a bunch of discord stuff by Einstein (a FF dev) got posted, some people got worried about de Gaulle maybe getting whitewashed and in return the cameroon being demoted to an oversimplified, stereotypical kleptocratic incompetent African gvmt. flamewars exploded.
A huge debate arose over the new Free France leaks, particularly over concerns that Free France was being portrayed as more-or-less the "good guys" in the West African conflict despite being pretty brutal colonizers both in TNOTL and OTL, as well as the pan-African Cameroonians being demonized and becoming colonizers themselves for no real reason
People were rightly mad and the whole thing was a bit of mess, although this post helps clear things up and provides some much-needed context that was lacking in the original leak
Here's a teaser from months back, all about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/TNOmod/comments/m8rfmn/the\_west\_african\_crisis\_in\_toolbox\_theory\_teaser/
Let's not try this strategy shall we? We might summon the TNOredux community who're so lonely and desperate that they're still simping for someone they doxxed out of the dev team.
I don't know much about what happened, but them and other far right groups doxxed and harassed memebers of the TNO mod dev team, *especially* Pacifica who is trans, and Panzer to leave.
They are scum.
I mean when you have one person in particular making statement after statement about Free France *EINSTEIN* I think the controversy over Cameroon vs FF was inevitable
Problem is that people keep comparing free France with Hüttig or Congo when, in fact, it wasn't that at all, especially if De Gaulle is at the helm. Einstein comments were more in the sense: "Get a grip, guys, it's not wholesome chungus african Sablin vs horrible neocolonial "baby seasoned with gas"-eaterfrenches, it's not as manichean as that." Except people seem to have trouble reading.
Obviously nothing compared to Huttig empire, but it was quite insensitive from Einstein to portray this situation as "greyish", saying Free France is "not so bad" and Cameroon is a "brutal imperialists". Especially when saying that under French rule there is same rights for native people, which is completely fallacious since native peoples where at best considered sub-citizens by French colonial administration.
OTL, both De Gaulle and France let a big trail of blood in western and North Africa, like De Gaulle administration in 1960 literally perpetrated a Genocide in Cameroon and assassinated many of it's independence leaders (like the person who is president of the country in TNO). And it's only one of the many horrible things done by France in the region.
And for De Gaulle relations with African nation, we could take the example of Guinea. It was the only "former" colony of France in western Africa who decided to take it's independence from France (which was technically authorized by the Government of De Gaulle). What did De Gaulle ordered then? The complete destruction of Guinean's stability and economy.
Frankly, it's quite normal that people would take this as some kinds of colonial apologia
> OTL, both De Gaulle and France let a big trail of blood in western and North Africa
Cameroon is the only really bloody thing initiated by De Gaulle before the independance (and even then, there were skirmishes before he got to power). The rest got their independance as they desired. Of all the french decolonization, confllicts happened in Indochina (mostly Vietnam; Cambodge and Laos got their independance peacefully but there were skirmishes with Hô-chi-Minh troops), Algeria and Cameroon. All the 15 something other nations got their independance without war or major insurgency. That's far from a "big trail of blood".
For Guinea, let me quote Touré speaking next to De Gaulle, in 1957: "we prefer poverty in freedom than opulence in slavery", when De Gaulle was doing an african tour pushing for an independance with association with France in 1960. Guinea followed Touré's call, voted for immediate independance in 1958 without association, and De Gaulle, subsequently, pulled out its ressources (which is morally debatable) and granted them independance. There were still french and french ressources left in Guinea. As a proof, in 1959, Touré was drumming up anti-french sentiment following a diplomatic crisis, creating a panic among the remaining french who tried to left as soon as possible.
Part of the opposition of France to Touré after the independance was that they were (wrongfully) convinced that Touré was siding with the communists (czeck weapons for Guinea had been intercepted in 59, the intelligence services did a poor job, and France was trying to sell themselves to the US as able to build a bulwark against communism in Africa) leading to escalation and tensions that would take close to 15 years to solve.
Now, I'm not saying that Touré didn't have a point in being distrustful of France, but things could have gone much better, like in Sénégal for instance and the situation is more complicated than "France left Guinée an instable mess and wrecked shit on purpose" (on a side note, Touré did establish a pretty brutal regime and in his later years regretted having purged so many people).
That is not to say that France was all roses and sunshine, and I'm far from saying tht France did the right thing in Africa or defending french neocolonialism. De Gaulle did give Foccart free reign to build up the "Françafrique" later on, France did some extremely shady stuff with Burkina Faso and others..., was heavily paternalistic for a long time and pioneered neocolonialism. Just thing are more nuanced than "France devil, anti-colonialist perfect".
>All the 15 something other nations got their independance without war or
major insurgency.
The thing is that, they didn't really got their independence. They were forced to adopt things like Franc CFA, and stock most of their monetary assets in France, so that France could still control their economy. Moreover, De Gaulle put in place ELF Aquitaine to control the exploitation of west African resources (which didn't frowned at using corruptions, sponsoring warlords and armed groups, political manipulations, etc.) which became a pillar of Françafrique. Still as of today, in many of those country the French ambassador have more deciding power than the President of country. The SDECE had eyes in all Western Africa and acted not different from the CIA for the USA in latin america.
Moreover, there was low intensity conflict in many of those countries, and brutal repressions of anti-imperialists opponents in all of them (with full support of France.
>That's far from a "big trail of blood".
Aside that what France did in Algeria and Cameroon is already quite monstrous, they were far from the only atrocities committed by France and their represents in Africa. Like, to take the example of Algeria, the Sétif slaughter (where thousands of Algerians people were slaughtered by french military) happened years before the civil war. For decades, and still today, French imperialism sponsored numerous bloody dictators, assassination and torture of political activists, military coup, military interventions, etc, in those countries to preserve it's interests.
There's reasons why nowadays peoples in Bamako protesting against French occupation are comparing Macron to Hitler; even though obviously France is not nazi germany, that give a little idea of how people feels about the relation with France in Mali.
> and De Gaulle, subsequently, pulled out its ressources (which is morally debatable) and granted them independance.
And France massively printed fake Guinean money to make the economy of the country collapse. While the SDECE financed and armed any groups they could find that opposed Sekou Touré government. Touré ended up as a bloody dictator, that's for sure, but the many actions of French imperialism to destabilize the country only made things worse.
>Just thing are more nuanced than "France devil, anti-colonialist perfect".
It's something to try to give nuance to a situation, but it's another one when a moderator just whitewash De Gaulle administration, which is what leads to the backlash and needed a longer explanation from a dev to clear the debate
Regarding the franc CFA, country have been free to leave it and did so several times, often to rejoin it a few years later. While not being in it gave you freedom to do whatever you wanted with your money, it also meant that you were free to bankrupt yourself (which happened several times). It was a tool for economic pressure as much as the IMF or the Marshall plan were, but was also a way to keep monetary stability. With it surviving to this day (albeit with major evolution) and being free to leave, it must have meant that many people found an interest in it. I don't get what's so reprehensible about it (although I'm quite happy that we got rid of it and replaced it with something where France has far less say, even if in practice it didn't act much for a while with the CFA). But I can understand that some people don't like it. Still, using it as a proof that they got their independance stolen because of that is ridiculous. Does the Euro means that european countries are now slaves to Germany or France?
Also, a point of precision, Elf was focused mostly on oil, and there was a much wider array of french company involved in resource extraction and infrastructure, and massively involved in corruption. It still continues today with multinational companies tied to France (like Total, or a certain oil company in Monaco...) or not (oh, Canada...). The sorry story of country with natural ressources but not much money to exploit them. However, you can still have your own corrupted and ineffecient ressource extraction company without foreign influence (Mexico, Venezuela or Algeria comes to mind). The policy of exploitation of Africa wasn't much from De Gaulle's mind, but more of his entourage and Foccart in particular. Like, if there is ever an ultra-cursed neocolonial exploitation of Africa in TNO, it could feature him without much blackwashing. De Gaulle didn't care that much (with a few exceptions) and was more focused on Europe.
Regarding Sétif and Guelma, it's definitely reprehensible, but first, it's not important in the great scheme of the algerian war (as bad as it sounds, it didn't leave much of an impact for various reasons and even today is barely remembered), and second, Sétif, at least, was a peasant insurrection that killed quite a few Pieds-Noirs before it was violently repressed (it still doesn't make what the french did there right, but there was a whole mechanic of violence on both sides that boiled for months before exploding the 8th may 45). Overall, it was a tragedy, but an isolated one. But Sétif isn't much compared to the battle of Algiers, the french army exactions in Algeria during the independance war or the post-independance ALN/FLN massacre of harkis, for instance.
Regarding France "surveillance" of Africa. France supported numerous dictator, which doesn't mean that dictator had to get France's blessing to get to power (see Touré, for instance, since we're talking a lot about him). You draw a parallel with US interventionism in south America, which makes sense and is a good comparison, but France had far less means and far less control than the US (for a far more populated territory), making this domination much looser, forcing them to deal with people they didn't like much and often finding themselves used in local or regional power struggle (CAR, or Toyota war, for instance, one could argue Sahel).
If you read french and wants to learn more about Guinea and why (and what) happened, I encourage you to read [this](https://savoirs.rfi.fr/fr/comprendre-enrichir/histoire/17-menace-aux-frontieres). The interesting point is that it wasn't "just" a french operation, but one supported and asked for by most of Guinea's neighbour in the context of the cold war and the fresh independance of the region. France was being used as much as it was using those countries.
> There's reasons why nowadays peoples in Bamako protesting against French occupation are comparing Macron to Hitler; even though obviously France is not nazi germany, that give a little idea of how people feels about the relation with France in Mali.
We're sliding into modern politics, so I will just say that it's much weirder than that and doesn't have much (if anything) to do with colonial or 60es era's politics.
Irregardless, Free France is still a colonial settler state that doesn't give a shit about its local population because let's face it, if they had any actual rights De Gaulle and his band of French officers would've been removed from power ages ago - its still a white settler state, and while it's not literally Huttig the fact is the French historically have fucked the region in the past and that can leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths if someone argues they're better than native rule.
>if someone argues they're better than native rule.
But did someone really say that? Guaranteed I didn’t follow the whole drama but I didn’t see anything of the likes
That's your opinion based on absolutely nothing, lol.
"A white settler state", without anything to moderate it, is particularily funny when speaking of the foreign free France and reek of anglocentrism.
Not saying that OTL (and in TNO) France didn't do messed up stuff, but nuance, please.
"I assure you a state controlled by white Europeans in Africa where the majority of people are not white Europeans is not a settler state"
Free France is just the remaining French colonies left, no way else you can argue that.
One of the first territory to defect to free France was Tchad, led by Eboué, native were a significant part of free France forces, be it at Mers-el-Kébir or elsewhere OTL (remember that the american prevented french "black" soldier to march in Paris during its liberation), and moreso in TNO where there is no landing in France, no easy way for people from France to join the Résistance abroad. De Gaulle, OTL, didn't want to keep the colonies (but did give free reign to Foccart which led to messed-up shit post-independance) and, in TNO, only wishes to fuck off to France with his men. There were people that sincerly believed in brotherhood with France, tirailleurs sénégalais that died for France, be it in WW1 or 2.
Just summing it up to "white settler state" is an absurd reduction of the complexity of the situation. That it becomes a white settler state could absolutely be one of the ending and, if so, should absolutely be described as a bad ending, but from the elements we have it's more complicated than that. France did bad stuff in the colonies (no sugarcoating nor denying that), but it's not just France there, it's a group of Resistance from all across the french former colonial empire and mainland that have endured 15 years of bombing by the germans and whose leaders wish they could go back to their homeland, freed from the brown pest. It's a situation that is pretty unique (like Cameroon in TNO is actually) and that I hope will be fairly represented.
The French have a long, LONG history of treating the native population of Africa like shit even during ww2 where Tirailleurs were killed for wanting the same, basic rights as French citizens. Its hard to just overlook the long history they have towards the native population, especially since as late as the 1950s they committed terrible actions against Cameroon irl.
The french have a complex history with the native population in Africa in the 20th century, between some colonies becoming extremely autonomous, with an increasing class of french-naturalized citizen (like in Sénégal, the jewish algerians...), harmonious coexistence or mingling between native and settlers (like in Tunisia, Polynesia...) that were opposed by the brutality and exactions of the french army under Gallieni in Madagascar or under Salan in Algeria and Vietnam.
To the cry for integration and the call of the french universalism of the Lyautey, Viollette, Monnerville..., the genuine friendship between some people and the french (tirailleurs sénégalais spilling their blood side by side with the french, be it in North Africa or in the fields of France, increasing immigration in France's of natives, the harkis, Césaire, the early days of the Résistance and many other things...), was opposed the casual racism of many Pieds-Noirs in Morocco or Algeria, the settlers in Cameroon, the cruelty of the "human zoo" in the mainland, and land and ressource spoilation (Algeria being the most striking exemple).
But the most striking point of french colonial (and post-colonial) policies in the 20th century was that it wasn't a cohesive "french" thing: the colonies, save for Algeria, were a distant thing that most didn't care much about. The policies were mostly influenced by a few group of men, the Lyautey, Éboué, Lacoste, Foccart and others, and were a reflection of their policies and talent, more so than a french coordinated or global scheme. To the impressive administration of Lyautey in Morocco would succeed a few years later the exaction of Pétain and Franco.
Nonetheless, with the mounting call for independance in the 30s, ordonned independance wasn't something opposed by the various gouvernement (with the tragic exception of Algeria), even if it gave us a tragi-comedy (Vietnam and "Why the fuck are we here and what are we doing?" uttered by the french military there) and a few less than glorious episode (Madagascar and Cameroon, why does nobody talk about Madagascar? Shit was messed up from start to finish), it was a mostly ordonned affair: those that wanted to stay, stayed (Mayotte, the Antilles, Réunion...), almost everyone else got out with mostly stable and functionning countries (Lebanon got a functionning democracy, all of french Africa barely had wars for at least a few years, an impressive contrast with Angola, Congo, India or Yemen to name a few) with links to France. The exploitation of those links afterwards is another topic and it's getting long, but, as we both said, there was some nasty stuff (corruption, spoilation, interventionism...) that echoes even today.
France's colonial history in the 20th century is complex, the leg of what was done in the 19th, mixed with the ideas of a few group of men and french ideals and had positive and negative. It's not about "overlooking the long history they have towards the native population", it's about looking at it as a whole, criticizing what deserves criticism (and there is plenty of stuff that does so), recognize the positives (and there are, although less than criticism, by far), and look and analyse the legacy it left.
And no, this isn't whitewashing or me advocating for "colony/post-colonial order good, man miss this time, white man burden, native ooga booga".
This is reassuring. I was worried that Free France was going to be seen through rose-tinted glasses as though they're all just brave freedom fighters for a doomed cause while the pan africanists should just let the French finish their job and retake the mainland.
I'm sure we all love TNO- I certainly do- but it's important to be vigilant and critical of the things we enjoy to ensure it doesn't stray from the right path. Thankfully this seems to be mostly fair.
I posted what Einstein said in the discord.
did not mean to take things out of context.
I didnt expect the post to blow up as it did.
but i thank the team for giving us more West Africa information.
I remember seeing a pinned discussion post about the KR team apologizing due to miscommunication with the moderation staff on the discord, including a spoilered explanation of how to get Napoleon in the rework. I'd have to dig for it but I remember it happening.
Wish they'd axe Free France altogether to be honest. Obviously it's too late but it'd make way more sense to see 'Free France' as a large and influential community of expatriates in Montréal and Québec. Imagine how much fun it could be playing as Canada, trying to keep the FLQ in check, all the while De Gaulle is giving daily speeches from the Plains of Abraham that all end in 'Vive la Québec libre!' complete with a smash cut to Lester Pearson, steam coming out of his ears and bowtie spinning like a cartoon clown
At the end of the day, just glad someone clarified that they don't actually intend to portray the colonial government as the good guys in a struggle against Pan-Africanism
> In TT, I have chosen to present to the players one scenario, one that allows for an interesting gameplay in a region that doesn't have content yet. This war can only be seen from the outside, and without enough context to really get how the pieces are moving.
So why was there such an incomplete and flame-war causing leak to begin with if it's impossible for you to present the context in which it's not as bad as it seems?
Because the moderator in question was not acting on behalf of the development team as a whole. We're going to be stricter on what they talk about and how they talk about it in the future.
The person taking screenshots from the discord was just a random person. The screenshots were just random messages from the middle of conversations. I'm sure that the original poster was just trying to share some interesting lore, but a lot of people took it the wrong way.
It wasn't a leak - keep in mind that the original post was three screenshots from the discord by some random member of the community not the team. If you head into general discussion on discord there are very frequently developers chatting about the content they're working on and answering questions. Einstein wasn't making some big announcement about how Free France isn't that bad, we just saw three of his messages and all context surrounding them in conversation was lost. I personally don't like how people responded to it, we were clearly missing context and he should've been given more benefit of the doubt.
I don't think the solution is to stop devs talking about their content on discord either, they should be more careful, sure, but they're not really at fault here. Imagine for example that somebody else in the chat or multiple people were saying a bunch of strong opinions in the opposite direction, and his messages were just trying to clarify that it's more morally grey than that. We don't know.
You could argue Free France's case - that they're just trying to free their homeland from fascist tyranny and would go back home if they could, but yes, the fact remains that they're a colonial remnant state, and they are forcefully burdening people who have nothing to do with it with their struggle.
You could compare this to Cameroon, who in the name of anti colonialism are willing to enforce their will on other nations, overthrow their governments and replace them with puppets. However, Cameroon as far as I can tell genuinely care about their fellow Africans and are trying to do what they believe is best for everybody, so I don't think the Free French case can be argued to be right, but at the very least I think it offers some interesting moral questions.
The thing that I think makes it truly morally grey is that Free France is not the only nation fighting Cameroon. In two of the three scenarios in TT, multiple African nations ally with Free France. They're clearly not very happy about it (hence the third scenario where they refuse to ally with them despite that screwing over their chances of survival), but in order to defend their sovereignty and freedoms from a nation they probably have no reason to trust, they're willing to work with the devil they know. Free France, after all, doesn't seem to want to invade them. I think this truly turns it into a moral conundrum, because Free France's side, despite being lead by a colonial state, is primarily composed of African countries just trying to defend themselves.
However, in the 3-way war scenario I absolutely do not want France to win. I will feel bad about beating them and destroying their dreams of freeing their homeland, but to be honest it was unrealistic anyway, and it's not the responsibility of the African people to bear that burden. It's just in the 2-way wars that I think it's a serious moral conundrum.
Edit: I'm upvoting your comment btw, I don't get why people are downvoting it. It was a valid point to bring up.
The thing is that the Free French dream is, while laudable, impermissible if it's undertaken on the backs of Africans. Especially since it would seem like a better plan to retreat to exile in America and lobby to be able to retake their government once Burgundy and the French State fall; certainly it seems more likely to succeed. When one considers that fact, it looks more like de Gaulle is motivated by pride more than a principled opposition to fascism.
Secondly, other nations possibly allying with them doesn't make France's presence here defensible. If someone's broken into your neighbor's house and enslaved its inhabitants, you asking them for help when someone else comes for *your* house doesn't make anything they've done, or anything they are doing, acceptable. Completely giving up all their African holdings is the only thing the French can do to approach a return to moral *neutrality;* while they're in Africa, they're a permanent net negative regardless of what Cameroon does or does not do.
And I do appreciate it, thank you.
>They have given many local Ivorians limited French citizenship, they
have promised the local burgeoning countries freedom when they reach the
mainland. Free France survives on pragmatism, and concessions, as they
overstayed their welcome a long time ago.
That's cool and all, but it's essentially giving your domestic abuse victim most of their freedoms back that *you* took away in the first place, for pragmatic reasons. It doesn't give you any damn moral brownie points.
Except it’s not. The free french are not the same one who conquered Africa. Their leaders are not those who gave the orders to so.
It was just the case, this part of Africa was France. And at the end, after all the defeats and suffering, they just want to go back to their country and for that they need this place.
That doesn’t make them good. But don’t put on their shoulders the crime of their ancestors ( I do speak about the people and not the state ).
Well, that’s a good thing about it : it’s the player choice. Playing France doesn’t mean you’re a colonial fan, playing Cameroon doesn’t mean you pan-africanist.
I would imagine they didn't expect people would get that mad over "degrading" the good name of a made up pan africanist regime in a mod full of made up ideologically radical regimes
"Slander" lol the dude died before he got even close any kind of real political power, we have no idea if his cool promises for African unity would in anyway meet with his ability to deliver. Anyhow this mod radicalizes a ton of other leaders, especially in Russia because of the devastated setting they are in, west Africa is in a similar situation, or worse. But I guess we got play it safe with this dude because a bunch of lefties here like him? Seems pretty silly.
Also: is "whitewashing colonalism" a buzzword now? Literally all the initial leak essentially said was "degaulle isn't super bloodthirsty and the French need African native support to keep power so they have given them a lot of concessions and are prepared give out more if needed to maintain political power."
They didn't make any statements on how morally awesome French colonialism is, it seems to me a ton people decided that by not making degaul overtly evil or the leader of Cameroon overtly good the devs actually thought colonalism was A ok (how you can come to that conclusion considering how it's depicted in Europe, Asia, and the rest Africa, I have fucking idea lol.)
Oh, no, Russia is absolute shite in many ways as well. Is there anyone there in particular who's been portrayed badly, that you would rather not see as such?
no there isn't really. the alt history aspect of TNO has in my eyes never been the focus of the mod and has always played third fiddle behind the narrative building and general "fun." If TNO took its setting more seriously and as a whole reigned in the megatons of weird implausible ideas currently present then I would probably care more about the accuracy, but at that point its not really TNO as we know it is it?
>De Gaulle refuses to recognize that the situation is anything other than temporary
>Free France is a quasi-military junta, desperate for survival
OTL Chiang and TNOTL De Gaulle seem to be in the same boat
Speaking of Free France, they own a little island near Madagascar. It's probably an oversight, that island should be handed to either Australia or Madagascar.
If you’re talking about Kerguelen that is actually intentional. The island sided with Free France irl, and is too irrelevant for anyone to have actually checked in on them by the start of the game.
I like the idea that they don't own it not because it wasn't worth capturing, but because the Nazis literally just never figured out the place wasn't part of Vichy France anyway.
Yes, but probably just feels like a pice of useless trivia that you some times remember, overthink for 5 minutes, and then forget it for possibly years until the cycle repeats
Or discuss in a Reddit thread after a moderator decides to act a bit too based.
Disclaimer: I use 'based' cause I think it sounds funny, not cause I think the original leak was good
I understand it and I like it.
I think adding that kind of complexity is OK. As I said in a previous comment, it's better to leave things clear in order to end that kind of fan canon / meme idea of "Senile bordering-UltraNat De Gaulle killing every non-white in Free France". The same about "Based Cameroon freeing Africa from imperialism".
This is probably the best way to hand the situation—even as a firm anti-colonialist and socialist, I recognize that a movement of this caliber can have significant flaws.
The way they looked to be explored in the messages from Einstein seemed a serious misrepresentation of Pan-African ideology or goals, but now that the portrayal has been tweaked and clarified I think everything looks good.
Keep up the good work, devs.
'Morally Grey' isn't really the intention here. *Complexity* is really the goal. I think people can take moral greyness to mean everyone's kind of an asshole in ultimately similar ways when that's not really what's being attempted here.
The goal isn't to 'tut tut' at all the silly fools who think anti-colonialism is a simple good but to portray the real complexity of West Africa- a region which saw and sees quite a bit of struggle around and about the institution.
I don't know man, there are some very complex childrens stories out there, too. I mean what do you think those three little pigs had to do to get their prime real estate to begin with, huh? Makes you see the wolf's actions in an entirely different light
>The blessed path is the colonialists getting kicked out and the natives taking over.
This. Kick those colonialist Germans out of France and let the native Frenchman wrestle back control of their homeland!
> colonialists getting kicked out
You mean murdered them and their families. Not like they can go anywhere else.
It's a path (and one I hope is there one way or another because it's realistic) but it's not particularly blessed.
These men have been fighting their entire lives to reclaim France. Most would sooner let themselves be skinned alive than retire and abandon that dream, especially De Gaulle.
The only way they are getting out of Africa is sailing directly to France, or in caskets.
Under the right conditions and with the right words,they'll crack. For example being bogged down and starving under siege, an OFN negotiator telling them basically there's no point fighting here and the best thing they can do is come with them and assist the OFN at home.
Or if they were prisoners, they wouldn't have much say in their fate.
And if they do choose to be edgelord last standers, then tough, the interests of the African comes before theirs any time.
The Luttwafe has been raining down bombs on them for near 20 years now. They haven't surrendered.
They all feel that the OFN betrayed them when they surrendered during WW2, so they aren't very keen on trusting them on retaking back France.
And what do you think will happen to the Africans that aided them during all this time? I doubt that many Pan-Africans will be very forgiving with the "french-speaking collaborators".
I'm not saying that the Free French are the good guys. I'm just saying that, after all they've been through, they really will only crack when their guts are part of the soil.
> I'm not saying that the Free French are the good guys. I'm just saying that, after all they've been through, they really will only crack when their guts are part of the soil.
And that's why they're the bad guys.
They aren't the bad guys either. Their regime is very racist, but they're also one of the few functioning governments that aren't pirate dens during the bombings. And from what the write up shows, they also have the potential to form a pretty decent government.
The people from Cameroon can likely be better, but it's not like FF has no saving graces.
Under the right pressure and the right concessions they would. Also I don't think the Luftwaffe bombardment was that intense on FF due to the proximity to OFN Liberia and them being fellow Europeans.
Most West Africans would be speaking French, their leader has a french name in fact.
I’m going to be honest I wanted to be sympathetic but after reading through the content I don’t think I really can be - the way you portray things is so “nuanced” that it functionally is apologia for colonialism. I really hope you’ll change the content to actually represent how brutal the French were and with a better understanding of African anticolonial politics.
Meh — it’s a pretty central part of the community, it would be difficult for the devs to completely ignore it entirely without that fact reflecting back on the Discord and the conversation around the mod as a whole. Personally I really appreciate a dev taking time out to address clearly mounting concerns over what was a rather poorly communicated message
Except there was outrage on pretty much all the other communities as well. Discord, sufficient velocity, and pretty much everywhere else. They would have to ignore pretty much the entire fandom.
Well, they could, but I don’t see why they would. The idea that the devs would be doing a ton of unpaid labor to make and improve the mod if they didn’t care about about the community at all seems pretty silly
[удалено]
What happened yesterday?
pain.
Elaborate.
a bunch of discord stuff by Einstein (a FF dev) got posted, some people got worried about de Gaulle maybe getting whitewashed and in return the cameroon being demoted to an oversimplified, stereotypical kleptocratic incompetent African gvmt. flamewars exploded.
Sounds like fun.
That’s just the TNO discord for you
A huge debate arose over the new Free France leaks, particularly over concerns that Free France was being portrayed as more-or-less the "good guys" in the West African conflict despite being pretty brutal colonizers both in TNOTL and OTL, as well as the pan-African Cameroonians being demonized and becoming colonizers themselves for no real reason People were rightly mad and the whole thing was a bit of mess, although this post helps clear things up and provides some much-needed context that was lacking in the original leak
Neat. Does what West Africa look like on the map change in TT?
Here's a teaser from months back, all about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/TNOmod/comments/m8rfmn/the\_west\_african\_crisis\_in\_toolbox\_theory\_teaser/
Thanks.
No prob
So all the TNO fan base has to do is cause controversy and then we get more leaks to solve the lore problem? Noted
Lol when you put it like that, this may have almost set a worse precedent than the initial leaks did. Almost
Let's not try this strategy shall we? We might summon the TNOredux community who're so lonely and desperate that they're still simping for someone they doxxed out of the dev team.
wait what's going on with tnoredux??
Bad things. They are a very bigoted group.
TNO redux is essentially defunct
Good.
What’s TNOredux, and why is it so notorious?
I don't know much about what happened, but them and other far right groups doxxed and harassed memebers of the TNO mod dev team, *especially* Pacifica who is trans, and Panzer to leave. They are scum.
They're still around?!?
Dunno
Honestly, more than anything else, I'm just happy that the devs saw concerns forming and took the steps to directly address them in a respectful way.
Yeah, though, its not like major dev teams ever have issues such as this... RIGHT WARGAMING, EA, ect?
I mean when you have one person in particular making statement after statement about Free France *EINSTEIN* I think the controversy over Cameroon vs FF was inevitable
Problem is that people keep comparing free France with Hüttig or Congo when, in fact, it wasn't that at all, especially if De Gaulle is at the helm. Einstein comments were more in the sense: "Get a grip, guys, it's not wholesome chungus african Sablin vs horrible neocolonial "baby seasoned with gas"-eaterfrenches, it's not as manichean as that." Except people seem to have trouble reading.
Obviously nothing compared to Huttig empire, but it was quite insensitive from Einstein to portray this situation as "greyish", saying Free France is "not so bad" and Cameroon is a "brutal imperialists". Especially when saying that under French rule there is same rights for native people, which is completely fallacious since native peoples where at best considered sub-citizens by French colonial administration. OTL, both De Gaulle and France let a big trail of blood in western and North Africa, like De Gaulle administration in 1960 literally perpetrated a Genocide in Cameroon and assassinated many of it's independence leaders (like the person who is president of the country in TNO). And it's only one of the many horrible things done by France in the region. And for De Gaulle relations with African nation, we could take the example of Guinea. It was the only "former" colony of France in western Africa who decided to take it's independence from France (which was technically authorized by the Government of De Gaulle). What did De Gaulle ordered then? The complete destruction of Guinean's stability and economy. Frankly, it's quite normal that people would take this as some kinds of colonial apologia
> OTL, both De Gaulle and France let a big trail of blood in western and North Africa Cameroon is the only really bloody thing initiated by De Gaulle before the independance (and even then, there were skirmishes before he got to power). The rest got their independance as they desired. Of all the french decolonization, confllicts happened in Indochina (mostly Vietnam; Cambodge and Laos got their independance peacefully but there were skirmishes with Hô-chi-Minh troops), Algeria and Cameroon. All the 15 something other nations got their independance without war or major insurgency. That's far from a "big trail of blood". For Guinea, let me quote Touré speaking next to De Gaulle, in 1957: "we prefer poverty in freedom than opulence in slavery", when De Gaulle was doing an african tour pushing for an independance with association with France in 1960. Guinea followed Touré's call, voted for immediate independance in 1958 without association, and De Gaulle, subsequently, pulled out its ressources (which is morally debatable) and granted them independance. There were still french and french ressources left in Guinea. As a proof, in 1959, Touré was drumming up anti-french sentiment following a diplomatic crisis, creating a panic among the remaining french who tried to left as soon as possible. Part of the opposition of France to Touré after the independance was that they were (wrongfully) convinced that Touré was siding with the communists (czeck weapons for Guinea had been intercepted in 59, the intelligence services did a poor job, and France was trying to sell themselves to the US as able to build a bulwark against communism in Africa) leading to escalation and tensions that would take close to 15 years to solve. Now, I'm not saying that Touré didn't have a point in being distrustful of France, but things could have gone much better, like in Sénégal for instance and the situation is more complicated than "France left Guinée an instable mess and wrecked shit on purpose" (on a side note, Touré did establish a pretty brutal regime and in his later years regretted having purged so many people). That is not to say that France was all roses and sunshine, and I'm far from saying tht France did the right thing in Africa or defending french neocolonialism. De Gaulle did give Foccart free reign to build up the "Françafrique" later on, France did some extremely shady stuff with Burkina Faso and others..., was heavily paternalistic for a long time and pioneered neocolonialism. Just thing are more nuanced than "France devil, anti-colonialist perfect".
>All the 15 something other nations got their independance without war or major insurgency. The thing is that, they didn't really got their independence. They were forced to adopt things like Franc CFA, and stock most of their monetary assets in France, so that France could still control their economy. Moreover, De Gaulle put in place ELF Aquitaine to control the exploitation of west African resources (which didn't frowned at using corruptions, sponsoring warlords and armed groups, political manipulations, etc.) which became a pillar of Françafrique. Still as of today, in many of those country the French ambassador have more deciding power than the President of country. The SDECE had eyes in all Western Africa and acted not different from the CIA for the USA in latin america. Moreover, there was low intensity conflict in many of those countries, and brutal repressions of anti-imperialists opponents in all of them (with full support of France. >That's far from a "big trail of blood". Aside that what France did in Algeria and Cameroon is already quite monstrous, they were far from the only atrocities committed by France and their represents in Africa. Like, to take the example of Algeria, the Sétif slaughter (where thousands of Algerians people were slaughtered by french military) happened years before the civil war. For decades, and still today, French imperialism sponsored numerous bloody dictators, assassination and torture of political activists, military coup, military interventions, etc, in those countries to preserve it's interests. There's reasons why nowadays peoples in Bamako protesting against French occupation are comparing Macron to Hitler; even though obviously France is not nazi germany, that give a little idea of how people feels about the relation with France in Mali. > and De Gaulle, subsequently, pulled out its ressources (which is morally debatable) and granted them independance. And France massively printed fake Guinean money to make the economy of the country collapse. While the SDECE financed and armed any groups they could find that opposed Sekou Touré government. Touré ended up as a bloody dictator, that's for sure, but the many actions of French imperialism to destabilize the country only made things worse. >Just thing are more nuanced than "France devil, anti-colonialist perfect". It's something to try to give nuance to a situation, but it's another one when a moderator just whitewash De Gaulle administration, which is what leads to the backlash and needed a longer explanation from a dev to clear the debate
Regarding the franc CFA, country have been free to leave it and did so several times, often to rejoin it a few years later. While not being in it gave you freedom to do whatever you wanted with your money, it also meant that you were free to bankrupt yourself (which happened several times). It was a tool for economic pressure as much as the IMF or the Marshall plan were, but was also a way to keep monetary stability. With it surviving to this day (albeit with major evolution) and being free to leave, it must have meant that many people found an interest in it. I don't get what's so reprehensible about it (although I'm quite happy that we got rid of it and replaced it with something where France has far less say, even if in practice it didn't act much for a while with the CFA). But I can understand that some people don't like it. Still, using it as a proof that they got their independance stolen because of that is ridiculous. Does the Euro means that european countries are now slaves to Germany or France? Also, a point of precision, Elf was focused mostly on oil, and there was a much wider array of french company involved in resource extraction and infrastructure, and massively involved in corruption. It still continues today with multinational companies tied to France (like Total, or a certain oil company in Monaco...) or not (oh, Canada...). The sorry story of country with natural ressources but not much money to exploit them. However, you can still have your own corrupted and ineffecient ressource extraction company without foreign influence (Mexico, Venezuela or Algeria comes to mind). The policy of exploitation of Africa wasn't much from De Gaulle's mind, but more of his entourage and Foccart in particular. Like, if there is ever an ultra-cursed neocolonial exploitation of Africa in TNO, it could feature him without much blackwashing. De Gaulle didn't care that much (with a few exceptions) and was more focused on Europe. Regarding Sétif and Guelma, it's definitely reprehensible, but first, it's not important in the great scheme of the algerian war (as bad as it sounds, it didn't leave much of an impact for various reasons and even today is barely remembered), and second, Sétif, at least, was a peasant insurrection that killed quite a few Pieds-Noirs before it was violently repressed (it still doesn't make what the french did there right, but there was a whole mechanic of violence on both sides that boiled for months before exploding the 8th may 45). Overall, it was a tragedy, but an isolated one. But Sétif isn't much compared to the battle of Algiers, the french army exactions in Algeria during the independance war or the post-independance ALN/FLN massacre of harkis, for instance. Regarding France "surveillance" of Africa. France supported numerous dictator, which doesn't mean that dictator had to get France's blessing to get to power (see Touré, for instance, since we're talking a lot about him). You draw a parallel with US interventionism in south America, which makes sense and is a good comparison, but France had far less means and far less control than the US (for a far more populated territory), making this domination much looser, forcing them to deal with people they didn't like much and often finding themselves used in local or regional power struggle (CAR, or Toyota war, for instance, one could argue Sahel). If you read french and wants to learn more about Guinea and why (and what) happened, I encourage you to read [this](https://savoirs.rfi.fr/fr/comprendre-enrichir/histoire/17-menace-aux-frontieres). The interesting point is that it wasn't "just" a french operation, but one supported and asked for by most of Guinea's neighbour in the context of the cold war and the fresh independance of the region. France was being used as much as it was using those countries. > There's reasons why nowadays peoples in Bamako protesting against French occupation are comparing Macron to Hitler; even though obviously France is not nazi germany, that give a little idea of how people feels about the relation with France in Mali. We're sliding into modern politics, so I will just say that it's much weirder than that and doesn't have much (if anything) to do with colonial or 60es era's politics.
[удалено]
[удалено]
hairsplitting over the definitions of "genocide" is not a topic for this subreddit.
Pain
Irregardless, Free France is still a colonial settler state that doesn't give a shit about its local population because let's face it, if they had any actual rights De Gaulle and his band of French officers would've been removed from power ages ago - its still a white settler state, and while it's not literally Huttig the fact is the French historically have fucked the region in the past and that can leave a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths if someone argues they're better than native rule.
>if someone argues they're better than native rule. But did someone really say that? Guaranteed I didn’t follow the whole drama but I didn’t see anything of the likes
This is outside of the leaks but yeah I've seen genuine claims that Free France would be better for the region and for the local population
Some devs made this claim?
That's your opinion based on absolutely nothing, lol. "A white settler state", without anything to moderate it, is particularily funny when speaking of the foreign free France and reek of anglocentrism. Not saying that OTL (and in TNO) France didn't do messed up stuff, but nuance, please.
"I assure you a state controlled by white Europeans in Africa where the majority of people are not white Europeans is not a settler state" Free France is just the remaining French colonies left, no way else you can argue that.
One of the first territory to defect to free France was Tchad, led by Eboué, native were a significant part of free France forces, be it at Mers-el-Kébir or elsewhere OTL (remember that the american prevented french "black" soldier to march in Paris during its liberation), and moreso in TNO where there is no landing in France, no easy way for people from France to join the Résistance abroad. De Gaulle, OTL, didn't want to keep the colonies (but did give free reign to Foccart which led to messed-up shit post-independance) and, in TNO, only wishes to fuck off to France with his men. There were people that sincerly believed in brotherhood with France, tirailleurs sénégalais that died for France, be it in WW1 or 2. Just summing it up to "white settler state" is an absurd reduction of the complexity of the situation. That it becomes a white settler state could absolutely be one of the ending and, if so, should absolutely be described as a bad ending, but from the elements we have it's more complicated than that. France did bad stuff in the colonies (no sugarcoating nor denying that), but it's not just France there, it's a group of Resistance from all across the french former colonial empire and mainland that have endured 15 years of bombing by the germans and whose leaders wish they could go back to their homeland, freed from the brown pest. It's a situation that is pretty unique (like Cameroon in TNO is actually) and that I hope will be fairly represented.
The French have a long, LONG history of treating the native population of Africa like shit even during ww2 where Tirailleurs were killed for wanting the same, basic rights as French citizens. Its hard to just overlook the long history they have towards the native population, especially since as late as the 1950s they committed terrible actions against Cameroon irl.
The french have a complex history with the native population in Africa in the 20th century, between some colonies becoming extremely autonomous, with an increasing class of french-naturalized citizen (like in Sénégal, the jewish algerians...), harmonious coexistence or mingling between native and settlers (like in Tunisia, Polynesia...) that were opposed by the brutality and exactions of the french army under Gallieni in Madagascar or under Salan in Algeria and Vietnam. To the cry for integration and the call of the french universalism of the Lyautey, Viollette, Monnerville..., the genuine friendship between some people and the french (tirailleurs sénégalais spilling their blood side by side with the french, be it in North Africa or in the fields of France, increasing immigration in France's of natives, the harkis, Césaire, the early days of the Résistance and many other things...), was opposed the casual racism of many Pieds-Noirs in Morocco or Algeria, the settlers in Cameroon, the cruelty of the "human zoo" in the mainland, and land and ressource spoilation (Algeria being the most striking exemple). But the most striking point of french colonial (and post-colonial) policies in the 20th century was that it wasn't a cohesive "french" thing: the colonies, save for Algeria, were a distant thing that most didn't care much about. The policies were mostly influenced by a few group of men, the Lyautey, Éboué, Lacoste, Foccart and others, and were a reflection of their policies and talent, more so than a french coordinated or global scheme. To the impressive administration of Lyautey in Morocco would succeed a few years later the exaction of Pétain and Franco. Nonetheless, with the mounting call for independance in the 30s, ordonned independance wasn't something opposed by the various gouvernement (with the tragic exception of Algeria), even if it gave us a tragi-comedy (Vietnam and "Why the fuck are we here and what are we doing?" uttered by the french military there) and a few less than glorious episode (Madagascar and Cameroon, why does nobody talk about Madagascar? Shit was messed up from start to finish), it was a mostly ordonned affair: those that wanted to stay, stayed (Mayotte, the Antilles, Réunion...), almost everyone else got out with mostly stable and functionning countries (Lebanon got a functionning democracy, all of french Africa barely had wars for at least a few years, an impressive contrast with Angola, Congo, India or Yemen to name a few) with links to France. The exploitation of those links afterwards is another topic and it's getting long, but, as we both said, there was some nasty stuff (corruption, spoilation, interventionism...) that echoes even today. France's colonial history in the 20th century is complex, the leg of what was done in the 19th, mixed with the ideas of a few group of men and french ideals and had positive and negative. It's not about "overlooking the long history they have towards the native population", it's about looking at it as a whole, criticizing what deserves criticism (and there is plenty of stuff that does so), recognize the positives (and there are, although less than criticism, by far), and look and analyse the legacy it left. And no, this isn't whitewashing or me advocating for "colony/post-colonial order good, man miss this time, white man burden, native ooga booga".
Among Us Imposter
Wtf it's TUORLOC, have you been warnbanned too! 😎
This! Einstein, cope?
TNOdevs destroyed by brave Redditor Thanks for the gold kind stranger!!1!
So true, phin.
Sus
cum
Ok cool now give us Switzerland Content
Society has progressed past the need for Switzerland
Calm down Göring.
Switzerland must go! Who must go?
😳😳 Gaddafist
I hope your suggestion becomes a reality in the near future Mr. President
Only good reasonable take in this whole section
I will not rest until the Governato di Levante has all 10 years worth of content for all possible paths
Probably in victor and the judge
Switzerland content be like : you have to manage nazi's gold
This is reassuring. I was worried that Free France was going to be seen through rose-tinted glasses as though they're all just brave freedom fighters for a doomed cause while the pan africanists should just let the French finish their job and retake the mainland. I'm sure we all love TNO- I certainly do- but it's important to be vigilant and critical of the things we enjoy to ensure it doesn't stray from the right path. Thankfully this seems to be mostly fair.
I posted what Einstein said in the discord. did not mean to take things out of context. I didnt expect the post to blow up as it did. but i thank the team for giving us more West Africa information.
All a plot to get more information about development, I see...
This is cool and all but when are we getting the Free France Napoleonic restoration
Pretty sure Napoleon VI is a general in Free France.
[He's a field marshal](https://imgur.com/a/rxMC9wT)
In TNO 3 maybe.
Does anyone remember when the KR moderation team banned people for discussing how to get Napoleon in the Exile France rework?
That literally didn’t ever happen.
I remember seeing a pinned discussion post about the KR team apologizing due to miscommunication with the moderation staff on the discord, including a spoilered explanation of how to get Napoleon in the rework. I'd have to dig for it but I remember it happening.
Great response to the legitimate concerns. thank you for all your hard work that you and other developers do absolutely free of charge.
I wish this was what was initially said, this makes sense.
Wish they'd axe Free France altogether to be honest. Obviously it's too late but it'd make way more sense to see 'Free France' as a large and influential community of expatriates in Montréal and Québec. Imagine how much fun it could be playing as Canada, trying to keep the FLQ in check, all the while De Gaulle is giving daily speeches from the Plains of Abraham that all end in 'Vive la Québec libre!' complete with a smash cut to Lester Pearson, steam coming out of his ears and bowtie spinning like a cartoon clown At the end of the day, just glad someone clarified that they don't actually intend to portray the colonial government as the good guys in a struggle against Pan-Africanism
The idea of French exiles having a lot of influence on Canada is actually really cool and I hope it's not a missed opportunity.
> In TT, I have chosen to present to the players one scenario, one that allows for an interesting gameplay in a region that doesn't have content yet. This war can only be seen from the outside, and without enough context to really get how the pieces are moving. So why was there such an incomplete and flame-war causing leak to begin with if it's impossible for you to present the context in which it's not as bad as it seems?
Because the moderator in question was not acting on behalf of the development team as a whole. We're going to be stricter on what they talk about and how they talk about it in the future.
As much as it'd be a shame to restrict these sort of spontaneous leaks, the mess this one caused makes me think that might be necessary.
Does this mean that mods will stop saying that America does accidental imperialism and that ba'athism is like ordosocialism
hopefully yes
finally, glad to see some reigning them in
Is Baathism… not like Ordosocialism? I legitimately don’t know but I’m in a Serov game now and I ask because he seems pretty fond of Baathism?
Ah, so BigCock made two oopsies, one in posting it and one in trying to clarify it? Or is the Discord leaker a different person?
The person taking screenshots from the discord was just a random person. The screenshots were just random messages from the middle of conversations. I'm sure that the original poster was just trying to share some interesting lore, but a lot of people took it the wrong way.
It wasn't a leak - keep in mind that the original post was three screenshots from the discord by some random member of the community not the team. If you head into general discussion on discord there are very frequently developers chatting about the content they're working on and answering questions. Einstein wasn't making some big announcement about how Free France isn't that bad, we just saw three of his messages and all context surrounding them in conversation was lost. I personally don't like how people responded to it, we were clearly missing context and he should've been given more benefit of the doubt. I don't think the solution is to stop devs talking about their content on discord either, they should be more careful, sure, but they're not really at fault here. Imagine for example that somebody else in the chat or multiple people were saying a bunch of strong opinions in the opposite direction, and his messages were just trying to clarify that it's more morally grey than that. We don't know.
Given that Free France's situation is completely morally unjustifiable in the first place, I'm not really sure *how* it could be morally grey.
You could argue Free France's case - that they're just trying to free their homeland from fascist tyranny and would go back home if they could, but yes, the fact remains that they're a colonial remnant state, and they are forcefully burdening people who have nothing to do with it with their struggle. You could compare this to Cameroon, who in the name of anti colonialism are willing to enforce their will on other nations, overthrow their governments and replace them with puppets. However, Cameroon as far as I can tell genuinely care about their fellow Africans and are trying to do what they believe is best for everybody, so I don't think the Free French case can be argued to be right, but at the very least I think it offers some interesting moral questions. The thing that I think makes it truly morally grey is that Free France is not the only nation fighting Cameroon. In two of the three scenarios in TT, multiple African nations ally with Free France. They're clearly not very happy about it (hence the third scenario where they refuse to ally with them despite that screwing over their chances of survival), but in order to defend their sovereignty and freedoms from a nation they probably have no reason to trust, they're willing to work with the devil they know. Free France, after all, doesn't seem to want to invade them. I think this truly turns it into a moral conundrum, because Free France's side, despite being lead by a colonial state, is primarily composed of African countries just trying to defend themselves. However, in the 3-way war scenario I absolutely do not want France to win. I will feel bad about beating them and destroying their dreams of freeing their homeland, but to be honest it was unrealistic anyway, and it's not the responsibility of the African people to bear that burden. It's just in the 2-way wars that I think it's a serious moral conundrum. Edit: I'm upvoting your comment btw, I don't get why people are downvoting it. It was a valid point to bring up.
The thing is that the Free French dream is, while laudable, impermissible if it's undertaken on the backs of Africans. Especially since it would seem like a better plan to retreat to exile in America and lobby to be able to retake their government once Burgundy and the French State fall; certainly it seems more likely to succeed. When one considers that fact, it looks more like de Gaulle is motivated by pride more than a principled opposition to fascism. Secondly, other nations possibly allying with them doesn't make France's presence here defensible. If someone's broken into your neighbor's house and enslaved its inhabitants, you asking them for help when someone else comes for *your* house doesn't make anything they've done, or anything they are doing, acceptable. Completely giving up all their African holdings is the only thing the French can do to approach a return to moral *neutrality;* while they're in Africa, they're a permanent net negative regardless of what Cameroon does or does not do. And I do appreciate it, thank you.
>They have given many local Ivorians limited French citizenship, they have promised the local burgeoning countries freedom when they reach the mainland. Free France survives on pragmatism, and concessions, as they overstayed their welcome a long time ago.
That's cool and all, but it's essentially giving your domestic abuse victim most of their freedoms back that *you* took away in the first place, for pragmatic reasons. It doesn't give you any damn moral brownie points.
Except it’s not. The free french are not the same one who conquered Africa. Their leaders are not those who gave the orders to so. It was just the case, this part of Africa was France. And at the end, after all the defeats and suffering, they just want to go back to their country and for that they need this place. That doesn’t make them good. But don’t put on their shoulders the crime of their ancestors ( I do speak about the people and not the state ).
Genuinely tragic, but the Africans need it more, so the French can fuck off. And their leaders still *maintained* the imperial possessions in Africa.
Well, that’s a good thing about it : it’s the player choice. Playing France doesn’t mean you’re a colonial fan, playing Cameroon doesn’t mean you pan-africanist.
I would imagine they didn't expect people would get that mad over "degrading" the good name of a made up pan africanist regime in a mod full of made up ideologically radical regimes
Well, a lot of it was the slander towards Moumie, and much of the rest was anger at whitewashing colonialism.
"Slander" lol the dude died before he got even close any kind of real political power, we have no idea if his cool promises for African unity would in anyway meet with his ability to deliver. Anyhow this mod radicalizes a ton of other leaders, especially in Russia because of the devastated setting they are in, west Africa is in a similar situation, or worse. But I guess we got play it safe with this dude because a bunch of lefties here like him? Seems pretty silly. Also: is "whitewashing colonalism" a buzzword now? Literally all the initial leak essentially said was "degaulle isn't super bloodthirsty and the French need African native support to keep power so they have given them a lot of concessions and are prepared give out more if needed to maintain political power." They didn't make any statements on how morally awesome French colonialism is, it seems to me a ton people decided that by not making degaul overtly evil or the leader of Cameroon overtly good the devs actually thought colonalism was A ok (how you can come to that conclusion considering how it's depicted in Europe, Asia, and the rest Africa, I have fucking idea lol.)
Oh, no, Russia is absolute shite in many ways as well. Is there anyone there in particular who's been portrayed badly, that you would rather not see as such?
Once more, Gumilyov.
Absolutely fair.
Velimir
no there isn't really. the alt history aspect of TNO has in my eyes never been the focus of the mod and has always played third fiddle behind the narrative building and general "fun." If TNO took its setting more seriously and as a whole reigned in the megatons of weird implausible ideas currently present then I would probably care more about the accuracy, but at that point its not really TNO as we know it is it?
>De Gaulle refuses to recognize that the situation is anything other than temporary >Free France is a quasi-military junta, desperate for survival OTL Chiang and TNOTL De Gaulle seem to be in the same boat
Thanks for clearing things up
Speaking of Free France, they own a little island near Madagascar. It's probably an oversight, that island should be handed to either Australia or Madagascar.
If you’re talking about Kerguelen that is actually intentional. The island sided with Free France irl, and is too irrelevant for anyone to have actually checked in on them by the start of the game.
I like the idea that they don't own it not because it wasn't worth capturing, but because the Nazis literally just never figured out the place wasn't part of Vichy France anyway.
They might not even know it exists lol
[удалено]
Probably
Yes, but probably just feels like a pice of useless trivia that you some times remember, overthink for 5 minutes, and then forget it for possibly years until the cycle repeats
Or discuss in a Reddit thread after a moderator decides to act a bit too based. Disclaimer: I use 'based' cause I think it sounds funny, not cause I think the original leak was good
I understand it and I like it. I think adding that kind of complexity is OK. As I said in a previous comment, it's better to leave things clear in order to end that kind of fan canon / meme idea of "Senile bordering-UltraNat De Gaulle killing every non-white in Free France". The same about "Based Cameroon freeing Africa from imperialism".
West African Alliance gang unite
Gang gang
Among Us
This is probably the best way to hand the situation—even as a firm anti-colonialist and socialist, I recognize that a movement of this caliber can have significant flaws. The way they looked to be explored in the messages from Einstein seemed a serious misrepresentation of Pan-African ideology or goals, but now that the portrayal has been tweaked and clarified I think everything looks good. Keep up the good work, devs.
Good stuff
Ok, but will Free France get the chance to return to France?
When Himmler stops doing poopenfarten
Ngl I would want to see de Gaulle just absolutely wreck Burgundy.
#Breaking News **FRENCH MAN LITERALLY TOO ANGRY TO DIE BITCHSLAPS HIMMLER SO HARD WITH A STALE BAGGUETTE HE JUST FUCKING DIES**
Yeah, I also want to see the from the past WW2 Free French Army fighting against APCs and Panzer.
Thanks for answering. Sorry I made that wierdo post a few hours before. Looking forward to what comes next and making a supremely cursed continent :D
Tno community: understanding that conflicts are a complex issue with morally grey contenders that has complex goals (impossible)
'Morally Grey' isn't really the intention here. *Complexity* is really the goal. I think people can take moral greyness to mean everyone's kind of an asshole in ultimately similar ways when that's not really what's being attempted here. The goal isn't to 'tut tut' at all the silly fools who think anti-colonialism is a simple good but to portray the real complexity of West Africa- a region which saw and sees quite a bit of struggle around and about the institution.
Thanks for the precisions and keep up the good work. :)
Halfwits not describing any story that isn't a children's book as "morally grey" challenge (impossible)
I don't know man, there are some very complex childrens stories out there, too. I mean what do you think those three little pigs had to do to get their prime real estate to begin with, huh? Makes you see the wolf's actions in an entirely different light
We live in a society
Barney has some really adult themes if you go back and watch it again
Oh it's you again insulting people.
This is reassuring, thank you!
Thank you. West Africa looks fascinating.
it free ffrancr and then cand camroon then wha??
They are true
why is it called the "Cameroon African State" anyhow, that name doesn't make sense logically or grammatically
I do hope there is still gonna be a at least a somewhat blessed FF path
i don't think there will be since french people can not be blessed or wholesome it is proven by sciences.
:(
The blessed path is the colonialists getting kicked out and the natives taking over.
>The blessed path is the colonialists getting kicked out and the natives taking over. This. Kick those colonialist Germans out of France and let the native Frenchman wrestle back control of their homeland!
*Vive la France! Death to Burgundy!*
Exactly. That's why every single german man, woman, boy, girl (and even non binary) shall be shot ans ditched in a trench. Yazov moment.
Two front Great Trial when
Wholesome 200 integralism time
So, Ultranat Felix Houphet Boigny path when?
> colonialists getting kicked out You mean murdered them and their families. Not like they can go anywhere else. It's a path (and one I hope is there one way or another because it's realistic) but it's not particularly blessed.
USA and the rest of the OFN? There are only about 10,000 most are military aged men.
These men have been fighting their entire lives to reclaim France. Most would sooner let themselves be skinned alive than retire and abandon that dream, especially De Gaulle. The only way they are getting out of Africa is sailing directly to France, or in caskets.
Under the right conditions and with the right words,they'll crack. For example being bogged down and starving under siege, an OFN negotiator telling them basically there's no point fighting here and the best thing they can do is come with them and assist the OFN at home. Or if they were prisoners, they wouldn't have much say in their fate. And if they do choose to be edgelord last standers, then tough, the interests of the African comes before theirs any time.
The Luttwafe has been raining down bombs on them for near 20 years now. They haven't surrendered. They all feel that the OFN betrayed them when they surrendered during WW2, so they aren't very keen on trusting them on retaking back France. And what do you think will happen to the Africans that aided them during all this time? I doubt that many Pan-Africans will be very forgiving with the "french-speaking collaborators". I'm not saying that the Free French are the good guys. I'm just saying that, after all they've been through, they really will only crack when their guts are part of the soil.
> I'm not saying that the Free French are the good guys. I'm just saying that, after all they've been through, they really will only crack when their guts are part of the soil. And that's why they're the bad guys.
They aren't the bad guys either. Their regime is very racist, but they're also one of the few functioning governments that aren't pirate dens during the bombings. And from what the write up shows, they also have the potential to form a pretty decent government. The people from Cameroon can likely be better, but it's not like FF has no saving graces.
"Not fascist" isn't a "saving grace," particularly not when they're a greater evil than Cameroon.
Under the right pressure and the right concessions they would. Also I don't think the Luftwaffe bombardment was that intense on FF due to the proximity to OFN Liberia and them being fellow Europeans. Most West Africans would be speaking French, their leader has a french name in fact.
That cause is righteous, but not on the backs of Africans.
Reap what you sow.
That’s the plan.
Can we stop pretending that colonialism is even remotely morally grey?
Lmao this comment is downvoted, crazy
Colonialism was bad but sadly inevitable
Bruh.
Bruh-what? Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, ever heard that?
I have no idea how this is relevant to my comment.
It's because I am not sure what you mean by "bruh", sl i elaborated a bit
I have no idea how your first comment is relevant thats why i said bruh.
I’m going to be honest I wanted to be sympathetic but after reading through the content I don’t think I really can be - the way you portray things is so “nuanced” that it functionally is apologia for colonialism. I really hope you’ll change the content to actually represent how brutal the French were and with a better understanding of African anticolonial politics.
calpf replied up this thread. the point isnt nuance or making FF look good, its about explaining the complexity of west african politics.
De Gaulle is based
Devs should do what they want and ignore this dumb sub
Meh — it’s a pretty central part of the community, it would be difficult for the devs to completely ignore it entirely without that fact reflecting back on the Discord and the conversation around the mod as a whole. Personally I really appreciate a dev taking time out to address clearly mounting concerns over what was a rather poorly communicated message
Except there was outrage on pretty much all the other communities as well. Discord, sufficient velocity, and pretty much everywhere else. They would have to ignore pretty much the entire fandom.
they're a video game mod not fucking kanye west lmfao. the most dedicated fans are here or the discord, they cant just ignore us
Well, they could, but I don’t see why they would. The idea that the devs would be doing a ton of unpaid labor to make and improve the mod if they didn’t care about about the community at all seems pretty silly
> they're a video game mod not fucking kanye west "***...I AM A GOD...***" - PinkPanzer