How to defeat a fascist country which had got enough atom bombs?

[Joecoolyo]

Put on some pants, grow a pair, and tell them who's the man in this relationship. Then tell them to make you a sandwich.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Watch doctor strangelove the gerneral tells you how to win a nucular war,failing that appealing, trade with them , 50 years of isolation with china, they are now grudingly makeing concessions, taking their plave in world affairs, give nixon a medal, long way to go thoe

 

[Shekwan]

If you doomed the world,I'll also count you as loser.So plan all your moves carefully,including how to fight in the war,how to make peace and how to win.

This topic is about the last card on our hand when atom bombs or other similar future techs finally go out of control.According to our game,that day will finally come.

Fascism? Atom bombs? How is 1945 going for you anyways?

 

[sophie]

I'd say give weapons to their nearest, most antagonistic neighbors/dissenting ethnic group. Then, when that group overthrows the fascist dictatorship with another fascist dictatorship, fund another group. Repeat ad nauseum until the entire region is a smoking crater. Then, once that has happened, send in our military to apprehend the nukes. Don't worry about any resistance, we'll be greeted as liberators, after all.

 

[kosiosko 1]

I'd say give weapons to their nearest, most antagonistic neighbors/dissenting ethnic group. Then, when that group overthrows the fascist dictatorship with another fascist dictatorship, fund another group. Repeat ad nauseum until the entire region is a smoking crater. Then, once that has happened, send in our military to apprehend the nukes. Don't worry about any resistance, we'll be greeted as liberators, after all.

A sort of irak/iran or afgan/soviet thing with big boys toys,

 

[gangleri2001]

Having Eric Freeman and Tom Cruise on your side.


Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[Shylock]

If we are talking about WW2 and who got the bomb first well, we'd either have to get lucky enough to shoot down the plane carrying it or bite the bullet. Since they were so new and primitive compared today's we could still overrun them as they probably would only have one or two.

 

[BasketCase]

This topic is about the last card on our hand when atom bombs or other similar future techs finally go out of control.According to our game,that day will finally come.

I find it delightful when the answer to something is found in the Civilization computer games.

You've got nukes? I've got SDI. I win the war.

Also, keep in mind that the U.S. and the Soviet Union already played this scenario out. The Soviet Union fell into ruin--but the missiles did not get launched.

 

[Lord Baal]

Get elected Secretary General and push through the UN disarmament resolution.

Shouldn't have taken until post 20...

After all, that's what "our game" predicts will happen, right?

@OP: The world is not a game of Civ. I repeat, the world is not a game of Civ.

 

[Yui108]

It was not "sidetracking", it was directly connected to the upcoming war.

With Finland they wanted to secure north regions of the country and Leningrad, they tried to exchange with the Finns, but Finns refused, so they decided to achieve this goal by the war.

The same was with Poland and Baltic states. There were negotiations to make a pact against possible German aggression. Poland refused to participate. Baltic states felt to German sphere of influence. If USSR hadn't invaded, they'd became springboard for attack.

Are you really an apologist for Stalin? They exist??

 

[Lord Baal]

Are you really an apologist for Stalin? They exist??

In large numbers, I'm afraid. They're as bad as Holocaust deniers and seemingly more numerous these days. Never let facts get in the way of a bogus nationalistic interpretation of history.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are you really an apologist for Stalin? They exist??

The only wrong thing he's said is the deal with Finland. Everything is on-point. Russia tried for years to make a defensive pact against Nazi Germany, but the Poles were essential to the deal, and they absolutely refused to sign any treaty that included the Russians, fullstop.

In large numbers, I'm afraid. They're as bad as Holocaust deniers and seemingly more numerous these days.

Oh please.

Never let facts get in the way of a bogus nationalistic interpretation of history.

Popular history of Russia is generally not based on facts, but rather "facts." Most of all around a figure like Stalin.

You should not interpret this to mean that I like Stalin. But there is indeed a great deal of BS that gets spread around as "history." An exhaustive tracing of citations leads one to some pretty fantastic sources for many popularly known things about him and the USSR during this time period.

 

[Lord Baal]

The only wrong thing he's said is the deal with Finland. Everything is on-point. Russia tried for years to make a defensive pact against Nazi Germany, but the Poles were essential to the deal, and they absolutely refused to sign any treaty that included the Russians, fullstop.



Oh please.



Popular history of Russia is generally not based on facts, but rather "facts." Most of all around a figure like Stalin.

You should not interpret this to mean that I like Stalin. But there is indeed a great deal of BS that gets spread around as "history." An exhaustive tracing of citations leads one to some pretty fantastic sources for many popularly known things about him and the USSR during this time period.

Cheezy, there are tonnes of Stalinist apologists on the web. As something of a Russophile, surely you've come across them even more than I have. There are people on these very boards that deny the Katyn Massacre ever took place.

I'm aware that not everything Stalin is blamed for is accurate. Then again, neither is half of what you seem to imply that Aleksey_aka_al reports accurately.

As for popular history, I'm not a fan of it. I prefer my books to be scholarly, thank you very much. Though I freely admit that most Russian internal politics are virtually unknown to me, I'm pretty familiar with their external policies at the time in question. But still, since I acknowledge that you're far more knowledgable about this matter than I am, are there any online sources I could check out? I'm not really in a position to be buying new books right now, but if there's some I'm likely to find in a local library that would help too.

Poland did refuse to allow Soviet troops to advance through Polish territory, though one can hardly blame them considering their history. Still, Stalin's excuse that he advanced into Polish territory to protect the ethnic Russians and Poles from Germany was just that; an excuse. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact provided for the partition of Poland. If the USSR was really only interested in defending itself from Germany with this buffer-zone, why then not give the territory back to Poland at the conclusion of the war? Not all the territory gained by the Belorussian SSR had been Russian territory before Poland invaded in 1920, so revanchism doesn't really apply either. It was a land grab, as proven by Russian co-operation with Germany and the treatment of the locals by Russia.

While one can argue that there was at least some reason for the occupation of Poland - though the massacre of Polish military officers and the co-operation between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany during the invasion of Poland makes it difficult to argue - there was absolutely no defensible reason for the USSR to eat the Baltics and Finland. In fact, the original Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, prior to later revisions, actually gave Lithuania to Germany. Since Lithuania was the obvious springboard for a German invasion of the Baltics and thence the Soviet Union in the north, and once again the Soviets refused to grant independence to these nations after the war, it was also clearly a land grab rather than the defensive move Aleksey_aka_al claims.

As for Finland, I think you agree with me, but for Aleksey_aka_al's benefit, I'll point out that the only reason Finland became a threat to the USSR to begin with was because the Soviets invaded. Finland was not even close to being a Nazi ally before they were forced into such a position by Russia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

1) Cause nuclear war.
2) Hide in underground cities for hundreds of years while waiting for your planet to de-irradiate.
3) Wait for Timetraveler to inadvetently reveal the continued existence of your enemies.
4) EXTERMINATE, ANNIHILATE, DESTROY.
5) Repeat step 4 ad nauseum.

 

[sophie]

1) Cause nuclear war.
2) Hide in underground cities for hundreds of years while waiting for your planet to de-irradiate.
3) Wait for Timetraveler to inadvetently reveal the continued existence of your enemies.
4) EXTERMINATE, ANNIHILATE, DESTROY.
5) Repeat step 4 ad nauseum.

You forgot the post script: Don't ever fight in the war room. Ever.

 

[Winner]

1) Cause nuclear war.
2) Hide in underground cities for hundreds of years while waiting for your planet to de-irradiate.
3) Wait for Timetraveler to inadvetently reveal the continued existence of your enemies.
4) EXTERMINATE, ANNIHILATE, DESTROY.
5) Repeat step 4 ad nauseum.

That would take less than a year (for acceptable radiation levels).

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

The only wrong thing he's said is the deal with Finland.

AFAIK Soviets tried to exchange territories with Finns. Could you correct me?

Are you really an apologist for Stalin? They exist??

In large numbers, I'm afraid. They're as bad as Holocaust deniers and seemingly more numerous these days. Never let facts get in the way of a bogus nationalistic interpretation of history.

Soviet regime was very meticulous and formalist. Because of that every convicted or condemned person had a detailed case and counted in archive. Now all those documents are open. And the fact is that there were much-much-much less "victims of a regime" than the western and pro-western media likes to tell. The fact is also that there were less prisoners than in modern USA or modern Russia proportionally.

Also it would be interesting to you to know that Russian nationalists usually don't like Soviet age because one of the main ideologies at the time was internationalism.

You like to blame Stalin for cruelty, but you usually forget what the time it was. Your "advanced democracies" had colonialism still standing, women there were still second-class citizens, in US there was racial discrimination, and Chauvinism mood was still there in Western countries. Great Depression, mafia, global financial speculations of US bankers, etc.

Neither USSR nor NaziGermany had nukes in WW2...

To USSR Nazi Germany was like several nukes.

Sorry for offtop anyway...

 

[classical_hero]

Get elected Secretary General and push through the UN disarmament resolution.

Shouldn't have taken until post 20...

Actually that was not the first thing that came to my mind about this thread, but someone mentioned it first, and the thing that first came to my mind was America.

I am in a Pitboss where someone is going down that route.

 

[zhaoshuais]

Our game tells us that we can not prevent a certain tech from spreading forever!
And once a tech has spreaded,no one could remove it from the whole world.
In the game we can prevent being bombed by ICBM,not only by vote,but also by NMD.But in the real world,I have to tell everyone that NMD itself can also be destroyed by nuke.
And in the game,more ICBM will not end the human being at once,although the whole planet will become desert,our game can still continue.But in the real world,we can't continue.
In the largest experiment of nuke,EMP of the bomb even damaged the radars in Alaska,which was far away from the site.Without radar,NMD can not work at all.And if I explode a 100Mton bomb,or even 1Gton bomb,all the electronic devices in the world will be destroyed at once.And spies can also plant the bomb before the war.So please forget NMD.

Gene weapons are not included in civ4,but the game mentioned that.With that weapon,your opponent does not need missiles,instead,they only need a spy.

I realize someone really know how to deal with fascist,but someone completely misjudged the opponent.Fascists are not corrupted officials in USSR,if they know they will collapse in future,they will gamble with the fate of whole human being,and fight to the end even their enemy can doom the world.With the experience of USSR's collapse,if such opponent is losing a cold war,they will launch war on you at once,and force you to stop trade embargo.

Abundant life can gradually change a country from aggressive into peaceful.As under such condition,no one want to fight at all.In fact,the reason why Germany changed into fascistism was that UK and France pressed them too hard after world war I,and Hitler was only one of odinary people who experienced that.

The last question:if you are already in the war,how to make peace?
Firstly,your opponent will not surrender,and if they are forced to do so,they will doom the world.
Secondly,you can not prevent your opponent from doom the world.
Lastly,you can not doom the world,although you have enough atom bombs to do so.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cheezy, there are tonnes of Stalinist apologists on the web. As something of a Russophile, surely you've come across them even more than I have. There are people on these very boards that deny the Katyn Massacre ever took place.

Of course I have. The "oh please" was in response to the Holocaust denier part.

I'm aware that not everything Stalin is blamed for is accurate. Then again, neither is half of what you seem to imply that Aleksey_aka_al reports accurately.

Such as?

As for popular history, I'm not a fan of it. I prefer my books to be scholarly, thank you very much. Though I freely admit that most Russian internal politics are virtually unknown to me, I'm pretty familiar with their external policies at the time in question. But still, since I acknowledge that you're far more knowledgable about this matter than I am, are there any online sources I could check out? I'm not really in a position to be buying new books right now, but if there's some I'm likely to find in a local library that would help too.

Another View of Stalin is probably the best tool (and the one that focuses primarily on finding the original "sources" of "facts" about him and this time), but finding one of the more honest Russian Historians can satisfy much of the demand. Avoid anything by Robert Conquest like the plague.

The five-part series "The Industrialization of Soviet Russia" is a valuable tool as well, but good luck finding Volume 4. I can't. Anywhere.

Poland did refuse to allow Soviet troops to advance through Polish territory, though one can hardly blame them considering their history.

The Polish intelligensia's sociopathic revulsion with leftism of any form led them to choose Nazism over any type of socialism.

Still, Stalin's excuse that he advanced into Polish territory to protect the ethnic Russians and Poles from Germany was just that; an excuse. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact provided for the partition of Poland. If the USSR was really only interested in defending itself from Germany with this buffer-zone, why then not give the territory back to Poland at the conclusion of the war?

Because the land they took (and gave to the Belorussian SSR, not to Russia) was land taken from them by the Poles in the 1920-21 war. Notice they didn't take all of Poland in 1945, even though they controlled it all and could have cooked up justification for it because it was part of the Empire at the time of the revolution.

Not all the territory gained by the Belorussian SSR had been Russian territory before Poland invaded in 1920, so revanchism doesn't really apply either. It was a land grab, as proven by Russian co-operation with Germany and the treatment of the locals by Russia.

No, it represented the line that Stalin and Hitler had agreed neither would advance beyond should a war with Poland arise. The purpose of that line being that either country controlling more of Poland than that would unnecessarily antagonize the other, and neither wanted war at the time.

Personally, I don't really care if it was the exact territory or not, the goal of international socialism is to destroy all nation-states, precisely because these divides are completely arbitrary and divide people where they should be working together. But it is worth noting, however, that by the 1940s the Soviet Union had lost much of its internationalist-oriented foreign policy (and, really, drifted in general from the radical leftism of the 1920s), and that old Russian patriotism had reasserted itself. This was partly due to Socialism in One Country, because, after the failure of the European revolutions of the 1910s and 20s, the USSR was the only remaining strong socialist movement, and thus the future of socialism and the future of Russia became one in the same. Thus, pride in socialism (the call de jure of the 1920s) became intertwined with pride in Russia just as things were slipping back into conservative roots socially.

While one can argue that there was at least some reason for the occupation of Poland - though the massacre of Polish military officers and the co-operation between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany during the invasion of Poland makes it difficult to argue - there was absolutely no defensible reason for the USSR to eat the Baltics and Finland. In fact, the original Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, prior to later revisions, actually gave Lithuania to Germany. Since Lithuania was the obvious springboard for a German invasion of the Baltics and thence the Soviet Union in the north, and once again the Soviets refused to grant independence to these nations after the war, it was also clearly a land grab rather than the defensive move Aleksey_aka_al claims.

Of course it was a defensive move, those same lands had been used as proxy puppets and springboards during the Civil War by Western powers; that they "won" independence was testament to the extensive aid and support that counterrevolutionary forces received from the Imperialists. Of those, only Finland did away with the Reds on their own, the rest had their indigenously-organized soviets overthrown.

As for Finland, I think you agree with me, but for Aleksey_aka_al's benefit, I'll point out that the only reason Finland became a threat to the USSR to begin with was because the Soviets invaded. Finland was not even close to being a Nazi ally before they were forced into such a position by Russia.

Not really. Finland was pretty buddy-buddy with the Germans. And their almost immediate running to them for help should be evidence enough of that.

AFAIK Soviets tried to exchange territories with Finns. Could you correct me?

I've never heard of it before. That's not to say its untrue, you'll just have to prove it is all.