AI cliches, there's so many of them. Most annoying is probably vast US stacks on Guam (or British ones on Hong Kong). But my favourite remains Nazi occupied Northern Ireland, bonus points if it remains Grey long after everywhere else has been liberated.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
There's also the "America liberates Europe all by herself while Britain sits all nice and snug in North Africa" cliche.

AKA "Pearl Harbour Movie Syndrome", where Americans have to show the Brits how to fight the Battle of Britain. You know them lazy Limeys, if real men didn't show them how to do it, they'd just roll over and die. :D
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I'd say the worst manners is getting a foreign country, one that only recently did most of the work in liberating your own country no less, involved in an unwinnable war in Asia then surrendering and leaving them to do all the fighting. I mean that kind of action might get the nation in question a reputation for being unreliable and ungrateful. :eek: :D

Would it be a country setting Ho-Chi-Mihn loose in 1945 because it wants to pry those poor US-loving Vietnamese out of your avid Imperialist fingers and make them either KMT or US puppets (which we all know they fiercely desire), at the same time you're fighting in Korea with their soldiers? Because indeed, if that doesn't spell Free World statesmanship then I wonder what does! :D
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I resented the whole goddamn PH movie, but with a special award for the short but nauseous Battle of Britain segment. Yes, we got it, if they had TWO Ben Afleck-grade US pilots the war would be over already.

Don't worry. People who were at Pearl Harbor resent the whole movie.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Boy, I always have a soft spot for a movie's villains, but I had never rooted this bad for the Japanese. :D

Yeah. I watched the film on the telly a while back ( nothing else was on ) and it made me plan to include Yamamoto as my primary Japanese Character.
 
  • 1
Reactions: