Proposed Casus-belli in new DLC

[Lighthouse418]

I noticed this could be pretty big feature in the new heart of darkness or future DLC paradox makes, I hope they atleast see my suggestion. Let me set up a scenario for you for an example.


It is 1880 and Country X has allowed universal voting but notices Country Y people have little say, they think they should topple the dictator and give the people a say. This is where the casus-belli comes in, something along the lines of " political infulence. " But not all people in Country Y want democracy. A good 50% are fine with the monarch. This decides the warscore it costs for Country X to make peace. Policy for normal affairs such as healthcare or benefits is a little less warscore. This can also work for partially-westernized countries to decalre war on uncivilized countries to help them westernize or the uncivilized ones to consider them a threat to them and take them out before it is too late. Maybe something can also be done for political parties in non-demoracy countries to establish a new goverment. Suppose country X is liberal and Country Y is socialist. Maybe Country X can " persuade " their point of view on Country Y, of course this will cost ALOT of warscore ( 100 by default ) but might subtract if a good bit of the people in Country Y are conservative aswell. This is just me brainstorming ideas, let me know what you guys think.

 

[Richard Dolder]

Only communism gets a CB like that because only communists ever actually used war or politics to spread their ideologies during the period.

 

[unmerged(391327)]

Only communism gets a CB like that because only communists ever actually used war or politics to spread their ideologies during the period.

The only "communist" expansionism I know of during this period was Bolshevik annexation of territories of the Russian Empire. Even Mexico didn't really threaten American territories or try to expand their ideology across the globe.

In fact, the case could be made that, historically speaking, communism has been the most docile political philosophy (this isn't a value judgement - I'm not a communist: it's just an assessment of the foreign policies of most communist states). Democratic France started some of the largest European wars in history in order to spread liberte to the East. The Empire of Liberty (USA) was made a sport of invading Canada to liberate their mooseloving cousins. 1848 revolutionaries (democrats, socialists, and "anarcholiberals" - or the equivalent) were pretty aggressive.

Anarcholiberalism... idk, Robespierre France is sort of the equivalent (not really), plus 1848 Germany comes close.

Fascism speaks for itself here.

And, most of all, monarchies and wars of restoration. Basically the entire Napoleonic wars, post-1848 reaction, etc. etc.

Nations should at least have the ability (not an automatically justified casus belli, necessarily) to force a change in government as a wargoal. As Austria, I should be able to install my Bourbon cousins back in France after the Jacobins kill the king: I shouldn't be forced to sit around with a cut down to size CB until the pops get made enough to lead a reactionary revolt.

 

[tzarmarko]

I think I recall I minor war from 1939-1945 based on those principles except for fascism?

I also remember learning about the banana wars when America decided to liberate all of the ruthlessly oppressed peoples of South and Central America and spread democracy....

 

[Stefanos_P]

I think I recall I minor war from 1939-1945 based on those principles except for fascism?

I also remember learning about the banana wars when America decided to liberate all of the ruthlessly oppressed peoples of South and Central America and spread democracy....

For a second there you got me confused and I thought you were just another 'Murican, pardon "Patriot", sarcasm is often hard to grasp through written text.

 

[Syntax Error]

The only "communist" expansionism I know of during this period was Bolshevik annexation of territories of the Russian Empire. Even Mexico didn't really threaten American territories or try to expand their ideology across the globe.

In fact, the case could be made that, historically speaking, communism has been the most docile political philosophy (this isn't a value judgement - I'm not a communist: it's just an assessment of the foreign policies of most communist states).

You should look up the 1920 Polish-Soviet War. It was specifically started because the Soviet Union wanted to export the Communist Revolution over to a teetering Germany, and Poland just happened to be in the way.

 

[Lys91]

The only "communist" expansionism I know of during this period was Bolshevik annexation of territories of the Russian Empire. Even Mexico didn't really threaten American territories or try to expand their ideology across the globe.

In fact, the case could be made that, historically speaking, communism has been the most docile political philosophy (this isn't a value judgement - I'm not a communist: it's just an assessment of the foreign policies of most communist states). Democratic France started some of the largest European wars in history in order to spread liberte to the East. The Empire of Liberty (USA) was made a sport of invading Canada to liberate their mooseloving cousins. 1848 revolutionaries (democrats, socialists, and "anarcholiberals" - or the equivalent) were pretty aggressive.

Anarcholiberalism... idk, Robespierre France is sort of the equivalent (not really), plus 1848 Germany comes close.

Fascism speaks for itself here.

And, most of all, monarchies and wars of restoration. Basically the entire Napoleonic wars, post-1848 reaction, etc. etc.

Nations should at least have the ability (not an automatically justified casus belli, necessarily) to force a change in government as a wargoal. As Austria, I should be able to install my Bourbon cousins back in France after the Jacobins kill the king: I shouldn't be forced to sit around with a cut down to size CB until the pops get made enough to lead a reactionary revolt.

Republic France protected itself, they were not spreading "democracy", it is a modern American non-sense. They were protecting their interest as every country does.

As a great man once said "France has no friends, only interests."

 

[unmerged(391327)]

Republic France protected itself, they were not spreading "democracy", it is a modern American non-sense. They were protecting their interest as every country does.

As a great man once said "France has no friends, only interests."

While yes, that is true that the French Revolutionary wars were mostly defensive (this is probably a reason why monarchies should have a Royal Restoration Casus Belli), this simply isn't the case. I wouldn't just toss in Revolutionary France with modern American neoconservatism, but, according to Ralph Raico, Professor Emeritus in European history at Buffalo State College....

"There is no doubt that a major — perhaps the major — reason for the change lies in the political and military history of the period: basically, the attempt of revolutionary France to conquer and rule all of Europe.

The Jacobins who rose to power during the Revolution undertook to force their ideas onto Europe at the point of French bayonets. The rights of man, popular sovereignty, the French Enlightenment with its hatred of the age-old traditions and religious beliefs of the European peoples would be imposed by military might. To this end, the victorious, irresistible French armies invaded, conquered, and occupied much of Europe.

In the nature of things, these invading armies, bringing with them an alien ideology, produced hostility and resistance against that ideology, a militant nationalist reaction. That is what happened in Russia and in Spain. Most of all, that is what happened in Germany. Individualism, natural rights, the universalist ideals of the Enlightenment — these became identified with the hated invaders, who subjugated and humiliated the German people. This identification was a burden that liberalism in Germany had to carry from that time on."

When looking at all the republican client states of revolutionary France, we should intuitively recognize that these were ideological wars of aggression in addition to wars of defense against foreign reactionaries. France wanted to politically transform Europe according to liberal ideals.

You should look up the 1920 Polish-Soviet War. It was specifically started because the Soviet Union wanted to export the Communist Revolution over to a teetering Germany, and Poland just happened to be in the way.

Wasn't aware of that (I knew the Soviet Union had conflicts with Poland, but not the nature of the war).

In any case, I'm not saying communists shouldn't get their CBs, only that sufficient historical evidence exists that other ideologies should have theirs as well.

 

[unmerged(142634)]

Perhaps countries with differing ideologies (Not just communist countries) should get CBs against each other later in the game?