The New Order: Last Days of Europe - An Axis Victory Cold War Mod for HoIIV
- Thread starter Lonely Knightess
- Start date
- Status
Did you install the mod 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...
chankljp
Donor
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?
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?
Strictly speaking, whilst yes both NDL and SLP Britain might want those territories, neither have the capability to defend them, third rate power that England is after the ECW. So the status quo is favourable at least until the English can scrap a half decent navy to enforce any sort of claim on the islands (which some US presidents might be willing to hand over in good faith, some not)
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.
I think those are the Kerguelen.
In other words, uninhabited islands, where all that grows is a Vitamin C-rich sort of salad.
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.
Last edited:
Yeah, you're more likely to get that sort of troubles from the French territories than anything.
Cayenne, Guadeloupe, and Martinique.
brooklyn99
Banned
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.
Last edited:
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.
Additionally, comparing Thatcher to Sablin is pretty nonsensical. Thatcher has a huge power fetish in TNO, and she ends up banning labor unions and eroding democracy to the point at which Britain is nothing more than a dictatorial police state masquerading as a supposed "great power." The only reason she even introduces milk is so that she can placate and control the lower class so that they won't protest as much when she takes away all of their institutional labour power. Furthermore, her vision for Britain's future is laughably impossible. Britain's time in the sun has long since passed, and the best hope for the country at this point is to accept its new role and work towards improving the lives of its citizens.
Finally, controlled opposition exists in all countries, as all countries will work towards upholding the hegemonic ideology above all others, while suppressing ideologies that are contradictory to the status quo. This is true for socialist countries, and it is true for capitalist countries. In neither will institutional power willingly shift to the other, as to do so would be to betray the very foundations and purpose of either country. This is the case with Sablin, and it is the case with all the right-wingers you mentioned.
Except, in the case of these right-wingers, their new societies are built on the foundation of anti-communist principles at best, and anti-democratic principles at worst. 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. 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.
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.
Also remember that Sablin will have an update to show more clearly why his LibSoc path isn't nice either.
Last edited:
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.
Incidentally, I don't like the U.S. party system in-game, because in my experience the initial setup of two parties divided between conservative and liberal wings tends to collapse into what is effectively a conservative and a liberal party over civil rights, yet the events and flavor keep assuming that there are actually four relevant parties instead of just two. In the Bennet game, as I said, the Republicans had a 2/3rds Senate majority, so they literally did not have to care about the Democrats. Logically, the R-D alliance should have been dissolved and the Democrats should have merged back with the remnants of the NPP-FR (the NPP-C had only a few Senators at most), because even if a "Democrat" was President, they clearly lacked any institutional power in the party. In all honesty I should have chosen LBJ as the President, because it was unrealistic even that early for the Democrat to win.
Likewise, in my Harrington game the NPP-FR had only a few Senators in office, while the NPP-C had a unilateral majority (but not supermajority). Yet events continued to assume that the NPP-FR had any sort of relevance whatsoever within the NPP, instead of being an irrelevant group of Southerners who would realistically have bolted for the R-Ds to have at least some kind of power and have any chance of achieving their goals. The Republicans might or might not have left the R-Ds, because frankly being necessary for the NPP-C to achieve supermajorities (or, earlier on, majorities) without actually being members of the party itself would rationally have been quite beneficial for them.
Dudes, there is a wholesome ending for George Wallace if he doesn't tries to end desegregation.
An Edit:
George Wallace wasn't a hardline segregationist, he basically run as a status quo candidate and lost, thus he increased his segregationist rhetoric to be elected on his second try.
All his acts in favour of segregation were made for political exibitionism and not aimed at segregation per se but for "states rights", that is why he's not as bad as Strom Thurmond.
An Edit:
George Wallace wasn't a hardline segregationist, he basically run as a status quo candidate and lost, thus he increased his segregationist rhetoric to be elected on his second try.
All his acts in favour of segregation were made for political exibitionism and not aimed at segregation per se but for "states rights", that is why he's not as bad as Strom Thurmond.
Last edited:
Helmut Schmidt, first wilful step on the long and fraughtful road to Germany's first genuine democracy in decades, would fare more poorly than Lazar "State-Mandated Girlfriends Make My Man Steely" Kaganovich in a morality scale that judges leaders primarily by their state's susceptibility to fascist/reactionary thought. It's not the only issue I have with that criterion, but it is among the most representative examples of its flaws I can think of.
Last edited:
What 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.
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
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.
- Status