u/ParticularArea8224

Hi. I'm just writing an alternate history script and I just need to know, in WW2, the US supplied massive amounts of aid to the Brits, Soviet Union and allies.

Is there any chance that this lend lease wouldn't occur in our timeline? The US politicians just decide to not go forward with it and just refuse to sign the Lend lease act, is that, in any way, actually realistic?

I have mostly three star generals at the moment, they're decent but they get torn apart by other generals and forces, and I was just wondering how on earth am I supposed to actually win?

I have tried at least 2 dozen times, but I have never gotten past turn 50, even as some of the most powerful countries, so I'd appreciate if any of y'all have some tips

I've always heard it's the richest area of Germany, and in some cases, in Europe industrially. It is, and I'm not gonna argue that, the area processed nearly 90% of all German coal and oil during the war after all so, you know.

But how rich was it really? And how rich was it compared to the rest of Germany? What were its production numbers and economic power compared to the rest of Germany? Because I've always wondered, but I've never had a physically monetary answer, it's always just been, "it is the most industrialised region."

So, in terms of amount of factories and GDP, how rich was the Rhineland?

By the way, when I say Rhineland, I mean the area that was demilitarised, not just the Ruhr or the Northern Rhine. I understand most of you understand that, but some may not, I personally make that mistake quite a lot, attaching the Ruhr, as the Rhineland, only to remember that I am severely stupid.

In the initial push from June 22nd, to July 12th, the main attack of German forces in the campaign went towards Moscow, however, that was Halder's doing, he wanted Moscow due to the idea of, "taking the capital leads to the collapse of the country." Similar to France. Hitler on the other hand wanted to focus on Ukraine and the Caucuses, so why did Hitler not do that in the initial stage of the invasion?

Did Halder keep his plans hidden or was it just, both of them assumed the Soviet army would be destroyed by then?

My Allies are as useful as Italy and the enemies are deploying the entire fucking world as their army in comparison to mine, so I just want to know how to unite Japan as Oda in Eu4.

I'm keeping it vague purely because if I go into details I will not keep my cool because frankly playing as Japan is genuinely one of the worse experiences I've had while playing a game and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

So, we know in war, there are always surprises, like in Moscow, that would be surprising for Napoleon, but were there any true examples were a move was made by the enemy Napoleon was fighting and that, when it was in progress or completed, Napoleon was taken by surprise due to a lack of forward thinking on his part?

Did Napoleon ever fail to comprehend what the enemy would plan in turn, and as a result, was there ever a moment of a surprise attack against his lines?

I mean, I can think of three reasons:

1. River is to his back, limits supply lines, and means if he is caught in a poor position, his army is entirely lost.
2. Outnumbered
3. Surrounded, cuts down of effectiveness on sectors.

But I don't know if that's true. I mean, he had a major city, he could have fought it house to house, what happened? Why did Napoleon not take advantage of the fact that it's a city?

House to house combat is not realistic in this time period I agree, but even just using the homes as cover should have proven more than enough trouble for the Allies.

I've heard the story a thousand times, "King Harold Hardrada landed and then proceeded to advance in England after initially winning a victory, then King Godwinson engaged them at Stamford bridge, taking them by surprise. The Vikings fought hard, with one man holding the bridge with a two handed axe and having to be killed by an attack under the bridge."

The story itself, honestly just reads like a legend, I mean, it's possible sure, but I cannot for the life of me actually find real evidence that it happened. No primary source, no secondary source, nothing. The battle either mentions it and moves on, or just doesn't mention it.

Hence the question.

Did it actually happen? Or was it a legend made after the battle?

This is more so about Ukraine, but I don't want to ask specifically about Ukraine, because that's just inviting the pro-Russians in and them saying, "wElL aCtUaLlY, uKrAiNe Is AlReAdY lOsT."

Can you tell that I've been in the Ukraine community for too long now? I'm sorry, anyway.

A nation goes bankrupt. What happens? What happens to its industry, to is economy, to its manufacturing sectors.

If that nation is dependent on loans from other nations, what happens then? Because Ukraine is dependent on Western money, there is no denying that, but if Ukraine is about to go bankrupt because of a lack of Western money, would the Western money just be given to Ukraine to ensure they don't go bankrupt?

If Ukraine does go bankrupt, what then happens? Does the West just lose those loans? Does Ukraine have to pay back the loans it can't pay back leading to its bankruptcy because it just went bankrupt due to the lack of loans that was preventing it from going bankrupt?

Only in Geo-politics can you write such a sentence and still make perfect sense. Lmao.

But yeah, that's my question. If a nation goes bankrupt, what actually happens to that nations economy, industry, what happens to the nation itself, what happens to its future, and how do they solve the bankruptcy?

I've heard all sorts of things about it, so I just want to ask, what happened, why it started, how it was ended, and why it occur? Did the war have anything to do with it? Did the British have anything to do with it? What started it?

Like, I remember in 2023, it was impossible to talk about Ukraine without some Russian Z supporter reminding us that "Actually Ukraine is losing because the "69th dick-riding protector of the universe guards special regiment" captured a human settlement in Ukraine that had exactly one pig and three, no four huts! NATO took four billion casualties in that attack and thus Ukraine is DOOMED!!!!!"

They were everywhere, any time Ukraine was mentioned at any moment, at least one of them would appear.

In 2026. As of this month, I can count on my fingers how many times I've seen a Russian troll in a comment section.

The only place I find them nowadays, is entirely on Russian supportive media, and even then, it's not that much anymore.

I mean, you all know History Legends, and if you don't, he's basically a Vatnik pretending that he wants to be neutral. He just stopped reporting on Ukraine. Once Iran happened, boom, he's entirely focused on America.

Makes sense in the idea that Iran is more important to most people at the moment. But he's not getting as many views as he does on the Ukraine videos. Which makes sense because there would be less Russian bots. But also, nowadays, there just isn't a lot to really be proud of as a Russian or Russian supporter. And I think that's ultimately why he's ignoring the conflict now.

Why talk about how badly Russia is doing against Ukraine when you can just talk about how bad America is doing against Iran?

I mean, hell, in Ukraine subreddits, there are no more trolls. In NAFO, there are no more trolls, I have not seen a single one in over four months now.

Support for Russia is now, almost at an all time low.

You can actually sense the desperation in the air, and I mean, look at Russians themselves. Morale on Russia's side has basically collapsed. Every day now we're getting new posts, new videos, new things from Russian supporters and Russians themselves saying the war is now either lost or not worth it.

Hell, even Russian politicians are now starting to say the war is lost.

And now, even through the internet, they aren't even trying to project their propaganda anymore.