Diplomacy ? - East vs West

[Edwin P.]

If Soviet Russia and the UK both expend diplomacy chits on Greece or Spain and this country joins the Allies, which country will it ally itself with?

The Soviets or the British Commonwealth? as both countries had strong communist/socialist/anarchist movements.

[JerseyJohn]

They were both blatantly anti-communist. No chance they'd have joined the Soviets. None!

Britain, in addition to the movements you've mentioned, also had a very strong fascist movement, which included it's abdicated King Edward and renowned General Fuller! The British fascists were drawn to the style of Mussolini, who between the wars had a brisk correspondence with Winston Churchill.

Greece, if anything, was a monarchy with fascist leanings. At the very time Mussolini attacked the place they were near to signing a pact with Germany along the lines Bulgaria had agreed upon.

I think I'd go beyond saying the Soviets had strong communist / socialist movemts! They had Joe Stalin and Yvrenti Beria -- :eek: Anarchists in the USSR generally practiced those ideas in the gulags.

[Edwin P.]

What if Franco had been overthrown by those he defeated in the Spanish Civil War?

[JerseyJohn]

There were three factions, the fascists, the monarchists and the communists. In the end, Franco had the best of everything, German volunteers and aircraft, Italian volunteers and firearms, and the support of the Catholic Church. Despite all of which there were many Spaniards who would have been glad to see him toppled.

The thing with the Soviet Union under Stalin, is he did nothing to export socialism! Countries that had communist factions did so without Soviet aid or encouragement. The American communists started out admiring him and by the middle of the purges were completely disgusted with everything Stalin stood for.

Some historians say the American communists supported the war because we were allied with the USSR. That's McCarthy era revisionism, Moscow didn't have much international influence at the time, those Americans supported the war because their country was fighting in it, pure and simple.

By the late thirties I don't think any country saw much future in throwing in with the USSR. There were countries that did have communist movements, but I don't think any of them were very influenced by Moscow -- that didn't really start till the late 40s.

-- Spain? No, I don't think even the communists would have gone along with the USSR. Even if they'd become a communist regime, the UK was investing heavily in Spanish mineral development, as were German companies.

It's true that Stalin did send some volunteers and equipment to Spain during the Civil War. The thing is, Germany and Italy sent a lot more.

[Edwin P.]

True, but what if Moscow gave substantial support to the communists of Greece and helped them to overthrow the government? With enough money (ie MPPs) you can buy anything?

An interesting article on the history of the Greek Communist Party during the Period of WWII and its aftermath:

The Greek Civil War

As for Soviet Aid to Spain, it was too little and had to travel around Italy and Germany. Moreover, the Spanish government and the largely rural populace with their attacks on the Church.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks for the link, it looks very interesting, I really am grateful for it. You'll notice it says, The Greek Civil War, 1943 to 1949!

The war had a big hand in altering the equation all over Europe. Hitler and Mussolini created a lot of Communists!

If we're going to delve into what-ifs anything is possible, of course. But historically, there weren't many countries in 1939 that were enthraled with Stalin's way of doing things.

So, if you're talking communist takeovers, you're really talking about the kind of communism that Tito had in Yugoslavia. He accepted aid from anyone who would give it to him, he got it from both Britain and the USSR during the war. But when the war ended, Soviet troops approaching his borders found their own guns trained on them. Stalin didn't push the issue because other things were in the balance, such as settling into agreed upon line in Germany.

I honestly can't see any country voluntarily throwing in with Stalin's USSR. If you're going to make it a what-if in this sense, I think the first one would need to be, the USSR of the 20s and 30s without Comrade Stalin.

[Bill101]

John, there were far more than "three factions, the fascists, the monarchists and the communists" in Spain in the 1930s.

If there had only been three as you suggest then the republicans would probably have won, whereas instead they were divided into Anarchists (numerically probably the most significant), Socialists (not far behind), Catalan and Basque Nationalists, those loyal to the republican constitution, the communists of the POUM, and last (and at the start of the war probably the least significant) the Communist Party aligned with Moscow.

Franco's side also had more divisions than you suggest, but he managed to coerce them into co-operating more successfully.

[Edwin P.]

Basically, I think that the Republicans could have won if Stalin had sent me a lot more aid and the Germans and Italians sent a lot less aid to the Fascists. This would have probably resulted in a government that leaned more towards Moscow than London or Germany.

The problem is that there is no prewar phase in SC to reflict the diplomatic manuevering that went on in the pre-war years.

Although it will not be included in SC1 it might be interesting if each major player had access to 3 (out of 10 per major player) randomly selected strategic options at the start of the game (on a strategic option only turn) and could select "one" and only one of thse to execute if they choose to in a Pre-War Game Phase.

One of these for the Russians could be:

Stalin orders Massive Airlift of Military Aid to Spanish Republicans during Spanish Civil War. Effect: Fascists defeated and Neutral Spanish Government becomes Russia Leaning. Cost: Russia MPP Bank reduced by 500MPPs.

[Korut Zelva]

Jesus, I've been reading your suggestions for weeks Edwin

I've come to the conclusion that is you ever design a game, it will the most complicated game mankind ever made and the instruction manual will weight 2 tons

I'd rather have players design their own what-if scenarios than overload the game with too many ahistorical event and miscellaneous intricacies

[Edwin P.]

Good point, but I should point out that I am againt bridges (at this scale), stacking, and mulberry bushes. What I am for is a stronger and more unpredicatable game vs the AI or Human players.

I was wondering what would happen if both countries on the same side, tried to influence a netural country, especially in multiplayer games where the allied/axis powers are controlled by many players.

[Exel]

Another question that falls under this same topic is whether or not the Allies and the USSR can go to war against each other. It was a very real possibility in reality before Barbarossa and it would be nice to have a chance for it to happen in the game as well. It could create some interesting scenarios. Hubert, what say you?

[JerseyJohn]

Bill,

I agree, there were many different factions. I was generalizing for game purposes, left -- center -- right, and lumped the Republicans with the Monarchists in the center.

By being so splintered, the groups in the center made it easier for the fascists to win with their massive assistance from Germany and Italy.

The foreign volunteers, such as The American Abraham Lincoln Brigade, were usually generalized as fighting for the communists and later, in the McCarthy era, many of their members were placed on blacklists though they never considered themselves communists!

Here's a link on them, aptly titled, The Wrong Place at the Wrong Time!

< Abraham Lincoln Brigaede >

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

If Soviet Russia and the UK both expend diplomacy chits on Greece or Spain and this country joins the Allies, which country will it ally itself with?

Currently, each minor can have a major parent set... so in this example Greece would most likely be set with the UK as its Allied parent while Germany would be its default Axis parent. So in most cases it would not make much sense for the USSR to expend diplomacy chits on Greece unless it just wanted to help the UK accelerate Greece's join percentage.

Now off hand I'm not sure how this could be useful, but with the current system it is possible (although additional changes/limitations might be applied) and depending on what associated scripts come with the campaign it could very well be (in some situations) desirable.

[With Clusters]

If all the major powers have individual victory conditions (whatever those might be) in a multi-player game, it might become worthwhile to allow more competetion between players on the same 'team'.

You're side might win, but which player wins more? It would make it interesting as each player decides when and how much to support their 'ally' - enough to say damage the enemy and stay in the fight, but not enough to rack up more victory 'points', perhaps? Or even perhaps feel called upon to undercut an ally in some fashion.

If the diplomatic rules would allow it, they could also encourage more if this type of competition. Veiying for influence with neutral nations, not just with the enemy but with your own allies, would be a great way to reflect this.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Exel:

Another question that falls under this same topic is whether or not the Allies and the USSR can go to war against each other. It was a very real possibility in reality before Barbarossa and it would be nice to have a chance for it to happen in the game as well. It could create some interesting scenarios. Hubert, what say you?

Sure if you as the active ally declare war on the USSR before it becomes fully active as an allied combatant. Same for Germany wrt Italy.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel:

Another question that falls under this same topic is whether or not the Allies and the USSR can go to war against each other. It was a very real possibility in reality before Barbarossa and it would be nice to have a chance for it to happen in the game as well. It could create some interesting scenarios. Hubert, what say you?

Sure if you as the active ally declare war on the USSR before it becomes fully active as an allied combatant. Same for Germany wrt Italy. </font>