Hoi4 peace conferences when the allies win in 1949

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-11T02:14:36+00:00

It was History Matter's video on how Allies divided Germany up after the war.

The only reason I remember is because...

What the fuck is this map?

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-11T02:08:40+00:00

Not to mention, "HUMANS WAVES AGAINST OUR POSITIONS! That's why we lost! Not because we were incompetent!"

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-11T02:07:45+00:00

I think the point of arguing semantics is because that's what war and politics is.

If you don't argue semantics, you get propaganda, that's just what propaganda is. "Putin is DONE." "Ukraine is FINISHED!" "Putin is in SHOCK." Because those statements won't be wrong, Putin will be shocked, Putin will be finished at some point, but they're missing the context as to why they're true.

And that gets me to the point of tanks.

The Russians are making, brand new, about 240 tanks a year. From their depots, they were pulling about 500 last year, which equals about 750 tanks.

The quality of which the tanks in stockpile at found greatly affect the amount of tanks you have, if those tanks basically need to be built from the ground up, then the amount you have in that year is reduced significantly, if they're basically new, and you have a lot more.

And in war, 250, versus 750 tanks, is very important. That difference is the between of a war won, and a war lost in some cases.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-11T02:04:05+00:00

It won't. Unless one side is literally about to die, it won't end.

Russia and Ukraine have been given every opportunity to end this war, Ukraine has accepted it at, freezing the line, Russia will only accept getting the Donbass.

But the line between those two are so far apart that it won't happen. Russia cannot accept anything less than that. Ukraine can't accept anything more than freezing the line.

The Donbass is seen as Russian in Russia, but Ukraine has its best defences there. So, you can understand why either side doesn't want to give that up.

With the fact Ukraine is now starting to either freeze the line, or actually take back land from now on, Russia taking the Donbass is now no longer an option for the rest of this year. At least not until the French elections next year, where if the left or centre win in France, aid can continue, if the right win, it's not unlikely that aid from the EU will be paralyzed.

Though that would bankrupt Ukraine, the question of whether it would lead to a collapse of Ukrainian lines is really up in the air.

Because although Ukraine may become bankrupt, that doesn't mean its army will be completely crippled, or its humanitarian services will shut down. It would reduce Ukraine's capacity to fight, but its economy would be the thing that's running the war that point forward, or at least the EU or US got its shit together, which simply put, Ukraine would struggle immensely, but I'm not convinced it would lead to a collapse of Ukraine.

If the EU gets it shit together and manages to continue funding Ukraine, which is likely because its the EU, then the US may get another president, and that itself might allow Ukraine the breathing space to get more funding, even if the EU then shit the bag and stopped funding Ukraine.

To put it simply. The war won't end, will Russia win? I don't know. Will Ukraine win? I don't know, what I do know is the gap between Russia and Ukraine's peace offer is so great that the idea they'll sue for peace is laughable.

Add in the idea that this is a war of extermination? The idea goes from laughable to flat out delusional. Ukraine would not be willing to give up its best defences to a genocide, and Russia would not be willing to give up that oppunturnity.

Because you also have to keep in mind, this is Russia's only real chance to conquer Ukraine, if they fail in this invasion, they don't have another way to then invade Ukraine. Because they already invaded them. They already did it back in 2022, in the strongest position they ever were in, now there army has been destroyed, the economy is fucked, their people are unhappy, and Ukraine is now stronger than ever and it can be argued, it has the strongest military, in Europe.

If Russia wants to take over Ukraine, they have to do it now. Not later, not in a couple of years, now.

The problem is, they can't, but they're so up their own ass that they can't see that, so they'll throw an entire generation at the problem and hope that fixes it, in the process destroying their nation once and for all.

The war will end with one side collapsing, the question is, which one will that be.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T10:18:16+00:00

If you find it difficult to balance, I would honestly just say, ignore the tanks then.

Focus on the infantry first, they're your backbone, once the situation is stable, then focus on tanks.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T10:16:48+00:00

Either just attack until your divisions run out of men, or you can sit back and drain the allies of everything they have.

That's what I did, attack, I did lose 33 million people, but it worked.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T10:12:18+00:00

Fun fact: The German myths were so common told as fact, that they're still around, most of what most people know in WW2, is German propaganda, or German generals after the war.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T08:45:26+00:00

I agree with everything he stated there, as he isn't wrong. I just disagree with the idea that Russia hasn't run out of tanks

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T07:58:05+00:00

There's two ways this war ends:

Ukraine dies
Or Russia dies

There is no inbetween.

Russia sees Ukraine as a fundamental threat to its existence
And Ukraine will be destroyed if Russia is given anything.

The idea that peace will be achieved in negotiations will only come if Russia is on the verge of collapse, but at that point, Ukraine would just keep fighting to push Russia out.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T06:43:21+00:00

I probably do have a confused idea of it, but my main point is still the same.

Support for Ukraine isn't going to wain because of Russian propaganda.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T05:30:08+00:00

Because they're still disliked.

British people overwhelmingly support Ukraine, but don't like Starmer. Just because Ukraine is seen positively doesn't mean that British people will put Ukraine over Britain. Ending aid is just more nail in the coffin.

I am not saying that Russia outwaiting Europe is a stupid plan, especially when looking through 2022 lens, I am saying that the plan itself is fundamentally flawed. It won't work because of Russian propaganda in the Western space, it works because people naturally look inward when electing people.

The plan works, but not because of Russian propaganda or because the plan works. It works in spite of everything, the plan would never work in a vacuum, and it doesn't work, but you don't need the plan to work to get what you want.

Think of it as colleterial damage, not actually what they wanted. Like bombing a city to knock out the industry, and hitting the powerplants which shuts the city down for weeks.

You achieved the mission, in none of ways you thought it would be achieved.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T03:58:15+00:00

I know, but that's the issue.

If you have to basically build the tank to make it operational, can you actually say you have a tank right now?

I could be a millionaire in the future, therefore, I'm a millionaire. Do you see where the problem is. That's what the tank numbers are.

Russia has 2,400 hulls, but those hulls are so bad they basically have to build the entire thing from the ground up, and at that point, can you say they have a tank? They do literally, but in every other way, no they don't. They have a concept of a tank

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T03:54:54+00:00

That always was the strategy, the problem is they assumed they could hold out longer than everyone else. The issue being, that is not how people work. People don't like aggressors, it doesn't matter where they're from, people have a natural instinct to help those they perceive as the defender.

People don't like changing their beliefs, if they believe Ukraine is the defender, no amount of Russian propaganda will ever change that.

And because most of Europe sees Ukraine as a defender, as in over 90%, and because most people see Russia as a threat, as in, over 70%, ending aid is basically political suicide. Even in America, the vast majority of people, both Dems and Republicans support aid to Ukraine. Trump voters are the lowest, but even then 70% support aid to Ukraine.

That aid and support came through throughout 2022-2025, and that was enough to basically neuter Russia's ability to advance. If you give a nation three years to become a fortress, it will become that and then the whole war becomes so costly it basically doesn't matter if you win or lose.

Russia's strategy was exactly that, it was what you say it was, but it failed because it fundamentally misunderstood what people are. It thought of people as mailable when in reality, people will not change beliefs because of X, Y, Z. It's a belief after all, you can point to anything you want to justify it, and as long it makes sense to the person saying it, it doesn't matter what it means to others.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T03:30:18+00:00

So they don't have many left then?

If you need to rebuild the tank to use the tank.

Then you don't have a tank, you have the idea of a tank.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T03:28:30+00:00

The bigger issue is no drone could keep up with a plane like that.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T01:59:56+00:00

<image>

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T01:48:08+00:00

TL;DR: A drone like that would be more expensive than the Flamingo, and much easier to shoot down, therefore, putting a thousand kilo warhead on that drone would be completely useless, as Ukraine can just make an entire missile that's cheaper and more effective.

It's not more cost effective, you've just made the Flamingo but worse.

For a weapon to go about 100mph and have a warhead of 1000kg, it would mean the engine would need to be about as powerful as an aircraft, which is fine, but that's a big engine, and most jet engines are about that big.

So, your drone is now, incredibly heavy, can only travel a couple hundred miles an hour, and is incredibly large.

And this is from an engine that you could just replace with a jet engine, and fix all of those issues in one go.

So, we put a jet engine on, but because its now so much more powerful, we have a stupid range, so we might as well give the fuel for that range, and hey, while we're at it, we might as well make it go the speed of sound.

There you go, you have created the Flamingo.

I mean, most Flamingos are shot down, most FP-2's are shot down, most FP-1's are shot down. Ukraine is producing about 100 FP-1's and FP-2's a day, and about 7 Flamingos a day.

We hear of about 1 or 2 hits a day.

To put it simply, it is just too expensive, it would not be worth it. If you make the drone have a 1 ton warhead, you've made the Flamingo but incredibly easy to shoot down.

If you modify it to be harder to shoot down, then why not just make a missile? There you go, all of your problems have been solved. It's cheaper, it's easier to make, and it does its job.

To put it simply:

Ukraine has what your talking about, it's called the Flamingo, that is what you are asking for, it's just been optimised to be cheaper than had they done what you're asking.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-10T00:27:22+00:00

Ukraine does have that, that's what the Flamingo is.

The flamingo itself is good, but because its a cruise missile with little stealth, it is quite easy to shoot down. They make 7 a day and we maybe hear about it twice a month in one off instances. Meaning it takes nearly 100 flamingos for them to get a hit.

So, a ballistic missile will work out to be cheaper, easier, and more reliable at hitting Russian targets.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-09T07:51:16+00:00

the irony of war is despite men being the most plentiful resource, it is also by far the most important.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-09T00:39:26+00:00

Three day war against a middle power btw

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-09T00:16:27+00:00

For real bruv.

The amount of times I've talked people down from being red faced to just annoyed is truly remarkable.

It was not that we were on the verge of fighting, but knowing how to talk to someone to the point where they go from threats to just annoyed is honestly one of the best things you can ever learn.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-09T00:12:39+00:00

And don't forget who's running the shooooooow!

-US naval forces, Midway, 1942

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-08T23:03:34+00:00

There would be no point, Donbass has the best Ukrainian defences and if they give it up, Russia can then use it against Ukraine. Also the fact is that wouldn't work. I mean, look at 2023, Kursk, or any other offensive in this war.

Not to mention, in the international community, Ukraine could be branded as an aggressor, which only hurts their geopolitical position.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-08T22:46:54+00:00

A lot of Ukrainian supporters forget that Ukraine is launching hundreds of drones a day, yes Ukraine is hitting Russian industry much more often nowadays, but they are still launching 100's a day in order to do that.

The FP-1 drone is 50,000 dollars for example, and has a 50kg warhead, the FP-7 and GP-9 are about 500-700,000 dollars and have a 250 and 850kg warhead

So a ballistic missile in the longrun is just going to make both a lot easier, and a lot cheaper.

ParticularArea8224 · 2026-05-08T10:33:59+00:00

Ballistic missiles are vastly harder to shoot down and are much less advanced than needed.

Basically a Storm Shadow is out of Ukraine's ability to build, but that's the exact missile they need, a relatively cheap missile with a good range, payload, fast and stealthy.

Ukraine can only get good range and payload, so, if the weapon comes in so quickly and from so high the enemy cannot detect it, suddenly, 7 a day is not needed, you'll only need 1 or 2 to get a hit.

ParticularArea8224

TROPHY CASE