Canada's Fascist path is wrong

[Karl I]

One of the things that has always bothered me personally was how HOI IV devs made Canada's Fascist Path. Currently, Canada's fascists are headed by Adrian Arcand and you access he fasicst path through after completing the Focus "Patriation" who brings you in an independentist path away from Britain. The problem however is that the devs choosed leade (the aforementioned Adrian Arcand) was far from being anything close to resembling Independentist sentiment. Despite being an Catholic Quebecois, Adrian Arcand was from an young age heavily inspired by Radical Traditionalist Catholicism and the ancien-regime.
However, some might say (correctly) that such things proves nothing about Arcand ideas and how he went to become "Canada's Fuhrer". However I recently read the book "The Canadian Fuhrer: The Life of Adrien Arcand" by Jean-Francois Nadeau who tells in dethails the real story of Adrian Arcand, his private life, his political carear but most important in this case, his political philosophy (something that the devs definitly should have read when doing Canada's focus since it contains a lot of interesting information related to canada's extreme right political organizations in the 1930's and 1940's).
Arcand was initially inspired by French Integralism and Royalism. However, in the late 1920's he would become rather obcessed with Anti-Semitism, something that despite being relevant among the Action Française (Charles Maurras, the AF main idealogue was an notorious Anti-Semite for example) was not core part of their ideology. This lack of "focus on Anti-Semitism" would eventually bring Arcand to admire (but not copy) Nazism. Arcand relationship with nazism was an complicated one. He did not abandoned his integralist principles, rather he adopted the nazi anti-semitism (though definitly in a way softer tongue than Hitler) and copied their aesthetics (he though that the "show" that the nazis gave was an core part of their success, thus he wanted to re-create it).
Despite the indicative titel of "Fuhrer", Arcand kept being an extreme royalist throught his carear. Arcand was also notoriously pro-Empire and, despite being inspired by French Integralism [and royalism in general], he strongly supported the Windsors. Interestingly, Arcand historically opposed Edward's VIII marriage to Simpson (who he saw as Jewish) and condemned Edward's playboy lifestyle. He was very found of George VI (he saw on him an traditional catholic monarch with his family and etc etc) and he took his loyalty to the crown very serious, even using his followers to break up socialist and anti-crown protests when George VI visited Canada in 1939.
Arcand also emphasized the Empire and Canadian Unity often (despite being an quebecois catholic himself) and he saw the Empire in particulary an important part of Canada's political and social body.

Thus, I think it's very clear that arcand representation is an very huge betrayal of his in real life person and ideology. Considering that the HOI devs are now reworking Yugoslavia and Romania, I do think they shouldn't forget "Together for Victory" as some nations (Mainly Canada and Australia (mainly Eric Campbell who, like Arcand was an royalist and pro-Empire) [South Africa to some extend since they ignore the Historical Fascist and Republican Ossewabrandwag lead by Johannes Van Rensburg; the German-Namibian Deutscher Pfadfinderbund in Namibia or Louis Weichardt Greyshirts] have many historical errors that should be corrected. Ofc some would argue the need for an independent fascist canada for gameplay reasons, however I would say that for such role the The Canadian Nationalist Party (an mostly english-canadian party that operated in Ontario and in the West) who was lead by the Northen-Irish Born Joseph Farr, an party that despite having talks to unite with both Arcand's Party and the Canadian Union of Fascists (an branch of the British Union of Fascists in Canada lead by Charles Brandle "Chuck" Crate) was in favour of independence from Britain [the main reason why negotiations always failed since the other 2 were pro-Empire] could serve that role perfectly, although is good to note that, if arcand's and the Canadian Union had almost no support, the Canadian Nationalist Party had even less.


[I've added a few pages of the book "The canadian Fuhrer" that i mentioned before that give an more dethailed explanation of most of what i've spoken here]

 

[MobiusTwo]

Your knowledge on this topic far exceeds mine, but it's clear to me now that Adrien Arcand is certainly misrepresented in this game. So then, I have a question: how would you portray fascist Canada if they were to let you rework the Canadian focus tree? I think most of the Dominion focus trees are absolutely terrible, and from my knowledge, only South Africa had any potential to become a fascist state, but again, my knowledge on Canada is limited. What types of changes would you make? Was a "fascist Canada" plausible at all?

I can tell you that despite my limited knowledge there are two related things that could use some changes:

• 1. The "Support a Synarchist Baja" focus is broken: I have mentioned this problem on these forums before, but the devs have not yet gotten around to fixing it. Basically, thanks to the fact that there are now numerous civil wars that can break out in Mexico, the national spirit that this focus gives to Mexico can quickly be lost, meaning that Canada never actually ends up getting a fascist Mexican ally. This could be rectified by breaking this focus into two: one that gives Mexico a national spirit that increases fascist support, and other that ignites a fascist civil war that Canada can intervene in. Alternatively, there could be a 35-day focus that allows you to intervene in an existing fascist uprising in Mexico.
• 2. Quebec separatism is not really represented in the game: I don't really know if it was plausible for Quebec to break off from the rest of Canada at any time during this time period, but I think it would be cool if there were decisions and modifiers at play that could cause Quebec to secede or rebel. Additionally, I think it would be cool if Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe Alberta were releasable nations.

 

[Karl I]

Your knowledge on this topic far exceeds mine, but it's clear to me now that Adrien Arcand is certainly misrepresented in this game. So then, I have a question: how would you portray fascist Canada if they were to let you rework the Canadian focus tree? I think most of the Dominion focus trees are absolutely terrible, and from my knowledge, only South Africa had any potential to become a fascist state, but again, my knowledge on Canada is limited. What types of changes would you make? Was a "fascist Canada" plausible at all?

I can tell you that despite my limited knowledge there are two related things that could use some changes:

• 1. The "Support a Synarchist Baja" focus is broken: I have mentioned this problem on these forums before, but the devs have not yet gotten around to fixing it. Basically, thanks to the fact that there are now numerous civil wars that can break out in Mexico, the national spirit that this focus gives to Mexico can quickly be lost, meaning that Canada never actually ends up getting a fascist Mexican ally. This could be rectified by breaking this focus into two: one that gives Mexico a national spirit that increases fascist support, and other that ignites a fascist civil war that Canada can intervene in. Alternatively, there could be a 35-day focus that allows you to intervene in an existing fascist uprising in Mexico.
• 2. Quebec separatism is not really represented in the game: I don't really know if it was plausible for Quebec to break off from the rest of Canada at any time during this time period, but I think it would be cool if there were decisions and modifiers at play that could cause Quebec to secede or rebel. Additionally, I think it would be cool if Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, and maybe Alberta were releasable nations.

Canada becoming fascist, speaking in an realistic sense, is simply impossible. But ofc, since this are video-games you can pretty much find ways to put the most unthinkable guy ruling an country. If I was to rework Fascist Canada myself, It wouldn't go anything close to what Paradox did. For once (assuming that Adrian Arcand is the "fascist option") Canada's should definitly had way more focus regarding itself, in other words, Adrian Arcand wanted to rebuild the at the time canadian society and Economy. He sought to bring Canada's Economy into the modern world with heavy focus on extraction and agriculture. He also wanted to rebuilt canada's political systeam, replacing the Canadian Confederation with the Integralist "Organic Monarchy" idea with extreme descentralization, anti parliamentarianism and an clear catholic bias. In regards of Quebec, Adrian wanted to built an "New Canadian Identity" where by there wouldnt be "French Canadians" nor "English Canadians", only Canadians. Such an process wouldn't take 60 days (well none of his ideas would). Thus, if the choice was left for me, Fascist canada should have an focus and mechanics to deal with itself internally. Arcand nevertheless was an Anti-American and no doubt if he was to be Canada's Prime-Minister, Anglo-American relations wouldn't be as good as we know.

In regards to Quebec, is good to mention that Quebec Separatism wasn't an really big thing. There was ofc tensions between quebec and canada, but the idea of separation was barely considered until later in the 50s. At this time Quebec was ruled by Maurice Dupliess, an Traditionalist Conservative Catholic who, despite being at odds with Canada's governament, had always discarted Independence as an actual option. Dupliess was nevertheless not too happy with Canada's Historical ruling party, the Liberal Party who on itself didnt bother dupliess as they were economic liberals rather than political ones. What made Dupliess wary (and I mean very scared) was the Liberal Party cooperation with the CCP, Canada's Social Democrats. Dupliess also had an disdain for Anglo-Canada protestantism and thus wanted to Keep the historically conservative and catholic quebec "separated from those moral evils". He was immensely popular and gained an amount of power soo big that he could do wathever he wished. From the 40's on he would start using independence as an tool to gain what he wanted from Ottawa who were feared that he would do soo if he soo wished, which to be fair, he could but never really wanted to (classical bluff tactics). Thanks to this fear-want relation, Dupliess would end up being Quebec's almost like democratic dictator, enacting many polices considered authoritarian (though is worth mentioning he enjoyed popular support through his premiership).

In regards to Mexico.... well... that's simply something that should had been changed when the DLC "Man the Guns" came out.

Lastely, Newfoundland and Labrador was an independent Dominion until 1947 actually. The Dominion of Newfoundland had existed since 1907. In 1934 however due to the Great Depression Britain ended it's responsible government and established the Newfoundland Commission of Government who was directly subornated to Britain. Nevertheless, the Dominion didn't cease to exist and still had quite some degree of self-rule.

 

[kettyo]

only South Africa had any potential to become a fascist state

Really? I guess they lacked the population for that. In my understanding fascism needs lot of young unemployed population which can be enlisted to paramilitaries or armed forces.

But to be honest i don't have enough knowledge about South Africa to decide it.

(sorry for being off)

Don't know the situation in Canada either whether they had masses of young unemployed people to base fascism on or not.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

I am working on a major Canada rework, more like overhaul, suggestion to hopefully show how horribly Canada is represented in HoI IV. Overall this is correct, the one problem is a fascist and independent Canada was basically not going to happen by 1936. The Canadian Nationalist Party that you mentioned was gone by game start, they merged with Arcand's party in 1934, meaning the only 2 movements that existed were Arcand's Christian National Social Party/Christian National Socialist Party and Crate's Canadian Fascist Party/Canadian Union of Fascists. While this does make the fascist path tricky, I think it makes Canada's fascist path quite interesting and unique compared to others. Arcand can choose to work as a democratic leader and keep parliament to appear as legitimate to Britain, but maybe he pushes too much for power and this causes Britain to move away from Canada and consider his government illegitimate and too sympathetic to the Axis forces. Meanwhile for Crate you could do the same, make them work within the democratic limit but to truly embrace the goals of the fascist movement they'll support and grow the BUF in the hopes of swaying Britain to their side. You could even have a small monarchy bit about having Edward take the throne of Canada since Crate wasn't as religious as Arcand, though since Arcand liked George VI maybe if Edward doesn't abdicate you add the option of inviting George as King. Just fun stuff like that to keep a possible independent fascist Canada but show they were still loyal to Britain and the Crown. It is tricky to work out but it could be great, fun and very unique, similar to how Greece's new democratic tree is so aggressive.

 

[Karl I]

Really? I guess they lacked the population for that. In my understanding fascism needs lot of young unemployed population which can be enlisted to paramilitaries or armed forces.

But to be honest i don't have enough knowledge about South Africa to decide it.

(sorry for being off)

Don't know the situation in Canada either whether they had masses of young unemployed people to base fascism on or not.

The way Paradox made South African fascism is more of "Radical Boers who want independence from Britain and are also friendly to germany" rather than being actually fasicst. Their choice for an fascist leader is an almost comic one: D. F. Malan who in real life served as the Dominion of South Africa's Prime-Minister from 1948 to '54 (he was part of the National Party who paradox made fascist but who in real life was an Afrikaner Political Party that promoted Afrikaner interests and the Apartheid). By no means was the National Party or Malan fascist. One can describe them as authoritarians due to the apartheid, but the matter of fact that they supported an constitutional democracy (ofc for anglos and afrikanners) is not exactly fascism. At best you can say they were democrats (just not for everyone). Even more funny is when you consider that South Africa's starting leader, Dr. Hertzog who in game is democratic.... was also from the National party. South Africa politics were mainly devided in 2 factions: unionists (mainly anglos) who wanted South Africa to stay aligned with the Crown and and relatively less (but still existing) form of apartheid. The Afrikanners on the other hand wanted an independent republic, mainly neutral (as they didnt want to fight for Britain who they saw as oppresive towards the Boers). South African fascism was something that, realistic, had no chances of coming to power and was very devided. You had for once German Namibians who felt friendly towards Germany (for obvious reasons). The Deutscher Pfadfinderbund in Namibia (German Scout Association in Namibia) was the closest thing you had for an fascist organization of German Namibians, and even them were by no means an fascist group. Rather some of them had fascist inclinations. The South African Gentile National Socialist Movement (or South Africa's Greyshirts) was an de facto Nazi style group that existed but their relevancy was basically none. Lastely the Ossewabrandwag (who was an rather devided group of Simply nationalists, fascists, nazis or moderated authoritatians) barely can be called fascist, and even they wanted South Africa to be Neutral rather than pro or anti german.
Fascism in general doesnt necessarily need unemployment to exist or increase (Hell, san marino literally voted fascists into power and their economy was one of the best during the 1920s). Fascim (as any other ideology) can grow in popularity and numbers due to an variety of causes, soo many that it's impossible to say or even to preditct. While south african anti british sentiment (and the pro german since Germany helped the Boers) did gave the more radical Afrikanner fascists an support among the mostly anti-british afrikanner population, but besides the Ossewabrandwag who got a bit, but nothing even note worthy, of support had any real influence in politics as the anti-british sentiment was funeled on the conservative National and United parties

 

[kettyo]

@Karl I Thanks, this is really informative. I don't really know much about South Africa so any bit of knowledge is really welcome.

I thought communists are generally utilizing lower classes to get into power while fascists generally utilize massed unemployment of young people to do it but of course reality is always a bit more complicated than we'd like it to be

 

[Iskulya]

Integralism is just the original form of fascism. It's correct and accurate to pool integralism together with fascism, as they are one and the same as far as being political movements go.

The political program and theory of the originators of Integralism, Action Francaise, was developed in a reciprocal relationship with the national syndicalism of Georges Sorel. Sorel even directly participated in the theoretical debates conducted within Action Francaise, while never formally committing to it as an organization.

The documentary evidence proving this is clear and inarguable. Zeev Sternhell's book The Birth of Fascist Ideology demonstrates this clearly.

What confuses a lot of people is that a lot of people look at things from a hyper formalistic way. When an ideological claim is made, they take it at face value without actually examining its context. Action Francaise claimed to stand for the restoration of the social order destroyed by the French Revolution, by the landed aristocracy as a social class and manorialism as a social system were completely dead and gone. They claimed to be a continuation of the old French counter-revolutionary movement but had no relationship to it. The old French counter-revolutionaries were former landed aristocrats and their paupered descendants. Action Francaise was a right-wing middle class movement through and through, just like every other fascist movement.

What Mussolini did in practice was to shear away the superfluous rhetoric and aesthetic around monarchism and feudal counter-revolutionary and lay bare the political essence that had always underlied the ideology of Action Francaise.

This is also why Franco was able to so effortlessly merge the Carlists and National Syndicalists. Both were just sectarian divisions of fascism, with the former having come from the Integralist school of fascism while the latter came from the National Sydnicalist school. But again, as Zeev Sternhell demonstrates in his work, the two schools were never actually truly independent of one another, so it is no surprise that in real history we saw their convergence in the fascist state established by Franco.

Integralism and Italian Fascism are far more bound to each other and inseparable than German Naziism is to Italian Fascism.

 

[kettyo]

Action Francaise was a right-wing middle class movement through and through, just like every other fascist movement.

I'd argue the very goal of fascism is to unite all the national classes under a single leadership as fascism looks at the nation as an organic body and so considers any class-based division detrimental.

As Canada probably always had a multi-national population (having limited knowledge so correct me if i'm wrong) a classic fascist structuration was probably not really possible.

I'd argue classic capitalism is more like a middle-class centered ideology / structure.

(sorry if it feels off and just skip )

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Fascism is hard to really shape outside of authoritarian/totalitarian, nationalist and militarist. So many people had their own versions of fascism or completely new branches of it and since all the countries that became fascist didn't survive WWII, it's hard to get a clear picture of what their domestic policies would be outside of military, some would point to Mussolini's early reign but he wasn't some almighty dictator at that point yet, others will say Hitler after winning the Chancellor position and becoming Fuhrer in '34, but he instantly was building up for the war, there was never a peaceful moment really. Fascism was originally meant to be a "Third Alternative" but they never really defined how. Maybe it was supposed to be classless, maybe it was supposed to bridge the gap between classes to be closer, maybe it kept all the classes the same, depends on which version you're looking at.

Canada having a multinational population wasn't really the problem with fascism growing in Canada, it just wasn't massively popular, the country was mostly Christian British, the French population was a large minority, likely hovering around 25-35% of the country, but they were mostly together while the Anglo community was from coast to coast, you could, and still can, live your entire life in Canada and never hear French if you live in the western half of Canada, the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. French was very limited to the eastern half but even then it was divided, the far east provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia it's mostly limited to New Brunswick since the British, tea was served don't ask, when they took the land in the 18th century, Quebec has always been majority French, and Ontario most of the French was limited to the northern part of the province since it was more traditional Catholic rural lifestyle and didn't fit in with the proper urban Protestant southern part of the province.

Edit: Did a small change

 

[Karl I]

Integralism is just the original form of fascism. It's correct and accurate to pool integralism together with fascism, as they are one and the same as far as being political movements go.

The political program and theory of the originators of Integralism, Action Francaise, was developed in a reciprocal relationship with the national syndicalism of Georges Sorel. Sorel even directly participated in the theoretical debates conducted within Action Francaise, while never formally committing to it as an organization.

The documentary evidence proving this is clear and inarguable. Zeev Sternhell's book The Birth of Fascist Ideology demonstrates this clearly.

What confuses a lot of people is that a lot of people look at things from a hyper formalistic way. When an ideological claim is made, they take it at face value without actually examining its context. Action Francaise claimed to stand for the restoration of the social order destroyed by the French Revolution, by the landed aristocracy as a social class and manorialism as a social system were completely dead and gone. They claimed to be a continuation of the old French counter-revolutionary movement but had no relationship to it. The old French counter-revolutionaries were former landed aristocrats and their paupered descendants. Action Francaise was a right-wing middle class movement through and through, just like every other fascist movement.

What Mussolini did in practice was to shear away the superfluous rhetoric and aesthetic around monarchism and feudal counter-revolutionary and lay bare the political essence that had always underlied the ideology of Action Francaise.

This is also why Franco was able to so effortlessly merge the Carlists and National Syndicalists. Both were just sectarian divisions of fascism, with the former having come from the Integralist school of fascism while the latter came from the National Sydnicalist school. But again, as Zeev Sternhell demonstrates in his work, the two schools were never actually truly independent of one another, so it is no surprise that in real history we saw their convergence in the fascist state established by Franco.

Integralism and Italian Fascism are far more bound to each other and inseparable than German Naziism is to Italian Fascism.

Not necessarily. While it's true that Maurrasian Integralism and Classical Fascism are way similiar to one another than Nazism is to the Classical Fascism, to say both are "in the same camp" is not necessarily correct. While Mussolini (and Gabriele D'Annunzio) took inspiration from parts of the Maurassian Ideological thinking, they were still far far from one another (expecially with Mussolini). Maurrasian Integralism seeks as you correctly mentioned the restoration of the social order of the ancien regime (though they believed in class corporation rather than devide. The Action Française claim that they were the continuation of the former counter-revolution is not necessarily wrong. Most of the AF were made of Catholics, Middle cass to low-class citzens who stood behind many of the counter revolutionary ideas (mainly their rejection of the liberal order). Their philosophy was directly linked with those of the vandée rebellion and of the Ultra's of the Restoration Period. Maurrasism also was an sucessor of the Boulangisme who, in the post-Napoleon III period, was France's de facto counter revolutionary force). Maurras, different from Mussoini's Fascist theories, did not believe on an "All for the state, nothing against the state", he believed on regionalism and was an strong enemy of centralism. He rejected Mussolini's futurism and secularism and did not saw an "Leader" as the driving force of a nation, rather he believed on royal guidance and catholic social teaching as it's core ideology base. Maurras was an traditionalist in all means while Mussolini was an revolutionary. Both ofc had similarities but they were by no means the same thing.

On Franco.... Carlists were by NO MEANS sectarian divisions of Fascism. They are legitimist catholic traditionalists who, as the AF, want the restoration of the ancien regime under an traditional king. The National Syndicalists on the other hand were soo heavily devided that they couldnt even agree if they wanted an monarchy or a republic. Franco did not unite only those 2, the Nationalists of the Spanish Civil war were by no means fascists as many people say. They were, just like the republicans, and umbrella regime who got an strongman that, by manipulating and playing each factions against one another managed to gain full control. The nationalists were composed of an wide range of idelogies, from fascists, carlists, alfonsists, liberals, conservatives and simply militarist republicans like Mola. Zeev Sternhell does an poor job analyzing the far right spectrum of the XX centrury. If you want to call radical traditional catholicism fascism than you better also call national conservatism fascism or even feudalism as fascist.

 

[kettyo]

@Mr.Grizzly

In case most Canadians indeed identified themselves as nationally British some kind of British fascism could theoretically would be possible there but i think those would like to be united with a fascist Britain as uniting the national body is pivotal to fascism. So in game terms they'd want to form British cores and be annexed to fascist Britain rather than go independent.

In case they identified themselves as Canadian it's a different story of course.