World War(s)

Posted by Brunanter on 17 January 2016 in English (English).

Do you think we could have them? I have a few ideas for a World War in the 1950s.

Comment from Rasmus Rasmusson on 18 January 2016 at 07:13

A nice idea to fill up history and perhaps to give some inspiration to a lot of participants at once to add certain elements to the histories of their countries that could last a longer period than the war itself (cause+effect: what caused a country to participate, what happened when peace broke out, etc.). The same could be done for e.g. plagues, natural disasters etc.

I only wonder if it will be a real world war or if only continental wars are possible. The fact that our entire real world was involved in WW-1 & -2 was that the main powers ‘possessed’ large parts of the rest of the world. Although some countries have been colonised in OGF, there is less structure and/or logic behind it. There have to be at least two disagreeing powers that are strong enough (with their possessions and allies) to engage in such a war and take the rest with them.

But the quest is simple: figure out which countries were colonised by which powers in the 1950s and see if the situation is suitable for a good story; if not, take another era.

Comment from joschi81 on 18 January 2016 at 09:03

We had this discussion in OGF before. I didn’t follow it until the end, but my proposal was: in the OGF world, there has been only 1 world war. I wanted to put it between the to “real” world wars into the 1920s. But why not a bit later then WW2? Also a possibility. In any case: Further discussion is needed here.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 18 January 2016 at 11:44

As joschi81 says it has been discussed before. Some comments here: and here:

The main issue is the lack of a ‘belligerent superpower’ and perhaps the reluctance of users to give their countries an ‘antagonistic history’. The likelihood is that any worldwide conflict would have been ideologically driven, but there is a distinct lack of this in individual country’s histories. It doesn’t really work using ‘blue countries’ to drive conflicts, because their histories are either unwritten or they are very cosmopolitan. Possibly a war in OGF could have been more territorially driven, but then, if countries are have history of democracy or constitutional monarchy this is pretty unrealistic.

Perhaps I could suggest that if individual users would allow their countries to be historical ‘baddies’ (or for users with more than one country that one of their countries be on one side and the other on the opposing side) we could work together to create a power-block that caused such a world war?

Comment from Reece202 on 18 January 2016 at 12:39

I’m still in the process of adapting things from the original narrative I posted as a proposal for Commonia, but I am trying to develop Cimenoire as a possible ‘historical baddie’. Any collaboration is welcomed.

Comment from Rasmus Rasmusson on 18 January 2016 at 12:50

I have no problem adding a few really dark pages to the history of my country Řots in Southern Archanta (my other country Wyster (Eastern Uletha) is probably too small to have the desired effect, although it could be a minor ally to an axe of evil). Problems:

  • Řots is very remote. Conquering will probably be limited to the western part of the Astrasian subcontinent only - or maybe if the Řots marine is/was sufficiently strong (Řots as some early modern OGF southern hemisphere viking variant), it could have tried to conquer Mahhal and other coastal areas in the vicinity, but why would it take that trouble?
  • Řots is/was culturally very isolated with a language and a religion that don’t really connect with those of neighbouring countries. Cultural allies would be very difficult to find in that region, but it could work if there is/are (an)other country/ies in that area that claim(s) to represent indigenous people of Astrasia (assuming that the English/Dutch/Portuguese/etc speaking peoples all came from abroad, which remains to be confirmed) and that wanted the invaders kicked out. (But íf Řots would get a nasty role in this, I think a reaction to foreign invaders would probably the most likely reason for Řots to be agressive)

Comment from Brunanter on 18 January 2016 at 14:33

Well I was thinking of a non-nuclear cold-war style conflict, with fluid attacks over larger areas and guerrilla-type fights in others.

Comment from Mikelatham on 18 January 2016 at 17:31

yes i was thinking of a non-nuclear cold-war style conflict to

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 18 January 2016 at 18:54

@ Brunanter - so, you want a cold war in the 1950s rather than a world war? Could be possible, maybe decolonisation is a good explanation at around this date. Just add a bit of ideology as well, and you have all the ingredients.

@ Rasmus - maybe we could do a list of countries that have the potential to be ‘baddies’ - and work from this list to develop a power block or ‘axis’, I have nowhere near enough population or territory to develop a superpower. But for example Ionadàlba is set up to have a fascist government in the 1930s-50s even though it is fully democratic today. If there were other countries with similar histories - as there are in rw - that could be a way round the lack of a single superpower. The countries might be spread around the world, rather than on a single continent.

But I think the issues may well be the same as before - that most users don’t want their countries to have dark histories.

Comment from Brunanter on 18 January 2016 at 19:07

Well I was hoping for a “hot cold war”, with air-raids, border clashes, invasion, guerrilla/urban warfare.

And who sides opposed to yours have to be “bad”? Each side would believe themselves to be the good guys, and it would only be through the eyes of their enemies they’d be seen as bad.

Comment from Brunanter on 18 January 2016 at 19:09

Even the “good” sides in WWII and the Cold War had their share of “evil” acts: Dresden, Grenada, Both Vietnam wars, Indonesia in the 40s, Congo Belge, Chile etc

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 18 January 2016 at 21:12

I suppose a modified Woolonian History could allow it to have once been a more powerful country with a negative background; it would also help explain how some parts of Woolonia (like the half destroyed Las Ovejas) ended up as bad as they were.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 18 January 2016 at 21:58

I should have been clearer. When I said ‘baddies’ I suppose I meant countries that are unlike the countries we have now, i.e. they were probably the losers - so written into history as the ‘baddies’. We wouldn’t actually be taking sides, we would be creating a fictional history to make the contemporary world more believable. To have a war, obviously the combatants have to believe, very strongly, that they are in the right - that they are the goodies - at least while the war lasts. But since we are now post war (whenever it happened) our countries are likely to either be in the position of victors, or to have accepted the position of the victors. As most? contemporary countries in OGF are democratic, the defeated parties are likely to have been non-democratic. I think most of us would be happy with that.

The case for having a historic world war is partly, I think, that this would strengthen the reasons for the countries we create now to be democratic. Without that sort of history - though you may disagree - it is far less likely that we would have so many democratic countries. We try for verisimilitude; why would we have institutions like the Assembly of Nations, or treaties, or strong and advanced armed forces (some countries, anyway) if there was no history of conflict in OGF?

@ Brunanter - the type of conflict you are talking about isn’t a ‘world war’ - at least it isn’t like the world wars in the real world. Still, that type of ‘hot/cold war’ could have happened in multiple locations. If your country had been a colony, you might have a good reason to have such a war, though you might want to come up with some ideological differences from the colonial power to make it even more believable. If it hadn’t been a colony, you might need to find an antagonist. Its not hard to find a historic colonial power - try NW Uletha. Or there may be a country with ideological differences in the 1950s - do you an idea of the political leanings of your country around that time?

Comment from Rasmus Rasmusson on 19 January 2016 at 07:41

Ūdilugbulgidħū wrote: “As most? contemporary countries in OGF are democratic, the defeated parties are likely to have been non-democratic.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an “evil democracy”, i.e. a majority of a people (not only their leaders) that has i.e. long thought of themselves to be better than everyone else, who continue to vote and are completely aware for whom they vote, even if the outside world keeps criticising their opinion (but who cares about the outside world anyway), and who completely agree that their country should show agression to manifest its authority to the world.

No dictatorship needed, as the elected government simply does what the people asked them to do. The larger part of the minority is used to their compatriots’ opinions, so they shrug it away, and only a small part thinks that it’s all wrong and that the people should change.

And: “maybe we could do a list of countries that have the potential to be ‘baddies’ - and work from this list to develop a power block or ‘axis’”

Yes, that’s a good idea.

I imagine however that there could be participants who aren’t willing to take part in this set-up and whose countries could be clumsily situated between two warring nations. There are of course neutral states, but both WW-1 and WW-2 showed that neutrality is easily ignored if that’s strategically preferable*. Since we cannot force those participants to participate, we will have to find another solution for this.

*(but as far as we know, these countries didn’t have geoficticians to protect them and/or if they had, the rules of their Earth project may have been different than the OGF rules ;) )

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 12:35

First go at a list of countries that might have been involved in ‘wider conflicts’:

Please add, or comment. If it works we could move to a page in the history portal - or possibly in the collaborations section.

Comment from Yuanls on 19 January 2016 at 18:11

If there is Wysterian involvement in a war, then Wyster and North Glaster would be a potential conflict point. The Third Kingdom of Wyster may have wanted a Glastian unification, and maybe launched a failed invasion of North Glaster. The Glastian Coast, especially around the Isle of Bovier, was heavily fortified and had been ever since the ‘Slow War’. Due to its location by the Ingerish colony of South Glaster, it is possible that Ingerland was alarmed at this. After that, it escalated. (This is only my thoughts on how the war started)

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 19 January 2016 at 20:17

If someone is willing to claim East Woolonia that could cause a large conflict- similar to the Woolonian Civil War, perhaps the Eastern Woolonians wanted a more peaceful rural environment with an isolationist outlook while Western Woolonia wanted to go outward. I can see Woolonia once having been a powerful unified nation that had largely sunk in power until more recently trying to rebuild. Perhaps the wool industry could have caused a minor conflict with wool-producing Commonia, causing a multifold conflict between Woolonia, East Woolonian Rebels and Commonia; likewise this could cause Woolonia to have taken the side of whoever was going against Woolonia. As a constitutional monarchy and as ones fighting for “progress” Woolonians at the time would have been very confident that they were in the right; I imagine Woolonians sort of beating the Eastern Woolonian rebels but in almost every other way losing (or winning at a large cost.) What do you guys think before I add it to the sandbox page?

Comment from Yuanls on 19 January 2016 at 21:06

@Ernestpcosby How would a conflict across the other side of the world work? The only country in the current world today to be able to support a war on the other side of the world is the USA, and it doesn’t look like either country has either the military, technological or economic power to do that. There’s also no set history for Commonia, which may cause problems.

There are two Commonian histories, but the ‘official’ one is scarce (I wrote a significant part of it) and the ‘better’ one is yet unapproved.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 21:13

I suggest you add countries to the sandbox page - we are looking for differences between countries at this stage, which could be spark or be part of a bigger conflict. There isn’t a real superpower in OGF. But then neither of our real world wars was caused by a superpower, so that may not matter.

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 19 January 2016 at 21:14

Well I mean my only two territories are in Tarephia and Antarephia and if we’re going with that idea then neither would have been involved in anything anywhere because both are isolated from other major countries. I was trying to help, I thought out of the two Woolonia was the only nation that would have ever have been a “bad guy” or “loser” in a war because Freedemia is 1) isolationist 2) pacifist 3) a nation that has never been to war. Woolonia is in shambles enough to have been involved in some semi-recent conflict but if it has to be a directly neighboring nation then I guess that isn’t happening.

Comment from Yuanls on 19 January 2016 at 21:35

@Ūdilugbulgidħū Is the wiki page just for friction points in general (E.g. Austria-Hungary and Serbia) or actual power blocs? (E.g. NATO and the Warsaw Pact) It could be argued that WWII and to an extent, WWI was caused by Nazi Germany and the German Empire invading Poland and Belgium (respectively).

@Ernestpcosby There may still be room for a war though. America and Japan fought the Pacific War in WWII, literally halfway around the world. On a smaller scale, Britain, Germany and Italy were able to fight in North Africa as well. The problem is the geopolitics in OGF appear to be in shambles. But if a one point, Woolonia was a superpower, I’m sure there’s some room for something.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 21:37

Ernest, no I don’t think it matters at all how far apart the countries are, or how they are distributed in the world - I don’t think I explained that very well. ‘Power blocks’ could be based on ideology, or colonial connections - or something else. That was just a stab at a name, and I wasn’t thinking that they would all have to be close together or share borders.

And if you have suggestions to how the page could work better (or even just work) feel free to add them there.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 21:49

Thanks for the comments Yuanis. Honestly, the powerblocs page could be for friction points or powerblocks. So maybe it needs a different name - that’s why its in sandbox now! :) But being very simplistic, the ‘friction point’ in WWI was territorial while WWII was ideological - so perhaps there should be a column to include ‘territoriality’? Or could be ‘empiricism’ that was the friction point for WWI - so perhaps an ‘empire driven’ column, or along those lines.

To go back to Woolonia - a sheep herding society could be part of a conflict - but to actually drive it is far-fetched. It could have contributed to or been allied with a militarized/industrialised economy elsewhere, of course. I get the points about Freedemia. But maybe if we do get as far as a world-wide conflict it would be reasonalble to suppose that there would be economic consequences of loss of trade during this period - and maybe some people in Freedemia would want to get involved, even if the country itself was neutral?

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 19 January 2016 at 22:33

Well, I mean, Woolonia is actually (currently) quite modernized; the idea (and what caused the later Woolonian Civil War) is that while about 60% of the population supports the modern life hybrid we see in major cities like Woolport where it leads (or led before whatever led it into shambles) in technology as well, though wool production and sheep herding were the center of the economy, a large population wants to go back to being a traditional sheep centered herding society, perhaps some passionate enough to do attacks on industrialized cities and governmental centers. It’s uniquely more modenized than other “sheep herding societies”, something I envisioned when I took over the nation when I looked at major cities like Woolport and New Wooley. However, I would agree, while once a powerful nation it probably wouldn’t have been a superpower; however, it would have been somewhat powerful and perhaps had chosen the wrong allies; I imagine in such a conflict they may have been allied with the wrong nation(s) that caused the country to have to be part of a war detrimental to itself, while the traditionalist rebels rebelled against the Woolonian government and their nation’s “modern elite” (as they saw it) and tried to ally with a nation on the opposing side. (Unfortunately as we see the result today it would end badly for both the Woolonian government+supporters and the rebels+supporters as they really all ended up hurting the country; it would be a good reason leading up to the Woolonian Civil War; resentment may have continued even to modern times.)

As for Freedemia, I suppose they could have had a very unpopular president in the 20s that may have been sort of Trump like and managed to almost get the nation involved in a major war (perhaps they were VP under a better pres who died?); perhaps the legislature and the courts kept the nation out of war although the president kept fighting to go to war. It may have been a more cold war type environment for Freedemia where the fear of being dragged in was constantly there, but they never were.

Another idea for Freedemia could have been some power hungry nation/superpower trying to expand their sphere of influence by taking footholds in Western Tarephia for some purpose (Was there oil? Resources? Freedemia has lots of Nickel and Aluminum although those don’t seem worth going to war over) Perhaps both ideas could be combined with the threat from this superpower (however idle) being the reason the crazy unpopular president wanted to go to war. That’s the best idea I have for Freedemia.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 22:46

Ok - so I sort of see an alternative to a superpower - that is an international organisation/grouping/alliance, or more than one, that countries were members of in a historical period. A parallel of ‘comintern’ maybe, but perhaps with different ideology or goals - you would then have an ‘evil historical powerblock’. Maybe Freedemia works best as being neutral - or with leanings to one side but non-combattant - while Woolonia could be a strong part of one side. I’ll go back to the sandbox soon and see if I can make something work.

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 19 January 2016 at 23:26

Sandbox ‘improved’:

Ernest - I have added what I know about Woolonia, but it may not be right. For Freedemia, or countries that are neutral/not involved in any conflict, you could put ‘no’ in all 3 ‘groupings boxes.

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 20 January 2016 at 01:06

Okay, Thanks. I’ll check it out. :)

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 20 January 2016 at 01:49

I just updated Woolonia in the chart. It leaned strongly socialist/communist for some time.

Comment from Reece202 on 20 January 2016 at 03:23

Added Cimenoire to the chart

@Yuanls: Because of the issues relating the history I wrote to ‘what’s on the ground’ in Commonia, I’ve shifted that narrative’s location to develop Cimenoire.

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 20 January 2016 at 04:03

I was thinking- Considering current conflicts, wouldn’t it make sense for Suvuma perhaps to have been that superpower? Or at least a powerful nation that made a strong impact on politics? Its history is still mostly unwritten, but it seems like the one major baddie in the world scene today. Maybe? Any thoughts, @isleno? If you’re reading this?

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 20 January 2016 at 13:58

Think we are getting somewhere! I’ve slightly simplified the table, taking out the ‘historical claims overseas’ because this can be covered by colonial power y/n. There are more countries I know off that will probably fill in and with these there may be enough for at least 3 power blocks. A difficult question is whether to separate the ‘communist’ from the ‘socialist’. This difference could be based on one party state vs democracy - but this is definitely the sort of situation Rasmus mentioned earlier where a democratic election could lead to a one party state, perhaps for a period of history. So it may be resolvable by keeping these as a coherent power block, rather than creating a 4th block (and of course there could be unaligned fascist/socialist countries as well?). I’m assuming that countries that put ‘no’ for all the alignments would be neutral in any world conflict - but does it need a clarification, perhaps at top of table? There may also be a case for subdividing 20th century, perhaps 1900-1950s and 1960s onward?

Do we think ‘blue territories’ should generally remain unalligned/neutral?

And where should this table go - Portal:World History/Geopolitics or perhaps Collaboration?

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 20 January 2016 at 18:05

@Yuanls I feel like North Glaster and Woolonia would have been good allies- they had similar ideals and would have been aligned; unfortunately however unless there was something or someone else bigger in between it seems like an immediate alliance would have been unlikely. ANy ideas?

@Udi I think perhaps the current table shouldn’t be subdivided but another table beneath it for each nation to add more notes about their nation could work as well. Also a section for how these nations are now in the 21st century could help us see how the changes would have affected each nation. As for blue territories, I feel it depends- more developed ones with more of a history maybe could lean a certain way, others should probably stay independent or at least currently neutral.

@Udi & @admin On the other hand, should perhaps Commonia (considering its large size) become the only blue nation? That way more developed ones like Mecyna, Gobrassanya and Midistland could be more “collaborative” so that there could be a more cohesive political and economical balance within the OGF world? The chaotic nature of Commonia and the nature of developed nations like Mecyna and Gobrassanya are like day and night- perhaps they should be categorized differently?

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 20 January 2016 at 20:07

@Ernest - I agree that the table is ok at the moment without subdivision - but if there were more powerblocks than currently in the table (i.e. 3) it might be better to subdivide by period rather than to keep adding columns for groupings. I think the detail for each country should all be on the country’s wiki pages - there is already the ‘current government’ column which tells us what they are now, concisely. The notes column should probably have the date of any transition to this current government type.

I think the question of collaborative history for the more developed blue countries is worth a separate diary entry?

Comment from Ernestpkirby on 21 January 2016 at 00:35

@Udi I generally agree with you. However, I just meant another small notes section because some nations (like Woolonia) may only be considering that background to make the history work. I meant for the purpose of collaboration, maybe on the talk page, because I know that I’m not going to be able to add anything to my wiki pages until we start to have a more cohesive history (I won’t be able to fully choose that history until we figure out how it has to be for cohesiveness; until yesterday I never even thought of some of these ideas, and I am happy to go with them but only if for the purpose of making this work.)

Comment from isleño on 21 January 2016 at 20:43

I was thinking- Considering current conflicts, wouldn’t it make sense for Suvuma perhaps to have been that superpower? Or at least a powerful nation that made a strong impact on politics? Its history is still mostly unwritten, but it seems like the one major baddie in the world scene today. Maybe? Any thoughts, @isleno? If you’re reading this?

@ernestpcosby— Although Suvuma is large and populous, it is a developing country, and it was a colony of Ingerland for most of the 20th century (until the 70’s). More info on the history of Suvuma/Goytakanya will be coming to the wiki soon. :-)

Comment from Ūdilugbulgidħū on 21 January 2016 at 22:28

@ isleño - do you have any thoughts about where this page could go? e.g. portal:world history/geopolitics or portal:collaboration/international collaboration

Comment from isleño on 22 January 2016 at 10:05

@Udi — I think Luciano is right about using the “OGF:” space. His suggestion of “OGF:Powerblocs Discussion” sounds good to me, or anything similar. I think we can link to it from the world history side and from the user collaboration side, so that people have multiple ways of finding it.

For some reason I’m finding the chart really hard to analyze though… I think I may want to make a suggestion for rearranging it, in order to make it easier to read. I’ll give it some thought and post something over there.

Login to leave a comment