Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So here’s a idea I got- no idea how.

What if we divided the world in to ideology-regions? Like this- west Europe would be conservative, the Middle East Islamist, parts of Asia socialist, other parts whatever is their native ideology, Scandinavia social democratic, and so on. Africa could be a free for all- I’m not sure there is a shared ideology in all those countries. The regions wouldn’t be states- more like blocs or alliances. The each would have a nation-state but they would cooperate and all have a similar ideology. Each corner of the globe would get to have one ideology but still retain their national sovereignty. They would have to war as a region but function as individual nationstates. It could be for a limited time- after which the regions could break up and divide territory.

The purpose would be for ideological unity and anti-globalism. And better ideas could take over more area. Worse ones would lose area. And then we would have clearly defined nationstates.

Again- this is more of an odd thought than something I’m sure I would want. It would be cool to see real or in a game. Ideology-regions with nation-states. It sounds almost like nationstates *the game* but fixed and simple to form ideology regions.

The Middle East would be the only region under Islamism. Al-Islam teaches that all Muslims should unite, so this would include the northern half of Africa and then some, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Central Asia (ex the Stans including East Turkestan), Tatarstan, Bashkortotostan, the Muslim parts of the Caucasus, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Muslim part of the Philippines, the Hui autonomous region.

[Zizou]

So here’s a idea I got- no idea how.

What if we divided the world in to ideology-regions? Like this- west Europe would be conservative, the Middle East Islamist, parts of Asia socialist, other parts whatever is their native ideology, Scandinavia social democratic, and so on. Africa could be a free for all- I’m not sure there is a shared ideology in all those countries. The regions wouldn’t be states- more like blocs or alliances. The each would have a nation-state but they would cooperate and all have a similar ideology. Each corner of the globe would get to have one ideology but still retain their national sovereignty. They would have to war as a region but function as individual nationstates. It could be for a limited time- after which the regions could break up and divide territory.

The purpose would be for ideological unity and anti-globalism. And better ideas could take over more area. Worse ones would lose area. And then we would have clearly defined nationstates.

Again- this is more of an odd thought than something I’m sure I would want. It would be cool to see real or in a game. Ideology-regions with nation-states. It sounds almost like nationstates *the game* but fixed and simple to form ideology regions.

The Middle East would be the only region under Islamism. Al-Islam teaches that all Muslims should unite, so this would include the northern half of Africa and then some, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Central Asia (ex the Stans including East Turkestan), Tatarstan, Bashkortotostan, the Muslim parts of the Caucasus, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Muslim part of the Philippines, the Hui autonomous region.

It's said that all Muslims should be united, but I highly doubt that will actually happen in practice. Most likely, violence will break out between the different sects of Muslims, and the region will descend into a bloodbath.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

So here’s a idea I got- no idea how.

What if we divided the world in to ideology-regions? Like this- west Europe would be conservative, the Middle East Islamist, parts of Asia socialist, other parts whatever is their native ideology, Scandinavia social democratic, and so on. Africa could be a free for all- I’m not sure there is a shared ideology in all those countries. The regions wouldn’t be states- more like blocs or alliances. The each would have a nation-state but they would cooperate and all have a similar ideology. Each corner of the globe would get to have one ideology but still retain their national sovereignty. They would have to war as a region but function as individual nationstates. It could be for a limited time- after which the regions could break up and divide territory.

The purpose would be for ideological unity and anti-globalism. And better ideas could take over more area. Worse ones would lose area. And then we would have clearly defined nationstates.

Again- this is more of an odd thought than something I’m sure I would want. It would be cool to see real or in a game. Ideology-regions with nation-states. It sounds almost like nationstates *the game* but fixed and simple to form ideology regions.

It's a great idea if you're a fanatical ideologue with no strong attachment to your homeland or its culture.

We've had whole threads on NSG in the past essentially advocating for the same idea. It's never been popular.

You can keep your culture and homeland and just change your ideology.

So here’s a idea I got- no idea how.

What if we divided the world in to ideology-regions? Like this- west Europe would be conservative, the Middle East Islamist, parts of Asia socialist, other parts whatever is their native ideology, Scandinavia social democratic, and so on. Africa could be a free for all- I’m not sure there is a shared ideology in all those countries. The regions wouldn’t be states- more like blocs or alliances. The each would have a nation-state but they would cooperate and all have a similar ideology. Each corner of the globe would get to have one ideology but still retain their national sovereignty. They would have to war as a region but function as individual nationstates. It could be for a limited time- after which the regions could break up and divide territory.

The purpose would be for ideological unity and anti-globalism. And better ideas could take over more area. Worse ones would lose area. And then we would have clearly defined nationstates.

Again- this is more of an odd thought than something I’m sure I would want. It would be cool to see real or in a game. Ideology-regions with nation-states. It sounds almost like nationstates *the game* but fixed and simple to form ideology regions.

The Middle East would be the only region under Islamism. Al-Islam teaches that all Muslims should unite, so this would include the northern half of Africa and then some, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Central Asia (ex the Stans including East Turkestan), Tatarstan, Bashkortotostan, the Muslim parts of the Caucasus, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Muslim part of the Philippines, the Hui autonomous region.

Is Islam as politics present in all Muslim majority countries? If so I guess Central Asia too.

[Old Tyrannia]

It's a great idea if you're a fanatical ideologue with no strong attachment to your homeland or its culture.

We've had whole threads on NSG in the past essentially advocating for the same idea. It's never been popular.

You can keep your culture and homeland and just change your ideology.

As if it's that simple.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The Middle East would be the only region under Islamism. Al-Islam teaches that all Muslims should unite, so this would include the northern half of Africa and then some, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Central Asia (ex the Stans including East Turkestan), Tatarstan, Bashkortotostan, the Muslim parts of the Caucasus, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Muslim part of the Philippines, the Hui autonomous region.

It's said that all Muslims should be united, but I highly doubt that will actually happen in practice. Most likely, violence will break out between the different sects of Muslims, and the region will descend into a bloodbath.

Right now that's probably true (I think "bloodbath" is a little much tho). Doesn't mean it won't be possible in the future.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It's a great idea if you're a fanatical ideologue with no strong attachment to your homeland or its culture.

We've had whole threads on NSG in the past essentially advocating for the same idea. It's never been popular.

You can keep your culture and homeland and just change your ideology.

The Middle East would be the only region under Islamism. Al-Islam teaches that all Muslims should unite, so this would include the northern half of Africa and then some, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo, Central Asia (ex the Stans including East Turkestan), Tatarstan, Bashkortotostan, the Muslim parts of the Caucasus, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Muslim part of the Philippines, the Hui autonomous region.

Is Islam as politics present in all Muslim majority countries? If so I guess Central Asia too.

Whether Al-Islam is present as a political force or not is irrelevant. They are Muslim-majority countries and should live according to Al-Islam. That's to say, if Al-Islam isn't a guiding force in a Muslim-majority country, make it so that it is.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

You can keep your culture and homeland and just change your ideology.

As if it's that simple.

The whole premise is that each nation-state is to govern by an ideology derived from the region. It can be done- for example there are countries that are nationally and ideologically homogeneous.

[Old Tyrannia]

As if it's that simple.

The whole premise is that each nation-state is to govern by an ideology derived from the region. It can be done- for example there are countries that are nationally and ideologically homogeneous.

I understand the premise. I'm saying that it's a stupid premise.

[Communist Zombie Horde]

You can keep your culture and homeland and just change your ideology.

Is Islam as politics present in all Muslim majority countries? If so I guess Central Asia too.

Whether Al-Islam is present as a political force or not is irrelevant. They are Muslim-majority countries and should live according to Al-Islam. That's to say, if Al-Islam isn't a guiding force in a Muslim-majority country, make it so that it is.

Well the Middle East could still invade Central Asia under the rules. I’m not sure that the Middle East should join with Central Asia for other reasons. I can’t see them getting along and they have not much in common. Invasion and forced ideological conversion is the solution under the structure. This could be done after the Middle East stop warring with itself. This could be reached by limited European intervention as well as placing the Euros on the same alliance. The Middle East could grow stronger without foreign intervention and and maybe take over Muslim countries. Is that what you’re looking for? Then after the period of time they would become Islamist nation-states if you won, probably a different type of conservative if you lost.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Whether Al-Islam is present as a political force or not is irrelevant. They are Muslim-majority countries and should live according to Al-Islam. That's to say, if Al-Islam isn't a guiding force in a Muslim-majority country, make it so that it is.

Well the Middle East could still invade Central Asia under the rules. I’m not sure that the Middle East should join with Central Asia for other reasons. I can’t see them getting along and they have not much in common. Invasion and forced ideological conversion is the solution under the structure. This could be done after the Middle East stop warring with itself. This could be reached by limited European intervention as well as placing the Euros on the same alliance. The Middle East could grow stronger without foreign intervention and and maybe take over Muslim countries. Is that what you’re looking for? Then after the period of time they would become Islamist nation-states if you won, probably a different type of conservative if you lost.

I wasn't talking about invasion, I was talking about co-operation. This is how I see it:

All Muslim-majority countries form an Islamic government governing by the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah. From there they cooperate (kinda like a mix between the OIC and EU) to work together and hopefully unify under a Khilaafah.

[Hanafuridake]

As if it's that simple.

The whole premise is that each nation-state is to govern by an ideology derived from the region. It can be done- for example there are countries that are nationally and ideologically homogeneous.

No, there aren't. At all.

[Bear Stearns]

I want to make another corporate nation to pair with this one. I'm thinking either KKR or Bain Capital. Suggestions?

[Kowani]

The whole premise is that each nation-state is to govern by an ideology derived from the region. It can be done- for example there are countries that are nationally and ideologically homogeneous.

No, there aren't. At all.

Sentinel Island waves at you.

[Germanic Templars]

This thread needs more dakka.

[Totally Not OEP]

Here’s the truth: WW2 was won by Soviet manpower and innovation coupled with American production and supplies.

WWII was won by American industry and manpower, the Soviets were a mere boost.

[Totally Not OEP]

Read the quotes I added.

Without the US the Soviets would have lost.
We did not simply help. We were the deciding factor.

Nah.

Only one completely uneducated in the Second World War would make such a claim.

The loss of the Ukraine and other occupied areas engendered shortages of coal (The Donbass was home to roughly 60% of Soviet output by itself), aluminum (Main Soviet facility was along the Dnieper, about 60-80% of production), iron ore (60% of production), steel (50% of production), electric power (30% of output), manganese ore (30% of production), and nickel (30% of production). Overall output of the machinery and metal goods sector had fallen by 40%. In addition, the USSR was also unable to meet the demand for copper, tin, zinc, lead, aluminum, and nickel with remaining sources; Lend Lease was sufficient to meet all of these demands except for aluminum and nickel. Antimony, tungsten, cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, tin, and magnesium were also almost entirely lacking.

If that was not damning enough in of itself, the food situation is. From Hunger and War: Food Provisioning in the Soviet Union During World War II :

[Kowani]

Here’s the truth: WW2 was won by Soviet manpower and innovation coupled with American production and supplies.

WWII was won by American industry and manpower, the Soviets were a mere boost.

The Soviets gave America time to make those things into part of the war effort.

[Totally Not OEP]

WWII was won by American industry and manpower, the Soviets were a mere boost.

The Soviets gave America time to make those things into part of the war effort.

Not at all, U.S. rearmament started in earnest in 1940 after France fell and American entry came less than six months after the Soviets were invaded.

[Kowani]

The Soviets gave America time to make those things into part of the war effort.

Not at all, U.S. rearmament started in earnest in 1940 after France fell and American entry came less than six months after the Soviets were invaded.

Imagine for a second that there is no Eastern front. Not only are there more men and material Hitler can use to conquer Britain, he can also create his “Fortress Europe.” Yeah, he’d still probably leave a rearguard, but nothing close to what he expended trying to take out Stalin. Those 6 months are more important than you think they are.

[Totally Not OEP]

Not at all, U.S. rearmament started in earnest in 1940 after France fell and American entry came less than six months after the Soviets were invaded.

Imagine for a second that there is no Eastern front. Not only are there more men and material Hitler can use to conquer Britain, he can also create his “Fortress Europe.” Yeah, he’d still probably leave a rearguard, but nothing close to what he expended trying to take out Stalin. Those 6 months are more important than you think they are.

Conquering Britain was never going to happen; the Germans lacked the sealift capacity to do so. The central issue of World War II was whether or not American political willpower was going to hold and, as long as it did, the Axis were always going to lose. The U.S. contained over 40% of global industrial war might, as compared to 20% for the combined big three of the Axis, while in the long run the American advantage in airplane and nuclear technology meant that, by the late 1940s, atomic weapons could be used to end a stalemate.

I do believe, however, that if the Soviets are knocked out the German capacity to wear down the Anglo-Americans is greatly increased and the potential for a stalemate peace is there. The Soviets are still irrelevant to the aforementioned central fact, however.

[Novus America]

Not at all, U.S. rearmament started in earnest in 1940 after France fell and American entry came less than six months after the Soviets were invaded.

Imagine for a second that there is no Eastern front. Not only are there more men and material Hitler can use to conquer Britain, he can also create his “Fortress Europe.” Yeah, he’d still probably leave a rearguard, but nothing close to what he expended trying to take out Stalin. Those 6 months are more important than you think they are.

Germany could not conquer Britain. They had basically no surface fleet.

Had it not been for the Soviets sure the Germans would fortify and hold out in Europe a while, while being relentlessly bombed, and those bombs would by 45 turn into nukes.

We still win.

[Telconi]

Imagine for a second that there is no Eastern front. Not only are there more men and material Hitler can use to conquer Britain, he can also create his “Fortress Europe.” Yeah, he’d still probably leave a rearguard, but nothing close to what he expended trying to take out Stalin. Those 6 months are more important than you think they are.

Germany could not conquer Britain. They had basically no surface fleet.

Had it not been for the Soviets sure the Germans would fortify and hold out in Europe a while, while being relentlessly bombed, and those bombs would by 45 turn into nukes.

We still win.

If the Soviets weren't chewing up resources, would the Germans have lost the air war? It very well could have been the British suffering constant relentless bombing.

[Totally Not OEP]

Germany could not conquer Britain. They had basically no surface fleet.

Had it not been for the Soviets sure the Germans would fortify and hold out in Europe a while, while being relentlessly bombed, and those bombs would by 45 turn into nukes.

We still win.

If the Soviets weren't chewing up resources, would the Germans have lost the air war? It very well could have been the British suffering constant relentless bombing.

Probably would've extended it out till 1945 or 1946. If Anglo-American political will holds out long enough, and I concede that is a serious question (The British were at the end of their rope by late 1943 and Marshall and the Joint Chiefs were seeing warning sides on the American angle in Mid-1945 historically), you'd probably see them finally gain control of the air then combined with nuclear attacks followed by them finally landing on the continent in earnest.

[Novus America]

Germany could not conquer Britain. They had basically no surface fleet.

Had it not been for the Soviets sure the Germans would fortify and hold out in Europe a while, while being relentlessly bombed, and those bombs would by 45 turn into nukes.

We still win.

If the Soviets weren't chewing up resources, would the Germans have lost the air war? It very well could have been the British suffering constant relentless bombing.

Yes, they still would have lost. They could not compete with combined US/UK aircraft production rates.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Anglo-American political will is always an issue in the wars they get involved in. If the Anglos and Americans were more willing to put their forces on the line, particularly with supporting Kolchak and the Ural Front, Russia would have been spared communism.

Vietnam also comes to mind.