1950 (OOC, Closed)(RP Still Going)

[Tadmirtolia]

Benomia, the version of AK47 that I study is not the latest that you mentioned. It is the first version that has some flaws, anyway it looks like a more compact Stg 44, so you have an edge with the upgraded version.

[Veddaria]

NOOO. Thats not the case people from NATO are inviting new members into it.

What is the point of it in the first place? From a completely IC perspective, it seems redundant with the existence of NATO.

Unless I'm wrong about what NATO did then (or what the United Front is doing now), this is an alliance, whereas NATO members both had an obligation to provide military assistance (which I don't think this does) and had to commit some troops to be under NATO control, which Spain could not accept.

And even if they do the same thing, Spain is largely joining to get people to end the sanctions against it - it wasn't invited to join NATO but was invited to join this.

Although since when is there a European Union?

[Tadmirtolia]

Since I founded it. The members were me (France), Italy and West Germany.

[Benomia]

Benomia, the version of AK47 that I study is not the latest that you mentioned. It is the first version that has some flaws, anyway it looks like a more compact Stg 44, so you have an edge with the upgraded version.

How could you have even gotten one? They only made like fifty thousand, and not a single one has left the USSR. Actually, not a single one has even left the RSFSR.

[Keznov]

Just re-posting to confirm, I'd like to be the DPRK/North Korea.

[Benomia]

Just re-posting to confirm, I'd like to be the DPRK/North Korea.

Accepted.

[Tadmirtolia]

Hello, France has Vietnam in 1950! Do you want sombody to help me?

[Benomia]

Hello, France has Vietnam in 1950! Do you want sombody to help me?

That didn't stop the Vietnam war! Your "dealings" in south Vietnam will escalate very soon. People won't be happy when their land comes under occupation.

[Tadmirtolia]

Well, let's make Vietnam socialist then.

[Benomia]

@LISSONIA

Can you see why the USSR claims that West Germany has no right to be in Berlin?

[Tadmirtolia]

Oh, Berlin is there. Thanks.

[Veddaria]

I doubt Spain was in much of a position to be offering military aid - it's armed forces were no better than Italy's at this point.

[Lissiona]

Regardless Spain we do not seek military weapons, all we need is man power. Send us some soldiers, we will arm them, train them and form the Spanish Volunteer Divison.

At Benomia yes I can see it is clearly located in the East, but being a cultural center point of German History we feel it should not fall under the Eastern Regieme.

Berlin should be apart of Western Germany.

[Veddaria]

At Benomia yes I can see it is clearly located in the East, but being a cultural center point of German History we feel it should not fall under the Eastern Regieme.

And particularly since the USSR had agreed to the other three sectors being controlled by the other three Allied powers and that the decision to unify Berlin must be made by all four powers, you can see why everyone else would be rather annoyed.

[Benomia]

Regardless Spain we do not seek military weapons, all we need is man power. Send us some soldiers, we will arm them, train them and form the Spanish Volunteer Divison.

At Benomia yes I can see it is clearly located in the East, but being a cultural center point of German History we feel it should not fall under the Eastern Regieme.

Because Beijing should totally be controlled by Taiwan.

[United Socialist Republics of Lupina]

So, NATO has been usurped by this United Front... am I getting this right?
And a fascist nation is willing to ally with a communist nation? All put together with capitalist, democratic nations. Rather strange, seeing as fascism had such great memories from 1945 in 1950 in the nations of the world, and the staunch anti-communist leaders of West Germany, USA and France being so friendly with Tito.

[Lissiona]

First off this is an alternate reality, second off Tito was good friends with the Western States.

[Lissiona]

"Because of its neutrality, Yugoslavia would often be rare among Communist countries to have diplomatic relations with right-wing, anti-Communist governments. For example, Yugoslavia was the only communist country allowed to have an embassy in Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay.[77] One notable exception to Yugoslavia's neutral stance toward anti-communist countries was Chile under Pinochet; Yugoslavia was one of many countries which severed diplomatic relations with Chile after Salvador Allende was overthrown.[78] Yugoslavia also provided military aid and arms supplies to staunchly anti-Communist regimes such as that of Guatemala under Kjell Eugenio Laugerud García.[79]"


Reporting on his death The New York Times commented


Tito sought to improve life. Unlike others who rose to power on the communist wave after WWII, Tito did not long demand that his people suffer for a distant vision of a better life. After an initial Soviet-influenced bleak period, Tito moved toward radical improvement of life in the country. Yugoslavia gradually became a bright spot amid the general grayness of Eastern Europe.

—The New York Times, May 5, 1980[83]
Taken from Wikipedia, Yugoslavia even armed anti commie rebels. Not to mention also offered Chechzslovkia aid from the Warsaw invasion.

[United Socialist Republics of Lupina]

I realize this is an AR, but your telling me that everything up to 1950 has been the exact same as it has been IRL and now suddenly de Gaulle and Truman want to be on speaking terms with Tito.

Also, Tito was friendly with the West because he wanted their money since he split with Stalin. He also was neutral in the cold war just so that Yugoslavia wouldn't suffer another war. Also, I'll point out that the USSR was much more warmer with Tito after Stalin's death so Tito's neutrality got the aid of both sides without aligning with either.

I'll also point out that Tito may have been a benevolent leader to the Yugoslav nation as a whole but he was a communist dictator just like Stalin. The Yugoslav federation and the USSR had theoretically given their comprised nations the right to seceed, but Tito would hardly have allowed that anymore than Stalin would've.

As for Titoism; it advocates non-alignment and the right of nations to pursue their own paths to socialism.

Trotskyism advocates the permenant international revolution; basically the expansion of socialism through use of force. Tito wouldn't use Trotsky as a champion for Titoism because Trosky was a radical that would've steamrolled a country like Yugoslavia in the name of the international revolution and disregarded Tito as a fool.

Stalinism advocates socialism in one country; that socialism needs to be built in one nation before supporting socialism elsewhere.

—The New York Times, May 5, 1980[83]
Tito sought to improve life. Unlike others who rose to power on the communist wave after WWII, Tito did not long demand that his people suffer for a distant vision of a better life. After an initial Soviet-influenced bleak period, Tito moved toward radical improvement of life in the country. Yugoslavia gradually became a bright spot amid the general grayness of Eastern Europe.
Taken from Wikipedia, Yugoslavia even armed anti commie rebels. Not to mention also offered Chechzslovkia aid from the Warsaw invasion.

Of course the NY Times would say that, Tito wasn't opposed to the West and he may well have improved the lives of those living in Yugoslavia but you notice it fails to mention his suppressing of nationalist movements. In bare essence, he is no different from any Soviet leader save Gorbachev in that regard.
Also, I'll point out that at Brehznev's funeral, he was allauded with praise for his improvement of the living conditions in the USSR and for the peace and stability his regime had kept with the world following Khruchev's radical years trying to out do the west.

[Veddaria]

Also, forming an alliance with a country can be quite different form liking a country. There's no telling how long these alliances will last.

[Lissiona]

The historical facts are up until 1950 Tito and Stalin hated eachother.
Tito was a friend of the west because he was Anti East for the most part.
This is an alternate Reality and yes Truman and De Gallue like me, in this AR.
Stop complaining because things arent favouring you....

Why did Tito offer arms to the Chezchs to thrawt a Soviet invasion if he was pro East? Why would he arm NATIONALIST ANTI COMMIES in South America? Sure he was non alinged but prefered the West. I am Yugoslavian I would know.

Secondly who are you to talk? You are Eastern Germany lol! You just want me as your ally or forced to be your ally. I dont like the Eastern Bloc hence why I am not part of it.

[Kryskov]

I'll be South Korea.

[Benomia]

All right! Now we can heat things up.

[Kryskov]

Thanks!

For future reference, unless you are roleplaying as your own NS nation, you need to put RPs in the Portal to the Multiverse section.

[United Socialist Republics of Lupina]

The historical facts are up until 1950 Tito and Stalin hated eachother.
Tito was a friend of the west because he was Anti East for the most part.
This is an alternate Reality and yes Truman and De Gallue like me, in this AR.
Stop complaining because things arent favouring you....

Why did Tito offer arms to the Chezchs to thrawt a Soviet invasion if he was pro East? Why would he arm NATIONALIST ANTI COMMIES in South America? Sure he was non alinged but prefered the West. I am Yugoslavian I would know.

Secondly who are you to talk? You are Eastern Germany lol! You just want me as your ally or forced to be your ally. I dont like the Eastern Bloc hence why I am not part of it.

On the contrary, i don't want you in an alliance with me whatsoever, i've made that quite clear in the past. Don't twist my words.

Also, Tito supported anti-communist groups and the Czecks because they were opposed to the Soviet Union to which Tito was opposed due to his brush with Stalin. He was more than willing to take what he could from COMECON and from the West. However, Tito was as pro-West as he was pro-East, he wanted Yugoslavia to be non-aligned. He was one of the founding members of the movement. He didn't want war or foriegn meddling in the Yugoslav state.

I will also point out that Czecksolvakia never had a hope of thwarting the Soviet invasion and any aid from Yugoslavia would be simply a waste of resources. Not even the US was willing to risk a war with the Soviets just to kepp the Czecks from being invaded.

Next, I'm not complaining about things not favoring me, I'm looking at things realistically. If history isn't being changed up until 1950, than de Gaulle and Truman wouldn't give a damn about communists and suddenly turning to Jan 1. 1950 isn't going to change their minds overnight. I am making observations, not complaining. If i wanted something favorable, I would've picked another nation. I chose the GDR for the exact purpose of being objective towards unfavorable odds.

Lastly, who are you to speak? Yugoslavia was hardly in any better position than East Germany to change the world one way or another.

Look, i'd love to continue debating this with you. TG me so we don't clutter up the OOC thread anymore.