Did you install the mod via the steam workshop and used the paradox launcher?Also sorry to ask again, but can someone help with the mod. I keep crashing after I select a country and it loads and then immediatly crashing.
Steam. Tried with opengl. And can-t remember the password for my discord.Did you use install via the steam workshop and used the paradox launcher?
My advice would be to ask about your specific issue in the TNO discord.
If you can't use discord maybe ask in the TNO reddit? I mean, I think that in the discord you'll likely find a solution faster & more likely to find help from people who developed the mod than discord, but if you can't use discord then maybe try that...Steam. Tried with opengl. And can-t remember the password for my discord.
Moving onto something else, here is a topic that I have been wondering about: The status of the former British Overseas Territories.
As we all know, in the TNO world, after the fall of England and the subsequent collapse of the British Empire under the Nazi jackboot in the aftermath of Operation Sealion, the Americans took over most of the remaining British Overseas Territories such as the Falklands, St. Helena, Ascension Island, South Georgia, etc, etc. With US military bases being established on most of them.
I assume that legally speaking, these former British territories have a similar status as Puerto Rico, in that they are considered as unincorporated territory of the United States. Meaning that their population are not considered as American citizens, they cannot vote in presidential elections, nor do they have full representation in the US Congress.
In a scenario in which England, and later a reunified United Kingdom joins OFN, I wonder if they are going to have something to say about this. Sure, an England under Jellicoe's NDL might be willing to relinquish their claim to the overseas territories, while Wilson's SLP would have no interests in resorting the legacy of British imperialism. But nonetheless, the people living in those territories have strong cultural and ancestral ties to Britain, and I imagine that the English and later British government would want to see their people being treated fairly. Perhaps similar to the debate on Puerto Rico. London might partition for Washington to grant the territories statehood within the Union?
I think those are the Kerguelen.I don't know it this has been patched, but somehow the Free France owns an island or two south of Madagascar. I can only surmise the last known communications these Island received were De Gaulle's OTL broadcast.
The only U.S. territory where the inhabitants are not considered to be U.S. citizens is American Samoa, and that's because the inhabitants don't want to be U.S. citizens. For every other territory, the inhabitants are citizens, aside from recently immigrated foreign nationals who haven't finished becoming citizens yet (or who do not wish to become citizens). By the 1960s, the same would likely apply in these former British territories as well.I assume that legally speaking, these former British territories have a similar status as Puerto Rico, in that they are considered as unincorporated territory of the United States. Meaning that their population are not considered as American citizens, they cannot vote in presidential elections, nor do they have full representation in the US Congress.
Yeah, you're more likely to get that sort of troubles from the French territories than anything.The only U.S. territory where the inhabitants are not considered to be U.S. citizens is American Samoa, and that's because the inhabitants don't want to be U.S. citizens. For every other territory, the inhabitants are citizens, aside from recently immigrated foreign nationals who haven't finished becoming citizens yet (or who do not wish to become citizens). By the 1960s, the same would likely apply in these former British territories as well.
It's extremely unlikely that any of the former British overseas territories would be granted statehood in any scenario, simply because they are all very low population; the Falklands, for instance, only have 3 000 inhabitants today, and many of the others have no permanent inhabitants at all. The latter obviously are never going to become states (do penguins need Senators?), while the former have no real chance because of the high degree of distortion that would cause in the Senate. I doubt most of the inhabitants would really care that much, either; if you look at the other "small" inhabited U.S. territories (which are all much larger than the British territories, in terms of population), there usually isn't much of a statehood movement going on.
In Gumilyov's case, it's the unconventional-ness of his Ultranat ideology. There is a strange kernel of wholesomeness to his Eurasianist ideology. He is very accepting of the indigenous minority groups that inhabit Russia i.e. Tatars, Bashkirs, Komi, as well as the ethnicities within the areas where he seeks to expand his Eurasian state (Chechens, Kazakhs, Mongols) and he strives to build a society that is fair and inclusive towards them, coming to blows with the more paternalistic and chauvinist members of his clique. For example, there is an event where a school teacher is sorting a conflict between a Russian and a Bashkir kid, lecturing them of the importance in putting aside their prejudicial attitudes and in appreciating each other as human beings (before then going on about how they would need to unite together to stand strong against the evil Germanics). Besides, Like his peers; Velimir and Yazov, Gumilyov does have an extreme hatred of the Germans, or "Romano-Germanics" as he calls them, yet it is implied that, unlike the other two, he doesn't exactly wish to march all the way to Germany proper and subsequently send the world to certain nuclear doom. Rather he wishes to push all the way to the Polish-Ukrainian border, as he doesn't view any territory beyond as even worth conquering into his Eurasian state. So in comparison to other warmongering Ultranats like Schorner, Yazov and Velimir, Gumilyov is certainly more level-headed.why people stan fascist bastards like Matkovsky or Gumilov is beyond me
The reason why people dislike Bennett is because he represents the character of the "white moderate," someone who believes that there's a middle ground between segregation and civil rights. While he's nowhere near as bad as Wallace, he represents a force that is much more present and active in suppressing the struggles of liberatory movements in today's world, thus he absorbs a lot of hatred for that.In Gumilyov's case, it's the unconventional-ness of his Ultranat ideology. There is a strange kernel of wholesomeness to his Eurasianist ideology. He is very accepting of the indigenous minority groups that inhabit Russia i.e. Tatars, Bashkirs, Komi, as well as the ethnicities within the areas where he seeks to expand his Eurasian state (Chechens, Kazakhs, Mongols) and he strives to build a society that is fair and inclusive towards them, coming to blows with the more paternalistic and chauvinist members of his clique. For example, there is an event where a school teacher is sorting a conflict between a Russian and a Bashkir kid, lecturing them of the importance in putting aside their prejudicial attitudes and in appreciating each other as human beings (before then going on about how they would need to unite together to stand strong against the evil Germanics). Besides, Like his peers; Velimir and Yazov, Gumilyov does have an extreme hatred of the Germans, or "Romano-Germanics" as he calls them, yet it is implied that, unlike the other two, he doesn't exactly wish to march all the way to Germany proper and subsequently send the world to certain nuclear doom. Rather he wishes to push all the way to the Polish-Ukrainian border, as he doesn't view any territory beyond as even worth conquering into his Eurasian state. So in comparison to other warmongering Ultranats like Schorner, Yazov and Velimir, Gumilyov is certainly more level-headed.
Of course, focusing on these facts, it is easy to ignore that Gumilyov's state is Iron-Cladly stratified dictatorship, with the lower classes taxed to hell, in order to stop social mobility, and with small business owners being actively undermined as Gumilyov hates the Middle-Class being a thing. It is similar to how some stan Gus Hall because of civil rights and giving the Feds the middle finger, even though he will end up demolishing America's standing in the world.
Inversely, there is a fairly common animus attitude to Wallace Bennett, for his indecisiveness on the Civil Rights question, even though he is capable of passing effective legislation on that and can make the OFN a more prosperous and powerful force, with his path being generally the most safe route and least likely to go awry. Likewise for Thatcher, who presence causes everyone to go "REEEEEE MILK SNATCHER!!!!!!!", even though TNOtl she introduces milk to schools (and besides, OTL the policy of withdrawing free milk from students started with a Labour administration under Harold Wilson, who is the LibSoc leader of Britain) and her path is the surest way for Britain to become as powerful as it's potential allows and ascend to a second-rate power that approaches anywhere close to the country's pre-WW2 status. Of course, at the end of TNO1, Thatcher seems to be letting her success go to her head and display more authoritarian sentiments, yet that alone is small potatoes in a world like TNO, and hell, even Sablin in his Libsoc path only allows those more ideologically related to him to partake in politics, which is basically controlled opposition. Yet Libsoc Sablin is frequently fawned over within the fandom. Granted, I am very much not an adherent of Socialism and I see Sablin to be an overrated and overhyped unifier. I personally prefer Mikhail ll, Petlin and Vladimir lll as better and more wholesome paths, whose journeys are more touching.
The same can be said about historical socialist states by just replacing anti-communist with anti-capitalist so you should also take a careful look at Sablin and accept that he is in the same position.Even if the leaders you mentioned decide to steer away from some of the anti-democratic aspects of their regime, the taint of reactionary ideology is still there as a powerful threat. I think history has shown it to the case that movements that represent broadly the cause of "anti-communism," whether they be the eastern european liberation movements or the White Movement in Russia or both political parties in the United States, even if those individual movements are fighting for something that on principle is "good," it can lead down a dark road in which all policies and ideas that challenge the liberal or conservative status quo are rejected viciously.These movements also often lead down the path of fascism.
Of course, that depends very much on how you play him. You can start your Presidency by telling the Mormon Presidency (that is, the leaders of the Mormon church) that you're going to advance civil rights, and they can get stuffed if they don't like it, then basically let LBJ run your civil rights legislation from start to finish. That's exactly what I did in my Bennet game (partially because the Republicans had a supermajority by themselves in the Senate, so realistically LBJ could have forced Bennet to go along with strong civil rights legislation anyway). In that case, it's hard to see him as being particularly bad; he advances civil rights, turns the OFN into an economic alliance between equals instead of America and pals, and maintains a sense of stability and order within the country to avoid backlashes against these advances. Is it as satisfying as creating the Great Society as LBJ or turning America into a Scandinavian welfare state as Harrington? No, but it's a solidly positive playthrough from the point of view of actually advancing the material and social conditions of the people of the OFN.The reason why people dislike Bennett is because he represents the character of the "white moderate," someone who believes that there's a middle ground between segregation and civil rights. While he's nowhere near as bad as Wallace, he represents a force that is much more present and active in suppressing the struggles of liberatory movements in today's world, thus he absorbs a lot of hatred for that.
These movements also often lead down the path of fascism. I think that's something that should be taken into deep consideration when weighing the moral value of Sablin and other socialists versus these reactionary and liberal movements.
Ok that one is pretty funny.Lazar "State-Mandated Girlfriends Make My Man Steely" Kaganovich
Matryoshka, my comrade who like matryoshka dolls enought to put matryoshka in your nameWhat are your opinions on Zhukov's successors? I think they all have interesting benefits and downsides, but I personally think Ryzhkov is the best option for a successful and independent Russia.
I think Akhromeyev is morally a decent enough successor, but I don't really see him as "cooler" than the other, more democratic ones. I'm of the opinion that democracy is pretty epic, all things considered.Matryoshka, my comrade who like matryoshka dolls enought to put matryoshka in your name
I like Sergey Akhromeyev for all the wrong reasons
Do you see, when I'm playing as Zhukov I don't take him as much serious as I do with other characters, with Zhukov in power the only thing I want is to go as much "Red alert 2" as possible, thus I get Akhromeyev as his sucessors, for the childish reason that a autsoc USSR under him is "cooler" than a demsoc one