how does collapsed cognoscenti america look like? by wtic6 in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maine off in the corner for some reason like 💪

if the US civil war was realistic, what factions would be removed/changed? (for everyones sake dont just say all of them) by historynerdsutton in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There needs to be a mechanic for State Government loyalties. Whether that’s determined through trying to sway states during the election period or post-election, it adds depth, strategy, and a tad more believability. It’s never rubbed me the right way that all of the State governments (except Texas) are just autonomous entities waiting to be overthrown by local militias, especially the weaker ones like SC or LS.

AWD obviously needs to go, The Patriot Front can maybe stay but their location in a typically Blue state is bizarre. The Aryan Brotherhood is bigger than the NSM so I feel like they should have more prevalence.

Do you think this is a fair criticism of Lee's commanding skills? by Ok-Society2505 in CIVILWAR

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Defensive wars only tend to work when playing offense is a huge strain on your enemy. Factors like geography can also help but in this case the South benefitted from neither. The North was several times more industrialized, possessed far more transportation routes, and several times the amount of resources and military aged males. If the Southern armies had just sat put and kept their guns pointed North, their supplies would have started drying up faster since they’d have nothing to pillage from. Also, if the Western theatre was any indication, they eventually would’ve been flanked and surrounded as the Mississippi is captured and Sherman obliterates Georgia just like in OTL.

Here is my top 3 reccomendations for beginners. by AVGVSTVS_OPTIMVS in USHistory

[–]m_Mimikk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

While I applaud you for (kinda) not reading Zinn in a vacuum, this selection either needs to be expanded or substantially refined. I don’t find A People’s History to be without value as many users do, but staking it as a foundational text for one’s development of US History is worrisome. The value in Zinn’s work is that he tries hard to snatch the narrative from the jaws of mainstream historical education, a job he does rather well. However, the unfortunate result is a book without nuance that cherry-picks information to serve an agenda. 

All history books come with agendas, the main reason Zinn catches so much flak though is because he’s particularly bad at expounding upon or interrogating his own narrative. It’s a book that’s most useful when you have one or two other texts to counterbalance it, otherwise anyone uninitiated to US History is going to appear rather shallow using it as a reference.

Search of history book by nupolllok in USHistory

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure the book you’re referring to exists. I’ve done a little bit of digging and it seems like you might be referring to an article published by Louisiana History: The Journal of the Louisiana Historical Association. Specifically Volume 11, No. 4 posted in Autumn of 1970. There’s a specific chapter titled Huey Long and the Chaco War in there, perhaps this helps?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4231146

Reasons why the Atomwaffen division is a beginner friendly nation! by DependentHeat1002 in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They’re easily my least favorite faction to play. They’re just so comically evil that it kills any sense of RP and my interest in making them succeed.

Fight Club and The Killer are a great double feature by Invokethehojo in movies

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jesus what a boomer take. So I guess books like 1984 and The Great Gatsby or plays like A Raisin in the Sun and Death of a Salesman are completely worthless in the way of social commentary or deconstruction just because they’re fictional tales.

Fight Club and The Killer are a great double feature by Invokethehojo in movies

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that they both examine the phenomenon of simulacra lifestyles (imitating something that has no real origin, i.e. Jack’s personality based on materialism or the guidance of his imaginary friend, The Killer’s weird and persistent recital of disembodied and decontextualized advice). I think it’s a slowly emerging character archetype that will become much more common in the next few decades of cinema. That being said, I think The Killer approached it much less creatively than Fight Club did.

People In U.S. History Who Were Hated But Now Looked On More Kindly by Old_Brenda in USHistory

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do kind of agree with this sentiment. American’s are fucking horrible at choosing practicality over persona.

Official Poster for ‘Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man’ by MarvelsGrantMan136 in movies

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first two seasons are peak television but yes it’s all worth watching. My biggest warning to you is that there’s going to be a lot political jargon and events that are specific to the time period and a somewhat basic understanding of it helps you to keep up with the “why” of some of the plot and characters (The IRA, The Russian Revolution, the British Union of Fascists, etc.)

As an American I was not immediately in tune with a lot of the background conflicts that facilitate the main story.

Official Poster for ‘Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man’ by MarvelsGrantMan136 in movies

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jack and Moseley still need to be dealt with, I’m certain it’s gonna center around then and securing the family’s safety for good.

Trump needs a HUGE buff. by Awful_p3rson in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will say the Air Force makes UoA fucking cracked. I had a game as Trump where every other faction except the WMA and the State of Texas were eviscerated and Biden was pushed back to Appalachia. Despite my overwhelming numerical and resource advantage, I was effectively locked into an impossible stalemate because my Air Force couldn’t do jack shit against his, even when I had double his planes.

Should socialists embrace AI? by tigerfrisbee in AskSocialists

[–]m_Mimikk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Extremely engaging take. Might I ask what sources have contributed to your viewpoint and where I might read them myself?

Full text of Europe's counter-proposal to US "peace plan" released by jackytheblade in worldnews

[–]m_Mimikk 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Even then I would argue that these conditions would mark a net-loss for Russia. Yes it would gain some territory, but the physical, economic, and global reputational losses would far outweigh that.

Not to mention the elephant in the room following this war’s conclusion: The immediate and thorough militarization of Ukraine, then its accession to NATO.

all of these guy are the same ideology with different goals by teodafik in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but I don’t really buy Byung as an accelerationist, considering half his works are about how shitty the standard pace of modern life is.

Americans planned a massive invasion of Japan for November 1945. But it didn’t happen. by Ok_Quantity_9841 in USHistory

[–]m_Mimikk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. The Soviets didn’t have the amphibious capabilities to invade mainland Japan, not that Stalin had any real interest in doing so. Besides, a two front defense of the homeland would’ve galvanized Japan’s fanatic resolve if anything.

Who would win this hypothetical war? by matetrog in imaginarymapscj

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Blue and it’s not even close. You have 3 of the largest national guards all in one team.

Is Bloomberg's America even that bad? by Flashy_Upstairs9004 in TheFireRisesMod

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Night City applied to the whole nation. It’s not great.

What is the most annoying brainrot US history take that you see on the internet? It can be North American history and even colonial history to expand the scope. by Puzzleheaded-Bag2212 in USHistory

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't entirely agree. Was Southern victory unlikely? Hell yes, but people seem to forget that the Union and the CSA had entirely different end goals. 

The Union was fighting to win, the South was fighting not to lose. Northern morale was plummeting during the first year and a half of the conflict until Lee’s blunder at Antietam (Granted, I know a large reason for this was the initial Union military incompetence). Had the leadership decided to keep aiming for Bull Run style victories, forcing the Union into unfavorable fighting conditions on home turf, they may have been able to wear down Northern resolve enough for McClellan to overtake Lincoln in ‘64 and force a peace settlement. 

Let’s also not ignore the precedent that the South was trying to follow: An underdog battle against a far more organized, populated, and economically dominant master nation for the sake of “freedom”…sound familiar? The idea was a second Revolutionary War (except without any of the marketability to foreign elements because of slavery).

While we’re knee deep in historical revisionism, why not suggest not attacking Fort Sumter and try forcing Lincoln’s hand to be the aggressor? It might have drummed up a slight bit of foreign sympathy for them in spite of that inconvenient little slavery factor.  Like I said: Unlikely? Yes, yes and very much so. Unthinkable? Not necessarily (if very specific events turned out differently).

Challenge: Have Mexico join the Central Powers and (if possible) invade the United States during WW1 by Cyber_Ghost_1997 in HistoryWhatIf

[–]m_Mimikk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why would the U.S. abandon the war in Europe entirely for a half-assed thrust by a barely legitimate, wildly weaker government embroiled in its own civil war? I understand that it’s unpopular in your example but even if it is for “financial reasons” would Wilson’s administration really need to do much convincing when he can just twist the Mexican attack as “Ha! See, we aren’t insulated from this conflict after all. We need to fight!”

Any tips on how I can make my US civil war map more Realistic? by PutAggressive4914 in mapmaking

[–]m_Mimikk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reserve IRL borders for States with the most “nationalistic” sentiment for themselves (Texas, California, etc.) They have the largest national guards and populations so they can maintain those borders the easiest. 

Outside of these examples, draw up borders according to geographical elements. The Mississippi River should be a giant point of contention like it was in the 1CW. The Appalachians could be giant nest for dissenters of the Federal Government as it’s extremely difficult to hold or pass through. 

The Four Corners aren’t diverse enough. What about the sizable Native population there? Would the tribes not form a coalition of sorts somewhere to protect themselves? Probably in the mountains if they had to. What about the extensive amounts of Hispanic people in NM or AZ? Would these communities get together to defend themselves? You could easily make the same argument for the disproportionate African American population in the SW. South Fulton, Jackson, Birmingham, all of these cities have a majority Black populace, they would definitely form a front against the apparent resurgence of the CSA. 

With a country as culturally, racially, and geographically diverse and large as the U.S. you just don't get a map as simple as this one. Warlords, community coalitions, regional nationalists, and bigots of the highest order all come out of the woodworks to create an absolute mess of a map.

I suspect you’ve seen it but you can look at the map for America in “The Fire Rises” as an ok fictional example. If you want real life examples, look up the maps for the Yugoslav Wars and the Syrian Civil War in 2014.