New Ideas
- Thread starter BOHICA6
- Start date
The Buran Space Shuttle? How does that figure?
I see your from the Czech Republic. I seem to remember that Czechoslovakia was a sacrificial offering to Hitler to avert World War II for one more year and Neville Chamberlain could have "Peace in our time." for one more year. Hitler took as much as the Allies were willing to give him, and when they gave no more, he took by force. What started World War II was when England and France finally said, "That's Enough!"
I see your from the Czech Republic. I seem to remember that Czechoslovakia was a sacrificial offering to Hitler to avert World War II for one more year and Neville Chamberlain could have "Peace in our time." for one more year. Hitler took as much as the Allies were willing to give him, and when they gave no more, he took by force. What started World War II was when England and France finally said, "That's Enough!"
Tom, the only problem is that the facts are that the post-WWII ear was a replication of pre-Great War. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were facing off against each other and one of the big fears was that one of the brush-fire proxy wars in Africa or the Middle East would drag in one or more members of the opposing alliances and that would start a chain reaction leading to WWIII.
I never said that nothing should be learned from the causes of WWII, and I'm not sure where you got that impression from. What I was (and am) saying is that after WWII ended, we promptly forgot what we learned from the Great War and went back to the system of Alliances that many argue had more to due with causing the Great War than anything else.
As for the Twilight War, both a Great War-style or a WWII-style cause work equally fine. The original Twilight War was based on the conditions we were living with up until 1989. If we were to go with a Twilight War based on the current political climate, I'd have to reverse my earlier stated support for cause in the mode of the Great War and go with something closer to how WWII began. The problem is that the new Twilight 2000 will be Twilight 2033 and conditions in the 2020s and 30s will be anyone's guess. A great deal of the appeal of T2K was the fact that it was based on (then) current circumstances with an extrapolation into the near future. T2033, depending on release date of course, won't give the same feel and since it will be total fantasy, either the system of alliances or the evil working while good men slept cause are equally valid.
I never said that nothing should be learned from the causes of WWII, and I'm not sure where you got that impression from. What I was (and am) saying is that after WWII ended, we promptly forgot what we learned from the Great War and went back to the system of Alliances that many argue had more to due with causing the Great War than anything else.
As for the Twilight War, both a Great War-style or a WWII-style cause work equally fine. The original Twilight War was based on the conditions we were living with up until 1989. If we were to go with a Twilight War based on the current political climate, I'd have to reverse my earlier stated support for cause in the mode of the Great War and go with something closer to how WWII began. The problem is that the new Twilight 2000 will be Twilight 2033 and conditions in the 2020s and 30s will be anyone's guess. A great deal of the appeal of T2K was the fact that it was based on (then) current circumstances with an extrapolation into the near future. T2033, depending on release date of course, won't give the same feel and since it will be total fantasy, either the system of alliances or the evil working while good men slept cause are equally valid.
I think it'd work better for Merc 2K than T2K, myself. T2K needs a traditional conventional war to kick off that drags everybody in. Given the way that new alliances are in the embrionic stages of forming around trading blocks, it's possible we might see an EU vs NA type of conflict, perhaps starting over a Sino-Russian war. I know, the Chinese-Russian thing was done before, but it's just so damn attractive
The Buran figures in the way that there used to be fear of the USSR and a technological levelling that Twilight 2000 assumed on both sides. So the world of Twilight 2000 is just that a world in Twilight not of the Dawn which is how I have always wanted to play it.
In Czechoslovakia, it was assumed that war with the West was a certainty particularly with all the posturing and direct bullying that was done in the aftermath of the Second World War. The Communist coup here was in direct response to the feelings of the Soviet Union feeling insecure with its East European frontiers.
For a small country sandwiched between two great powers, the Cold War gave a special boast for nationalism. As the military-industrial complex basically told us we were the best of the best. Instead of basically being a drain, it was a source of enormous internal pride.
Anyway, see the lyrics of the Leningrad Cowboys for "Those were the days..."
In Czechoslovakia, it was assumed that war with the West was a certainty particularly with all the posturing and direct bullying that was done in the aftermath of the Second World War. The Communist coup here was in direct response to the feelings of the Soviet Union feeling insecure with its East European frontiers.
For a small country sandwiched between two great powers, the Cold War gave a special boast for nationalism. As the military-industrial complex basically told us we were the best of the best. Instead of basically being a drain, it was a source of enormous internal pride.
Anyway, see the lyrics of the Leningrad Cowboys for "Those were the days..."
The Czechoslovakia I referred to was the pre World War II one that was the appeasement gift to Hitler to forstall the onset of World War II. Hitler used that time more productively and added the Czech manufactuing apparatus to his own so he could better prepare Germany for the start of World War II.
The fact is some of us have learned the lessons of World War I while others of us have learned the lessons of World War II. The fact that World War II happened doesn't mean that we forgotten about World War I.
The lesson of World War I is not that alliances are bad, its more about who your allies are. If your ally is an aggressive dictator who wants to conquer the world, then it is a bad alliance. Germany was more interested in conquering its neighbors than in defending its allies. Germany's ally Austria was useful in justifying its war of conquest and Austria itself was never in danger.
It was Austria's decision to go to war when its existance was not threatened, the obligation of Germany to Austria was therefore null and void unless its purpose was not defense in the first place but attack.
Remember that Germany allied itself with Italy in World War II, this alliance was not created for mutual protection, but for conquest; the alliance between Austria and Germany in World War I was of the same nature. The alliance between France, England, and Russia was one of mutual protection, those three powers had no designs on Germany and Austria at the start of the War, they simply wanted to defend against Germany's attack. So in fact World War I does have a villain. Wars just don't happen, they are always started by somebody, even if that somebody cloaks his actions with a number of justifications and excuses. I think it was fairly blatent that Germany was not just defending itself.
Some of those people who thought they learned the lessons of World War I, thought that the lesson was that alliances were bad, and therefore those countries declared their neutrality, those neutral countries stood aside while Hitler invaded their neighbors, and when those neutral countries were themselves invaded, they had no one to come to their aid (Belgium), because they eschewed allies. France was not prepared for Germany to invade Belgium and Belgium itself objected to France fortifying its border with Belguim, so France was unprepared when Germany invaded Belgium and through that country invaded France. Th United States learned its lesson from World War I or thought they did and so stayed neutral for 1939, 1940, and 1941. Although Roosevelt knew this was a false lesson, he had trouble convincing the American people of this until the Pearl Harbor attack. Hitler had some extra time to consolidate his gains, he took as much as he could with little opposition from his pacifist neighbors and then he took some more with only token opposition. When Hitler took some more still, the opposition grew in earnestness, but by that time Germany was much stronger with all of its gains and was much harder to defeat.
After World War II the allies were once again reluctant to fight and the Soviet Union decided to keep its troops in Eastern Europe with only token opposition in the West. The West allowed the Soviets to consolodate its gains in Eastern Europe despite the fact that the United States had a 4-year monopoly in nuclear weapon. There was an opportunity for the United States and its allies to push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, but it's publics were war weary thanks to Hitler and the let the Soviets keep Eastern Europe by doing nothing.
The Soviet Union was invigorated by the expansion of its sphere of influence and so sought gains elsewhere, they supported Mao's revolutionaries in China and the Nationalist government there was overthrown. The Soviet's supported Castro and the Cuban government was overthrown. The Soviets kept pressing their revolutionary causes around the world bosltered by their initial success with more mixed success, until somebody in the West finally put his foot down, that somebody was Ronald Reagan. By confronting the Soviets, Ronald Reagan was taking a calculated risk. The risk was that the Soviets would not back down, that the Cold was would go hot. This was the assumption of Twilight 2000. Twilight 2000 assumed that Reagan lost his gamble.
The fact is some of us have learned the lessons of World War I while others of us have learned the lessons of World War II. The fact that World War II happened doesn't mean that we forgotten about World War I.
The lesson of World War I is not that alliances are bad, its more about who your allies are. If your ally is an aggressive dictator who wants to conquer the world, then it is a bad alliance. Germany was more interested in conquering its neighbors than in defending its allies. Germany's ally Austria was useful in justifying its war of conquest and Austria itself was never in danger.
It was Austria's decision to go to war when its existance was not threatened, the obligation of Germany to Austria was therefore null and void unless its purpose was not defense in the first place but attack.
Remember that Germany allied itself with Italy in World War II, this alliance was not created for mutual protection, but for conquest; the alliance between Austria and Germany in World War I was of the same nature. The alliance between France, England, and Russia was one of mutual protection, those three powers had no designs on Germany and Austria at the start of the War, they simply wanted to defend against Germany's attack. So in fact World War I does have a villain. Wars just don't happen, they are always started by somebody, even if that somebody cloaks his actions with a number of justifications and excuses. I think it was fairly blatent that Germany was not just defending itself.
Some of those people who thought they learned the lessons of World War I, thought that the lesson was that alliances were bad, and therefore those countries declared their neutrality, those neutral countries stood aside while Hitler invaded their neighbors, and when those neutral countries were themselves invaded, they had no one to come to their aid (Belgium), because they eschewed allies. France was not prepared for Germany to invade Belgium and Belgium itself objected to France fortifying its border with Belguim, so France was unprepared when Germany invaded Belgium and through that country invaded France. Th United States learned its lesson from World War I or thought they did and so stayed neutral for 1939, 1940, and 1941. Although Roosevelt knew this was a false lesson, he had trouble convincing the American people of this until the Pearl Harbor attack. Hitler had some extra time to consolidate his gains, he took as much as he could with little opposition from his pacifist neighbors and then he took some more with only token opposition. When Hitler took some more still, the opposition grew in earnestness, but by that time Germany was much stronger with all of its gains and was much harder to defeat.
After World War II the allies were once again reluctant to fight and the Soviet Union decided to keep its troops in Eastern Europe with only token opposition in the West. The West allowed the Soviets to consolodate its gains in Eastern Europe despite the fact that the United States had a 4-year monopoly in nuclear weapon. There was an opportunity for the United States and its allies to push the Soviets out of Eastern Europe, but it's publics were war weary thanks to Hitler and the let the Soviets keep Eastern Europe by doing nothing.
The Soviet Union was invigorated by the expansion of its sphere of influence and so sought gains elsewhere, they supported Mao's revolutionaries in China and the Nationalist government there was overthrown. The Soviet's supported Castro and the Cuban government was overthrown. The Soviets kept pressing their revolutionary causes around the world bosltered by their initial success with more mixed success, until somebody in the West finally put his foot down, that somebody was Ronald Reagan. By confronting the Soviets, Ronald Reagan was taking a calculated risk. The risk was that the Soviets would not back down, that the Cold was would go hot. This was the assumption of Twilight 2000. Twilight 2000 assumed that Reagan lost his gamble.
ReHerakhte
SOC-1
Okay I haven't been here for a while due to work and a few other things but by way of reply, particularly to Tom... I am sure I'm going to ruffle more than a few feathers here...
Why WW1 rather than WW2? Easy, WW2 is a consequence of WW1, had the First War not happened, the Second would not have happened. My intent was to illustrate that by a system of alliances, nations with no initial interest in a particular conflict can be dragged into it despite their desires. This could just as easily be applied to the idea that the French dragged the US into the war in IndoChina.
I am still quite amazed at your ability to draw conclusions where nothing of the conclusion you reach is implied. I most certainly did not imply one scenario was more likely than the other or anything remotely along those lines, I simply said that I have a weakness for re-doing the WW1 scenario.
The facts of WW1 are that a nationalistic act on the part of some Serbs, caused the Astro-Hungarian empire into a conflict with the Russian allies of the Serbs. To counter the Russian threat, Astro-Hungary called in their alliance with Germany, Germany felt this gave them an excuse to reclaim disputed territories on the French/German border (the triple Entente of Britain, France & Russia gave them sufficient justification) and from there it continued to escalate as more alliances were called in. The Kaiser was apparently initially reluctant to enter the fray but with so many inter-related dynastic marriages in place, pressure could be applied at a family level and not just a national one.
So despite the best efforts of many people in the UK and the USA to convince the world otherwise, the Germans did not start the First World War.
As for the Second World War, it is a bit facile to claim that it was started by a nation that didn't learn the lessons of the First World War. Germany had learnt the lessons of the First War only too well, their initial success and the deaths and suffering of those that opposed them show this well enough. And how did you reach the conclusion that PBI was denigrating the suffering or sacrifice of people in World War Two? And before you launch any vitriol at me, keep in mind that my grandfather was killed fighting the Germans in WW2 shortly after my father was conceived, neither my father nor I had the chance to know my grandfather so it HAS had personal consequences for me.
Facts are that the French imposed such overbearing sanctions upon Germany after WW1 that there were probably only two outcomes, the collapse (and possible destruction) of the German nation or that the Germans would fight back against the oppression given the right leadership (kind of like the way the Serbs claimed to be fighting back against Austro-Hungarian oppression or the way the Kurdish people have had to fight back against Turkish oppression etc. etc. etc ad nauseum, ad infinitum). The French did this more out of spite than necessity. Hitler was quite clever in his restructuring of the German economy, he gave it a reason to rebuild and he gave the German people their pride back (and I just know that someone here is going to use that statement as a platform to claim that I am a Nazi sympathiser or some such crap, kindly refer to the statement above about my grandfather).
Hitler created (and then enforced) nationalistic pride, exactly like every single leader in the history of humanity has. When nations struggle to escape severe situations, the reality is much closer to the survival of the fittest in the way that species compete against species than is generally given any credence. It really can be reduced to the level of 'organism' versus 'organism' for survival. Pretty much the same as the way NATO and WarPac faced off against each other, each was convinced their philosophy was correct and that the other threatened their existence, pretty much the same as the way the radicals in the Arab world view the Western world today.
The most appaling thing Hitler and his cronies did was the industrialisation of murder where upon anyone who opposed him was sent to death camps (and again despite the best efforts of certain groups to teach us otherwise, this did include Gypsies, intellectuals, communists, homosexuals, journalists who wrote the truth, the intellectually disabled, the severely physically disabled, Slavs and anyone else not genetically pure enough - all based on the concept of purifying the Aryan race, a race which has never existed, it is the invention of a group of English archeologists of the early 1900s who could not bear the idea that an ancient civilization in India had been more advanced than any in Europe of the same period, so they created the myth of European Aryans going to India to teach them about civilization). However, in terms of warfare, he did nothing different to any other leader, tribe, race, nation etc. The facts are that we have seen the murder committed by Hitler & pals done by many groups, for example, the Church on numerous occassions in the name of spiritual purity. Hitler is quilty of murder most foul but then, so is the Church and so are the organizations that pushed forward the empire building of the European nations in the lead up to WW1. The US is just as quilty in its support of any dictator during the 1960s-1980s, no matter what human rights violations he committed, just as long as he was anti-communist.
So if WW1 has a villain, the finger should more rightly be pointed at the royal families and wealthy merchants of Europe rather than any particular nation. It is they who set up the massive empire building which caused many ethnic groups to agitate for their own state.
Generally though Tom, I don't disagree with some of your ideas about how to write or even rewrite the background history of Twilight 2000. There are indeed many ways to do it and no one way is necessarily better than any other but I am reminded of another thread in this forum where the poster said that he had difficulty explaining the Cold War to some younger players, these younger men replied to the Twilight player that they were not really worried about all the facts and figures of the history, they simply wanted to play the game. So in the end, the gameworld history is only going to matter to a certain crowd.
Oh and by the way Kafka, the song you quote from the Leningrad Cowboys is a cover of a song from the 1960s or 1970s by an American (or was it English?) group. However, it is just as relevant now as it was during the Cold War when it was written.
Just my random brain farts...
Cheers,
Kevin.
Why WW1 rather than WW2? Easy, WW2 is a consequence of WW1, had the First War not happened, the Second would not have happened. My intent was to illustrate that by a system of alliances, nations with no initial interest in a particular conflict can be dragged into it despite their desires. This could just as easily be applied to the idea that the French dragged the US into the war in IndoChina.
I am still quite amazed at your ability to draw conclusions where nothing of the conclusion you reach is implied. I most certainly did not imply one scenario was more likely than the other or anything remotely along those lines, I simply said that I have a weakness for re-doing the WW1 scenario.
The facts of WW1 are that a nationalistic act on the part of some Serbs, caused the Astro-Hungarian empire into a conflict with the Russian allies of the Serbs. To counter the Russian threat, Astro-Hungary called in their alliance with Germany, Germany felt this gave them an excuse to reclaim disputed territories on the French/German border (the triple Entente of Britain, France & Russia gave them sufficient justification) and from there it continued to escalate as more alliances were called in. The Kaiser was apparently initially reluctant to enter the fray but with so many inter-related dynastic marriages in place, pressure could be applied at a family level and not just a national one.
So despite the best efforts of many people in the UK and the USA to convince the world otherwise, the Germans did not start the First World War.
As for the Second World War, it is a bit facile to claim that it was started by a nation that didn't learn the lessons of the First World War. Germany had learnt the lessons of the First War only too well, their initial success and the deaths and suffering of those that opposed them show this well enough. And how did you reach the conclusion that PBI was denigrating the suffering or sacrifice of people in World War Two? And before you launch any vitriol at me, keep in mind that my grandfather was killed fighting the Germans in WW2 shortly after my father was conceived, neither my father nor I had the chance to know my grandfather so it HAS had personal consequences for me.
Facts are that the French imposed such overbearing sanctions upon Germany after WW1 that there were probably only two outcomes, the collapse (and possible destruction) of the German nation or that the Germans would fight back against the oppression given the right leadership (kind of like the way the Serbs claimed to be fighting back against Austro-Hungarian oppression or the way the Kurdish people have had to fight back against Turkish oppression etc. etc. etc ad nauseum, ad infinitum). The French did this more out of spite than necessity. Hitler was quite clever in his restructuring of the German economy, he gave it a reason to rebuild and he gave the German people their pride back (and I just know that someone here is going to use that statement as a platform to claim that I am a Nazi sympathiser or some such crap, kindly refer to the statement above about my grandfather).
Hitler created (and then enforced) nationalistic pride, exactly like every single leader in the history of humanity has. When nations struggle to escape severe situations, the reality is much closer to the survival of the fittest in the way that species compete against species than is generally given any credence. It really can be reduced to the level of 'organism' versus 'organism' for survival. Pretty much the same as the way NATO and WarPac faced off against each other, each was convinced their philosophy was correct and that the other threatened their existence, pretty much the same as the way the radicals in the Arab world view the Western world today.
The most appaling thing Hitler and his cronies did was the industrialisation of murder where upon anyone who opposed him was sent to death camps (and again despite the best efforts of certain groups to teach us otherwise, this did include Gypsies, intellectuals, communists, homosexuals, journalists who wrote the truth, the intellectually disabled, the severely physically disabled, Slavs and anyone else not genetically pure enough - all based on the concept of purifying the Aryan race, a race which has never existed, it is the invention of a group of English archeologists of the early 1900s who could not bear the idea that an ancient civilization in India had been more advanced than any in Europe of the same period, so they created the myth of European Aryans going to India to teach them about civilization). However, in terms of warfare, he did nothing different to any other leader, tribe, race, nation etc. The facts are that we have seen the murder committed by Hitler & pals done by many groups, for example, the Church on numerous occassions in the name of spiritual purity. Hitler is quilty of murder most foul but then, so is the Church and so are the organizations that pushed forward the empire building of the European nations in the lead up to WW1. The US is just as quilty in its support of any dictator during the 1960s-1980s, no matter what human rights violations he committed, just as long as he was anti-communist.
So if WW1 has a villain, the finger should more rightly be pointed at the royal families and wealthy merchants of Europe rather than any particular nation. It is they who set up the massive empire building which caused many ethnic groups to agitate for their own state.
Generally though Tom, I don't disagree with some of your ideas about how to write or even rewrite the background history of Twilight 2000. There are indeed many ways to do it and no one way is necessarily better than any other but I am reminded of another thread in this forum where the poster said that he had difficulty explaining the Cold War to some younger players, these younger men replied to the Twilight player that they were not really worried about all the facts and figures of the history, they simply wanted to play the game. So in the end, the gameworld history is only going to matter to a certain crowd.
Oh and by the way Kafka, the song you quote from the Leningrad Cowboys is a cover of a song from the 1960s or 1970s by an American (or was it English?) group. However, it is just as relevant now as it was during the Cold War when it was written.
Just my random brain farts...
Cheers,
Kevin.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Some Suggestions:
1. Have a newer, automated Stealth Warship go haywire and start lobbing Tomahawks and Cruise Missiles at various Targets...
2. Have one of the many enourmous stockpiles of Nerve Gas be compromised by age or mishandling this weakens the US Global situation enough for other aggressor nations to think a conventional attack will be a good idea.
3. Superbug. Someone had commented that this was too "in the realm of Science Fiction" to be a viable impetus for a story line... I envy your willingness to dismiss that as a possibility, for it most definitely is one...
I never got into the whole "Twilight" thing, as it seemed to saber rattly to me, to be anything more than a one-off, and too be frank, was a little too close to home for me.
The Madness of living on a knife's edge is and has been for some time so real that we take it for granted... or don't know any other way to exist without the Reaper looming in the background, which is both fascinating and sad simultaneously.
I realize that conflict is a major draw to RPGs but I for once would like to see a "How We Saved Humanity" Game in reflection of all the "How we Destroyed Humanity" Games...
The idea that the Global situation as it stands will carry on into Space and into the Future forever is extremely depressing to me. No, I am not worried about the Space French or the Space Russians ripping the flag off my Spacesuit and and making me eat Borscht and Souffles, because I know it would never get to that. If it REALLY went down, we would all be dead, or at least wishing for death...
Which is why I preferred Gamma World as a setting and concept rather that the much more fatalistic "Last Days" stuff... mutated Animals and such aside, it at least removed the tired nationalism and cowboy histrionics and showed a long-gone human culture abstracted through a lens of time and destruction... it is much more believable that we would kill ourselves off than have Great National Forces endlessly clashing for eternity over who knows what.
Strange that global hostility is the reality and progress without killing each other is the fantasy...
1. Have a newer, automated Stealth Warship go haywire and start lobbing Tomahawks and Cruise Missiles at various Targets...
2. Have one of the many enourmous stockpiles of Nerve Gas be compromised by age or mishandling this weakens the US Global situation enough for other aggressor nations to think a conventional attack will be a good idea.
3. Superbug. Someone had commented that this was too "in the realm of Science Fiction" to be a viable impetus for a story line... I envy your willingness to dismiss that as a possibility, for it most definitely is one...
I never got into the whole "Twilight" thing, as it seemed to saber rattly to me, to be anything more than a one-off, and too be frank, was a little too close to home for me.
The Madness of living on a knife's edge is and has been for some time so real that we take it for granted... or don't know any other way to exist without the Reaper looming in the background, which is both fascinating and sad simultaneously.
I realize that conflict is a major draw to RPGs but I for once would like to see a "How We Saved Humanity" Game in reflection of all the "How we Destroyed Humanity" Games...
The idea that the Global situation as it stands will carry on into Space and into the Future forever is extremely depressing to me. No, I am not worried about the Space French or the Space Russians ripping the flag off my Spacesuit and and making me eat Borscht and Souffles, because I know it would never get to that. If it REALLY went down, we would all be dead, or at least wishing for death...
Which is why I preferred Gamma World as a setting and concept rather that the much more fatalistic "Last Days" stuff... mutated Animals and such aside, it at least removed the tired nationalism and cowboy histrionics and showed a long-gone human culture abstracted through a lens of time and destruction... it is much more believable that we would kill ourselves off than have Great National Forces endlessly clashing for eternity over who knows what.
Strange that global hostility is the reality and progress without killing each other is the fantasy...
Reherakhte said,
The temptation of Neutrality in World War III is present and France succcumbs to it by abandoning its allies just as France abandoned Czechoslavakia and Poland in World War II. I just don't see how the Americans can avoid being angry at the French after losing so many lives in the War. Were I in such a situation, I doubt I would be very hospitable to any French people that crossed my path, especially after losing family members to nuclear warfare and seeing the French get off scottfree exercising an option that was not available to the United States so it could be the Benedict Arnold of the NATO Alliance. I would regard Russians as nothing less than murderers, but I would let them off the hook a little, after all they were supposed to be our enemies and were. The French on the other hand were supposed to be our allies and were not, this is a kind of betrayal, that resonates with our current Iraq Situation but at a much larger degree in the World War III situation. Under the Twilight 2000 alternate history, I don't think there would be as many group of liberals saying that we diserved what we got and that World War III was an "Immoral War" and we should therefore pull out. With millions dead, I think most people in America would look cross at such talk. Most people would know someone who was killed or missing, they'll look at their ruined cities and seethe when they think of the Russians and the French, I don't see how it could be otherwise. According to the last Presidential Election, the electoral map seems to indicate that most people of the liberal pursuasion would tend to live in cities and metropolitian areas that would be ruined in the Twilight wars. The farmers and the people in the countryside would be less directly affected. Yes some nukes would be directed to destroy missile silos, but the population density in those areas would be much smaller than in urban areas. I think were looking at a post Twilight country that is slightly more conservative leaning than it was prior to the war. Some libs will say, we should have given the Soviets what they wanted and avoided the confrontation by pulling out of Europe, but it is too late for the present situation. Americans must deal with the current reality, and have no time for should'ves or could'ves. They want to know how to get this country back on its feet and pay back the Russians for the massive destruction they've caused, they don't see that they Russians have already been paid back as thy are not in Russia, all they see is th destruction inflicted on their own country. Many places don't have power and few get a television signal of any sort when they do. the News services were based in cities and few survived. No more CNN or Fox News. I imagine that the French are still launching satellites and soon satellite television will be available to paying customers who appreciate French programming.
I think ultimately there are no lessons in history.
I think World War III could have been fought by brave people who were defending their liberty in a just cause, and that their may have been no other course they could have taken that would not have led to their subjugation.
I think one thing the Americans in the Twilight World succeeded in doing was preserve their freedom, this was done at enourmous cost with millions dead and cities destroyed, but the alternative could have been a Soviet dominated World. France was taking a gamble when it declared its neutrality, they were betting that the US would fight, France would stay out of the fray and the US and USSR would destroy each other, leaving France as the most powerful nation be default. the Risk was that the United States would pull out of Europe and declare its neutrality too. The Red Army would then invade Western Europe and attack France. France and the USSR would have a nuclear war, or more likely not, the Red Army would march into France with little resistance as the Germans had done in World War II. The Soviets Would then have conquered Europe, it would only be a matter of time before they once again confronted the United States and knowing that the US had once backed down in face of their aggression, they'd expect the US to back down once again being unlikely to backdown themselves flush with victory as they are.
There is a phrase quoted by some liberals, "Better Red than Dead." This is equivalent to "Render unto Ceasar." Some liberals, it seems would have willingly made themselves slaves to the Soviet Empire in order to avoid nuclear war. Perhaps the rationalize that the Soviets wouldn't take too much and leave them alone. They would have given up the liberties and civil rights they cherish so the can go on living. Democracy would die and "Democrats" would be rounded up unless they cooperated.
Germany seemed to have learned different lessons from the other countries in Europe who participated in World War II. France Pioneered the use of tanks in W.W.I, and found them quite useful, but instead of investing heavily in tanks, the French came to some general conclusions about War in general and how bad it was. The Germans didn't take home the same lessons, it worried more about improving their weapons systems that in avoiding war in general. The fact that war was wasteful of human lives was lost on the Germans.
The French weren't enforcing these reparations after a while. The Germans realized this, nothing actually compelled them to go to war and waste more lives. France's government was taken over by pacifists. The problem with Pacifists is that they often only recognize their own country's part in starting wars, and don't recognize other countries contributions to a general state of War. They look at their War Department and wonder why their is a government department that specializes in waisting human lives on the battlefield when they can be doing other things, the conclude with the simplistic notion that cutting funding to their war department will reduce the chances of war. What they did instead was reduce their chances of winning the next war as Germany and its leadership saw only opportunity to conquer its pacifist neighbors who were unwilling to invest resources in a proper defense. The resources of these neighboring countries were not insignificant, so by conquering the pacifistic countries first Germany could aquire more resources to fight those other countries later who were more willing to put up a fight. The result is that the UK, and Russia found themselves fighting a collosa European Empire, this Empire was put together rather quickly, and was made up of small countries the UK and Russia weren't willing to previously assist in their defense, and of large countries such as France who was not willing to invest in offensive warfare. Germany + Austra + Poland + France + Belgium + Netherlands + Czeckoslovakia was a much greater problem for the West than Germany alone. The US stood apart to see if it could still avoid direct involvement in the War.
The temptation of Neutrality in World War III is present and France succcumbs to it by abandoning its allies just as France abandoned Czechoslavakia and Poland in World War II. I just don't see how the Americans can avoid being angry at the French after losing so many lives in the War. Were I in such a situation, I doubt I would be very hospitable to any French people that crossed my path, especially after losing family members to nuclear warfare and seeing the French get off scottfree exercising an option that was not available to the United States so it could be the Benedict Arnold of the NATO Alliance. I would regard Russians as nothing less than murderers, but I would let them off the hook a little, after all they were supposed to be our enemies and were. The French on the other hand were supposed to be our allies and were not, this is a kind of betrayal, that resonates with our current Iraq Situation but at a much larger degree in the World War III situation. Under the Twilight 2000 alternate history, I don't think there would be as many group of liberals saying that we diserved what we got and that World War III was an "Immoral War" and we should therefore pull out. With millions dead, I think most people in America would look cross at such talk. Most people would know someone who was killed or missing, they'll look at their ruined cities and seethe when they think of the Russians and the French, I don't see how it could be otherwise. According to the last Presidential Election, the electoral map seems to indicate that most people of the liberal pursuasion would tend to live in cities and metropolitian areas that would be ruined in the Twilight wars. The farmers and the people in the countryside would be less directly affected. Yes some nukes would be directed to destroy missile silos, but the population density in those areas would be much smaller than in urban areas. I think were looking at a post Twilight country that is slightly more conservative leaning than it was prior to the war. Some libs will say, we should have given the Soviets what they wanted and avoided the confrontation by pulling out of Europe, but it is too late for the present situation. Americans must deal with the current reality, and have no time for should'ves or could'ves. They want to know how to get this country back on its feet and pay back the Russians for the massive destruction they've caused, they don't see that they Russians have already been paid back as thy are not in Russia, all they see is th destruction inflicted on their own country. Many places don't have power and few get a television signal of any sort when they do. the News services were based in cities and few survived. No more CNN or Fox News. I imagine that the French are still launching satellites and soon satellite television will be available to paying customers who appreciate French programming.
I think ultimately there are no lessons in history.
I think World War III could have been fought by brave people who were defending their liberty in a just cause, and that their may have been no other course they could have taken that would not have led to their subjugation.
I think one thing the Americans in the Twilight World succeeded in doing was preserve their freedom, this was done at enourmous cost with millions dead and cities destroyed, but the alternative could have been a Soviet dominated World. France was taking a gamble when it declared its neutrality, they were betting that the US would fight, France would stay out of the fray and the US and USSR would destroy each other, leaving France as the most powerful nation be default. the Risk was that the United States would pull out of Europe and declare its neutrality too. The Red Army would then invade Western Europe and attack France. France and the USSR would have a nuclear war, or more likely not, the Red Army would march into France with little resistance as the Germans had done in World War II. The Soviets Would then have conquered Europe, it would only be a matter of time before they once again confronted the United States and knowing that the US had once backed down in face of their aggression, they'd expect the US to back down once again being unlikely to backdown themselves flush with victory as they are.
I am simply recalling what I know and guessing the rest. I don't think there is a pcifist moral lesson to be learned here. To act like the French would have been to accept a Soviet victory and a Soviet dominated world. In many ways, I think a Soviet dominated world would have been worse.
There is a phrase quoted by some liberals, "Better Red than Dead." This is equivalent to "Render unto Ceasar." Some liberals, it seems would have willingly made themselves slaves to the Soviet Empire in order to avoid nuclear war. Perhaps the rationalize that the Soviets wouldn't take too much and leave them alone. They would have given up the liberties and civil rights they cherish so the can go on living. Democracy would die and "Democrats" would be rounded up unless they cooperated.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Geez, Lord Tom...
So you're voting Republican, I take it?
So you're voting Republican, I take it?
Yes, I'm a Republican.
Yes we're keeping current politics out of it, since the Cold War is over, were talking about the politics of 20 years ago.
And yes, France was taken over by Pacifists prior to World War II. How else can you explain the level of incompetance among the French Generals, the poor quality of French Army equipment, and the heavy reliance on fixed fortifications. A pacifist would emphasize fixed fortifications as they would be considered wholly defensive and could not be used for an attack and thus provoke a war, or so the theory goes. Unfortunately the walls didn't provide for a good defense either as they weren't complete for one, and Belgium objected to the construction of the wall along their border with France even though the wall was defensive in nature. The French could't explain to the Belgians that the wall needed to be built just in case Germany were to invade your country and invade France from there. What France did spend on defense was just a fig leaf to the conservatives, and a very worthless one at that.
France was a colonial power over more primitive Third World countries, hardly an Empire to be proud of as I see it, and it isn't saying much about French military prowness that it can occupy primitive areas where the natives uses spears, bows and arrows or perhaps muskets. Frnace certainly wasn't prepared to confront an industrial power.
Yes we're keeping current politics out of it, since the Cold War is over, were talking about the politics of 20 years ago.
And yes, France was taken over by Pacifists prior to World War II. How else can you explain the level of incompetance among the French Generals, the poor quality of French Army equipment, and the heavy reliance on fixed fortifications. A pacifist would emphasize fixed fortifications as they would be considered wholly defensive and could not be used for an attack and thus provoke a war, or so the theory goes. Unfortunately the walls didn't provide for a good defense either as they weren't complete for one, and Belgium objected to the construction of the wall along their border with France even though the wall was defensive in nature. The French could't explain to the Belgians that the wall needed to be built just in case Germany were to invade your country and invade France from there. What France did spend on defense was just a fig leaf to the conservatives, and a very worthless one at that.
France was a colonial power over more primitive Third World countries, hardly an Empire to be proud of as I see it, and it isn't saying much about French military prowness that it can occupy primitive areas where the natives uses spears, bows and arrows or perhaps muskets. Frnace certainly wasn't prepared to confront an industrial power.
Tom, this is an arguement that you can't win, my friend. The camp has been divided and, although you arguement is valid and correct, it will receive no quarter by the otherside.
Look to the current situation in the U.N. and Iraq. The Iraqis have requested aid from the same countries who used to be knee deep in Hussein's pockets, profitting from his despotism and depravity. Now they turn a deaf ear to the Iraqi pleas for assistance. And to think that there were Americans who questioned not allowing these countries to bid for reconstruction contracts. The governments of these nations have no soul or moral compass, just a one sided sense of fairness. And they call the U.S. an isolationist nation!
As much as they chide the U.S., these countries think only of national profit and power without commitment all the time thumping their chests about defending freedom and human rights. Reminds me of Baron Harkonnen.
Look to the current situation in the U.N. and Iraq. The Iraqis have requested aid from the same countries who used to be knee deep in Hussein's pockets, profitting from his despotism and depravity. Now they turn a deaf ear to the Iraqi pleas for assistance. And to think that there were Americans who questioned not allowing these countries to bid for reconstruction contracts. The governments of these nations have no soul or moral compass, just a one sided sense of fairness. And they call the U.S. an isolationist nation!
As much as they chide the U.S., these countries think only of national profit and power without commitment all the time thumping their chests about defending freedom and human rights. Reminds me of Baron Harkonnen.
Also, Tom, your explanation about France in the pre-WWII period is a tad simplistic. Or dismissive, rather. It's more accurate to say France was afflicted with a sense of resigned apathy coming out of the huge shock of losing the better part of an entire generation in the Great War. The UK, too, for that matter. Many people in the US and Canada tend to forget the impact of the casualties incurred from the Great War plus the effect of the Depression on the inter-war policies of France and the UK. To reduce it to a simple "the left-wingers took over" is a massive error.
Yeah, your probably right, but I said pacifists, not left wingers, or I didn't mean to imply that the pacifists were necessarily left wingers.
One doesn't have to be a left winger to be a pacifist. Henry Ford and Charles Lindburg were right-wing pacifists. The left-wing communists were pushing their "Class Struggle" at the time and undermining the Peace with their revolutionary movements. It was very much in the minds of the Communists to overthrow the German government before Hitler took over. Hitler got a big boost into power from fears from ordinary citizens of a Communist takeover at the polls. I think these fears were well founded in Germany. Many Communists were struggling to overthrow democracy there just as the Nazis were. Many leftists were dismayed to find that one of their goals of distroying democracy was met but that the "wrong" people ended up in power. The Weimar Republic wasn't solving the people's problems, so the populace was open to more radical solutions, one of these was Communism, the other Nazism. Nazism won in Germany and took over.
In France a similar situation was happening with a struggle between Facists and Communists. Neither side was ready to knock out democracy as they needed those civil protections to protect their movements until they could knock the otherside out, so they worked inside the democratic system in France, but Democracy itself was not popular as it had failed to solve Frances problems. The power struggle between facists and communists served to paralize the French government and made it ineffective in building a competant armed forces that could deal with the invading Germans. Would you say this is closer to the truth?
One doesn't have to be a left winger to be a pacifist. Henry Ford and Charles Lindburg were right-wing pacifists. The left-wing communists were pushing their "Class Struggle" at the time and undermining the Peace with their revolutionary movements. It was very much in the minds of the Communists to overthrow the German government before Hitler took over. Hitler got a big boost into power from fears from ordinary citizens of a Communist takeover at the polls. I think these fears were well founded in Germany. Many Communists were struggling to overthrow democracy there just as the Nazis were. Many leftists were dismayed to find that one of their goals of distroying democracy was met but that the "wrong" people ended up in power. The Weimar Republic wasn't solving the people's problems, so the populace was open to more radical solutions, one of these was Communism, the other Nazism. Nazism won in Germany and took over.
In France a similar situation was happening with a struggle between Facists and Communists. Neither side was ready to knock out democracy as they needed those civil protections to protect their movements until they could knock the otherside out, so they worked inside the democratic system in France, but Democracy itself was not popular as it had failed to solve Frances problems. The power struggle between facists and communists served to paralize the French government and made it ineffective in building a competant armed forces that could deal with the invading Germans. Would you say this is closer to the truth?
Erik Boielle
SOC-12
In honour of the signing of the EU constitution and the recent petrol price increases, I think Armour 21, as in
”Europe is unified and locked in a global trade war with the US and Japan. Africa is heavily depopulated by AIDS. Parts of the middle east are still radioactive from Iraqs abortive attempts at nuclear blackmail. The world is short on raw material, particularly oil, and the Nigerian wells may mean the difference between economic survival and collapse.
This game covers conventional and unconventional warfare between the EEC in central Africa over Nigerian and Angolan oil.”
Isn’t a complete write off. Replace Iraq with Iran, frex, and we are rolling.
Examining the list of top ecomomies gives us (nation/PPP GDP/per capita GDP/pop)
0. European Union 11.50 trillion 25,300 454,900,000
1. United States 10.40 trillion 37,600 290,343,000
2. Mainland China 5.70 trillion 4,400 1,287,000,000
3. Japan 3.55 trillion 28,000 127,215,000
4. India 2.66 trillion 2,540 1,049,701,000
9. Russia 1.35 trillion 9,300 144,526,000
11. South Korea 931 billion 19,400 48,249,000
And the EU has a fair amount of room to expand, taking in, for instance, Russia and Turkey. Its occasionally discussed that we may one day have to change the name when it expands to cover the other side of the med.
Now, its something of a con to call it one nation, but its not impossible that it could get close, possibly on a
‘Europe – together we can boss those bloody yanks around for a change’ ticket.
So, when US interventionist policies try to topple another middle east regime, they find a united Europe with a grudge staring back at them over Eurofighter Typhoon sights. (Its worth realising how much your average Euro didn’t like the recent war in Iraq – I suspect its ‘popularity’ in the UK had much to do with being able to tweak the nose of the Froggies by doing it – without that even Tony might not have been able to carry the country. Note the divisiveness).
EU/China Vs US/Japan in 2050?
USians should enjoy the chance to shoot frogs and other Euros, while Euros should
love that their nations get to be world players.
--
Both China and India have a lot of room to modernise. And I’ve heard it said that US wages won’t be able to rise until 3rd world pay reaches current US levels due to the ease with which work moves around the globe.
Current petrol prices are driven partly by increased demand from a China getting its act together, so
I really think that a setting featuring a resurgent Russia (as anything other than a junior partner to Europe or someone else) comes off as complete fantasy these days.
”Europe is unified and locked in a global trade war with the US and Japan. Africa is heavily depopulated by AIDS. Parts of the middle east are still radioactive from Iraqs abortive attempts at nuclear blackmail. The world is short on raw material, particularly oil, and the Nigerian wells may mean the difference between economic survival and collapse.
This game covers conventional and unconventional warfare between the EEC in central Africa over Nigerian and Angolan oil.”
Isn’t a complete write off. Replace Iraq with Iran, frex, and we are rolling.
Examining the list of top ecomomies gives us (nation/PPP GDP/per capita GDP/pop)
0. European Union 11.50 trillion 25,300 454,900,000
1. United States 10.40 trillion 37,600 290,343,000
2. Mainland China 5.70 trillion 4,400 1,287,000,000
3. Japan 3.55 trillion 28,000 127,215,000
4. India 2.66 trillion 2,540 1,049,701,000
9. Russia 1.35 trillion 9,300 144,526,000
11. South Korea 931 billion 19,400 48,249,000
And the EU has a fair amount of room to expand, taking in, for instance, Russia and Turkey. Its occasionally discussed that we may one day have to change the name when it expands to cover the other side of the med.
Now, its something of a con to call it one nation, but its not impossible that it could get close, possibly on a
‘Europe – together we can boss those bloody yanks around for a change’ ticket.
So, when US interventionist policies try to topple another middle east regime, they find a united Europe with a grudge staring back at them over Eurofighter Typhoon sights. (Its worth realising how much your average Euro didn’t like the recent war in Iraq – I suspect its ‘popularity’ in the UK had much to do with being able to tweak the nose of the Froggies by doing it – without that even Tony might not have been able to carry the country. Note the divisiveness).
EU/China Vs US/Japan in 2050?
USians should enjoy the chance to shoot frogs and other Euros, while Euros should
love that their nations get to be world players.
--
Both China and India have a lot of room to modernise. And I’ve heard it said that US wages won’t be able to rise until 3rd world pay reaches current US levels due to the ease with which work moves around the globe.
Current petrol prices are driven partly by increased demand from a China getting its act together, so
I really think that a setting featuring a resurgent Russia (as anything other than a junior partner to Europe or someone else) comes off as complete fantasy these days.
Tom,
Yes, I'd say that was pretty much the case in almost all of Europe in the interwar years, even in the UK, though to a lesser degree.
What I was really getting at (and dancing around) with my comment on politics was your comments on Reagan and "liberals". We don't need to bring that kind discussion into the forum here, or at least not in this topic.
Yes, I'd say that was pretty much the case in almost all of Europe in the interwar years, even in the UK, though to a lesser degree.
What I was really getting at (and dancing around) with my comment on politics was your comments on Reagan and "liberals". We don't need to bring that kind discussion into the forum here, or at least not in this topic.
Erik Boielle said,
I am not taking this bait and turning it into a current political discussion that will then get killed. I will talk about relevant politics in reference to the Alternate History of Twilight 2000, I hope this will be acceptable to the moderators.
Now under the above scenario, the Soviets take over Europe as the United States stands aside and stays out of the Twilight War which never happens. Maybe if France is really stupid, it will use its nukes to stop the Red Army when it comes to the French border. This of course is of no concern to the Americans as the French have once again gotten themselves in trouble and after losing so many American soldier's lives liberating France last time, the American public is in no mood to repeat that mistake, and who wants to sacrifice American Troops to save the "Krauts" anyway. The Poles are already oppressed so the Red Army invasion doesn't change that, and as the Eurofighter incident illustrates, "No good deed ever goes unpunished" So the US simply decides afterwards to stop doing the Europeans anymore "Good Deeds" instead the US readopts an isolationist foreign policy and pulls all of its troops into itself and becomes "Fortress America" The Russians experience no opposition from the United States in its attempt to occupy Europe. France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and other Western European countries become Soviet Republics as the US no longer cares. Since the US no longer cares, the Eastern European Satellites lose their status as independent nations and become Soviet Republics as well. It becomes madatory for all Europeans to learn Russian and after a few years all school cildren are taught in Russian and languages such as French and German are discouraged and no longer taught. The US does not care and does not protest. Later on the Soviet Union invades China, a small nuclear exchange occurs and China surrenders since the Soviets have plenty of nukes left when the Chinese use up all of theirs. Virtually all of China's cities are gone, and the Russians and conscripted Western Europeans move in to occupy the place. Japan then falls as it has no nuclear weapons and pacifism avails it not. The Russians then move into South East Asia using conscripted Chinese as cannon fodder. The Chinese set off alot of jungle booby traps ahead of the Russians and take enourmous casualities. The Expanded Soviet Union then invades India and accepts another small nuclear exchange before occupying India. The leaders of the USSR are well protected and don't care about what happens to ordinary citizens, they have secret police to keep them under control under rigid totalitarianism. The USSR invades Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. And the Americans don't care, they build coal gasification plants and extract oil from shale.
No American is willing to sacrifice his life for oil and they are glad the Europeans taught them this lesson before they fell to the Soviets.
Now tell me, does this satisfy you now? Europe would have fallen by themselves, their military was insufficient to distroy Russia by itself, and besides, as you say they were against interventionism, so they won't fight until the Red Army is at their border. France won't help Germany until Germany is occupied by the Russians and the Russians threaten France.
Since we are talking about the Twilight 2000 scenario, then I guess what would happen after Europe Unites against the US is that the US would pull its troops out of Ungrateful Europe, and the Soviet Union would wait for the US troops to pull out and take their short range missiles too, and then the Red Army and its Warsaw pact allies would invade Western Europe.
I am not taking this bait and turning it into a current political discussion that will then get killed. I will talk about relevant politics in reference to the Alternate History of Twilight 2000, I hope this will be acceptable to the moderators.
Now under the above scenario, the Soviets take over Europe as the United States stands aside and stays out of the Twilight War which never happens. Maybe if France is really stupid, it will use its nukes to stop the Red Army when it comes to the French border. This of course is of no concern to the Americans as the French have once again gotten themselves in trouble and after losing so many American soldier's lives liberating France last time, the American public is in no mood to repeat that mistake, and who wants to sacrifice American Troops to save the "Krauts" anyway. The Poles are already oppressed so the Red Army invasion doesn't change that, and as the Eurofighter incident illustrates, "No good deed ever goes unpunished" So the US simply decides afterwards to stop doing the Europeans anymore "Good Deeds" instead the US readopts an isolationist foreign policy and pulls all of its troops into itself and becomes "Fortress America" The Russians experience no opposition from the United States in its attempt to occupy Europe. France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, and other Western European countries become Soviet Republics as the US no longer cares. Since the US no longer cares, the Eastern European Satellites lose their status as independent nations and become Soviet Republics as well. It becomes madatory for all Europeans to learn Russian and after a few years all school cildren are taught in Russian and languages such as French and German are discouraged and no longer taught. The US does not care and does not protest. Later on the Soviet Union invades China, a small nuclear exchange occurs and China surrenders since the Soviets have plenty of nukes left when the Chinese use up all of theirs. Virtually all of China's cities are gone, and the Russians and conscripted Western Europeans move in to occupy the place. Japan then falls as it has no nuclear weapons and pacifism avails it not. The Russians then move into South East Asia using conscripted Chinese as cannon fodder. The Chinese set off alot of jungle booby traps ahead of the Russians and take enourmous casualities. The Expanded Soviet Union then invades India and accepts another small nuclear exchange before occupying India. The leaders of the USSR are well protected and don't care about what happens to ordinary citizens, they have secret police to keep them under control under rigid totalitarianism. The USSR invades Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. And the Americans don't care, they build coal gasification plants and extract oil from shale.
No American is willing to sacrifice his life for oil and they are glad the Europeans taught them this lesson before they fell to the Soviets.
Now tell me, does this satisfy you now? Europe would have fallen by themselves, their military was insufficient to distroy Russia by itself, and besides, as you say they were against interventionism, so they won't fight until the Red Army is at their border. France won't help Germany until Germany is occupied by the Russians and the Russians threaten France.
Similar threads
