Forum - ¿WWI and WWII?

Jump to: navigation, search
Overview > Support > Ask questions > ¿WWI and WWII?
[#885]

¿WWI and WWII?, Why there isn't a WW1/WW2 in OGF?, i think, yes the countries have been fighted and then but, World wars, especially the second marked a lot of history in the world, and that affect mapping: It can have some type of bunker who your soldiers used or some memorials to generals or presidents, so it affect both mapping and both country history and as well is "popularity" of country.

Posted by Jesus Antonio on 17 December 2017 at 14:58.
Edited by Jesus Antonio on 17 December 2017 at 14:59.

Sigh. Search the Wiki.

There was a project somewhere to to coordinate such a war. But it's a project that requires enormous effort, incredible coordination and lots of time. As far as i know there will be one World War.

Posted by Trabantemnaksiezyc on 17 December 2017 at 16:07.

Its a good question - and I think to have a world that is vaguely believable there has to have been some similar pattern of history. If you want to map in a way that show evidence of previous wars happening at the same time as rw wars in your country, I'd just go ahead and do that.

But on this topic in general, lets come back when other things are much clearer - like how and why the countries in our world ended up like the way they did even before the 20th century.

Posted by Udilugbuldigu on 17 December 2017 at 19:18.

I think establishing that a WWI and/or WWII happened makes sense, but that trying to create a detailed story is fairly pointless. It is unlikely that things will become much clearer in the short term.

But deciding on some very basic details would allow mappers to reference a war (or wars), and incorporate it into their general history. The reasons, battles, participants, etc., could all be added later, or be left vague.


If there is enough agreement I would like to propose that set up a vote to decide the following:


Q1: How many wars should there have been? 0, 1 or 2?


If there was only one war:

Q2: In what year should it have started?

Q3: In what year should it have ended?


If there were two wars:

Q4: In what year should the first war have started?

Q5: In what year should the first war have ended?

Q6: In what year should the second war have started?

Q7: In what year should the second war have ended?


If the majority vote is 0 wars, then the whole thing can be put on hold until we’ve achieved clarity.


If the majority vote is 1 or 2, then the average of the years from Q2-Q7 would give us the time period(s) in which the war(s) occurred.


Dates should probably be limited to fall within a reasonable range (1900-1955?) to loosely match real world history.

Posted by Paxtar on 17 December 2017 at 21:34.

@Paxtar: This is a good run-down of what we need to figure out. I believe consensus before was one war around 1950, but many of those users are not even around any more. I'm sure some people would say that this shouldn't even be touched given the fluid membership. Personally, I'm for the idea, but I'm wondering 'do we need to parallel the real world?' What about the possibility of a war at a different time, like 1880 or 1890? I know that the outcome of the planet would be very different, but it is intriguing.

I know that we want to keep things like our real world, because it is what we know. But, there are some key differences that we have to at least address when coming up with a global conflict.

  • Dispersed and (by RW-standards, illogically) separated people-groups that are otherwise alike linguistically, culturally, and religiously
    • Believe it or not, there are ways to explain this to at least some degree
    • Even so, this indicates broader connectivity across landmasses than in the real world
  • Nation-states are geographically smaller, and RW-nationalism as it happened in the 1800s does not appear to have taken hold
    • Combine these first two together and it is interesting that there is little or no irridentism
    • No one country is really able to dominate the global stage
      • As a side note: this could cascade like WWI into a nexus of treaties and alliances, but the opposite is equally plausible
    • It seems likely that oceanic or sub-oceanic travel was either developed as a technology earlier or at least not lost (the Romans made it to Vietnam, for example)
  • General consensus that countries are peace-oriented
    • Our OGF planet very well could have developed a global culture more prone to use diplomacy instead of the sword
  • High level of development and technology around the world means that there is a greater free-flow in movement of people, ideas, and innovation
    • This also means that there are likely fewer areas that have suffered greatly from a war
    • This point combined with the first also means that cultures are going to be more tied together even if different

I think these things could indicate a potential for an earlier but even more viscous conflict:

  • a global war that left many dead based in part on cultural genocides
  • people groups to underwent huge migrations (like expulsions of Germans post WWII)
  • minority groups were expelled under pretext of cooperation (like population transfers?)
  • conflict left a high war fatigue and a desire to never repeat it
  • some countries still have rivalries that cause intermittent conflicts, but now people have largely accepted the status quo (5+ generations later?)
  • countries remained small, because peoples collected into their pockets and never unified by some broader nationalism
  • can attribute for extremely religious and extremely secular countries
  • with the majority of countries having maritime access, more places could have been involved further afield (Kalm might have deep ties with Wiwaxia)
  • desire to have an AN and a lot of international cooperation with technology, commerce, etc.
  • allows for a strong presence of English and Spanish as lingua francas
  • allows for a fluid country-membership by not basing too much on a single group of users whose countries may not even be around in the future

Just want to put all that out there to consider.

Posted by Alessa on 18 December 2017 at 00:26.

Seriously, why do we need wars, especially major ones? You know the war will create lots of problems to the people, like loss of lives and property.

I only prefer one war, and that is enough.

Posted by Zhenkang on 18 December 2017 at 01:05.

Alessa that run-down is amazing. OoO

I am very intrigued by the idea that the technology for oceanic travel was developed early and never lost, which would explain a world that (1) has related populations scattered far and wide over multiple continents, and (2) is made up mostly of smaller countries with a relatively high average HDI. Having read through the previous threads about a world war, the idea that it would have likely been based more on commerce and trade (since there seems to be infrequent mention of major ethnic conflicts in the wiki) than on territorial expansion.

This would also explain why the Ingerish and Castellanese (and other) colonization efforts seem a bit scattered, and would give new mappers flexibility in developing new countries that may have English/Spanish influences, without needing to get bogged down with colonial history. Perhaps the Ingerish and Castellanese were more interested in establishing influence through carrots rather than sticks (aka genocide and pillage).

I am totally into the idea of a collaboratively imagined world that follows the same basic rules of our planet (space, time, geology, climate, et al), and even its rough trajectory, but is populated by less violent societies. That said, some kind of major global conflict seems inevitable...but what about a world war that was fought more through cultural and economic tactics than military? We're all assuming that a world war would necessarily have to look like the horrific, deadly conflicts that took place in our own world...but you can inflict a lot of damage without guns and swords.

Posted by Louis walker on 18 December 2017 at 04:10.

On the other hand, one key consequence of both RW wars was the explosion of technologies and mass-production. We would not have factories with production lines, worldwide jet air travel, the ballpoint pen, nylon, nuclear power, mass hydrocarbon extraction and refining and a ton of other technologies without the general need to innovate and manufacture millions of things during two lengthy wartimes. It also gave the USA a huge economic boost that propelled it though the Cold War as the capitalist superpower. The OGF planet is if anything even more developed and consumes more than the RW, and we'd need a good explanation for how this thirst for oil and consumer goods came about if there was no big war in the middle of the twentieth century.

Geography depending, Karolia would have been a Sweden or Switzerland, officially neutral but prepared to make secret trade deals and look the other way when prisoners of war were jumping motorcycles over the fences.

Posted by Sarepava on 18 December 2017 at 09:43.

I think that we do need to totally revisit these ideas. World wars might make sense, or they might not, but that depends on the countries in the world and their inter-relationships. First, we need to develop these.

The end point is known - the rw present day in an OGF map context - but there are multiple ways to get there. For example, there are many facts in history that point to the second world war being a consequence of the trauma of the first, the first being a consequence of the traumas of imperialism and class struggle, and so on into history.

It is very challenging to develop these ideas, and I think impossible without knowing what is where now. This is all fluid, and most parts of the world are far from being fixed or mapped out.

I'd propose to let people imagine whatever wars they want, for now, assuming that they can find a willing opponent to collaborate with/against. For this reason, small-scale conflicts, internal wars, civil wars and revolutions may be easier to imagine, and if there is a desire to build these up, or combine them that might lead to development of a world war consensus. The big technological things that came out of the wars might that way develop more organically. As said above, I don't think now that we can impose a specific date for a world war or decide whether there were one, two or more wars like that. Nor can we say that this is a more peaceful world where no world war ever happened.

Posted by Udilugbuldigu on 18 December 2017 at 09:58.

Posted by Sarepava on 18 December 2017 at 09:43.

»On the other hand, one key consequence of both RW wars was the explosion of technologies and mass-production. We would not have factories with production lines, worldwide jet air travel, the ballpoint pen, nylon, nuclear power, mass hydrocarbon extraction and refining and a ton of other technologies without the general need to innovate and manufacture millions of things during two lengthy wartimes. It also gave the USA a huge economic boost that propelled it though the Cold War as the capitalist superpower. The OGF planet is if anything even more developed and consumes more than the RW, and we'd need a good explanation for how this thirst for oil and consumer goods came about if there was no big war in the middle of the twentieth century.«

It's fair to say that the two world wars dramatically accelerated the development of new technologies, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way such development could have happened. It's also telling, given what you've pointed out, that there *isn't* a corollary for the United States (or the USSR) in the OGF world. There are no superpower countries, but rather a fairly well-balanced international community. That's very different from the world we actually live in, which would seem to suggest a very different historical development trajectory.

Re: the "it's too early to make any decisions on this, let's see where things go" camp—as a new user working on developing a new country and trying to figure out how to fit it into the OGF world, I've been longing for some kind of broad, overarching history. Nothing overly prescriptive, since that's no fun, but a general outline of the major, world-shaping events that people generally agree on. Otherwise, we're all developing our countries in isolation.

There's a great quote I heard once from a professor in a college about the role of form in poetry (i.e. sonnets, haiku, etc), though I can't remember who said it; something to the effect of "Poetry is like dancing in a box." The idea was essentially that creativity is most vital when it takes place within a set of constraints. To have just a few constraints to work off of is almost always a benefit, I've found. But that's just me—I've made my case now, I'll hush! :)

Posted by Louis walker on 18 December 2017 at 17:31.

It's fair to say that the two world wars dramatically accelerated the development of new technologies, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way such development could have happened. It's also telling, given what you've pointed out, that there *isn't* a corollary for the United States (or the USSR) in the OGF world. There are no superpower countries, but rather a fairly well-balanced international community. That's very different from the world we actually live in, which would seem to suggest a very different historical development trajectory.

Re: the "it's too early to make any decisions on this, let's see where things go" camp—as a new user working on developing a new country and trying to figure out how to fit it into the OGF world, I've been longing for some kind of broad, overarching history. Nothing overly prescriptive, since that's no fun, but a general outline of the major, world-shaping events that people generally agree on. Otherwise, we're all developing our countries in isolation.

There's a great quote I heard once from a professor in a college about the role of form in poetry (i.e. sonnets, haiku, etc), though I can't remember who said it; something to the effect of "Poetry is like dancing in a box." The idea was essentially that creativity is most vital when it takes place within a set of constraints. To have just a few constraints to work off of is almost always a benefit, I've found. But that's just me—I've made my case now, I'll hush! :)«

I like this thesis a lot. It seems fascinating to consider what would have produced a more equal distribution of power amongst nations; I think a similar rate of technological progress worldwide would have been essential, and more equal access to resources. In addition, there might need to be a cultural or economic aversion to multinational trade, with domestic companies for most products and services - this would prevent one country spreading hegemony because it is home to huge corporations in every industry.

Another scenario (which would put the OGF planet further ahead than our own timeline) would be Balkanisation on a worldwide scale - either nationalist or simply economic: imagine Scotland and London declaring independence from the UK, then Wales and Cornwall, and finally all the other parts of the UK decide to form a loose federation of nations, based on their economic strengths and whether they wanted to remain in the EU. Then all the French and Spanish regions split alongst linguistic lines, Bavaria, French and Dutch speaking Belgium, then the US and Canada into English, French and Spanich speaking countries etc, etc. This would result in a plethora of small developed nations very much like the OGF planet. We also have a lot of rich countries so little cheap Third World labour available.

Posted by Sarepava on 19 December 2017 at 23:20.
Pages:[01] 02