Monroe Doctrine

cyanight

I was thinking of some historical rules last night and it dawned on me about UK’s presence in South America. You know when UK moves to South America to activated Brazil wouldn’t that be in violation to the Monroe Doctrine?

CWO Marc

As I understand the Monroe Doctrine, it fitted the national policies of both the US and the UK and was aimed at keeping the European powers from expanding their spheres of interest in the Americas as Spain and Portugal gradually lost their grip on the region. (It didn’t affect existing European colonies in the Americas, of which there were several.) As for the UK moving into Brazil, I’d describe that as a highly artificial situation arising out of game rule constraints – since it would be too complicated for the neutral countries to all function as independent players – rather than as a situation which had any likelihood of happening in the real world. Brazil is roughly twice the size of India, and a large part of the country consists of tropical rain forest, so even assuming that the British had some sort of pressing reason for wanting to take over the country it’s hard to imagine how they’d do so from a practical point of view. (I wonder: could it be that the MD suited both countries because it placed coffee-growing Brazil in the American sphere of influence and kept tea-producing India within the British Empire?)

ItIsILeClerc

I wouldn’t think it a violation if the Uk moves into an activated Brazil.
After all, if Brazil is already activated, this means the USA is in the war and allied with the UK. You can look at it as a co-operative action, carefully coordinated between the US and UK.

If, however, the UK activates Brazil (happens sometimes in our games, especially if the USA is kept out of the war for long), then I’d think that as a violation, technically. Albeit arbitrary, because for game purposes it doesn’t really matter who activates Brazil; they figth for the allies anyway.
On top of that, historically Venezuela provided the Uk with lots of oil that is not represented in the game. So I wouldn’t mind who exactly gets the ‘South American’ IPCs.

ossel

The Monroe Doctrine isn’t really a law…you can’t technically “violate” it. It’s a foreign policy.

It has historically been used by American presidents to justify actions against enemies of the U.S. (Spain in at the turn of the 20th century, the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War). I don’t think it would ever be used to justify action against an ally, especially not during the life-and-death struggle with the Axis during WWII.

Tralis

Game mechanics and real life sometimes line up in ways that don’t correlate one-to-one. I see the UK moving into Brazil to activate it as representing Brazil entering the war on the side of the allies and working closely with the UK to participate in the war effort. Rather than the UK colonizing Brazil, they are sending in advisers, training Brazilian personnel, and working so closely with Brazilian formations that on the grand strategic scale Brazilian troops are represented as UK pieces.

Remember, in some variants of the game Chinese troops and territories are represented as American, as French colonies in Africa represented as British. For the smaller scale of, say, Spring 1942 this is appropriate. This doesn’t suggest China is an American colony or under direct command of America, just that their military is working closely with the US.

Imperious Leader

Monroe Doctrine is a policy that existed with some influence in the late 1800’s and latter as a more general reference.

Probably better to just make new rules regarding strict neutrals.

toblerone77

Well if you have a lot of players designate a banker and let him/her control all of the neutral countries. Hey wait, that should be in House rules so I won’t comment further.

In all seriousness that could be fun.

knp7765

@Tralis:

Game mechanics and real life sometimes line up in ways that don’t correlate one-to-one. I see the UK moving into Brazil to activate it as representing Brazil entering the war on the side of the allies and working closely with the UK to participate in the war effort. Rather than the UK colonizing Brazil, they are sending in advisers, training Brazilian personnel, and working so closely with Brazilian formations that on the grand strategic scale Brazilian troops are represented as UK pieces.

Remember, in some variants of the game Chinese troops and territories are represented as American, as French colonies in Africa represented as British. For the smaller scale of, say, Spring 1942 this is appropriate. This doesn’t suggest China is an American colony or under direct command of America, just that their military is working closely with the US.

Also, in the smaller versions of A&A like Revised and Spring 1942, Italy is simply represented by German units and control. Italy was still in the war in Spring 1942 but for game purposes, it is just easier to have Germany represent the Euro Axis.
Perhaps a somewhat different relationship than America/China or UK/France, but kind of the same thing.

toblerone77

@knp7765:

@Tralis:

Game mechanics and real life sometimes line up in ways that don’t correlate one-to-one. I see the UK moving into Brazil to activate it as representing Brazil entering the war on the side of the allies and working closely with the UK to participate in the war effort. Rather than the UK colonizing Brazil, they are sending in advisers, training Brazilian personnel, and working so closely with Brazilian formations that on the grand strategic scale Brazilian troops are represented as UK pieces.

Remember, in some variants of the game Chinese troops and territories are represented as American, as French colonies in Africa represented as British. For the smaller scale of, say, Spring 1942 this is appropriate. This doesn’t suggest China is an American colony or under direct command of America, just that their military is workingÂ closely with the US.

Also, in the smaller versions of A&A like Revised and Spring 1942, Italy is simply represented by German units and control. Italy was still in the war in Spring 1942 but for game purposes, it is just easier to have Germany represent the Euro Axis.
Perhaps a somewhat different relationship than America/China or UK/France, but kind of the same thing.

For that same reason it’s kind of fun to use some Italian or French sculpts thrown in the mix strictly as a game esthetic when playing the smaller games.

Monroe Doctrine

Featured Topics

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

USA Crush-Turtle or Die

Can fighters scramble into a seazone later in the round if they already participated in another fight and had to land?

Power Eliminated

Tips for a bad axis player?

Sahara express

Garg's Notes: Russian Defence Doctrine

Germany playbook: overall strategy guide

Save China, stall or stop Japan. Russian Far East Doctrine: 101 (Alpha2)

43

17.0k

39.3k

1.7m