Author Topic: Comments Thread  (Read 17062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Forbidden

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • T
  • Posts: 67
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2019, 01:17:55 AM »
I just hope we don't see the "evacuate from Sol" trend pop up again. It's a recurring trend in Steve's campaigns where if multiple factions are in Sol, they'll have a big war, then realize that having their main population and most of their industry and shipyards in Sol is a terrible weakness, so some of them start evacuating, and thus don't try to start anything while they're proceeding with the evacuation. The problem being that an evacuation on this scale takes forever and thus by the time they're done Steve has usually stopped the campaign because nothing was happening anymore.

This scenario looks different in that they're not all on the same planet, at least. Different systems would still be much more defensible but it's not quite as suicidal as a war when they're all in orbit of Earth.

True, but this campaign is based on the Solarian Empires campaign and it was pretty clear there that it was what Steve was going for. I guess we'll see how it goes.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2019, 04:29:17 PM »
Given Earth's apparently fairly trotskyist outlook (or maybe just aggressive expansionist outlook which has never really been present in real communist countries so I'll go with trotskyist) it would be kind of dumb for the other nations to just let themselves get picked off one by one. If earth becomes belligerant or a very clear threat to the rest of the solar system I have to imagine they would present a united front to them, so I don't think it'll be as easy as people are making out.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2019, 05:06:01 PM »
'Agressive expansionist' and 'something communist countries have never done.' Right.

Leaving the other politics around, I can easily believe the other countries in the campaign would let the communists eat up one or two other nations before they grow wise regarding the matter. Historically that sort of thing tended to happen, especially when they didn't like who got annexed.
 

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2019, 06:50:23 PM »
'Agressive expansionist' and 'something communist countries have never done.' Right.

Leaving the other politics around, I can easily believe the other countries in the campaign would let the communists eat up one or two other nations before they grow wise regarding the matter. Historically that sort of thing tended to happen, especially when they didn't like who got annexed.

Feel free to provide examples.

On the second thing, generally not when the parties involved were major powers. In the real world we have hundreds of nations and someone gobbling up a minor irrelevant country is permitted if a power doesn't have an appetite for war. But when dealing with major geopolitical threats annexing other powerful nations that make them a gigantic threat, other countries tend to react to that.
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #64 on: June 08, 2019, 03:29:35 AM »
The Soviet Union in WW2 taking the Baltic States and chunks of Poland and Finland, following WW2 forcibly establishing and maintaining control over Eastern Europe, China taking over Tibet, North Korea invading South Korea, North Vietnam invading South Vietnam, the many, many Soviet funded and supported rebellions and revolutionaries throughout the world, often with the express purpose of establishing a government supportive of and subservient to the USSR...

No, communist countries have never been expansionist.

I can't easily recall instances where large nations fought and the loser was flat out annexed, but it was very common for such wars to conclude with the loser ceding territory and thus economic power to the victor, whom absorbed that and grew stronger. Admittedly not a situation easily established here in this game due to the game mechanics.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #65 on: June 08, 2019, 05:37:30 AM »
following WW2 forcibly establishing and maintaining control over Eastern Europe,
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).

North Korea invading South Korea [...] North Vietnam invading South Vietnam,
Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.

the many, many Soviet funded and supported rebellions and revolutionaries throughout the world, often with the express purpose of establishing a government supportive of and subservient to the USSR...
Pics or it didn't happen.

Most "Communist plots" only existed in American conspiracy theories; the Soviets were exceedingly fair-weather friends to anti-colonial groups. (Also, too, most colonial governments that those groups were revolting against were Antebellum Dixie style slave-trading, plantation owning swine, who absolutely deserved everything the revolutionaries could do to them, but that's another story.)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 11649
  • Thanked: 20349 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #66 on: June 08, 2019, 05:46:51 AM »
Slight delay in the campaign while I work through my addiction to Battletech (new expansion). Should be back to normal in a few days :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Bremen, Scandinavian

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #67 on: June 08, 2019, 06:48:30 AM »
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).

I'll give this is the case for Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, but Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland? The Soviet Union was very eager to reestablish the hegemony held by Tsarist Russia over Eastern Europe, even in the Balkans where they failed because the communist government there rejected their influence.

And speaking of overtly genocidal aggressors, the USSR. Just ask the Ukraine in particular.

Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.

Yes, that is aggression. The partition had already occurred, and diplomatic answers to that issue were available. Not easy and likely to take a long time to be effective, but available. Especially since you should not make the mistake of presuming that there was only one foreign power involved in those partitions or suppressing inconvenient plebiscites. South Vietnam and South Korea would be just as justified to strike out against the Soviet backed North Vietnam and North Korea under that assumption.

And no, the United States of America were not the aggressors in the American Civil War because they shot back against the Confederacy. The Confederacy was the aggressor because the negotiated peace that was available, the Missouri compromise would've eventually resulted in a delegated plebiscite that would decide the matter. It's just that the slave states had realized that the situation was such that the climate in most of the USA was not supportive of the sort of agriculture that supports slave based production practices, which meant that by the time the plebiscite would be called they'd lose the vote.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Most "Communist plots" only existed in American conspiracy theories; the Soviets were exceedingly fair-weather friends to anti-colonial groups. (Also, too, most colonial governments that those groups were revolting against were Antebellum Dixie style slave-trading, plantation owning swine, who absolutely deserved everything the revolutionaries could do to them, but that's another story.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_resistance_in_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Malaysia_(1968%E2%80%9389)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Sarawak (specific component of the insurgency in Malaysia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_uprising_of_1935 (the ComIntern supporting the uprising were primarily led by the USSR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Uprising (ComIntern influencing the revolutionaries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand


Right, there were no communist plots to establish USSR backed and friendly governments. And this is just the USSR backed ones, other communist governments also did a few. That the targets of the rebellions in question were scum does not mean that the USSR did not back them with the expectation of not getting a loyal puppet/friendly allied government in return, along with certain other benefits you usually get from grateful governments you are keeping in power.
 
The following users thanked this post: serger

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #68 on: June 08, 2019, 07:37:12 AM »
So, how is it an example of aggression for a state to conquer territory in a defensive war? Especially against an overtly genocidal aggressor (and make no mistake, the states added to the Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe absolutely were active, aggressive belligerents in the Great Patriotic War, not mere helpless victims).
And speaking of overtly genocidal aggressors, the USSR. Just ask the Ukraine in particular.
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.

Also bad examples. If it is aggression to defend one's country against partition by an unfriendly foreign power, which suppresses the popular plebiscites that the constitution holds should decide the question, then by the same standard the Free States would have been the aggressor in the War of Southern Treason, for shooting back when the Slave States seized federal mints and arsenals. And that is clearly an absurd proposition.

Yes, that is aggression. The partition had already occurred, and diplomatic answers to that issue were available. Not easy and likely to take a long time to be effective, but available. Especially since you should not make the mistake of presuming that there was only one foreign power involved in those partitions or suppressing inconvenient plebiscites. South Vietnam and South Korea would be just as justified to strike out against the Soviet backed North Vietnam and North Korea under that assumption.

And no, the United States of America were not the aggressors in the American Civil War because they shot back against the Confederacy. The Confederacy was the aggressor because the negotiated peace that was available, the Missouri compromise would've eventually resulted in a delegated plebiscite that would decide the matter. It's just that the slave states had realized that the situation was such that the climate in most of the USA was not supportive of the sort of agriculture that supports slave based production practices, which meant that by the time the plebiscite would be called they'd lose the vote.
But this is precisely the situation in both Korea and Viet Nam as well - the South had a diplomatic option available, it's just that this option involved a plebiscite that they knew they would lose. Because, like Dixie, they were run by slave-trading swine who were generally hated, and relied on Japanese war criminals and (in the case of RVN) river pirates and heroin smugglers to prop up their regimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_resistance_in_Chile_(1973%E2%80%931990)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Malaysia_(1968%E2%80%9389)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Sarawak (specific component of the insurgency in Malaysia)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_uprising_of_1935 (the ComIntern supporting the uprising were primarily led by the USSR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Uprising (ComIntern influencing the revolutionaries)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand

Right, there were no communist plots to establish USSR backed and friendly governments. And this is just the USSR backed ones, other communist governments also did a few. That the targets of the rebellions in question were scum does not mean that the USSR did not back them with the expectation of not getting a loyal puppet/friendly allied government in return, along with certain other benefits you usually get from grateful governments you are keeping in power.
Every single insurgency on that list - without exception - was either countries run by rural kakistocracies that make Ancien Regime France look progressive by comparison (and are you really going to argue that the French Revolution was a foreign plot against the Bourbon dynasty?), or against explicitly, avowedly Fascist governments. Calling support for insurgencies against avowed Fascists "aggression" is like calling the Free French terrorists and claiming that supporting the Free French was an act of aggression on part of the United States during WWII.

(On a side note, half of these were barely even Communist insurgencies; it's just that they were fighting against a regime that was backed by the US, so they went to the other guys when the time came to pick a brand name for their franchise.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Agoelia

Offline JustAnotherDude

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • J
  • Posts: 114
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #69 on: June 08, 2019, 08:11:30 AM »
I feel like arguments over revolutionary communism should probably not happen in this thread

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2019, 08:52:27 AM »
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.

I note you did not even attempt to defend the USSR's actions, but Just Another Dude is right, this is not the place to discuss revolutionary communism. As such I will not continue on that.

But it is also not the place to level insults at another, and you leveled quite the insult at me by putting these particular words in my mouth. I expect an apology.
 

Offline Scandinavian

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2019, 09:26:21 AM »
You really do not want to go down the garden path of equating ####sm and Soviet Communism in Eastern Europe (and Ukraine in particular). That particular branch of holocaust denial carries water for some seriously unpleasant people.

I note you did not even attempt to defend the USSR's actions, but Just Another Dude is right, this is not the place to discuss revolutionary communism. As such I will not continue on that.

But it is also not the place to level insults at another, and you leveled quite the insult at me by putting these particular words in my mouth. I expect an apology.
Please accept my apologies. I did not mean to accuse you of actually were equating Communism with ####sm.

I was merely (clumsily) trying to point out that there are people out there who do spread such lies, and those of us who are not need to take some care not to be mistaken as lending legitimacy to their drivel. In much the same way those who legitimately criticize Saudi Arabia need to take care to not carry rhetorical water for generalized Islamophobia, or those who talk about drug cartels need to take care not to lend rhetorical credence to generalized anti-Latino racism.
 

Offline Jovus

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • J
  • Posts: 220
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #72 on: June 08, 2019, 04:54:26 PM »
I'll say it slightly less politely.

Can you guys please take this argument about Communism or whatever somewhere else so those of us waiting for Steve or other people interested in the AAR to post don't get all excited about updates only to see you're still at it?
 
The following users thanked this post: Zincat, Kytuzian, Up_down66, The Forbidden

Offline Person012345

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 539
  • Thanked: 29 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #73 on: June 08, 2019, 06:03:25 PM »
http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10420.0

Just to explain my point and can continue the debate there if you so desire.
 

Offline The Forbidden

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • T
  • Posts: 67
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #74 on: June 11, 2019, 10:48:43 PM »
New post ! Nice !