1st campaign is super political intrigue and war alliances with the Germans as bad guys

>terrible regime
That regime was what prevented the country from falling apart

They were bad in the sense that a rich man being mugged and fighting back but losing is bad

Shit we'll see user this election season looks dirtier everyday
That doesn't make what they did any less terrible
Effective and powerful regime but a terrible one

Jokes on you OP. You've been playing the bad guys the whole time. Your GM is teaching a you lesson in appearances vs reality.

>3rd campaign is 40 years after the last, but now the Germans are the good guys AND bad guys, but the GM gets bored halfway through and just kills everyone.

>start off fending off invading foreign forces and building up a navy
>final battle between us and a very strong enemy force
>we win
>decide to expand our nation's borders
>other countries don't like this
>tell them to fuck off
>they get mad and we leave their alliance
>invade nearby nations and get caught up in a terrible and costly war
>resources are low, have to ration stuff
>country across the sea refuses to trade with us and puts embargos on us
>decide to bomb the port where their navy is stationed
>fuck up
>they retialiate
>ohshit.jpg
>they bomb us with some superweapon bullshit the GM probablly just made up on the spot
>have to surrender
>spend the next 20 years in occupation
>our neighbors hate us
>our economy is in shambles
>we don't even have an army
>our population is going to shit

Worst campaign ever

that's what you get for being fucking weabs.

Lube up your butthole, because next campaign, I'm having China and North Korea nuke your faggy islands out of existence and for the new US leader to gas all the japs in the states while your males in Brazil get cucked out of the genepool.

>weebs
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>for the new US leader to gas all the japs in the states
>implying trump will ever declare war on one of its closest east asian allies

I hope I'm not too late for the party, guys!

His previous campaign started when the rebels we funded, armed and trained in the campaign against the Russians decide to attack our nation

Thousands die. We aren't having any of their sand monkey shit so we go to war against terrorists in the Middle East. The campaign is long, arduous, the fucking left wing media keeps on shitting on the military ever since the whole Vietnam fiasco of a war. We get caught up with oil resources and potential WMDs that the local despot could be working on. Years go by, nothing productive was done and terrorism is still a thing. Having to train local military was a fucking waste of our time and our caches of weapons for said militarized were FUCKING LOOTED BY THE GODDAMN NEW TERRORISTS.

The GM is apparently brewing up a new campaign, said something about election time and us having to chose between two really bad choices and we'd have to stick with said terrible choice the entire game

Oh and he also said something about Russia taking Crimea, but that's not important

Pretty sure Trump would care more about making the trains look like him and not give a fuck if they ran.

It's your own fault for not dismantling Germany after the first campaign. Anything other that partitioning the country and distributing the pieces between, Germany, France, Belgium and the other Allied powers is just asking for trouble

They distrusted us. We germans got most of it.
Poles got a part and decided to be assholes.
French got their shit back decided to be assholes.
Belgians got a part and stayed cool guys.

*dismantled, fuck smart phones.

Were you absolutely sure he didn't tell you that it was an ongoing historical campaign and you just weren't listening?

While there was no doubt that WW2 era Germany was bad and needed to be stopped, WW1 era Germany was only arbitrarily regarded as "the bad guys" because they lost. Had Germany won WW1 as soon as they thought they would chances are we'd probably skip the rise of fascism and Communism followed by the Cold War and we'd probably just go straight into modern EU era politics.

Is this what passes for humor among your misbegotten kind?

It's a lot more grey for WWI yeah. The triple entente was in no way the clear cut good guys of it.

>e-everything would be better if the right side won!
Your rose-tinted forecast is as optimistic as it is laughable

>While there was no doubt that WW2 era Germany was bad and needed to be stopped
Aside from the whole genocide thing, I'd side with WW2 Germany over the even more genocidal Bolsheviks or the ineffective Democracies.

If the Reich was more effective than those democracies, it would have won.

If Japan didn't get cocky with America, and if Hitler actually listened to his Generals, they would have.

They lost because Hitler was a strategic retard (Great politician, horrible military leader) and they didn't deal with Britain when they should have.

It wouldn't be all sunshine and roses. There would obviously be problems, but frankly I think just about any situation would be better than having to deal with the rise of communism and fascism.

>They lost because Hitler was a strategic retard (Great politician, horrible military leader)
Perhaps that was a flaw inherent to fascism as practiced by the Reich?

Not listening to trusted military advisers was in their policy?

It's a matter of personal failure, rather than failure of the system. Similar to how communism is always doomed to fail because of personal failure (I'd just argue fascism is a little less prone to that).

Nah, continuation of plot.
>War egged on by a small minority of the Germans, mostly the kaiser and the military command who are slowly losing out to the public and the publically elected reichstag
>PC's decide to rip and tear in the post-war negotiations, basically tear them to shreds because they think they are in the right.
>Germany reduced to basically an allied satellite with little economic or military power
>30 years on, all the germans are super bitter
>"But it's good to punish bad guys"
Get better players.

Planned economies in general are doomed to fail. The group of economists that actually believes a planned economy would work also happens to share a lot of members with the group of economists who might as well have replaced their cereal with paint chips for how stupid they are.

Generally, yes. I'd be down for a free market fascism though. Keep the authoritarianism, but grant more rights to the business than the people.

There's a lot of stuff about fascism that I like, and it's got some good economic policies, but as you said, planned economies kind of always eventually shit.

But my actual reason, aside from being somewhat fascist on the political spectrum myself, is that I completely agree that Versailles was complete and utter bullshit. That and the Soviets really did need to be overthrown because communism is the fucking worst.

I do have to wonder, what is it about fascism that makes you like it?

>Not listening to trusted military advisers was in their policy?
No, but the system was perhaps inherently conducive to leaders who ignore military advisers coming into power.

What about the book-burning, the oppressive police state, the totalitarianism, the ideological indoctrination and fanaticism, the dictatorship, the wars of aggression and expansion, the explicit demonising of rival groups that precipitated the war crimes?

Even if we were to set aside genocide, I can't understand the mindset that would lead people to idealise a totalitarian dictatorship over a liberal democracy.

The ineffectiveness of democracies, politically speaking, is sometimes beneficial since it leads to greater stability (since change is harder to implement) and because the government is subject to processes which limit its power so that it has limited opportunity for abuse of power.

I can get behind having a system based around strong nationalistic and militaristic pride, with the good of the state put over that of the individual.

I also like that it is ruled by a select elite, rather than what the people (Most of which are not qualified to even have an opinion about politics) vote for. The lack of democracy also allows a more efficient decision making process, as referendums and the like aren't necessary. The ability to also easily dispose of those who are detriments to society is also a plus (Not genocide mind you, but select people who are actually a problem.)

Book burning is something I'm neutral to
Oppressive police states I can get behind, as is totalitarianism
The ideological indoctrination leads to a more cohesive state
Wars of aggression and expansion are fine by me. I have no problem with imperialism.
Demonizing rival groups is as well okay with me, but war crimes are something I do not agree with at all. If an ideology claims to be orderly and lawful (Which fascism abides by. They write the rules, sure, but you get the point), then by god they better also follow the rules of war.

Germany are doing fucking amazing user, what are you smoking?

A bunch of middle eastern migrants have not diminished the fact that they are by far the most economically powerful force in Europe.

Nazis didn't make Germany run efficiently (quite the opposite, they drove it to breaking point), Germans did.

You're very civil about your rather extreme positions, I have to say, but I'm afraid I have to say I disagree with you on everything you value.

I like to think that's because I avoid /pol/ like the plague. Out of curiosity, since we're on the subject, what political views do you subscribe to?

>Oppressive police states I can get behind, as is totalitarianism
>Wars of aggression and expansion are fine by me. I have no problem with imperialism.
>Demonizing rival groups is as well okay with me
>I can get behind having a system based around strong nationalistic and militaristic pride, with the good of the state put over that of the individual.

It is bizarre to read someone flatly endorsing these things. Typically it's delivered sugar-coated in gross understatements or Orwellian obfuscation.

You're either a troll or someone who is remarkably honest. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter: aside from agreement that war crimes are wrong (such a starting point!) I don't think I could be more politically opposed to your positions.

What makes you think that totalitarianism isn't horrific?
Why would you want to surrender all of your rights to the state, and have the state be completely unaccountable for the power it wields?

Next campaign: Savage Rifts. Your GM is a genious, apologize.

Also:
>DM
Sigh.

I believe in the Land Value Tax, and a well funded citizen's dividend being the only social safety net you need. I'm more or less a Geolibertarian.

So..nationalism, why did the damn Nazi's have to ruin it in the public eye?

Not that user, but to me book burnings seem to be a sign of weakness and fear that the state's ideology isn't sufficiently robust that it can weather the presence of other ideas.

That to me seems flawed as it would lead to a form of ideological stagnation in contrast to comparatively advancing and expanding world, especially if it's reliant on the good will of its people to effectively monitor sentiment.

Further, it mean drives towards a centralisation of technology and research where the only experimentation allowed is state-controlled, which is not itself inherently bad, but I think the stifling to that effective leads to a slowdown and a lack of utilisation towards all effective scientific and research capital.

Under the right regime, the nation can flourish. I won't lie and say it's always a good regime, because often it ends up being run by complete idiots (See 1960's-90's Central and South America), but every now and again you get a good dictatorship that knows what its doing (For some period of time in the very least. It seems that they all inevitably succumb to grievous human error.)

If I had a strong nation I could be proud of, I would gladly abide by the whim of the ruling party to help said nation grow and reach greater and greater heights. I think that a nation is a great rallying point for a people, and that is exactly what fascism does. I myself want to be nationalistic, but sadly the nation I currently reside in just doesn't allow that (It really is quite a pathetic nation.)

But remember, fascism, as with most right-leaning ideologies, puts the law above all. I fully expect a proper fascist regime to have both martial and lawful honour (A poor example perhaps, but Hitler's laws regarding antisemitism show just how much the right wing loves the law. The Soviet Union would have simply done what it wanted, but Nazi Germany did it in legality. They had a code they abided by.)

I can see how easy it is to assume I'm simply spouting simplistic pro-fascist speech with no belief backing it, but I assure you this is my actual standing.

Sounds like a respectable ideology.

I would argue the book burning was to keep things simple. One can indoctrinate many in to the regime's ideology, but you can not indoctrinate all. The burning of books is just to help lower the opposition that will appear no matter what.

I do agree with you on the matter of research and technology though. I think competition breeds some of the best scientific breakthroughs man has had. The United States showed us this as it greatly surpassed the Soviet Union's ability to advance in technology. But in the same sense, the Imperialism can possibly help with that.

>I think competition breeds some of the best scientific breakthroughs man has had
To a degree, but it can also lead to infighting, competing for resources and empire-building.

Ignoring for a moment the availability of resources one a wider scale and the differences in urgency brought about by location, compare the Nazi nuclear programs with the American one - the US centralised theirs, gathered all the knowledge, experienced personnel and resources and put it all under one roof, whereas the Germans had several competing groups, who were all competing with each other for funding and got little done, even before their shit got blown up.

Competition is all well and good, but it can also be a huge detriment if the people competing become more focused on their position than their results - this is also extremely noticeable in competing branches of the military
"The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy."
Curtis LeMay, General, US Air Force

>It seems that they all inevitably succumb to grievous human error
That is exactly the problem with totalitarianism, because when a human makes a grievous "error" in a totalitarian society the death toll has frequently reached the multiple millions. And, as you wrote, this is inevitable.

>But remember, fascism, as with most right-leaning ideologies, puts the law above all.
And in a totalitarian state, the government could simply legalise the most awful things imaginable and crush dissent. And without individual rights, you may be put into a camp for 20 years be malnourished and tortured because you were friends with someone who owned politically divergent literature.

> I fully expect a proper fascist regime to have both martial and lawful honour
I'm trying to be respectful in my response, but this is breathtakingly naive. You want to give absolute power to a government body in the good faith that they simply won't abuse it. Can you not see how this could lead to, say, grievous abuses of power? Abuses like mass-murdering anyone suspected of being a political enemy without repercussions? Like a dictator using the language of the ideology as a screen to secure his own power and institute a reign of suspicion and terror?

It's a bit idealistic and naive, certainly. Although I may be preaching ideals here, an imperfect regime is still one I can live with. Not that I am a Nazi Sympathizer or particularly agree with the genocides, but I would be definitely more fine with Nazi Germany than my current nation. Oppression is a non-issue for me. If at the end of the day my nation is powerful and I can be proud of it, that's enough.

How prisoners are dealt with are none of my concern either. Knowing very well that I could for some odd reason be one of them, I think any sort of treatment of prisoners as a deterrent or for other reasons (Scientific research, as an example) is A-Okay. Those who don't rightfully deserve it, well, these things happen, can't be perfect.

>If at the end of the day my nation is powerful and I can be proud of it, that's enough.

You would surrender every right of yours and your fellow citizens, embrace oppression and dictatorship just so that you can feel like you're part of a successful group? Fuck your feelings. Do something yourself you can be proud of.

Or else you could go to China or North Korea which are probably the closest societies around to your description. See how you like it there. You certainly won't be posting on Veeky Forums.

>China or North Korea
But those are failed commie states, user!

What can I say, I believe in the whole rather than the individual.

There are definite appeals of fascism and imperialism (otherwise they wouldn't have caught on in the first place). On imperialism, though, the problem is it doesn't really work (long-term, at least). In order to make it worthwhile, you need to be after a resource/resources of a given nation/area. Moving in by force and exploiting resources breeds resentment, which builds over time; eventually, the costs of policing your colony exceed the gains from resource extraction. Which is why we have the current system; individual corporations each own mines, or purchase cash crops in bulk, etc. They are not an 'occupying force', and so engender less immediate opposition. Imperialism is still alive and well, just not in the pomp and ceremony of the previous era.

Humans are not so changing as the progressive narrative would have you believe. Imperialism still exists in a less blatant form. The stock market is a redistribution of the returns of labour that disproportionately benefits the rich, much like land ownership by the aristocracy in previous eras. You'll find elements of fascism in the populism of today. The appeal of nationalism is often directed to just a small number of vastly simplified issues presented as sound bites to an unhappy public who eats it up, never questioning the issues at a deeper level than "X=bad, make great again." Given the ludicrous terms of Versaille, there wasn't much choice left to the Germans, but militarism is one of the greatest wastes of human resources ever conceived. Building an entire society around it and the glorification of war will inevitably lead to war, which will shatter the economies of all nations involved.

This could probably use some better editing to clarify a few points (some citations and references would probably help too), but basically imperialism is ongoing, and fascism is simply military populism that will fall to the same simplifications it made to achieve power.

Until I came across these posts I don't think that I've ever encountered anyone who fit Aristotle's description of the Natural Slave so well.

That's not to say I wouldn't be down for being the fascist dictator and all, I'm just writing from the point of view that such a situation is extremely unlikely.

>the whole rather than the individual.
I used to believe the same. It's a deeply flawed approach to managing society, though.

Fascism is much like communism in the sense that if it works you might eliminate a lot of social ills, but the ideology is ultimately impossible to implement because humans have limits. No matter an individual's charisma and/or intelligence, no one man can solve a societies problems. This is the fundamental idiocy of, "if we just elect , our problems will go away over night." We believe in a 'super-man' to reduce our own responsibility and to place responsibility for society on those we elect to lead the nation.

Society is always made up of individuals, each of whom have their own desires and their own things of importance. For some it's family, for some it's religion, for some it's their chinese cartoon waifu. No matter what, there will always be something that is 'most important' to an individual, and it will never be 'their nation state' in a sufficient number to ensure fascism can continue without the constant application of pure brute force on its own citizenry.

I strongly suspect that oppression and the treatment of criminals would very quickly become something you'd worry about and want to change if you (or someone close to you) were directly subject to them.

Wow I never expected my thread to last this long
Sorry, force of habit

Introversion Software is underrated

>What about the book-burning
Funny you mention that.
>the oppressive police state, the totalitarianism, the ideological indoctrination
All happening right now in every country.
>fanaticism
If you do not hate anything, you love nothing.
>the dictatorship
>Britain's government was monarchy at the time
> Monarchy is different from dictatorship
>the wars of aggression and expansion
>implying every other country worth a damn did not also do this
>the explicit demonising of rival groups that precipitated the war crimes
And every other country did and does this.

> I can't understand the mindset that would lead people to idealise a totalitarian dictatorship over a liberal democracy.
Well if they're on your side and they know what they're doing, some people think it would be a nice regime.

The problem is, along with any system of government, it requires the government to not be full of greedy jews, stupid people, and indoctrinated pimps who sell the people's lives out for money.

Jesus Christ Desu, you are a textbook fascist. I hope you choke on a fucking dick before you pollute anyone else's mind with that shit.

So which flavor of boot is your favorite user?

Not even that user or a /pol/ack but you reek of neo-liberal trash that can't respect other's opinions and think that there is a "right" political ideology.

>was monarchy at the time
It was a constitutional monarchy you retard.

>Or are you saying that their loss was necessary, and that the world resulting from those losses is the best possible world?
Unfortunately yes. Out of all possible universes this is the best. Yes, WW1 and 2 happening as they did were the best possible outcomes. Better than the universe where the Great War lasted for 35 years resulting in a combined 180 million deaths.

but the sequel has some pretty interesting toys to compensate

What about WW2 not happening at all?

>believes all the propaganda put out by the nazis
>believes all the propaganda put out against them
>we wuz lightning and shit

youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

>1st campaign is super political intrigue and war alliances with the Germans as bad guys
>Germans
>the bad guys in WW1
Kill yourself

It's ok when Americans do it.

Mindflayers invade.

>They were bad in the sense that a rich man being mugged and fighting back but losing is bad
The rich man, in this case, was being mugged by richer men.

A
FUCKING
PANCAKE

>>our economy is in shambles
>>we don't even have an army
>>our population is going to shit
we rebuilt the shit out of you

Not everyone reads your shitty handouts, Craig!

Yeah, some people are just ignorant.

Which is fine, but then they have to go and open their mouths and ADVERTISE it...

But user, can't you tell the DM has an overarching theme in all of his campaigns? The Germans are ALWAYS the bad guys, but we always keep the Germans live because "muh Christianity" or "muh human rights" or "the Germans can change" or some other bullshit reason.

The DM's overarching theme is that sometimes, evil is irredeemable. Sometimes you have to kill some to save all.

I'm actually looking forward to the DM's next campaign, where the Germans destroy Europe from the inside out. I especially look forward to the unavoidable French civil war.

What's with this retarded "Trump is a Fascist / NatSoc" meme?

You're on Veeky Forums, you really need to ask?

Neo-liberals deciding what is and isn't "good" and projecting that just because they don't like a person that person must obviously be line with fascist militarist imperialists (who they view to be "evil").

I think the modern germans are bro enough not to invade everyone this time. My bets on putin

To be fair the situation surrounding Trump is eerily similar to the fall of the Weimar Republic. Not that Hillary is any better, mind you. The only candidates that aren't morally disgusting this election are the two third party candidates.

Putin's not dumb enough to start WW3. No one is really dumb enough to start WW3.

EXCEPT THE GERMANS