"The next war would be the end of Western civilization"-Soviet WW3 (NWO2)

[Asalto]

Protect the loyal Egyptian/UAR friends from American invasion!

Also, if you're going to expand UAR and if you'll continue playing at least until 1969, can you instead of a bit gamey invasion of Libyan kingdom rather have young Gaddafi launching a coup and then integrating Libya into UAR? After all, in years after the coup, Libya was formally called Libyan Arab Republic what could reflect desire for Nasserite pan-Arab integration. UAR would also have more legitimacy this way, so it wouldn't look like it simply swallowed most of its members via military means.

 

[Hepzibah3]

Protect the loyal Egyptian/UAR friends from American invasion!

Also, if you're going to expand UAR and if you'll continue playing at least until 1969, can you instead of a bit gamey invasion of Libyan kingdom rather have young Gaddafi launching a coup and then integrating Libya into UAR? After all, in years after the coup, Libya was formally called Libyan Arab Republic what could reflect desire for Nasserite pan-Arab integration. UAR would also have more legitimacy this way, so it wouldn't look like it simply swallowed most of its members via military means.

I didnt even think of putting Libya into a U.A.R. that encompasses the vast territory I want it to at this moment....But i certainly will. I have too many problems to deal with at the moment in the Far East though, so the focus will be (for the next few updates) on liberating Vladivostok from those bastard Capitalists, then playing keep away from the Americans there, then launching and succeeding in a Great Britain operation,then FINALLY liberating Anchorage from the capitalist dogs.

 

[Hepzibah3]

Because Somalia is a failed state, id like to incorporate them into the UAR that i am planning to reform.

So, once again I ask the readership to address a serious question. How big should the U.A.R be? As you may recall,
Turkey is a rump state with Istanbul under Soviet protection. So recreating the Ottoman Empire of the 1500s-1600s is
out. So I offer 3 options to the readership,pick the one that you like the most.


A U.A.R encompassing Iran,Saudi Arabia,Palestine, Israel,Egypt,Syria,Iraq,Libya,Saudi Arabia and Somalia (A North Afrika/Mid East U.A.R.)

A U.A.R. encompassing the old territory they used to have (Egypt,Syria,Iraq)

Or something different altogether? Because I really dont know how to play this out, but I certainly want a united Arabic state that is strong and aligns with Moscow.

 

[Tactimacti]

I would say that you should do something between, a United Arabia with Egypt, Palestine/Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula is what I think would be a good option, with only Arabian inhabitants, perhaps with Somalia as a puppet state.

 

[Hepzibah3]

I would say that you should do something between, a United Arabia with Egypt, Palestine/Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula is what I think would be a good option, with only Arabian inhabitants, perhaps with Somalia as a puppet state.

I dont want to do something ridiculous thats why I keep asking for help. Id have no personal issue setting up a single government Afrikan state or a single government Asian state. But some readers see that as an issue, and I ultimately want to keep the readers happy. So if Somalia should be a puppet state and not part of the Pan North Afrikan UAR, then so it shall be.

 

[unmerged(228389)]

The issue of "who is an Arab" is rather complex. And many people don't realize that the "Arab" population of the world has been highly variable in relatively recent times. In fact, before Nasser, a solid majority of Egyptians didn't consider themselves Arabian at all. (They considered themselves ethnically Egyptian.) It was propaganda by the pan-Arabist government of Nasser, as well as changes to text books, that made Egypt the Arab country it is today. Similar processes affected the Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (where the alternative was Berber), though the Arab identity was a little more common in those countries than in Egypt due to the differences between residents of the coast (more likely to consider themselves Arabian vis a vis the Berbers or similar designations of the interior) and inland regions.

Palestine is another issue. Even today, Palestinians do not consider themselves Arabs. If you go to wikipedia and look up "Arab League," you'll get a sense of the area that can be considered Arab (or at least can be convinced that it is so with some work. Yet from that same map, Arab identity is actually quite weak in Mauretania, Morocco, Darfur, Somalia, and all of the Levant. And at various times in recent history it has also been questionable in all of North Africa (including Egypt). Even Jordan has an individual identity that's a subset of the Arabian identity.

So one of the reason's your question is so hard is that the answer is so variable. With enough propaganda and convincing, the whole Arab League area as referenced on Wikipedia is workable. On the other hand, is it in Soviet interest to fan the flames of pan-Arabism? The answer seems like no to me. I would think Soviet interest would be in encouraging a national Egyptian identity (weaken the pan-Arab movement, create a state on the Suez with few regional friends and dependent on Soviet support, weaken religious fervor somewhat by ensuring the state gives equal time to all "Egyptian faiths", including Christianity). If you do this, don't give Egypt most of the Sinai. Khartoum is a little more problematic, as it is more Arab in outlook, due to the ruling ethnicity's need to differentiate itself from sedentary Muslim tribes in Darfur (as opposed to the nomadic tribes & Khartoum) and the sedentary traditional-religion tribes in south Sudan (Christianity is spreading like a weed in that country now, but that's a modern development).

An Arab Republic backed by the Soviet Union ought to be limited to Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and the Arabian peninsula itself. You can shoehorn the Levant in there for convenience's sake if you deny the Zionists. At least that's my opinion. I don't think the Soviets would WANT a strong ally, particularly one vulnerable to religious extremism, in the region. I think they'd MUCH prefer multiple weak dependencies.

As for Africa, any solution is going to be an imposed solution. Particularly a Marxist one. That's not necessarily bad. So feel free to go the nationalist route, the old colonial borders route, or the single continental state route. Just realize that no matter what you choose, you're basically going to HAVE to impose your design on the region. Otherwise corruption will overwhelm you. Read "The African Dream" by Che Guevara if you want a sense of what I'm talking about.

Actually, just read it anyway. It's essentially a collection of Che's personal reports to Castro while he operated in the eastern Congo, and it's fascinating reading for anyone with an interest in OTL revolutions or central Africa.

Asia is defined by language, ethnic, and religious boundaries. You have the small majority Buddhist states in the south east, which could be amalgamated if you like (Burma to Vietnam to Malaysia), the mess that is Indonesia in any modernish time period, Iran, India, the central Asian mess (Tibet, Muslim China, Mongolia, the stans), Han China (including Manchuria), Korea, and Japan as regions that are too different from the others for the bulk of the region to be comfortable in a super-state. For instance, China could integrate Tibet and Mongolia, but adding the stans would be a step too far. Iran wouldn't fit with India, etc.

 

[Hepzibah3]

The issue of "who is an Arab" is rather complex. And many people don't realize that the "Arab" population of the world has been highly variable in relatively recent times. In fact, before Nasser, a solid majority of Egyptians didn't consider themselves Arabian at all. (They considered themselves ethnically Egyptian.) It was propaganda by the pan-Arabist government of Nasser, as well as changes to text books, that made Egypt the Arab country it is today. Similar processes affected the Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria (where the alternative was Berber), though the Arab identity was a little more common in those countries than in Egypt due to the differences between residents of the coast (more likely to consider themselves Arabian vis a vis the Berbers or similar designations of the interior) and inland regions.

Palestine is another issue. Even today, Palestinians do not consider themselves Arabs. If you go to wikipedia and look up "Arab League," you'll get a sense of the area that can be considered Arab (or at least can be convinced that it is so with some work. Yet from that same map, Arab identity is actually quite weak in Mauretania, Morocco, Darfur, Somalia, and all of the Levant. And at various times in recent history it has also been questionable in all of North Africa (including Egypt). Even Jordan has an individual identity that's a subset of the Arabian identity.

So one of the reason's your question is so hard is that the answer is so variable. With enough propaganda and convincing, the whole Arab League area as referenced on Wikipedia is workable. On the other hand, is it in Soviet interest to fan the flames of pan-Arabism? The answer seems like no to me. I would think Soviet interest would be in encouraging a national Egyptian identity (weaken the pan-Arab movement, create a state on the Suez with few regional friends and dependent on Soviet support, weaken religious fervor somewhat by ensuring the state gives equal time to all "Egyptian faiths", including Christianity). If you do this, don't give Egypt most of the Sinai. Khartoum is a little more problematic, as it is more Arab in outlook, due to the ruling ethnicity's need to differentiate itself from sedentary Muslim tribes in Darfur (as opposed to the nomadic tribes & Khartoum) and the sedentary traditional-religion tribes in south Sudan (Christianity is spreading like a weed in that country now, but that's a modern development).

An Arab Republic backed by the Soviet Union ought to be limited to Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and the Arabian peninsula itself. You can shoehorn the Levant in there for convenience's sake if you deny the Zionists. At least that's my opinion. I don't think the Soviets would WANT a strong ally, particularly one vulnerable to religious extremism, in the region. I think they'd MUCH prefer multiple weak dependencies.

As for Africa, any solution is going to be an imposed solution. Particularly a Marxist one. That's not necessarily bad. So feel free to go the nationalist route, the old colonial borders route, or the single continental state route. Just realize that no matter what you choose, you're basically going to HAVE to impose your design on the region. Otherwise corruption will overwhelm you. Read "The African Dream" by Che Guevara if you want a sense of what I'm talking about.

Actually, just read it anyway. It's essentially a collection of Che's personal reports to Castro while he operated in the eastern Congo, and it's fascinating reading for anyone with an interest in OTL revolutions or central Africa.

Asia is defined by language, ethnic, and religious boundaries. You have the small majority Buddhist states in the south east, which could be amalgamated if you like (Burma to Vietnam to Malaysia), the mess that is Indonesia in any modernish time period, Iran, India, the central Asian mess (Tibet, Muslim China, Mongolia, the stans), Han China (including Manchuria), Korea, and Japan as regions that are too different from the others for the bulk of the region to be comfortable in a super-state. For instance, China could integrate Tibet and Mongolia, but adding the stans would be a step too far. Iran wouldn't fit with India, etc.

I sincerely and genuinely appreciate the fact you think this AAR is worth a post like that. Thank you for the history lesson.I will agree with your idea to include Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Jordan,Palestine,Iraq and Syria into my U.A.R.
As far as Asia goes, thats a different debate. I may well decide to leave them alone.

I dont know why im discussing this because I still have several major problems with this game, so ill get back to it now.

 

[Hepzibah3]

Still not dead, just immensely frustrated with my inability to neutralize England and close the Vladivostok front. Ill post an update within the next 48 hours, I promise!

 

[Deus Eversor]

but your struggle to do those is also interesting, post about it

 

[Hepzibah3]

Update in the next 24hrs concerning Sweden!

 

[Hepzibah3]

I know its been almost 3 months since the last update, so, there will be an update tonight.

 

[Hepzibah3]

[OOC] 2 months in the making. Sorry for the delay! But its back now!!!Hope you like it
[/OOC]








Politburo General meeting of January 1st, 1964.



Zhukov steps up to the podium to speak first.


"Comrades. We have been at war with the West for 3 long years. During that time, we have accomplished many of our objectives, but mainland Europe is still not fully ours. Many of our soldiers have died. Indeed, the Motherland itself has been invaded. However, for as many bad things as we can report on, there are also plenty of good things. "There is a pregnant pause as Zhukov tries to compose himself for the monumental issue he is about to announce."


We have captured well over 2 million NATO soldiers!

The crowd enters a thunderous applause lasting a full minute.


However, we face much adversity and the Politburo fears it will be a while before the war is finished.




The Yugoslavian front. One which is proving difficult to close, but we believe we can encircle the entire enemy Army there,given time.


Khrushchev: I can see a newly opened Italian theater. Can you inform me of its veracity, Zhukov?


Zhukov: We are not really worried about this front. Regular red army units are moving there from France and we will be shuttering it sooner rather than later. The problem is most of our current units are stretched so far and wide. We need to finish operations in Greece and Yugoslavia quickly, as we have much larger problems.




Zhukov: Speaking of one such problem. A strong NATO landing, in force, in Norway could give us fits. This is the solution we have devised for this issue.





As you can see we have well over 20 divisions in that region with many moving there now. We can plan on a Scandinavian offensive by January of next year.


Khrushchev: Molotov, I believe you had been in negotiations with the Swedes over the potential of them ending their neutrality and joining Warsaw? How has that gone?


Molotov: Well,Khrushchev, things have not gone as well as we had hoped. However, we have found some common ground with the Swedes. We are still very far away from any kind of alliance, or even a non aggression pact, but the fact we are having dialogue with the Swede's, is to me very promising.



Khrushchev: This will be the last thing I ask of you this evening, Comrade Molotov. But at this time last year I asked you to bring the Peoples Republic into Warsaw. How have those efforts gone?


Molotov: Not well, not well at all Nikita. Instead of warming to our ideal's, they have further drifted. We wonder if any common alignment is possible at all at this point.



Khrushchev: That really is a shame, Comrade Molotov. Very frustrating to hear on all fronts. Zhukov,back to you. I hear you have something important to tell us about the Siberia front?



Zhukov: Yes indeed,Nikita. I do.





This picture shows the depth of American advances in that region.

Khrushchev is momentarily shocked but he quickly regains his bearings.


Khrushchev: Zhukov, you mean to tell me WE HAVE LOST VLADIVOSTOK???????

Zhukov: Yes,Comrade we have. However, We do not consider this front to be dire. The Americans have made no offensive activity in over a year. Our current deployment in that region is holding, and it will continue to hold. Furthermore, our Korean allies are beginning to show signs of life and preparing, what appears to be a gigantic counter offensive in that region.




Khrushchev: I want Vladivostok retaken by October of this year. Is that understood?

Zhukov: Yes it is Comrade. The reason Vladivostok is not retaken now is because of our deployments on the other fronts. Assigning each new Soviet Puppet a 15 division army is extremely taxing.



Krushchev: Bulganin,finally, give us a report on our development of new divisions for this year.



Bulganin: Well, Mr Khrushchev, we are steadily producing those 6 new T55 divisions you ordered last October. We will be finished shortly. In addition, our massive naval buildup of 60 destroyers of super modern quality is almost finished. The Red Fleet will shortly be something to be proud of.



Khrushchev: Thank you Mr Bulganin. Finally I turn to you, Zhukov, to give us a rundown on the plans for this year in terms of offensive operations.


Zhukov: Well, saving Egypt is high on the to do list. Our operations in Yugoslavia should be finished by the summer, and after that it is merely an issue of adding enough divisions to keep those areas safe from invasion. Then we move on to Greece, and once Greece is finished, once again keeping strong force in that area to deter any future invasions. We will most likely be re establishing the UAR with borders as prescribed previously. We will be taking action to retake Vladivostok in a massive counter offensive likely beginning in September. That should be it for this year.

 

[Asalto]

Nice to see this back again!

 

[Ticket Cookie]

Will be following again, that's a nice AAR

 

[Hepzibah3]

Hey I appreciate the comments; and true to form with this AAR, when I don't know how to handle a situation I always asked the readers.


So; with the determination, made by the Kremlin, that the new Germany will be a strong Ally, what happens to
Alsace-Lorraine? Does it go back to the new,strong,Communist Germany or do we use it as leverage with the French, kind of saying "We couldve given it to Germany, we let you keep it so you stay loyal" type of thing?


Alsace-Lorraine poll:

Give it back to Germany 0/0
Keep it French 0/0




Second question! Two for the price of one.

Would the Readership like a text post summarizing the entirety of the events of the game up to the last update?


Yes 0/0
No 0/0


Anddddddddddddddd.......... as a side note, since i am known to disappear for long periods of time, this AAR is not dead, I am just having a hard time deciding on the questions I mentioned above,therefore I leave them up to you, Dear Reader!

 

[Reddenbawker]

Alsace Lorraine to Deutschland and no text post.

 

[whatguts]

2 million? make that 20 million

 

[Asalto]

I suggest giving A-L to France. Communist France without colonial empire would be relatively weak force while even united Germany without A-L would be significant industrial power. You probably don't want to have communist Germany that is so powerful to be able to rival USSR in internal Warsaw Pact relations.

 

[Ticket Cookie]

To France, and no text.

If USSR give Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, it will open revisionist thought on Austria and the Eastern frontier with Poland.
Moreover France with around the 100 IC (110?) could become an important asset, with an important army, but in no way able to threaten the Soviet Union... Something a strong Germany could do.

 

[Hepzibah3]

Alsace Lorraine staying French wins. Now I have to close out the Yugoslav front and prepare to reinvade Greece.