Cold War RP: Reboot, (OPEN)

[Sarderia]

You know the Great Depression didn't just end with stocks raising 7% overnight, yes?

[Monsone]

You know the Great Depression didn't just end with stocks raising 7% overnight, yes?

Nor did it end with an ultra protectionist trading block sealing itself off from the world and supposedly getting rich doing that. But that aside, the increase is 7% from the low of three days ago when trading stopped. So while it seems huge, it's actually a fairly small increase when you take everything into consideration. And the increase was only because of the recovery plan reveal. Stocks could still fall further.

[Bolslania]

I'm currently working on my list, I have to do research but I prefer to have my list detailed so I don't have to research the same ship later

EDIT: One question regarding Germany's ships, how do you have the battleships and heavy cruisers? Those take 4 years or more to build. And Germany has had maybe 4 years? I highly doubt right after 1945 Germany would have started building battleships.

Also why 1 billion pistols? Is he arming the population of China?

Sorry, I meant 1 million, which is to equip active duty and reservists.

EDIT: No battleships. Walther PPs because they are more effective than lugers, which were complicated and expensive to make.

[Malay Raya]

I studied for about an hour for these economic terms and what their effects would be. I hope it would be adequate if not excessive lol.

I already have a vague list of military assets that Turkey has, just have to touch it up a bit and i'll be okay to post it.

[Sarderia]

Simple. We will be isolated form the rest of the world, and avoid your economic recession because we won't have to buy now worhtless things from you. The USSR wasn't affected that much by the stock market crash of 1929(so many orphans), because it had a command economy. Granted, that didn't help much, since it was piss poor, but it will to us.

No but seriously, this protectionsim might turn more of the world to non-oil bassed energy since OPEC will just cease trading it when the global economy has an economic downturn or crisis. That means more coal, hydroelectric, and *gasp* nuclear will all become more common as energy sources since they will not be restricted by an organization that won't trade when the global economy is aflicted by a recession or downturn. You're saying no to things like advanced medical supplies from Europe, medicines only made industrial nations like America, uranium for your nuclear projects, etc.

The reason the USSR wasn't affected by the Crash of 1929 was because it had nothing to trade on the stock market and had no market of it's own. Partly because of the command economy, but mostly because there where few economic freedoms and not enough for large scale trade with the rest of the world, so the crash wasn't felt because there was practially no international trade in comodities, just grain and a few other materials). But unlike the USSR, all your countries have companies and comodities that are traded globaly so even if you "seal" yourselves off, the commodities continue to trade because of the free market. And while the "sealing" of OPEC may jack up their value, it's artificial inflation that would benefit countries with less of those resources since their lesser ammounts are now worth so much more. Not to mention the fact that once you "unseal" yourselves, the value will drop and OPEC will have lost out on an artificially inflated comodity bubble. So it's a loose-loose scenario either way.

IDK why OPEC think's this is a good idea. From my perspective it's going to lead to less inversion in OPEC countries as nations invest elsewhere because of the fact that other nations don't view an economic downturn as unusual it's part of a free market economy. And those countries will boom in the near future.

The other issue

You sound like France is the superpower that controls the World economy. When in reality it's a war-torn crushed and damaged country in shambles thanks to Blitzkrieg, the German occupation (which destroyed countless industries, yes, industries - they don't want Partisans to have arms and the Vichy regime even did the same). And you hope that given 5 years France would restore its economic position? Where'd you even get thay shitload of cash to bulid Africa from? Because the Marshall Plan certainly don't cover the costs.

I don't know if you magicked the money out of the air or something, but large-scale construction in Africa just isn't possible. I expect France to invest little to nothing on Iran because they simply don't have the cash. And OPEC certainly don't want to shut everyone and everything up. Only France (the cause of the stock market drop). We'll continue to have perfect relations with Britain and Germany and the rest.

And Oil isn't a commodity bubble like dot-com. The difference is that the value of dot-com has been so hyperinflated above their actual value (because again the economic media propaganda fueled by IBM, Yahoo, and Facebook plays a lot). Oil isn't because the WWII was partially fought over oil, and it has grown into so much importance currently that you'll be going everywhere with horses if oil shipments didn't come. Sure there are coal (that fuels electricity power plants) but it's been largely supplanted by oil.

Furthermore, we don't even have to beat you. OPEC and AP could just fund projects in DRA and India, and we'll have more natural resources shipment coming than all France could ever muster. Besides, a price war between OPEC and French oil would certainly be won by OPEC in the future - because OPEC nations control over 50% of the world's petroleum right now, whereas France is much, much smaller than that. We could swarm the European market with cheap oil and the French producers would have to compete lower and lower until you finally bankrupted yourself.

You know the Great Depression didn't just end with stocks raising 7% overnight, yes?

Nor did it end with an ultra protectionist trading block sealing itself off from the world and supposedly getting rich doing that. But that aside, the increase is 7% from the low of three days ago when trading stopped. So while it seems huge, it's actually a fairly small increase when you take everything into consideration. And the increase was only because of the recovery plan reveal. Stocks could still fall further.

Stock prices fluctuate. This COVID pandemic is an instance. No reveal of Government plans will be going to change that unless you have drastic measures such as Trump's reveal of 20 million unemployed people getting back to work last month which singlehandedly bumped NASDAQ back. And France isn't in a position to do that (and I'm not sure the employment reports is complerely true either). To do that you must have a centrally funded welfare program (like the check US Fed govt gave people). France is already suffering from the destruction of infrastructure. Marshall Plan couldn't afford it certainly (it was 12 billion dollars shared among more than a dozen European countries).

[Sarderia]

Well, I am okay if France loaned the hell out to fund its economy, irresponsibly (even more severe than Greece and Japan IRL) but it'll surely make your government bankrupt and a massive recession 5 to 10 yrs later. And when the time comes I'm sure the DRA would be happy to snatch West Africa out of the way.

[Bolslania]

I just finished this:

https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/e ... 9fd156d7e0

And I'm going to start enacting it.

[Sarderia]

I just finished this:

https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/e ... 9fd156d7e0

And I'm going to start enacting it.

Where'd you get that $45B bucks from? And the Reichsmark would be surely losing a great deal of value after WW2. Good thing the Nazis at least bulit the Autobahn so you don't have to spend more cash to construct roads.

[Bolslania]

I just finished this:

https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/e ... 9fd156d7e0

And I'm going to start enacting it.

Where'd you get that $45B bucks from? And the Reichsmark would be surely losing a great deal of value after WW2. Good thing the Nazis at least bulit the Autobahn so you don't have to spend more cash to construct roads.

A lot of loans I'm guessing. So the mark isn't valuable, but I need to put money in people's pockets, so the infrastructure plans I had put into place a while ago are continuing, and people are getting stipends.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

[Sarderia]

Where'd you get that $45B bucks from? And the Reichsmark would be surely losing a great deal of value after WW2. Good thing the Nazis at least bulit the Autobahn so you don't have to spend more cash to construct roads.

A lot of loans I'm guessing. So the mark isn't valuable, but I need to put money in people's pockets, so the infrastructure plans I had put into place a while ago are continuing, and people are getting stipends.

So cutting the interest rates and taking up mass loans. I guess the Reichsmark's value compared to the US Dollar would turn down even more then. Do you use a gold standard or do you just print the money backed on trust (by the people?)

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

I guess France thinks they're both a wartorn nation that relies on Marshall Plan and a rich competitor to America all at once. Quite a strange world we leave in.

[Sarderia]

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

India, I'd advise you and OPEC not to turn protectionist. We could use the natural resources to fund construction and development projects that would ultimately employ many people. And meanwhile start a price war with France as well.

[Exalted Inquellian State]

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

India, I'd advise you and OPEC not to turn protectionist. We could use the natural resources to fund construction and development projects that would ultimately employ many people. And meanwhile start a price war with France as well.

SO what do we do? Just cut trade of with France?

WAIT!

We could use the situation to our advantage. We will tell them we will not only reopen trade, but help them economically... if they support the Tsarists. Or, if they deny, cut support to the Soviets.

[Bolslania]

A lot of loans I'm guessing. So the mark isn't valuable, but I need to put money in people's pockets, so the infrastructure plans I had put into place a while ago are continuing, and people are getting stipends.

So cutting the interest rates and taking up mass loans. I guess the Reichsmark's value compared to the US Dollar would turn down even more then. Do you use a gold standard or do you just print the money backed on trust (by the people?)

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

I guess France thinks they're both a wartorn nation that relies on Marshall Plan and a rich competitor to America all at once. Quite a strange world we leave in.

Really inflation isn't a huge issue. Yet, but the value will decrease, and do you recommend gold standard or trust?

[Sarderia]

India, I'd advise you and OPEC not to turn protectionist. We could use the natural resources to fund construction and development projects that would ultimately employ many people. And meanwhile start a price war with France as well.

SO what do we do? Just cut trade of with France?

WAIT!

We could use the situation to our advantage. We will tell them we will not only reopen trade, but help them economically... if they support the Tsarists. Or, if they deny, cut support to the Soviets.

No, I mean as France escalated the whole situation by attacking the Tsarists first, I suggest OPEC just start a price war with France (not shutting out trade). OPEC nations are partly industrialized so we can churn out more cheap goods to compete with French goods. Ultimately they would be driven out by competition and our citizens gain more jobs. Our natural resources is also larger than France's so we could start an oil price war, iron price war, coal price war and uranium price war etc. Because our goods is so cheap nobody would even think to buy French goods anymore.

Of course they can stop this all by pledging to remain neutral in the USSR war.

So cutting the interest rates and taking up mass loans. I guess the Reichsmark's value compared to the US Dollar would turn down even more then. Do you use a gold standard or do you just print the money backed on trust (by the people?)

I guess France thinks they're both a wartorn nation that relies on Marshall Plan and a rich competitor to America all at once. Quite a strange world we leave in.

Really inflation isn't a huge issue. Yet, but the value will decrease, and do you recommend gold standard or trust?

I'd recommend trust because the Nazi gold was all stolen by Swiss, UK, and USA. As Germany is known to make quality products and a rather robust industrial base it's value wont drop lower (at least compared to other European nations)

[Bolslania]

SO what do we do? Just cut trade of with France?

WAIT!

We could use the situation to our advantage. We will tell them we will not only reopen trade, but help them economically... if they support the Tsarists. Or, if they deny, cut support to the Soviets.

No, I mean as France escalated the whole situation by attacking the Tsarists first, I suggest OPEC just start a price war with France (not shutting out trade). OPEC nations are partly industrialized so we can churn out more cheap goods to compete with French goods. Ultimately they would be driven out by competition and our citizens gain more jobs. Our natural resources is also larger than France's so we could start an oil price war, iron price war, coal price war and uranium price war etc. Because our goods is so cheap nobody would even think to buy French goods anymore.

Of course they can stop this all by pledging to remain neutral in the USSR war.

Really inflation isn't a huge issue. Yet, but the value will decrease, and do you recommend gold standard or trust?

I'd recommend trust because the Nazi gold was all stolen by Swiss, UK, and USA. As Germany is known to make quality products and a rather robust industrial base it's value wont drop lower (at least compared to other European nations)

k. German engineering is trustworthy. Unless it's made by Porsche.

[Monsone]

You sound like France is the superpower that controls the World economy. When in reality it's a war-torn crushed and damaged country in shambles thanks to Blitzkrieg, the German occupation (which destroyed countless industries, yes, industries - they don't want Partisans to have arms and the Vichy regime even did the same). And you hope that given 5 years France would restore its economic position? Where'd you even get thay shitload of cash to bulid Africa from? Because the Marshall Plan certainly don't cover the costs.

I don't know if you magicked the money out of the air or something, but large-scale construction in Africa just isn't possible. I expect France to invest little to nothing on Iran because they simply don't have the cash. And OPEC certainly don't want to shut everyone and everything up. Only France (the cause of the stock market drop). We'll continue to have perfect relations with Britain and Germany and the rest.

And Oil isn't a commodity bubble like dot-com. The difference is that the value of dot-com has been so hyperinflated above their actual value (because again the economic media propaganda fueled by IBM, Yahoo, and Facebook plays a lot). Oil isn't because the WWII was partially fought over oil, and it has grown into so much importance currently that you'll be going everywhere with horses if oil shipments didn't come. Sure there are coal (that fuels electricity power plants) but it's been largely supplanted by oil.

Furthermore, we don't even have to beat you. OPEC and AP could just fund projects in DRA and India, and we'll have more natural resources shipment coming than all France could ever muster. Besides, a price war between OPEC and French oil would certainly be won by OPEC in the future - because OPEC nations control over 50% of the world's petroleum right now, whereas France is much, much smaller than that. We could swarm the European market with cheap oil and the French producers would have to compete lower and lower until you finally bankrupted yourself.

Nor did it end with an ultra protectionist trading block sealing itself off from the world and supposedly getting rich doing that. But that aside, the increase is 7% from the low of three days ago when trading stopped. So while it seems huge, it's actually a fairly small increase when you take everything into consideration. And the increase was only because of the recovery plan reveal. Stocks could still fall further.

Stock prices fluctuate. This COVID pandemic is an instance. No reveal of Government plans will be going to change that unless you have drastic measures such as Trump's reveal of 20 million unemployed people getting back to work last month which singlehandedly bumped NASDAQ back. And France isn't in a position to do that (and I'm not sure the employment reports is complerely true either). To do that you must have a centrally funded welfare program (like the check US Fed govt gave people). France is already suffering from the destruction of infrastructure. Marshall Plan couldn't afford it certainly (it was 12 billion dollars shared among more than a dozen European countries).

Let me make two things clear. By 1950, France had returned and surpassed it's pre-war wealth and income levels. Industry was close to surpassing pre-war levels and agriculture was significantly above it's pre-war levels. No France was not a rich country, but it wasn't the destroyed nation that countries like Germany should be or Poland. Infrastructure still lacked in various fields, but had largely been restored to it's pre-war extent.

To your dismay, the investment cash was originally going to be used by companies to invest in countries like Iran. But it is now being diverted so as the companies will now invest in France instead of Iran or really anywhere else. The goal is much like that of the New Deal except that it involves more private industry instead of just government infrastructure projects.

Third, France has had a welfare state for longer than Iran has profited off of oil. Socialized healthcare and other social projects have existed since the 19th century. So yes France does have a centralized welfare system in place and the post-WW2 Pons Plan was an example of industry welfare as well as government control.

The bigger issue is Iran's "power" sure you may be a middle income nation and you may run OPEC, but in the end, you don't control the global economy. In no way, shape, or form should Iran be this strong, even in it's current RP state. Oil in 1950 is the equivalent of $30 a barrel today. That's not a lot at all. And sure Iran may have a lot of oil, but at $30 a barrel, Gulf States go into recession IRL. So let me make this clear. The whole "Iran has more power than France" charade is basically just that; a charade. France has a highly diverse industrial and agricultural base that despite the war devastation still exists. Iran has a strong economy that is bankrolled by oil. The issue is that oil is not worth that much in 1950 so it's going to be hard to bankroll an economy the size of Iran's.

Iran would rely heavily on the import of food thanks to the general lack of arable land (Iran is mostly mountains, with a significant ammount of desert as well as the high risk of drought). Factor in the fact that Iran is supposedly industrialized (industry requires a lot of water depending on what you're making, but in general, you need a lot of water), then Iran should be on the verge of a drought. Sure Iran has more water than any other Middle Eastern nation, but not enough to support an industry like the one Iran claims to have in this RP. And you can't just import water to mkae up the shortfall because that water would be more expensive than your oil.

Let meput it this way. How much water does it take to make a Centurion tank that Iran claims to produce (why would the UK license the design to them is beyond me to being with)? The answer is it takes a lot of water. All metalurgical processes take a huge ammount of water. So all the casting of steel, rolling of steel, and the production of steel in the first place will seriously drain the precious water reserves Iran has. Then the biggest offender is the manufacturing of the main gun. As the barrel is borred out, water is poured over the barrel and once the barrel has been borred out, the whole battel is dipped in water. Add that on top off all the water needed to make the steel in the first place, and that adds up to a huge ammount of water.

Basically, Iran may have a great economy, but all that industry is using a whole lot of water you can't replace. The Persian Gulf is not really fit to pump water out of in 1950, nor is the Caspian (especially with all the industry and pollution the USSR has sent down the Volga). And the Tigris and Euphrates rivers being in Turkey, and IRL Turkey built dams on the rivers pretty early on so I'll assume it's a similar case here.

Basically, Iran is going to slowly bleed itself dry of water as it tries to industrialize. and no ammount of imported water will be able to solve this issue since imported water will cost more than it provides.

[Malay Raya]

Whoa, I didn't even think of the rivers. Damn, this is a bonus.

[Malay Raya]

Turkish Armed Forces List of Size & Equipment

* sign next to number indicates pending purchase or modification
Take note that these numbers are valid when there are no recessions, so there might be cuts for the number of active forces as they are moved to the reserves. Reserves forces are adequately trained, but combat wise they are as effective as militias.

Turkish Army - 320,000 active - 500,000 reserves
Turkish Navy - 8,000 active
Turkish Air Force - 20,000 active

Standard Issue:
Rifles: Tokarev SVT-40, Mosin Nagant
SMG: PPSh-41
LMG: DP-27/DP-28
HMG (vehicle mounted): DShK 1938

Tanks & AFV
Assorted AFVs - 300
Combat Troop Transports (MG mounted, etc.) - ~500
T-54 mod. 1949 - 195 + (*200)
T-34 (1942) - 550
M4A3E2 75mm - 270 (American gift) *to be upgraded to 76mm
M4A3E8 76mm - 300 (French gift)
T-34-85 (1946) - 380 + (100 originally meant for the Soviets)
SU-100 - 20 + (30 originally meant for the Soviets)

Note: Turkish AFVs are mostly used for defensive purposes, rarely fielded for offensive wars.

Artillery (Field Guns/Howitzers/Anti-Tank)
1,500 assorted below 122mm (Soviet & American)
350+80 122mm A-19 M1931/37 Field Guns (French gift + Soviet)
150+120 122mm A-19 M1931 Field Guns (French gift + Soviet)
150+50 152mm M1937 ML-20 Howitzers (French gift + Soviet)

AA Guns
Assorted Light AA (25mm - 45mm) - ~1,000
Assorted Heavy AA (76mm-88mm) - ~400

Note: AA Guns & Artillery are just my estimation, I don't have a clear idea on what are the logical numbers for Turkey at this time

Combat Aircraft (includes trainers)
Curtiss P-40 - 100 (American gift during WW2)
La-5 - 195
La-9 - 70
A-20 Havoc med bomber/ground attack - 40 (American gift)
Tu-2 med bomber - 18
Il-10 ground attack - 30

Transport/Utility
Douglas C-47 - 6
Douglas DC-3 - 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Naval_Forces

In active service: 2 battleships, 8 cruisers (including 2 French Suffren class), 2 yachts, 5 destroyers, 6 torpedo boats, 5 gunboats, 1 minelayer, 1 aviso, 4 tugs and 7 motorboats.

[Monsone]

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

Neither. France has recovered and even surpassed pre-WW2 economic data. But the infrastructure is not up to par, poverty is rampant in French Africa for the moment, and the actual boom of the postwar boom hasn't really started. The point being that France's economic recovery is nearly over, but it's economic boom is just starting. American aid has allowed the fast recovery, but cutting it will hamper the boom and it will be more of a continued post-war recovery and not a post-war boom.

The case for American aid is that without it Europe will not be able to have a post-war boom as soon as it should, and it's possible that without the aid, the economies of Europe will even suffer a bit since the lack of aid would lead to a bit of economic uncertainty and likely more market volatility. The better categorization for France at the moment is that France is a middle income nation with a developed economy and developing infrastructure.

Then again, the lavish lifestyle led by the Indian monarch is prime for a revolution. After all, what would the people who are poor, maybe even starving in the streets think of a monarchy who lives in luxury. Blame and criticize France, point out all the flaws. But don't forget your own flawed societies and the huge wealth disparities that exist in your nations or any of the other flaws that you try to gloss over with oil. They are only temporarily hidden.

[Monsone]

Did Germany pull a Weimar and start printing money to solve it's economic issues again? That's not going to be a good strategy at all.

[Biotopia]

Can somebody please update me on our UN application.

Hyper capital has gone mute and we need to the UN membership to move our storyline forward. I'm literally twiddling my thumbs in the mean time.

PS: US, UK and Ireland i'll be asking you directly for some aid.

[Arvenia]

Can somebody please update me on our UN application.

Hyper capital has gone mute and we need to the UN membership to move our storyline forward. I'm literally twiddling my thumbs in the mean time.

PS: US, UK and Ireland i'll be asking you directly for some aid.

I can aid you.

[Sarderia]

You sound like France is the superpower that controls the World economy. When in reality it's a war-torn crushed and damaged country in shambles thanks to Blitzkrieg, the German occupation (which destroyed countless industries, yes, industries - they don't want Partisans to have arms and the Vichy regime even did the same). And you hope that given 5 years France would restore its economic position? Where'd you even get thay shitload of cash to bulid Africa from? Because the Marshall Plan certainly don't cover the costs.

I don't know if you magicked the money out of the air or something, but large-scale construction in Africa just isn't possible. I expect France to invest little to nothing on Iran because they simply don't have the cash. And OPEC certainly don't want to shut everyone and everything up. Only France (the cause of the stock market drop). We'll continue to have perfect relations with Britain and Germany and the rest.

And Oil isn't a commodity bubble like dot-com. The difference is that the value of dot-com has been so hyperinflated above their actual value (because again the economic media propaganda fueled by IBM, Yahoo, and Facebook plays a lot). Oil isn't because the WWII was partially fought over oil, and it has grown into so much importance currently that you'll be going everywhere with horses if oil shipments didn't come. Sure there are coal (that fuels electricity power plants) but it's been largely supplanted by oil.

Furthermore, we don't even have to beat you. OPEC and AP could just fund projects in DRA and India, and we'll have more natural resources shipment coming than all France could ever muster. Besides, a price war between OPEC and French oil would certainly be won by OPEC in the future - because OPEC nations control over 50% of the world's petroleum right now, whereas France is much, much smaller than that. We could swarm the European market with cheap oil and the French producers would have to compete lower and lower until you finally bankrupted yourself.



Stock prices fluctuate. This COVID pandemic is an instance. No reveal of Government plans will be going to change that unless you have drastic measures such as Trump's reveal of 20 million unemployed people getting back to work last month which singlehandedly bumped NASDAQ back. And France isn't in a position to do that (and I'm not sure the employment reports is complerely true either). To do that you must have a centrally funded welfare program (like the check US Fed govt gave people). France is already suffering from the destruction of infrastructure. Marshall Plan couldn't afford it certainly (it was 12 billion dollars shared among more than a dozen European countries).

Let me make two things clear. By 1950, France had returned and surpassed it's pre-war wealth and income levels. Industry was close to surpassing pre-war levels and agriculture was significantly above it's pre-war levels. No France was not a rich country, but it wasn't the destroyed nation that countries like Germany should be or Poland. Infrastructure still lacked in various fields, but had largely been restored to it's pre-war extent.

To your dismay, the investment cash was originally going to be used by companies to invest in countries like Iran. But it is now being diverted so as the companies will now invest in France instead of Iran or really anywhere else. The goal is much like that of the New Deal except that it involves more private industry instead of just government infrastructure projects.

Third, France has had a welfare state for longer than Iran has profited off of oil. Socialized healthcare and other social projects have existed since the 19th century. So yes France does have a centralized welfare system in place and the post-WW2 Pons Plan was an example of industry welfare as well as government control.

The bigger issue is Iran's "power" sure you may be a middle income nation and you may run OPEC, but in the end, you don't control the global economy. In no way, shape, or form should Iran be this strong, even in it's current RP state. Oil in 1950 is the equivalent of $30 a barrel today. That's not a lot at all. And sure Iran may have a lot of oil, but at $30 a barrel, Gulf States go into recession IRL. So let me make this clear. The whole "Iran has more power than France" charade is basically just that; a charade. France has a highly diverse industrial and agricultural base that despite the war devastation still exists. Iran has a strong economy that is bankrolled by oil. The issue is that oil is not worth that much in 1950 so it's going to be hard to bankroll an economy the size of Iran's.

Iran would rely heavily on the import of food thanks to the general lack of arable land (Iran is mostly mountains, with a significant ammount of desert as well as the high risk of drought). Factor in the fact that Iran is supposedly industrialized (industry requires a lot of water depending on what you're making, but in general, you need a lot of water), then Iran should be on the verge of a drought. Sure Iran has more water than any other Middle Eastern nation, but not enough to support an industry like the one Iran claims to have in this RP. And you can't just import water to mkae up the shortfall because that water would be more expensive than your oil.

Let meput it this way. How much water does it take to make a Centurion tank that Iran claims to produce (why would the UK license the design to them is beyond me to being with)? The answer is it takes a lot of water. All metalurgical processes take a huge ammount of water. So all the casting of steel, rolling of steel, and the production of steel in the first place will seriously drain the precious water reserves Iran has. Then the biggest offender is the manufacturing of the main gun. As the barrel is borred out, water is poured over the barrel and once the barrel has been borred out, the whole battel is dipped in water. Add that on top off all the water needed to make the steel in the first place, and that adds up to a huge ammount of water.

Basically, Iran may have a great economy, but all that industry is using a whole lot of water you can't replace. The Persian Gulf is not really fit to pump water out of in 1950, nor is the Caspian (especially with all the industry and pollution the USSR has sent down the Volga). And the Tigris and Euphrates rivers being in Turkey, and IRL Turkey built dams on the rivers pretty early on so I'll assume it's a similar case here.

Basically, Iran is going to slowly bleed itself dry of water as it tries to industrialize. and no ammount of imported water will be able to solve this issue since imported water will cost more than it provides.

1. There is absolutely no way France with its current state of spending could return both agricultura and industry to the pre-WWII levels. Firstly, France has become embroiled in too many offensive conflicts to begin with (War with the Rashid Caliphate and mass mobilization of 3 million troops against Czechoslovakia). Historically, the French surrendered and withdrew from their colonies due to the inability to maintain it after the war, because France is a destroyed nation, like Germany or Poland. Most of the Allies' battleground is in those 3 nations, in addition the Allies bombed every vital infrastructure link (Bridges, roads, etc) so France would have to repair much more infrastructure than its neighbors, such as Britain. With that given, there is no way for even the Pons Plan or De Gaulle's economic plan to succeed in this RP's France, because it's been overextending and overreaching its economy to participate in international wars.

2. Mass military spending that doesn't help the economy. You stated way before that France has 8 million soldiers in it's military (which would be impossible by itself but for the sake of ending this discussion I'm going to ignore it). While most of the soldiers are reservists you're basically turning your country into North Korea. The only region that matters is Metropolitan France (and maybe Algeria because it has significant French colonists and an adequate infrastructure to be considered an extension of Metropolitan France) the others, like the African interior, is way too underdeveloped to be considered significant. Of the more than 120 million of your population, only 48 million (Metropolitan France) is already industrialized and enjoy higher levels of economic prosperity. The rest is hinterland, and I'm not sure France has done the effort to spread literacy there either. You invaded the Rashid Caliphate in 1949, only 4 years after the war. Such action would cost significant portion of your economy that supposedly goes to re-industrialization and rebuilding of French infrastructure to a war over some desert land in Arabia instead. You supplied Siam in the invasion of Japan, with numerous weapons, while the industrial capacity could have been used to make cars or tractors instead (remember Germany destroyed much of the French weapons and factories so you have little to nothing to salvage from WW2). You mobilized 3 million troops against Czechoslovakia, an enormous logistical endeavor that should cost your economy drastically. With all this combined, I imagine France would have lower living standards than even Germany, the most wartorn country in Europe, because Germany didn't commit their nation to being North Korea 2.0 (aka mass militarization). That said, France should have experienced another Revolution currently because your administration is very inept (supporting numerous wars) and the national treasury should have been drained by now.

3. The colonies are made departments only in 1949. This itself is impossible because of the enormous logistical challenge to make every colonial division a department similar to Metropolitan France. Why don't you think the French IRL made New Caledonia a department? Because they have a huge native population, they want independence, and it'll be very hard to integrate New Caledonia with mainland France. The same goes for Africa and all you did to draw lines along tribal borders etc. Expect two dozen civil wars on the next few decades if you did. There would be massive civil revolt uprising in every new department. Your military presence is overextended and there is no way you could effectively maintain control of that large a region.

4. I never claimed "Iran is a stronger country than France". Of course it's not when Iran just gained independence some 40 years ago from Britain. And what you need to know is Iran does not rely on Oil before the Oil boom of the 1920-1930s. The economy is mainly based on textile and agriculture. About 10-19% of Iran's land is arable land which is mostly located on western parts of the country. The Eastern part is mountainous desert, sure, but there is little civillian presence there so it wouldn't really matter. Furthermore Iran has 137 km2 of renewable water resources, which is bigger than European countries such as Spain and Portugal, and most of it is located in a central valley/plateau bordering Iraq. Aside from a few specks of the Zagros Mountains jutting to the valley there is no significant obstacle to an interlinked railway system. The presence of numerous rivers (Karun, Sefid, Qom, Zayandeh, etc) across this region, a massive lake (Lake Urmia) and hundreds of other smaller lakes warrants enough water for consumption. Furthermore, I'd advise you to get your facts straight before even debating, as you consider industry as the primary consumer of water resources - which is totally wrong. Water resources in every major country is consumed mainly by agriculture. Iran has traditionally been an agricultural center (wheat, barley, fruits) that has been self-sustaining since the past so I don't think why it should import foods by now, and industry is not limited in producing tanks. Iran had no major wars (other than the invasion of Kurdistan and Iraq which is done fairly recently and swiftly as Turkey is also invading from the north, and Iraq experienced a monarchis rebellion) so why would it produce the mass amounts of tanks like France did? Frankly, the Iranian economy is in a more robust position
to embrace the incoming oil boom, than France to embrace the subsequent 1960-1990s European economic boom.

EDIT: I'm going to put this as a little reminder of reasons regarding France's economic failure (in this RP)

Reasons why France (and other European states) shouldn't have a very large army:

• Economy

The GDP of France in 1950 is 15,609 Euros or US$ 17,518,995 (which would be $186,380,298.92 in 2020 dollars). France is still reeling off the effects of World War 2 where its factories and transportation was heavily damaged.. The Germans did not use French factories to bulid their war equipments; they supplied themselves from Germany. The Germans seized about 80 percent of the French food production, which caused severe disruption to the household economy of the French people. French farm production fell in half because of lack of fuel, fertilizer and workers. One of the conditions of the armistice was to pay the costs of the 300,000-strong occupying German army, which amounted to 20 million Reichsmark per day. This severely drained the French treasury.

The Allies' Transportation Plan (destruction of vital transport links to cripple German mobilization throughout occupied territories) aiming at the systematic destruction of French railway marshalling yards and railway bridges did not help either. So France is left very crippled and deficient in infrastructure, as is the rest of Europe.

As for the Trente Glorieuses, it happened because France followed De Gaulle's dirigiste economic policy, which included substantial state-directed control over a capitalist economy (nationalization of industries e.g TGV, Air France, etc. etc.) So the government is spending most of the Marshall Plan money into the economic development of France, which would be severely hindered if they have a conscription running.

Compare this with South Korea, another highly booming economy which experienced conscription. Until 1961, South Korea received a 3100 million dollar donation from the United States, a very high figure for the time, a privilege for being on the hottest frontier of the Cold War. Compare this with the Marshall Plan's 12 billion dollars which is shared by more than 10 European countries. This policy of foreign economic and military support continued for decades. This made the chaebols (SK conglomerates) internationally competitive. Why? because they had an advantage of higher funding from Americans.

South Korea's current population is about 51 million, and their army size is about 400,000. That means South Korea utilizes 1% of their population for armed forces, in a given time. France in this RP with 120 billion population and having a 8 million strong armed forces (active plus reserves) could not be possible because first, it's about 8% of the population (which is higher than SK's rate) and second France's economy doesn't have that much of an incentive compared with SK. Especially when the Marshall Plan money goes to Army funding.

• Demographics

Now let's talk about Demographics. I am going with a very simple fact here. Let's take a look at how many conflicts in Africa there are right now, and how many of them occured in ex-French colonies. Chad, Cameroon, Mali, CAR, most of West Africa is all ex-French colony. The French colonial administration separated thousands of tribes by man-made demarcation lines, it's effects could be felt until this day.

And you expect by making them all departements and arrondisements of France it would soon end out peacefully? Of course not. You would first conduct a survey to define tribal lands first as not to overlap with each other. Even a simple little wrong border would result in a conflict over land traditionally held hundreds of years. Such survey would cost decades to do.

Not to mention, unlike British colonies, France does not really put an emphasis on education and development towards its colonies. Most of them are resource extraction, or made so to deter the British from expanding further into Africa. Now that I've reminded you, you might try to claim otherwise, but note with every higher education institution you set up there would be a larger desire for independence. France took Algeria in a series of wars and gave most of the fertile lands to the pied-noirs (French Christian colonists). It would be folly to assume none of the Algerians want those lands back. France didn't really offer much (in terms of GDP and wealth increase) during the New Imperialism era so why would the colonies want to integrate with France?

That and the fact you need to train most of your 120 million population on industrial work, literacy, French language, to even pass the basic requirements of being a French citizen IRL. So "as long as my army didn't exceed 10% like in the rule" is folly and godmodding. If I as Iran, my claim includes China, thus bringing my population to about 500 million, by that logic I could have 50 million people within my army. But that is simply impossible because of demographic reasons.

• Geography

Finally the most important reason; Geography. France's colonial possessions literally included all of Africa. It would be very, very hard for French instructors to train people sufficiently enough that there'd be 8 million reservists in your army. There is no paved roads, much less railroads in the French colonial territories. Now that I've reminded you again you might counter it by saying "France in this RP buildded it etc etc" but it would be simply impossible and a strain towards the French economy in the New Imperialism era. Remember France is entangled with various conflicts and colonial wars, and development in the coloneis is halted because WWI in the end.

Secondly, to organize the spread 120 million army would be an extreme and arduous task. The US bulit a series of fortifications across their territory but it took literally 300 years. And that is aided by a homogenous population as well (white Americans). France with the majority of 120 million population being Sub-saharan African, North African there would be significant obstacles in constructing such infrastructures.

I've done my fair share of "cheating" but never on Monsone's scale. I'd certainly appreciate the permission to godmod Iran on the scale Monsone did to France...

France, you really need to decide what you are. Are you a wartorn nation that can't fix its economy and has to rely on America for everything? Or a rich nation that somehow raises it's stocks overnight?

Neither. France has recovered and even surpassed pre-WW2 economic data. But the infrastructure is not up to par, poverty is rampant in French Africa for the moment, and the actual boom of the postwar boom hasn't really started. The point being that France's economic recovery is nearly over, but it's economic boom is just starting. American aid has allowed the fast recovery, but cutting it will hamper the boom and it will be more of a continued post-war recovery and not a post-war boom.

The case for American aid is that without it Europe will not be able to have a post-war boom as soon as it should, and it's possible that without the aid, the economies of Europe will even suffer a bit since the lack of aid would lead to a bit of economic uncertainty and likely more market volatility. The better categorization for France at the moment is that France is a middle income nation with a developed economy and developing infrastructure.

Then again, the lavish lifestyle led by the Indian monarch is prime for a revolution. After all, what would the people who are poor, maybe even starving in the streets think of a monarchy who lives in luxury. Blame and criticize France, point out all the flaws. But don't forget your own flawed societies and the huge wealth disparities that exist in your nations or any of the other flaws that you try to gloss over with oil. They are only temporarily hidden.

If France is able to fuck up Russia, going to war with Arabia, and send 3 million troops against Czechoslovakia I don't see the need of Marshall Plan rn. You can always conjure more money (or godmod the hell out of it) to fuel your industry.

I mean, seriously, if you wanna play superpower so badly why don't you just take America from the start? It'd be much easier and there's a real jsutification on how you managed to project that large of an influence across the world, and it explains the economy, doesn't it?

[Monsone]

1. There is absolutely no way France with its current state of spending could return both agricultural and industry to the pre-WWII levels. Firstly, France has become embroiled in too many offensive conflicts to begin with (War with the Rashid Caliphate and mass mobilization of 3 million troops against Czechoslovakia). Historically, the French surrendered and withdrew from their colonies due to the inability to maintain it after the war, because France is a destroyed nation, like Germany or Poland. Most of the Allies' battleground is in those 3 nations, in addition the Allies bombed every vital infrastructure link (Bridges, roads, etc) so France would have to repair much more infrastructure than its neighbors, such as Britain. With that given, there is no way for even the Pons Plan or De Gaulle's economic plan to succeed in this RP's France, because it's been overextending and overreaching its economy to participate in international wars.

2. Mass military spending that doesn't help the economy. You stated way before that France has 8 million soldiers in it's military (which would be impossible by itself but for the sake of ending this discussion I'm going to ignore it). While most of the soldiers are reservists you're basically turning your country into North Korea. The only region that matters is Metropolitan France (and maybe Algeria because it has significant French colonists and an adequate infrastructure to be considered an extension of Metropolitan France) the others, like the African interior, is way too underdeveloped to be considered significant. Of the more than 120 million of your population, only 48 million (Metropolitan France) is already industrialized and enjoy higher levels of economic prosperity. The rest is hinterland, and I'm not sure France has done the effort to spread literacy there either. You invaded the Rashid Caliphate in 1949, only 4 years after the war. Such action would cost significant portion of your economy that supposedly goes to re-industrialization and rebuilding of French infrastructure to a war over some desert land in Arabia instead. You supplied Siam in the invasion of Japan, with numerous weapons, while the industrial capacity could have been used to make cars or tractors instead (remember Germany destroyed much of the French weapons and factories so you have little to nothing to salvage from WW2). You mobilized 3 million troops against Czechoslovakia, an enormous logistical endeavor that should cost your economy drastically. With all this combined, I imagine France would have lower living standards than even Germany, the most wartorn country in Europe, because Germany didn't commit their nation to being North Korea 2.0 (aka mass militarization). That said, France should have experienced another Revolution currently because your administration is very inept (supporting numerous wars) and the national treasury should have been drained by now.

3. The colonies are made departments only in 1949. This itself is impossible because of the enormous logistical challenge to make every colonial division a department similar to Metropolitan France. Why don't you think the French IRL made New Caledonia a department? Because they have a huge native population, they want independence, and it'll be very hard to integrate New Caledonia with mainland France. The same goes for Africa and all you did to draw lines along tribal borders etc. Expect two dozen civil wars on the next few decades if you did. There would be massive civil revolt uprising in every new department. Your military presence is overextended and there is no way you could effectively maintain control of that large a region.

4. I never claimed "Iran is a stronger country than France". Of course it's not when Iran just gained independence some 40 years ago from Britain. And what you need to know is Iran does not rely on Oil before the Oil boom of the 1920-1930s. The economy is mainly based on textile and agriculture. About 10-19% of Iran's land is arable land which is mostly located on western parts of the country. The Eastern part is mountainous desert, sure, but there is little civillian presence there so it wouldn't really matter. Furthermore Iran has 137 km2 of renewable water resources, which is bigger than European countries such as Spain and Portugal, and most of it is located in a central valley/plateau bordering Iraq. Aside from a few specks of the Zagros Mountains jutting to the valley there is no significant obstacle to an interlinked railway system. The presence of numerous rivers (Karun, Sefid, Qom, Zayandeh, etc) across this region, a massive lake (Lake Urmia) and hundreds of other smaller lakes warrants enough water for consumption. Furthermore, I'd advise you to get your facts straight before even debating, as you consider industry as the primary consumer of water resources - which is totally wrong. Water resources in every major country is consumed mainly by agriculture. Iran has traditionally been an agricultural center (wheat, barley, fruits) that has been self-sustaining since the past so I don't think why it should import foods by now, and industry is not limited in producing tanks. Iran had no major wars (other than the invasion of Kurdistan and Iraq which is done fairly recently and swiftly as Turkey is also invading from the north, and Iraq experienced a monarchis rebellion) so why would it produce the mass amounts of tanks like France did? Frankly, the Iranian economy is in a more robust position to embrace the incoming oil boom, than France to embrace the subsequent 1960-1990s European economic boom.

1. I'd argue otherwise since IRL France was fighting like hell in Indochina until 1954 while only one of these conflicts that you mention even involved the full might of the French military and it was a resounding victory that occured relatively quickly. Czechoslovakia was just a mobilization to flex the military might of France as a threat in the hope of avoiding war. Also, all French history was current until this RP began in 1949, so De Gaulle's plans as well as the Pons Plan where already in place. And much of the military funds have recenty been cut back with the ending of conscription and the transfer to a 100% volunteer professional army.

2. The 8 million you speak of includes non-active reservists who served their 6 months in the French Armed Forces and have returned to civilian life. Realistically the maximum peactime French Army size is 1.5 million at most. The 8 million is with all reserves and basically all possible troops on the frontline. The only time all that manpower would need to be massed is if a global power like the UK, USSR, or USA threatened to invade France. Otherwise the other 6.5 million people live their lives as usual and are rarely if ever called back into military service. The military aid to Siam was either on the behest of the IRA as a transfer by proxy or old German equiptment left over from WW2 so it would not masively affect French industry. And to take into account that Nazi Germany did try to keep French industry as intact as possible to use it for their effort and that much of the destruction was the immobilization or breaking of machinery that if not repaired was simply replaced by aid from America in the form of money that either financed new equiptment or equiptment being purchased with credit given the France to purchase industrial equiptment and machinery from the USA. And yes France was a warzone in WW2. I'm not debating that. But by late 1944 most of France had been liberated, so France had one extra year to rebuild compared to Germany and Poland. Already in 1944 De Gaulle had kickstarted the rebuilding process. IRL Germany didn't begin until 1946, and in this RP they likely didn't being until late 1945 at the earliest. As for the national reserves. Well, they certainly have been affected, but the massive French gold reserves have not been touched yet. Part of the reason American aid is needed is to cover budget shortfalls in the short term as the further reconstruction of France continues.

3. You're absolutely right on this point. But, you don't always need the military to crush the populace into submission. The Gendamerie can do the same just as effectively without the whole tanks in the streets issue. As for civil wars, that's always a risk. for most any nation in fact. And colonial empires are especially suceptible. But for the moment those aren't really issues yet.

4. I'm aware of the water resources Iran has. But the issue is that with agriculture at the current rate as well as all the industry you claim to have in this RP, it would put a lot of stress on the local water resources considering you still need water for your people, water for all the cars and vehicles that need it, all the industry that requires water, all the agriculture that also needs water, etc. And even oil extraction requires water. Sure Iran has a lot of water, but it's how that water is managed. And at the moment from what I can tell in this RP, industry has certainly become more prominent in Iran than it was IRL at this point in time. And while agriculture is certainly a huge water drain, agriculture can also rely on rain and weather paterns for water, industry can't. And you act like those sources of water are unaffected by drought or just about any natural dissaster. Iran is drought prone already in the mid 20th century, so all I caution is good water management.

5. Since you constantly seem to harp on the 8 million as unrealistic, it only seems logical to point out that the UK not invading Iran or launching a coup because it's oil source has been nationalized is completely unrealistic. The UK would be throwing a huge fit if BP and others assets in Iran where nationalized. Considering in 1953 it waranted a CIA coup I'm suprised you consider the UK an ally of yours when they would much rather just take the oil and leave with no care for the populace of Iran. Similarly for the Iranian support for the Tsarist rebelion. Despite the USSR having to invade Iran in WW2 to bring in a pro-Allied government (and open up a lend-lease route) the USSR has done nothing really to Iran. Meanwhile Tsarist Russia has fought Iran several times between 1651 and 1828 with eventually Tsarist Russia taking land which was Iranian and keeping it, it seems strange to support the very royal family that robbed Iran of it's land that many nationalists are probably bitter its still missing.