usa gearing up for war events #56, #57, #58, #581

[mcganyol]

is it intended that playing soviet union historically (settle in finland with limited success, and annex the three baltic countries) fires usa #57 (sov belligerence over 50) regardless of what germany or japan do?

from axis pow there is really no point to try to keep your belligerence low to stay on the good side of usa as it will be provoked by soviet actions anyway. USA will fight against axis anyway, so why should soviet belligerent actions boost her?

i propose increase the event #57 requirements to 60bell for soviet union. that way the second gear up event will be only provoked if su goes ahistorical.
on the other hand ITA belligerence should be included in 56,57 and 58 or you may just do anything with ita and not provoke usa (ok there is the total victory points condition but that's really a weak one)

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

If that is to be edited, the belligerence reduction Japan receives via the Marco Polo bridge event should be removed too. I don't see why Japan should get a free DoW on China. I know IRL the Western powers did nothing about it, but that shouldn't prevent AoDers from being able to respond to any Japanese aggression.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

If that is to be edited, the belligerence reduction Japan receives via the Marco Polo bridge event should be removed too. I don't see why Japan should get a free DoW on China. I know IRL the Western powers did nothing about it, but that shouldn't prevent AoDers from being able to respond to any Japanese aggression.

IRL the western powers did everything short of war to stop Japan. Diplomacy, Embargoes against less important and then critically important goods and that only had the effect to convice Japan that it had to wage another war to secure resources to be unhindered by USA embargoes.

However going to war against Japan early for their war in China should not be a simple player decision.
One of the core mechanics is that a player of a democracy can´t simply declare war whenever he sees it as approbiate. It is the distinctive feature that parts autocratic regimes from a democracy ingame.
When the - at that time highly racist - population of the USA is isolationist enough to simply look away for a year when the United Kingdom is fighting in Europe then why should the same people jump for a war against a nation in Asia that wages a war against another asian nation? Japan was not seen as a threat to the USA at all before Pearl Harbour, only to their commercial interests in China.

 

[mcganyol]

usa (and uk) foreign policy was very different in '37 than today. ww2 should only be started by extreme (and i mean extreme, like irl ger) expansion of dictatorships.
japan builds up belligerence very fast IF occupying territories in china. i dont know the exact number but i wouldn't be suprised if conquering whole china would give jap about a total 50 belligerence.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I understand all the historical misgivings about war, pacifism in Britain was also very high, but this is represented in the hawk-dove lobby slider.

Plus I like to take words in their literal meaning, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines belligerence as:

an aggressive or truculent attitude, atmosphere, or disposition

Oxford dictionary:

aggressive or warlike behaviour

I would say any unprovoked/unjustified(by international law) declaration of war is an act of belligerence, ergo any country doing so should recieve belligerence.

 

[mcganyol]

marco polo bridge incident was seemed more like an escalation of tension between japs and china than a pre-planned full scale attack. in fact it was a "but you shot first" scenario.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Yes but it turned into a full scale war. Plus it would not have happened if Japan had not invaded China in 1931 in the first place. It was a "but you shot first" scenario, but there were many potential occurrences from 1931-37, the principal difference this time was that Japan used the event as an excuse to invade the rest of the country.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Yes but it turned into a full scale war. Plus it would not have happened if Japan had not invaded China in 1931 in the first place. It was a "but you shot first" scenario, but there were many potential occurrences from 1931-37, the principal difference this time was that Japan used the event as an excuse to invade the rest of the country.

Well, *everyone* invaded China at one time or the other to stake his claim.
Japan received it´s first piece of China proper from the Allies after WW1 when the former german colony was given to them (instead of being given back to China) for their participation on the allied side. England hardly could justify declaring war on Japan for invading China when they had waged several wars against China to force open ports, get Hongkong+the new territorrys and to be allowed to sell Opium in China only a few years ago.

Furthermore Japan had in the Russo-Japanese war taken Korea and the right for it´s army presence in Manchuria not from China but forced from Russia which tried to push it´s influence south
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_war#Russian_encroachment

So the United Kingdom had waged war against China itself, still held land within China and was rather happy that Japan stopped Russia in Manchuria while England had to stop the Russians in the Great Game elsewhere themselves.

And Japan did not invade "the rest of the country". Even in 1940 when the war was already well underway they did not even control a third of China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Sino-Japanese_War_WW2.png

The Kuomintang chinese army being equipped and even trained by german military advisers did not help either for England to aid China against Japan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941

So in gameterms I find it justified that England can´t immediately declare war on Japan when they wage war in China but have to wait until Germany drops it support for the chinese in favour of Japan.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

So in gameterms I find it justified that England can´t immediately declare war on Japan when they wage war in China but have to wait until Germany drops it support for the chinese in favour of Japan.

The UK would receive 10-11.1 dissent for doing so, but I see your points.