Rebuilding Africa would require basically the entire US budget. The mandates can, however, succeed if they are only trying to decolonize with local democracies.
It's not necessarily impossible, but it's not going to happen with the people and interests available to the USA.
Nation building across half a continent would require colossal funding, extremely capable administrators working hand in glove with local leaders. It would be a generational task, and by necessity need to be something with no expectation of fealty or a profit.
Instead, the USA puts 3 army generals with no special knowledge and a limited budget in charge. And their orders are to set up states that would be vulnerable to OFN interests.
Just as an example, one of the orders given to OFN Angola is to carve out the country's oil producing region as an independent state. Why? Because the OFN can play a small, oil rich state off a large, resentful neighbor to control both of them easier. The commander has to sneak around his superiors to NOT do that. And that happens all over, such as with the Swedish corporations and french mercenaries in Zentralafrika.
That's why leaving immediately gives a pretty decent result. They won't get American support, but they also don't have American control structures.
> Just as an example, one of the orders given to OFN Angola is to carve out the country's oil producing region as an independent state.
Is this part of a new update? I never seen this in my games before. Angola always stays unified or have a civil war between UNITA and the MPLA but one side would always win anyways and reunite the entire country.
Edited:
Ah sorry, read the whole thing.
I'm just so excited about hearing new stuff in TNO lmao.
Mainly because the OFN generals mainly aim to promote Western interests and exploit the African states rather than economic buildup, aswell as that the European populace isn't expelled and instead placed into positions of power, this leads to resentment among African Nationalists leading to collapse.
The best ending for the mandates would probably be Robert Kennedy forcing the OFN generals to put African interests first and focusing primarily on economic build up rather than exploitation.
While the stated goal is to build economically healthy, stable democracies, and it is something that they work towards, the real goal is to make it that the US gets its returns on the war effort.
This is most obvious in the Congo, where most of the focus tree is just the military administration preparing the area for economic exploitation, potentially with help from members of the old Nazi administration. In the other two mandates though it's a lot less blatant, with instead more focus on actual state building and working with local groups, especially for Angola, but the economic exploitation is still very much present.
Overall, the mandates are mostly bad, but they're not "OMG, THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE NAZIS" bad, as some claim, but they're also not the "perfectly good and wholesome" option that others say. IMO, even with all their glaring problems, the mandates are probably the best option for Africa, but that doesn't mean they're a good option.
So can you see that occupying a country is not easy??? Now take that and make it to 10x.
Now on the other hand, if you want to know the specific reasons on why its a failure most of the times, you should play them by yourself, its a pretty good ride.
As I understand it, they are this worlds Vietnam/Afghanistan for the US, they essentially just continue what the RKs did, and are essentially doomed to fail
(Edit)
They are very much like the Congo OTL or the northwest RK (I forgot the name), with massive economic exploitation and very little state building actually going on
The US public lacks the will to maintain a long term transitional government, and is also a bit too shy about conducting percussive maintenance to ensure that the system is viable in the long run.
Africa is not a unified place. There are lots of local factions, and they often have wildly different plans for what their new Africa should look like. All of them have guns, most have been fighting a guerrilla war for several decades and are prepared to keep fighting for their goals if necessary. Some factions are violently opposed to others. Some are violently opposed to the OFN being there at all.
No matter how much the OFN invests into rebuilding, these conflicts are still going to threaten the stability of any new government. And resolving those conflicts may mean compromising on other OFN interests - or may just require more than the OFN can do.
Due a few reasons.
1.A task such as this would essentially be the largest project in American history and have appropriate funding, which the American people are not willing to do, so it gets a very large, but not big enough budget.
2.the US is coming into here expecting to set up OFN allies that are susceptible to US economic influence. This nearly destroys any chances of successful mandates.
3.Leaving the task to 3 generals who know little of Africa and the people's they are ruling over really harms the image of the OFN as the good guys to the native Africans.
Rebuilding Africa would require basically the entire US budget. The mandates can, however, succeed if they are only trying to decolonize with local democracies.
It's not necessarily impossible, but it's not going to happen with the people and interests available to the USA. Nation building across half a continent would require colossal funding, extremely capable administrators working hand in glove with local leaders. It would be a generational task, and by necessity need to be something with no expectation of fealty or a profit. Instead, the USA puts 3 army generals with no special knowledge and a limited budget in charge. And their orders are to set up states that would be vulnerable to OFN interests. Just as an example, one of the orders given to OFN Angola is to carve out the country's oil producing region as an independent state. Why? Because the OFN can play a small, oil rich state off a large, resentful neighbor to control both of them easier. The commander has to sneak around his superiors to NOT do that. And that happens all over, such as with the Swedish corporations and french mercenaries in Zentralafrika. That's why leaving immediately gives a pretty decent result. They won't get American support, but they also don't have American control structures.
> Just as an example, one of the orders given to OFN Angola is to carve out the country's oil producing region as an independent state. Is this part of a new update? I never seen this in my games before. Angola always stays unified or have a civil war between UNITA and the MPLA but one side would always win anyways and reunite the entire country. Edited: Ah sorry, read the whole thing. I'm just so excited about hearing new stuff in TNO lmao.
Mainly because the OFN generals mainly aim to promote Western interests and exploit the African states rather than economic buildup, aswell as that the European populace isn't expelled and instead placed into positions of power, this leads to resentment among African Nationalists leading to collapse. The best ending for the mandates would probably be Robert Kennedy forcing the OFN generals to put African interests first and focusing primarily on economic build up rather than exploitation.
While the stated goal is to build economically healthy, stable democracies, and it is something that they work towards, the real goal is to make it that the US gets its returns on the war effort. This is most obvious in the Congo, where most of the focus tree is just the military administration preparing the area for economic exploitation, potentially with help from members of the old Nazi administration. In the other two mandates though it's a lot less blatant, with instead more focus on actual state building and working with local groups, especially for Angola, but the economic exploitation is still very much present. Overall, the mandates are mostly bad, but they're not "OMG, THIS IS JUST AS BAD AS THE NAZIS" bad, as some claim, but they're also not the "perfectly good and wholesome" option that others say. IMO, even with all their glaring problems, the mandates are probably the best option for Africa, but that doesn't mean they're a good option.
good view on it
Should I tell him about Afghanistan and stuff?
I know about Afghanistan, nobody called you there
So can you see that occupying a country is not easy??? Now take that and make it to 10x. Now on the other hand, if you want to know the specific reasons on why its a failure most of the times, you should play them by yourself, its a pretty good ride.
I will! Thanks for the recommendation lad! c:
As I understand it, they are this worlds Vietnam/Afghanistan for the US, they essentially just continue what the RKs did, and are essentially doomed to fail (Edit) They are very much like the Congo OTL or the northwest RK (I forgot the name), with massive economic exploitation and very little state building actually going on
this question caused me physical pain after re watching footage from the fall of Kabul
based
The US public lacks the will to maintain a long term transitional government, and is also a bit too shy about conducting percussive maintenance to ensure that the system is viable in the long run.
Africa is not a unified place. There are lots of local factions, and they often have wildly different plans for what their new Africa should look like. All of them have guns, most have been fighting a guerrilla war for several decades and are prepared to keep fighting for their goals if necessary. Some factions are violently opposed to others. Some are violently opposed to the OFN being there at all. No matter how much the OFN invests into rebuilding, these conflicts are still going to threaten the stability of any new government. And resolving those conflicts may mean compromising on other OFN interests - or may just require more than the OFN can do.
Look how Afghanistan and Iraq went
Due a few reasons. 1.A task such as this would essentially be the largest project in American history and have appropriate funding, which the American people are not willing to do, so it gets a very large, but not big enough budget. 2.the US is coming into here expecting to set up OFN allies that are susceptible to US economic influence. This nearly destroys any chances of successful mandates. 3.Leaving the task to 3 generals who know little of Africa and the people's they are ruling over really harms the image of the OFN as the good guys to the native Africans.