• This section is for roleplays only.
    ALL interest checks/recruiting threads must go in the Recruit Here section.

    Please remember to credit artists when using works not your own.

Nation Building The Last War OOC

Just to start off with an announcement: Your country can start on a different side (If you have good reason) and we know that the sides could be unfair and plan to have events to even the sides out if they end up so.


Also, could you all please not plan out half of the rp before it starts? Gracias.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, Waffle, how would you feel about staying out of the war you know, indefinitely. *slides stacks of coins across the table*
 
Just submitted my CS, kinda hard to find good sources, but it's finished. If anything needs to be changed, let me know.
 
Honestly, I think I would prefer the Germans had won. No Hitler and no communists. 

I personally wouldnt. I mean, yes it was bad what came after but in ww1, there was a justice in it. A tsar who didnt care for their people got rekt. 


A bitch who defied war rules and commited atrocious actions in belgium got rekt. Had they won, itd just reinforce the idea that so long as your powerful, you can do what you want

I personally wouldnt. I mean, yes it was bad what came after but in ww1, there was a justice in it. A tsar who didnt care for their people got rekt. 


A bitch who defied war rules and commited atrocious actions in belgium got rekt. Had they won, itd just reinforce the idea that so long as your powerful, you can do what you want

Then again, UK was an asshole in greece so...
 
I personally wouldnt. I mean, yes it was bad what came after but in ww1, there was a justice in it. A tsar who didnt care for their people got rekt. 


A bitch who defied war rules and commited atrocious actions in belgium got rekt. Had they won, itd just reinforce the idea that so long as your powerful, you can do what you want


Then again, UK was an asshole in greece so...

Belgium was also an asshole in the Congo too. Both sides were also at fault for using Poison gas etc. Though at the time, rules of war hadn't been truly set and the Geneva convention hadn't occured yet so people could do whatever the fk they wanted in war.
 
Belgium was also an asshole in the Congo too. Both sides were also at fault for using Poison gas etc. Though at the time, rules of war hadn't been truly set and the Geneva convention hadn't occured yet so people could do whatever the fk they wanted in war.

Yeah, maybe they were, but that doesnt exactly justify the Rape of Belgium, and the murder of women and clergy shot. They still had the Hague Convention, which germany broke and then used Chlorine gas, though the french used tear gas, but that wasnt considered against the rules.
 
Can someone help me with Sweden's military stats? I found population, but I can't find solid troop numbers anywhere. 
 
Maybe Sweden was trying so hard to be neutral that it purposely forgot its military statistics so it couldn't fight?
 
Yeah, maybe they were, but that doesnt exactly justify the Rape of Belgium, and the murder of women and clergy shot. They still had the Hague Convention, which germany broke and then used Chlorine gas, though the french used tear gas, but that wasnt considered against the rules.

I would argue that most of the stories of German atrocities in Belgium were outright fabrications by the British press. What can be ascertained is that there were in fact instances of cruelty that I believe were more symptomatic of German fear of Belgian guerrilla uprisings than out of depravity. They committed violence against the Belgian population in much the same way the US Army did in Vietnam, out of paranoia. 


The real story is, of course, the plunder of Belgium's industry and workforce and the heavy-handed military government of the German-held provinces. Which were, as has already been pointed out, indicative of world powers before the Geneva Convention. 
 
Just wondering, how far can you got with changing a country's recent history?  What would be the boundaries? (Other than the obvious making them OP somehow)
 
@Pman I'd have to say that you couldn't completely change a country's government system or anything big like that. Changes would be limited to who they ally with (like I think Russia's allying with the central powers) or different policies (like the usa choosing not to be isolationist). Basically say what changes your thinking about and me or @Proxploxtops will say if they're ok or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would argue that most of the stories of German atrocities in Belgium were outright fabrications by the British press. What can be ascertained is that there were in fact instances of cruelty that I believe were more symptomatic of German fear of Belgian guerrilla uprisings than out of depravity. They committed violence against the Belgian population in much the same way the US Army did in Vietnam, out of paranoia. 


The real story is, of course, the plunder of Belgium's industry and workforce and the heavy-handed military government of the German-held provinces. Which were, as has already been pointed out, indicative of world powers before the Geneva Convention. 

 I disagree. By that logic, you could ignore the armeanian genocide, and say, oops, they were just scared, or even say it didnt happen and it was applified by the allies. Personally, I dont give a damn who you are, commiting war crimes like that is disgusting including the USA. But saying Belgium was a fabrication is a easy way to ignore what is done wrong. Its like saying the holocaust, (and yet gypsies, gays and feeble people were affected) never happened and it was just a fabrication. 


You see what I mean, like you could justify any type of massacre and pretend they didnt happen. Is it possible that they were faked. Yes. We do no the british applified the acts to neutral nations. But is it worth possibly ignoring and not fully holding someone who knew what they were doing was wrong. Besides, there is no info we know of that did that. And if it was, why would that be used by the allies as a main reason to be harsh to germany in the peace treaty. And cruelty is still cruelty as well, while the Geneva Convention was not a thing, the Hague Convention was and it was against their rules.


I hope this doesnt seem accusitory towards you, was not my intention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Germany winning the war would have potential have saved millions of more lives as Nazism would have likely not occurred.  Although we can't know what would have happened in an alternate timeline where they did win, but I can't imagine it would have involved genocide on the scale of the holocaust.  So I kinda agree that German victory would have been preferable.


But then again look at Germany now, a beacon of liberalism!  Even in the face of destroying their own country,  May not have happened without the events of ww2.  
 
I personally wouldnt. I mean, yes it was bad what came after but in ww1, there was a justice in it. A tsar who didnt care for their people got rekt. 


A bitch who defied war rules and commited atrocious actions in belgium got rekt. Had they won, itd just reinforce the idea that so long as your powerful, you can do what you want


Then again, UK was an asshole in greece so...

"itd just reinforce the idea that so long as your powerful, you can do what you want" Is that not true today?


German victory could have prevented ww2 (or at least our version of it) and perhaps even the communist take over of Eastern Europe.  Saving millions.  Although perhaps only for them to die in an alternate war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top