I don't really understand your first sentence.

The problem with the treaty was: it left Germany strong enough to start a war later, but was punishing enough to build up a lot of resent.
Thus, in this combination only, a revanchist war became possible.
I mean, remember, there were radical protests, socialists upheavals and such ... in the old empire. That was quite a thing. YOu have to recall that there never was such a strong social movement. I even say that the movement that led to the fall of the Berlin wall was not comparable to that one. The germans were really really tired and sick of the war. But, they all fell for the propaganda, especially as they "only" lost on one front, and won on the east. ... With the peace of Brest Litovsk being the main reason why the western allies were so harsh to germans (just as harsh as they were to the Soviets)

what old empire are you referring to? The German Empire started in 1871 so at the time IMHO it wasn't exactly new...

Also, they were successful because the democracy never was really strong and embedded in the society. From start on (!) the legend of the "stab in the back" (which is the armies back!) was around. A social democrat actually "started" it, directly after the armistice, where he said to soliders that the "armies were unbeaten in the field".
So, the democrats had to sign the Versaille treaty (a clever move by the right wing militarists who were responsible for the situation), and thus the birth of the Weimar Republic coul not be worse. The right wing always had revisionists thoughts, the Reichswehr was not allowed to be a conscript army, thus turned into a "state within the state" under control of the right wing militarists.
quote]

True but neither was the British for that part... they were still imperialistic in there ways which shines out in the treaty...
forcing a growing imperialist nation to disband it's navy, army and colonies, not to include stealing most of there infrastructure for your use in expansion(becoming the largest empire the world had ever seen) on the part of the british and the French was not correct at Versaille... That could be stated as a cause for WW2...

GG

Guerrilla Guy: I'm not sure if you were joking or not, but I would have no problems abolishing marriage.  


~cheers

no that wsn't a joke it was a legit question.... I'm trying to figure out if your answer was a joke...

With a divorce rate reaching (or even surpassing) 50% in the US, i'd say heterosexuals have 'taken away from the seriousness and respect that comes with the historical tradition of marriage' well enough on their own.

~cheers

so maybe if it's that bad we should abolish it?

No offense to the european french, but the USA has had to save there a**es too many times!  2 wars we have had to save them!  They are ungrateful bums!  
Canadian French are fine, most are trying to get as far away from france as possible!

what 2 Wars?

If you were to add them I would probably add a balancer for the axis like the Gestapo... The main idea is for it to be pain to somebody wanting to just invade and conquer to consider the fact that there are stings among the glory...


GG

SOE Special Operations Executive, basically the american version of the british SAS.  Are there rules for special operations or shadow ops in A&A.  it is fairly well known that with the SOE or SOG, and the SAS then the war would have definitely gone to the germans.  But throught the valiant efforts of a few men freedom won the day.

nope... For Guerrilla's mainly independent Civilian operators... But if you have some rules for SAS or SOE PLEASE POST 'EM HERE!

Partisians are already part of the A&A rules.  Under World at War any unoccupied enemy controlled territory original color coded to russia will produce 1 inf every three turns.  This inf cannot be used in an attack, only in defense and i believe he defends ona three but i'm not sure.  this is the partisian rule already on the books.  

i would like to know more about SOE rules however if some body could help out.

What do you mean by SOE?

how about invading anyone for about 3 years to build up more military mass...

cool man cool....

bump GG- just looking the rules over for inclusion AAE-1939

like 'em? and those took me about 10 min to come up with from first idea....

btw I was there at the State house on the 11, was anyone else there?

As much as i whine about luck in all the AAA's, i think i like the element of luck!  In diplomacy, 2 poorly trained russian units wouldn't have automaticly beaten well- trained german troops!  So in a way, i don't like diplomacy!

Russian units in WW1 were still good... HTey drove the Germans back in the Beginning of the war.....

GG

Hi all, been trolling here for a while, but here goes: 1st post

Have been playing Machiavelli (a advanced Diplomacy variant) for 3 sessions now, and that game is *the bomb*...

You are generally too weak to do anything by yourself, so you have to make pacts with other players. Which can be broken when the time is ripe, of course.

I never had so much intense discussing, lying, manipulating and deceit in a game, I'd advise everyone to try it. Be careful though, you might lose friends over this game...

-McGee

your a naturaul me lad!great post... better than mine! I didn't see the Machevelli Variant in the rule book... where is it?

Never played but I have read the rules... The Taking of territory is accomplished by superior force... Diplomacy plays the main roll because people seperate between play and make alliances, strategies jokint attack plans or backstabbing... ...You look over small maps to make plans, write them out secretly and play them simultaneously...whacko but sounds great to me! would like to get it...

GG