Having Adolf as a Fuhrer should include severe penalties for Germany

[Markiss]

Realistic or not, if the US does not enter the war relatively promptly, it is game ending. That is the problem. Does anyone really want to invest a month in a match only to have it end that way? And it is completely random, you get lucky, you win.
Unless you are playing Sugar, but do I really have to say that?

[Dmondragon75]

In my game against Sugar I was ignoring his diplo investment on USA soposing ingame mechanics&scripts wouldnt allow much of Nazi diplo success afterPearl Harbour. Ofcoz, it was my mistake not to read manual properly and I cant blame anyone but me for that.
But since this game simulates historical events during the WW2 scripts should be changed defo in update

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

Everything the Nazi's represented was nauseating to most Americans. The chance of Hitler influencing American diplomacy in mid 1941 is zero.

It's not like they would have Hitler doing radio ads. It's giving money to various groups that would want to stay out of the war. I thought that would have been pretty obvious.

[Dorky8]

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo



It's not like they would have Hitler doing radio ads. It's giving money to various groups that would want to stay out of the war. I thought that would have been pretty obvious.

I thought it would be pretty obvious that the US wasn't going to stay out of the European war after Pearl Harbor. Especially after Hitler declared war on them. If you want to go with the Nazi funded US anti war conspiracy theory have fun.


I just prefer games that don't involve uber diplomacy, if others want to play that way I don't care.

If they would put a comment section before PBEM games start one could say no Major Country Diplo it would help find suitable opponents.

[Ktonos]

Buying US chits can be translated in many ways. I personally see it as investing towards US appeasement policy. Eg, less slave labor or a bit gentler treatment of populations in occupied countries. Meaning less MPPs, less US mob.

But, indeed, what is the disagreement here? As to which option is default? Diplomacy or not? Just agree to click that option off with your opponent.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

ORIGINAL: Goodmongo



It's not like they would have Hitler doing radio ads. It's giving money to various groups that would want to stay out of the war. I thought that would have been pretty obvious.

I thought it would be pretty obvious that the US wasn't going to stay out of the European war after Pearl Harbor. Especially after Hitler declared war on them. If you want to go with the Nazi funded US anti war conspiracy theory have fun.


I just prefer games that don't involve uber diplomacy, if others want to play that way I don't care.

If they would put a comment section before PBEM games start one could say no Major Country Diplo it would help find suitable opponents.

The choice after PH is what to do with Germany. And that choice was dependent on the actions by FDR in 1939-1941. If you go look up the Gallup polls from that time period you will notice that FDR did a very successful campaign in getting the american people to actually want to go to war with Germany even WITHOUT a PH.

So the influence would not be from PH on but in the 1939 -1941 period BEFORE PH. The US would not have used their DD's to help escort British ships. There would be no Reuben James incident. There would have been pressure and MAYBE even FDR wouldn't have been elected in 1940.

Now PH happens but the US was not protecting British convoys. Hitler does not need to DOW the US as he now has a real option of the US staying out of the war in Europe. The US concentrates just against Japan. Remember Churchill convinced FDR to make Germany a priority and not Japan. All of that changes.

How you play or how those you play against want to play is up to you and them. I'm simply arguing that the option to influnce the US to stay out of the war against Germany is historically reasonable. It is not some fantasy and was a real option that Germany never fully pursued in real life.

[Dorky8]

[:'(]

Americans despised Hitler and the Nazi's. Americans were isolationists because of WW1 where people like my Grandfather returned from combat and described the horrors. If you would like to go on and think the Nazi's could have significantly impacted US opinion you go ahead.

In this game it is POSSIBLE to drive US & USSR military spending to zero via major country diplomacy. If you think that it is realistic that in 1940-41 the US & USSR would spend 0 on military spending I'm guessing you have a tooth under your pillow.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

[:'(]

Americans despised Hitler and the Nazi's. Americans were isolationists because of WW1 where people like my Grandfather returned from combat and described the horrors. If you would like to go on and think the Nazi's could have significantly impacted US opinion you go ahead.

That is a non-sequitur argument. You are NOT selling Hitler. You are selling isolation and not getting involved in a European land war. The diplomacy chit represents money going to various groups in the US such as the one led by Charles Lindbergh. In fact Germany would try to influence the 1940 election and not have FDR reelected. Your argument that Americans wouldn't support Hitler is missing the point totally.

You then compound the error by using another fallacy in argument by equating a game mechanic (MPP) to military spending. So how many infantry and tank division did the US spend and create before PH in 1941 historically?

[Dorky8]

Hey look there's the tooth fairy

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

Hey look there's the tooth fairy

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

I see. You don't want to debate facts. You prefer just to troll.

[Dorky8]

I'm not trolling your entire argument lacks any logic at all. How do you ague it makes sense that the game allows the Axis to push US & USSR military spending (research & troop purchases if you like) to ZERO. Then you argue what military spending is.

The people who didn't want to so to war were not Nazi sympathizers they were isolationists. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US was going to war against Japan & Germany.

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

I'm not trolling your entire argument lacks any logic at all. How do you ague it makes sense that the game allows the Axis to push US & USSR military spending (research & troop purchases if you like) to ZERO. Then you argue what military spending is.

The people who didn't want to so to war were not Nazi sympathizers they were isolationists. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US was going to war against Japan & Germany.

You are using the argument that on 12/7/1941 the American people wanted to get into the war against both Germany and Japan. Well yeah. On that day and even for months before they felt that way. But that is like trying to influence the US starting in October 1941 in the game. It's TOO LATE.

You 100% ignore what might have happened if FDR lost in 1940. Why is this? What would have happened if FDR lost in 1940 and therefore never tried to help the UK? THAT is what the diplomacy chits represent. Not that the US citizens become Hitler lovers. It represents a change in foreign policy due to a change in the election. Or at least pressure on FDR to NOT do the things he did.

Now if the US was 100% isolationist then why would you expect huge military spending increases? Heck even with FDR there weren't large increases except for the navy. The army and army air force in late 1941 was inadequate and extremely small.

[Dmondragon75]

Public would not allow USA president to keep isolationists afloat with UK /USSR in a real danger of falling, USA was much more democratic those days

[Goodmongo]

ORIGINAL: Dmondragon75

Public would not allow USA president to keep isolationists afloat with UK /USSR in a real danger of falling, USA was much more democratic those days

May I suggest you go back and read the Gallup polls. The polls can be found online. They tracked the US public opinion about the war and intervention from early 1939 before the war all the way through November 1941 before PH. By the time of the December poll we were already at war so the question wasn't asked.

Looking at the polls provides proof and not just opinion on what the US public wanted or may have wanted.

[Dmondragon75]

Not that much into the USA pre war history, still I think that public opinion would drastically change with axis succes in Pacific and European theatre on allied side ofcoz. USA passivity would necessary lead to the enormous strenghtening of Japans primary ally-Germany which USA would never allow

[xwormwood]

ORIGINAL: Ktonos


The second thing was the Germany and Japan had the tripartite pact which was a defensive pact primarily directed against the USA. Despite Japan bombing Pearl Harbor, it was the US that declared war the next day, activating the pact. This probably was just a justification for reason #1, but in any case things aren't as simple as "he was stupid he did a blunder".

Nope. It was a another gamble from Hitler. He hoped that if he declared war on the USA, Japan would do him the same favour in regard of declaring war on the USSR.

Hitler was a high risk gambler. Declaring war against the USA gave him a short term advantage ("happy days" for the german Subs) and the chance, that Japan might draw russian resources toward the far east. Maybe he even knew in late 1941 that the jig was up, so he went all in.

[Dorky8]

High risk gambler?


Hitler was a psychotic murderer and a piss poor military leader. His decisions led to the death of millions of people including innocent women and children. In the end some of the greatest harm he did was to the German people who have had to live since the end of the war in the shadow of his despicable acts.

[demyansk]

Also, Hitler believed in the stars and the fact that Japan never lost in history. The fact that he declared war on USA was a real big mistake. It probably would of eventually happened, nevertheless, the leaders of this crack pot regime all deserved to be institutionalized. The only one with some reasonable talent was Speer, who was convicted of war crimes, and cheated death by taking blame for atrocities. Even though his underling, Sauckel hung for similar circumstances. Crazy time and criminals of the highest order.

[Ktonos]

ORIGINAL: xwormwood


Nope. It was a another gamble from Hitler. He hoped that if he declared war on the USA, Japan would do him the same favour in regard of declaring war on the USSR.

Hitler was a high risk gambler. Declaring war against the USA gave him a short term advantage ("happy days" for the german Subs) and the chance, that Japan might draw russian resources toward the far east. Maybe he even knew in late 1941 that the jig was up, so he went all in.

The message you quoted had #1 reason the fact that DoWing USA would allow subs "happy days".

I doubt Hitler or anyone in the High Command DoWed USA to have a glimpse of hope that Japan would DoW USSR in return. This was never never happening, Japan had a non aggression with USSR, but mostly had no interest, none at all, to open a second front North of China.

Yes, Hitler was a high risk gambler. Totally agree. But no chance he Dowed USA in hopes of Japan dowing USSR.

[Ktonos]

ORIGINAL: Dorky8

High risk gambler?


Hitler was a psychotic murderer and a piss poor military leader. His decisions led to the death of millions of people including innocent women and children. In the end some of the greatest harm he did was to the German people who have had to live since the end of the war in the shadow of his despicable acts.

A psychotic murderer and a high risk gambler aren't mutually exclusive characteristics. In fact I'd say they combine pretty well.