Would the US have declared war on the USSR in 1937

[Dinner]

I'm thinking not just no but HELL NO! So we have a 5 player Hearts of Iron 2 game going and I'm playing the USSR. I figure I have a few years before the main event so I decide to invade and annex Persia just because I can and because a nice port out of range from Axis subs & bombers sounds nice.

So I invade, they are crushed in mere weeks, and then the USA declares war on me. WTF?! Like an isolationist USA who let France get over run in real life would bother going to war with the USSR over some f'ing Persians they don't know or like. What the hell?

[Jon Miller]

is the US a PC?

jm

[Dinner]

Yes. I think it is an error in the program. I think in real life the USA in the 1930's wouldn't declare war on anyone.

[RGBVideo]

Ok, turning a situation from a simulation (Hearts of Iron II: Doomsday, version 1.2) game into a historical what if...

First off, wrong forum.

Second, you aren't being very clear in your OP. Let me re-tell the situation in our game to readers in Apolyton: Summer of 1937. Japan appeases China by ignoring the Marco Polo incident and signing a peace treaty earlier during the same year. According to my intelligence agency at least, USSR possesses the largest land army in the world which is under a huge modernization plan, half of the USSR industry is devoted to modernizing USSR's land army. USSR invades Persia without provocation. United Kingdom, which has guaranteed the independence of Persia with many public promises, decides to ignore what happens. USSR annexes Persia within two months. In the fall of 1937, USA declares war on USSR.

Third, you weren't very clear in explaining the purpose of this thread. The question I presume you're asking is this: Is the threat of USSR invading and annexing a significant oil producer in the eastern hemisphere enough to cause another red scare in the US (between the two historical ones) and lead United States Congress to declare a war on the Soviet Union?

[RGBVideo]

is the US a PC?

United Kingdom, Germany, Soviet Union and Japan are human players. All other nations are directed by AI.

IRL, British Empire would've gone mad over the resurgence of Great Game for sure, but human player in charge of the UK decided not to react.

[joncha]

Does that mean you were playing as the US, VJ?

[RGBVideo]

If I had a bookmark of the Stefu's newest smiley-thread, I'd now attach the the edit button crushing :rolleyes: under it.

Thanks for noticing that error for me.

[lord of the mark]

IIUC the US axis with KSA and Aramco was just beginning to evolve at this point. While arguably the US might already be a bit more concerned about the Persian Gulf, with oil important to naval power, than with France (but, no, France means atlantic ports, which are still more important) its hard to see the US going further than UK in defense of the still UK dominated Gulf. Main reaction in Washington would be to ask WTF is happening in London, esp if peace with Japan has given UK a freer hand, and Germany is no farther along than in OTL. I guess the real problem is with the ahistorical action of your human player, for the UK.

[Wycoff]

I doubt it, but it might have spurred greater cooperation between Britain and Nazi Germany.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by joncha
Does that mean you were playing as the US, VJ?

He's playing Japan.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
IIUC the US axis with KSA and Aramco was just beginning to evolve at this point. While arguably the US might already be a bit more concerned about the Persian Gulf, with oil important to naval power, than with France (but, no, France means atlantic ports, which are still more important) its hard to see the US going further than UK in defense of the still UK dominated Gulf. Main reaction in Washington would be to ask WTF is happening in London, esp if peace with Japan has given UK a freer hand, and Germany is no farther along than in OTL. I guess the real problem is with the ahistorical action of your human player, for the UK.

The human UK player decided not to go to war and instead to continue building up in order to prepare for war with Germany. Japan decided China wasn't worth it and seems to be getting ready to invade USSR with Germany since those two nations entered into an alliance in 1936. A new human player has taken over the USA and made peace with the USSR.

[Main_Brain]

Why would he waste a perfectly good War?
Loosing the Peace-modifier is a Huge production Bonus.
He (USA) gets jump-started by 4-5 years after all.

Good for the Allies, Bad for Axis, irrelevant for USSR ?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The human UK player decided not to go to war and instead to continue building up in order to prepare for war with Germany. Japan decided China wasn't worth it and seems to be getting ready to invade USSR with Germany since those two nations entered into an alliance in 1936. A new human player has taken over the USA and made peace with the USSR.

OK, what im getting at, is the realism angle. When, in a Paradox (or similar) game, you get an outcome that seems not to be alt historically viable, there are a few possibilities 1. It IS AH viable, we just were too narrow minded to realize it 2. Either a human or the AI isnt playing the game right or 3. Theres something unrealistic with the how the game models the situation, so that playing the game right leads to an implausible outcome . This is in turn divides into 3A - the game model is unrealistic and 3B - the game model is not the problem, so much as the gaminess of the game - IE the tendency of people to anticipate known events, or other aspects of the situation dynamics that folks at the time didnt know about - EG no one playing France in "1914" will fail to adopt a better strat than plan 17, cause its impossible to not know that Germany had sufficient troops for a far right envelopment.


So, back to this game. I still find it gut implausible that UK would fail to respond to USSR annexing Iran with war. A fortiori if they have guaranteed Iran.

Now from what youve said, it seems that UK player reasons as follow. 1. This is a game, and Japan player is here to fight, and of course so is Germany, and Japan making peace in China must mean they will attack the USSR. Ergo it makes sense for me to wait, and attack the USSR later, or fight Germany in the inevitable war.

This of course is unlikely to be what would have actually transpired in an ATL Whitehall in 1937. It was NOT thought that Japan had come to fight - peace with Japan was considered at least possible, and a peaceful resolution with China would be a further sign of that, despite a Japan-Germany pact. There would be no assumption that Germany intended war with either the USSR or with Britain, since a great power war would be so manifestely foolhardy for Germany. OTOH Britain couldnt afford to have the USSR in the Persian Gulf, and certainly couldnt afford the loss of face of a guarantee going unhonored, esp in a place so strategically important, and so close to India. Ergo, UK WOULD have gone to war with the USSR, though trying to keep it mainly naval-peripheral, and to continue build-up.

If, OTOH, the UK was so convinced that a war with USSR and continued buildup was impossible that they wouldnt have gone to war, than USA wouldnt have either.

[RGBVideo]

I presume the game is coded in such a way that both AI US and AI UK have a DoW chance on SU if it invades Persia. The question is, if SU would've done so and UK would've DoW'ed, what do you think would've happened IRL in US Congress? Just loads of hot air?

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Why would he waste a perfectly good War?
Loosing the Peace-modifier is a Huge production Bonus.
He (USA) gets jump-started by 4-5 years after all.

Good for the Allies, Bad for Axis, irrelevant for USSR ?

Shhh, don't give him any ideas. I'm playing Japan, remember?

[RGBVideo]

Two things which have changed before US DoWing SU from OTL: (1) Japan and Germany have made a formal alliance; (2) Landon is POTUS.