GEHLEN ORGANIZATION The Gehlen Organization’s latest claim of a massive Soviet invasion comes as no surprise. Many of its officers are former Nazis, including war criminals, and continued funding will provoke the Soviets and be expensive. However, their espionage networks, rooted in the 1930s, remain deeply embedded across Soviet-occupied Europe. Ending funding would make infiltrating European Communism much harder. Keep in mind, sustaining Gehlen requires a long-term financial commitment year after year.

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/ugc/52450002182323084/C2C869523621C8DE1CF5C56B1FA4B25D68C51FE4/?imw=256&&ima=fit&impolicy=Letterbox&imcolor=%23000000&letterbox=false
The American Navy preparing for the Korean war. It may look like WWII but notice the helicopter in the background.


OUR ASIAN POLICY
This decision sends a strong message to the Communists: drawing a firm line could, in theory, halt the spread of communism in Asia. However, it will also provoke the Soviets to create more chaos in the region. Intelligence also suggests North Korea is preparing to attack the South. By backing the South now, we might prevent the attack before it begins. These choices aren’t straightforward—do you want deeper involvement in Asia or not? Also, ask yourself: is a potential conflict in Korea entirely against our interests? Weigh these points carefully before deciding!

SHOULD WE FEED THE TIGER?
The division of Korea leaves no room for shared peace. While Syngman Rhee is unlikely to actually attack the North unprovoked, bolstering South Korea’s military could serve as a defensive measure. A well-armed South will not only deter Northern aggression but also resist Communist infiltration more effectively. However, reinforcing South Korea militarily will undoubtedly draw the attention of the Soviets, escalating tensions. Yet, isn't the containment of their system our ultimate goal? Sometimes, only strength can keep expansion in check.

NORTH KOREA INVADES THE SOUTH
We knew this hour of Communist aggression would come! Protecting South Korea strengthens your influence in the region and immediately boosts your standing. Since the attackers are from a small country, we're confident that our soldiers can stop them. It might even be possible to invade North Korea and achieve a decisive victory, though it could be more challenging than it appears now. On the other hand, choosing not to intervene would reduce tensions in Asia, which could be beneficial if you want to focus on other global areas. Lastly, consider the option of supporting South Korea with significant aid instead of deploying troops.

LET US GIVE IT ALL WE GOT
Remember WWII? This option lets you cripple Communist Korea’s industry, much like Japan and Germany. If commenced at the right time, strategic bombing could make reunification possible—just send more troops before we enter the North. For total victory combine a large armed force with consistent aerial strikes. However, bombing is costly, and you might need to draw back your presence in other countries to keep it up. How you use strategic bombing depends on your goals—whether to stop the Northern invasion quickly or aim to take the entire country.

THE INCHEON LANDING
A sharp opportunity, but success isn’t assured! First, assess North Korea’s strength and your own goals. If you plan to liberate the North, landing at Incheon is a solid move—but make sure you have enough resources to pair the invasion with heavy bombing. If not, expect Chinese forces to push back. Be ready to reinforce South Korea if the landing fails. Either way, an Incheon landing means Korea will need to be your top, if not only, priority for the next 1-3 years.

THE "NORTH KOREAN" AIR FORCE SPEAKS CHINESE
If you’re frustrated by interceptions of our bombers from Communist air forces, this is a tempting option. However, disabling their air forces isn’t guaranteed. This attack will raise global tensions and strengthen Chinese and Soviet resolve to hold North Korea. Also, if the U.S. army is already in North Korea, this move is not recommended as it will divert crucial resources away from supporting ground troops with strategic bombing. Keep in mind, if the Communist forces grow too strong, our army may be pushed south, losing any chance to take the North.

THE KOREAN REUNIFICATIONVictory in Korea! Congratulations on achieving full liberation—America’s first war against Communism ends with a resounding triumph for the U.S. military. Our servicemen return home as heroes, celebrated by communities across the nation. Yet, with reunification comes new challenges. Korea’s strategic location, bordering both the Soviet Union and China, makes it a critical point of tension. While Kim Il Sung is defeated, the rugged, mountainous terrain could shelter future threats, potentially empowering another charismatic demagogue. In the very long term, market forces may stabilize the country, ending the threat of future uprisings, but this will take decades. Stay vigilant; protecting a unified Korea may prove more challenging than defending the South ever was.

A WITCH HUNT
On this choice its important to consider the style you want to play and the modifiers you have. Persecuting real and imagined Communists might stall Soviet efforts to steal technology but will also increase tensions across the globe. In response to a bold Anti-Communist stance the Soviets will attempt to confront us wherever possible- this is fine if you have a military-industrial complex and the Gehlen Organization. However, if you have the Truman Doctrine it is easier to stabilize friendly nations with financial aid, if you prefer to play this way then its advisable to stop McCarthyism before it starts.

INDOCHINA: COLONIAL WAR, OR WAR AGAINST COMMUNISM?
Helping an ally like France suppress a Soviet-aligned rebel movement has clear advantages, especially since France is within your sphere of influence, meaning any change in relations will have significant impacts. However, the Viet Minh are fighting hard, and France may still lose even with our help. If they’re defeated, this conflict could become America’s problem. On the other hand, if we stay out, the global community will respect our non-intervention, and we can avoid a complex conflict. Regardless of who wins in Indochina, we could boost our reputation by providing aid to all sides afterward.

A EUROPEAN DEFENSE COMMUNITY IS NEEDED
In the long term, a Unified Free Europe strengthens our ultimate goal of containing Communism. The challenge? France, the most powerful nation in the alliance, remains resistant, haunted by memories of a rearmed Germany. Establishing this community risks destabilizing France, requiring extra attention to keep it aligned. Still, can we afford to miss the chance to forge an alliance capable of deterring the Soviets from crossing the Iron Curtain?

DO NOT TOUCH PETROLEUM
Mossadegh enjoys strong support among Iranians, and some argue that backing him aligns with our ideals of democracy and self-determination. Staying out entirely is also an option. However, these choices ignore a critical reality: since WWII, our "special relationship" with the UK has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Abandoning the Shah risks losing British trust—and they may act without us. It may seem contradictory to support a former colonial empire, but Britain shares our values today, and a divided free world only benefits the Soviets. Can we afford to risk such disunity?

FOR QUEEN AND OIL COMPANYAs warned, the British have acted independently. We now face three paths forward; none of them are easy choices. First, we could pressure them to withdraw, showcasing our opposition to colonial legacies—but aiding the Soviets in the process and throwing the British into chaos at home. Second, conservatives argue we should aid the British now to display unity against Communism, correcting earlier mistakes. This will start a battle that we may not win. Lastly, there’s a shadowy deal on the table: allow the Soviets Northern Iran in exchange for stability. This move would placate the British and secure Southern Iran, but the world may liken us to the Nazis and Soviets dividing Poland in 1939. Can we bear such a stain for a pragmatic outcome?