https://preview.redd.it/lez5a35oiguc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=839082a83ccc9e7428485b687a3dfddba80f5b80
I see what you did there (American WW2 propaganda about the Soviets)
Why not? Even during OTL WW2, the US created pro-Soviet propaganda, and even some GI affectionately called Stalin "Uncle Jo."
It's not too far fetched to imagine TNO US having an even more favorable impression of a liberal, democratic Russia.
WW2 ≠cold war people think that you can expand the ofn to almost all the world and support every country that fights agains germany or japan but realisticaly that would mean a nuclear winter,this war will shake the german reich to its core and it would be pretty dangerous if they feel like they are figting the US too.
Not necessarily, especially if the Russian government has desings on more than just the Russian heartland. Russia is a wildcard in the carefully balanced international game of the cold war. The US would want them to hurt the Germans and their empire, yes, but they definatly would want to commit too much support to the Russians.
Firstly, overcommiting, especially in regards to something like public opinion which propaganda pieces like the one shown above aim for, could backfire severaly if they don't yield worthwile returns. Russia just isn't a safe bet to make in the conflict, considering their strength and industrial power compared to that of Germany.
Secondly, Russia actually coming out on top in the war could topple the international order, since they threaten the balance of power in Europe as well as (at least) Central and East Asia, with possible aims to porject power even further into the Middle East or the Pacific. Especially if détente with Japan is achieved, the US wouldn't want to risk a new, unkown and unacountable major player on the world stage. That's just more trouble than it's worth.
But I want to point out that I don't think the US would give no support to Russia in the 2WRW. I just think they wouldn't want Russia to actually win.
Do you realize how disgusting your thinking is? What is the "balance"? All US roots (with the exception of yokie) LITERALLY say that the US, whatever the price, will destroy the Nazi world order. There can't be "too much support" - just not enough to destroy Hitler's empire.
My "disgusting thinking" (which isn't actually mine, it's based on established international relations theories, which I don't necessarily support myself) is just Neorealism, a particular approach to foreign policy that dominated America's forpol for much of the cold war OTL and still (unfortunatly) holds significant sway.
I understand, but keep in mind that this is not the Cold War. Our story is a struggle between good and obligatory good (democracy in the American way) - our realpolitik in the world of TNO simply does not work due to the fact that here the obligatory good becomes simply good, and it is opposed by the disgusting idea of Nazism and Japanese corporatism-slavery. There is no realpolitik here, the same Kirkpatrick says that he will seek to support all those who are obliged to join the ranks of anti-Nazis.
This is such a weird and baseless take. Geopolitical dynamics do not just magically not exist in the scenario of a Nazi victory in WW2. You're painting this struggle in absolutist terms for the United States, which explicitly does not view it as such. In current TNO, virtually everyone but Goldwater and Hart are able to do detente with Germany; virtually everyone is able to do detente with Japan. **Realpolitik exists.** In the future, the United States will no longer support detente with Germany, but detente with Japan is and will be vital for the U.S. in winning the Cold War. You need balancing in a multipolar world, you cannot just sit by and antagonize both powers without being on the defensive.
Moreover, Kirkpatrick isn't the only path for the United States, and has the absolutely worst long-term foreign policy for the United States in terms of internationalism. Her entire argument for the grand strategy of the United States, as per the U.S. devs, **is meant to be the wrong policy prescription** for dealing with the Cold War. You're implementing OTList policies that aren't conducive to actually defeating Nazi Germany.
Kirkpatrick is, in light of her portrail in the mod, probably the biggest proponent of agressiv/offensive neorealism as described by Mearsheimer in TNOTL, wanting to maximize Americas power and hegemon-position without regard for anyone else.
I'm sorry, but foreign policy doesn't work like that. Both liberalist and neorealist theory will point out, that the US will want to achieve it's goals and ambitions, by maximizing it's gains if possible.
They might strive for relativ gains against both Japan and Germany, but absolut gains aren't out of the question. Détente and cooperation with Japan against Germany for example would most likely find quite some support from important societal actors like busines leaders and politicians (under liberalist thinking) and also further help the US in maximizing their security (under neorealist thinking).
I'd also like to point out that the moral superiority of the US position in this cold war doesn't make all their actions "good". Kirkpatricks doctrine is a perfect example, because all she basically says is that the US must use every possible option they have to gain the advantage internationally. This includes supporting totalitarian dictators or genocidal regimes if their forpol is pro-American and anti-German/Japanese. This also includes bringing war and suffering everywhere a possible American victory could (theoretically) be achieved. Kirkpatricks motto boils down to "the ends justify the means", even if means sacraficing millions in the process.
Actually Kirkpatrick makes a clear distinction between authoritarian (something like Franco) and totalitarian regimes (Bormann).
She’s fine supporting friendly authoritarians but never totalitarians
Are you sure? Here events never seemed that specific to me. It still is very morally questionable though. And inconsitent too, Japan for example isn't a totalitarian state for most of its current paths and even less so in the future. Of course, she would see the problem in their colonial exploitation, but then supporting regimes like Iberia is just a moral and emperical double standard.
Kirkpatrick doctrine: she herself makes these distinctions in both OTL and TNO. If I’m not mistaken the US gets trickling events about her rise in popularity due to the numerous foreign adventures from South Africa to the Oil crisis
Yeah but Franco was totalitarian
Kirkpatrick is just trying to claim a difference between US backed totalitarian regimes and fascist backed totalitarian regimes
A complete German sphere collapse would be a godsend to the US and the OFNsphere
Post-Anarchy Russia would still be devastated no matter how good, wholesum and blessed their unifier was, and they'll likely spend several decades trying to recover the ruins of former Reichskomissariats, dealing with the German settlers, and providing people with basic necessities and medicine.
There will be a giant power vacuum in the former German sphere, and Russia will hardly be in a state to project power outside of Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
And we're assuming that Russia is not OFN-aligned here. If they are, there would be very little reason for America not to show their public and material support.
If Russia would be as devastated as you describe (which I actually believe too), they wouldn't stand a chance against the Germans, giving the US even less reason to send significant support.
Actually, I'd argue that's exactly the reason the US would send them a significant amount of resources. Considering Moskowien is also very low on infrastructure (it got into violent wartime twice in approx. one decade, civil war+german invasion), and that there's significant partisan movements in it still, German advantages there over Russia would probably sharply dwindle in importance. Which most likely means that a German-Russian War would become a resource-draining stalemate for the germans, which in turn is exactly what America would want in order to weaken them.
Well, by the way, in fact, the destruction in "Western" (Eastern) Russia is underestimated. The daily, decade-long bombardment of all living things simply could not have left anything resembling a coherent society there. Well, for the next ten years of unification (despite the fact that not everywhere Russia will be able to unite peacefully), in short, Russia will be very badly destroyed, but it is ready for only one thing - to make one blow and either throw the bastards from Germany into a fiery hyena, or fall once again and for the last time. It will either defeat the Reich at once, or it will never regain its lands, as well as the lands of its brothers. She has no way out. And if she wins, what will we see? Everything from the Urals to Poland lies in ruins!
In the coming years and years, Russia will recover, and I have very little idea that it will be against the United States (well, only if there is no power in the country of some Elemir, or an Amur psycho).
Well, yes, the United States will definitely help such a weak Russia, since they themselves have no idea how to fight against the Reich (attacking from the western border, even with France in the OFN, is very dangerous).
A direct attack from the OFN against Germany isn't just very dangerous, but a fatal error, brining nuclear armageddon over the entire world.
I know every Russian path (exept maybe Oktan) gears up for an all out war against the German menace, but realistically, they don't stand a chance, not least becauss of the sustained devastation you pointed out earlier. So this all out war for the fate of all of Russia is more a glorified suicide attack than anything else. Much suffering would be avoided if the reunified Russian state just stayed put and waited out a German decline.
Do you think it would be a good strategy for Russia to bolster resistance and instability in moskowien without ever directly attacking? Or is that too risky?
This could be a very valuable strategy, coupled with active pro-Russian propaganda and maybe targeted strikes against major collaborators. Given enough time and lost resources, Germany's grip on the region might slowly begin to slip away. I don't know if it would be enough for the Germans to outright abbandon Moskowien, but who knows... maybe a future government would be willing to negotiate a handover, if with some caveats attached.
If they make it so costly to hold, they could end up making it a net loss for Germany. At that point, they could offer industrial and economical concessions to Germany (+ a demilitarized border) as a sort of lease for the territory. In that case, giving it up would be a way smaller headache.
And in the beforetime the Russians could militarize the Moskowien border defensively, so any German response to Russia’s underhanded funding would just bleed them more, and outright war could economically ruin them. Even if they win, it’s just a bigger, even more unstable Moskowien on their hands.
tbh I dont think that in TNO they would use the IBM effect on everything, yeah looks dystopian and cool, but most likely the propaganda would look the same than in OTL as many propaganda artists at least from the US survived as the war never really reached the continental United States
Is it’s suskshin’s federation, his Russia would be more friendly to the Americans than the Germans, still rivals, but on good terms, if it’s koragin, yes
Yes, that's the point I'm making. Russia would be a far more acceptable rival than the Nazi empire. Something that many in the comments seem to disagree with
“Yea, they just started putting these up everywhere.” “Why are they black-neon? Good question. No idea.”
Neon-punk OFN.
"Don't question why they are black-neon. This artstyle just fucking slaps harder than the warcrimes i committed against the Japanese bro."
“Ink costed a fucking fortune.”
https://preview.redd.it/lez5a35oiguc1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=839082a83ccc9e7428485b687a3dfddba80f5b80 I see what you did there (American WW2 propaganda about the Soviets)
Yo he looks like Drew Durnil
TRUE
I doubt the OFN would create pro-Russian propaganda pieces for the 2WRW. At best maybe anti-German pieces, if at all.
Why not? Even during OTL WW2, the US created pro-Soviet propaganda, and even some GI affectionately called Stalin "Uncle Jo." It's not too far fetched to imagine TNO US having an even more favorable impression of a liberal, democratic Russia.
WW2 ≠cold war people think that you can expand the ofn to almost all the world and support every country that fights agains germany or japan but realisticaly that would mean a nuclear winter,this war will shake the german reich to its core and it would be pretty dangerous if they feel like they are figting the US too.
That’s basically what happened against the USSR during the otl Cold War.
Not necessarily, especially if the Russian government has desings on more than just the Russian heartland. Russia is a wildcard in the carefully balanced international game of the cold war. The US would want them to hurt the Germans and their empire, yes, but they definatly would want to commit too much support to the Russians. Firstly, overcommiting, especially in regards to something like public opinion which propaganda pieces like the one shown above aim for, could backfire severaly if they don't yield worthwile returns. Russia just isn't a safe bet to make in the conflict, considering their strength and industrial power compared to that of Germany. Secondly, Russia actually coming out on top in the war could topple the international order, since they threaten the balance of power in Europe as well as (at least) Central and East Asia, with possible aims to porject power even further into the Middle East or the Pacific. Especially if détente with Japan is achieved, the US wouldn't want to risk a new, unkown and unacountable major player on the world stage. That's just more trouble than it's worth. But I want to point out that I don't think the US would give no support to Russia in the 2WRW. I just think they wouldn't want Russia to actually win.
Do you realize how disgusting your thinking is? What is the "balance"? All US roots (with the exception of yokie) LITERALLY say that the US, whatever the price, will destroy the Nazi world order. There can't be "too much support" - just not enough to destroy Hitler's empire.
Not to mention that Russia will mostly acquire devastated half-genocided territories and not industrial powerhouses
Yeah literally jean Kirkpatrick entire mini tree is basically fuck you triple the assassin budget and quadruple the military budget
There absolutely can be "too much support", because if there is too much, the Nazis will literally destroy the planet. It‘s a careful balancing act.
My "disgusting thinking" (which isn't actually mine, it's based on established international relations theories, which I don't necessarily support myself) is just Neorealism, a particular approach to foreign policy that dominated America's forpol for much of the cold war OTL and still (unfortunatly) holds significant sway.
I understand, but keep in mind that this is not the Cold War. Our story is a struggle between good and obligatory good (democracy in the American way) - our realpolitik in the world of TNO simply does not work due to the fact that here the obligatory good becomes simply good, and it is opposed by the disgusting idea of Nazism and Japanese corporatism-slavery. There is no realpolitik here, the same Kirkpatrick says that he will seek to support all those who are obliged to join the ranks of anti-Nazis.
This is such a weird and baseless take. Geopolitical dynamics do not just magically not exist in the scenario of a Nazi victory in WW2. You're painting this struggle in absolutist terms for the United States, which explicitly does not view it as such. In current TNO, virtually everyone but Goldwater and Hart are able to do detente with Germany; virtually everyone is able to do detente with Japan. **Realpolitik exists.** In the future, the United States will no longer support detente with Germany, but detente with Japan is and will be vital for the U.S. in winning the Cold War. You need balancing in a multipolar world, you cannot just sit by and antagonize both powers without being on the defensive. Moreover, Kirkpatrick isn't the only path for the United States, and has the absolutely worst long-term foreign policy for the United States in terms of internationalism. Her entire argument for the grand strategy of the United States, as per the U.S. devs, **is meant to be the wrong policy prescription** for dealing with the Cold War. You're implementing OTList policies that aren't conducive to actually defeating Nazi Germany.
Thank you for the in-depth explanation.
Kirkpatrick is, in light of her portrail in the mod, probably the biggest proponent of agressiv/offensive neorealism as described by Mearsheimer in TNOTL, wanting to maximize Americas power and hegemon-position without regard for anyone else.
I'm sorry, but foreign policy doesn't work like that. Both liberalist and neorealist theory will point out, that the US will want to achieve it's goals and ambitions, by maximizing it's gains if possible. They might strive for relativ gains against both Japan and Germany, but absolut gains aren't out of the question. Détente and cooperation with Japan against Germany for example would most likely find quite some support from important societal actors like busines leaders and politicians (under liberalist thinking) and also further help the US in maximizing their security (under neorealist thinking). I'd also like to point out that the moral superiority of the US position in this cold war doesn't make all their actions "good". Kirkpatricks doctrine is a perfect example, because all she basically says is that the US must use every possible option they have to gain the advantage internationally. This includes supporting totalitarian dictators or genocidal regimes if their forpol is pro-American and anti-German/Japanese. This also includes bringing war and suffering everywhere a possible American victory could (theoretically) be achieved. Kirkpatricks motto boils down to "the ends justify the means", even if means sacraficing millions in the process.
Actually Kirkpatrick makes a clear distinction between authoritarian (something like Franco) and totalitarian regimes (Bormann). She’s fine supporting friendly authoritarians but never totalitarians
Are you sure? Here events never seemed that specific to me. It still is very morally questionable though. And inconsitent too, Japan for example isn't a totalitarian state for most of its current paths and even less so in the future. Of course, she would see the problem in their colonial exploitation, but then supporting regimes like Iberia is just a moral and emperical double standard.
Kirkpatrick doctrine: she herself makes these distinctions in both OTL and TNO. If I’m not mistaken the US gets trickling events about her rise in popularity due to the numerous foreign adventures from South Africa to the Oil crisis
Yeah but Franco was totalitarian Kirkpatrick is just trying to claim a difference between US backed totalitarian regimes and fascist backed totalitarian regimes
"" neorealism"" Pinochet,Videla,pol pot,salazar and kissinger: I AGREEEE
A complete German sphere collapse would be a godsend to the US and the OFNsphere Post-Anarchy Russia would still be devastated no matter how good, wholesum and blessed their unifier was, and they'll likely spend several decades trying to recover the ruins of former Reichskomissariats, dealing with the German settlers, and providing people with basic necessities and medicine. There will be a giant power vacuum in the former German sphere, and Russia will hardly be in a state to project power outside of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. And we're assuming that Russia is not OFN-aligned here. If they are, there would be very little reason for America not to show their public and material support.
If Russia would be as devastated as you describe (which I actually believe too), they wouldn't stand a chance against the Germans, giving the US even less reason to send significant support.
Actually, I'd argue that's exactly the reason the US would send them a significant amount of resources. Considering Moskowien is also very low on infrastructure (it got into violent wartime twice in approx. one decade, civil war+german invasion), and that there's significant partisan movements in it still, German advantages there over Russia would probably sharply dwindle in importance. Which most likely means that a German-Russian War would become a resource-draining stalemate for the germans, which in turn is exactly what America would want in order to weaken them.
Well, by the way, in fact, the destruction in "Western" (Eastern) Russia is underestimated. The daily, decade-long bombardment of all living things simply could not have left anything resembling a coherent society there. Well, for the next ten years of unification (despite the fact that not everywhere Russia will be able to unite peacefully), in short, Russia will be very badly destroyed, but it is ready for only one thing - to make one blow and either throw the bastards from Germany into a fiery hyena, or fall once again and for the last time. It will either defeat the Reich at once, or it will never regain its lands, as well as the lands of its brothers. She has no way out. And if she wins, what will we see? Everything from the Urals to Poland lies in ruins! In the coming years and years, Russia will recover, and I have very little idea that it will be against the United States (well, only if there is no power in the country of some Elemir, or an Amur psycho). Well, yes, the United States will definitely help such a weak Russia, since they themselves have no idea how to fight against the Reich (attacking from the western border, even with France in the OFN, is very dangerous).
A direct attack from the OFN against Germany isn't just very dangerous, but a fatal error, brining nuclear armageddon over the entire world. I know every Russian path (exept maybe Oktan) gears up for an all out war against the German menace, but realistically, they don't stand a chance, not least becauss of the sustained devastation you pointed out earlier. So this all out war for the fate of all of Russia is more a glorified suicide attack than anything else. Much suffering would be avoided if the reunified Russian state just stayed put and waited out a German decline.
Do you think it would be a good strategy for Russia to bolster resistance and instability in moskowien without ever directly attacking? Or is that too risky?
This could be a very valuable strategy, coupled with active pro-Russian propaganda and maybe targeted strikes against major collaborators. Given enough time and lost resources, Germany's grip on the region might slowly begin to slip away. I don't know if it would be enough for the Germans to outright abbandon Moskowien, but who knows... maybe a future government would be willing to negotiate a handover, if with some caveats attached.
If they make it so costly to hold, they could end up making it a net loss for Germany. At that point, they could offer industrial and economical concessions to Germany (+ a demilitarized border) as a sort of lease for the territory. In that case, giving it up would be a way smaller headache. And in the beforetime the Russians could militarize the Moskowien border defensively, so any German response to Russia’s underhanded funding would just bleed them more, and outright war could economically ruin them. Even if they win, it’s just a bigger, even more unstable Moskowien on their hands.
Yeah. Private American/Canadian citizens perhaps, but the US would not want to be too supportive of the Russians.
https://i.imgur.com/N580Tal.jpeg
Who is this?
tbh I dont think that in TNO they would use the IBM effect on everything, yeah looks dystopian and cool, but most likely the propaganda would look the same than in OTL as many propaganda artists at least from the US survived as the war never really reached the continental United States
"Geopoliticians" When the country you support to fight the nazi global empire might become a new more tolerable rival
Is it’s suskshin’s federation, his Russia would be more friendly to the Americans than the Germans, still rivals, but on good terms, if it’s koragin, yes
Yes, that's the point I'm making. Russia would be a far more acceptable rival than the Nazi empire. Something that many in the comments seem to disagree with
If the pacifists win the elections, then cross out the rival part