Changes to ideology system

[EmperorTojo]

Well it could be noted that the fascistic country of Portugal was a founding member of NATO too.

I do not think Brazil actually ever joined the allies, but they definitely supported them. As I say, not sure. Alot of latin american countries did join the war after pearl harbor though.

 

[Calders]

Well it could be noted that the fascistic country of Portugal was a founding member of NATO too.

I do not think Brazil actually ever joined the allies, but they definitely supported them. As I say, not sure. Alot of latin american countries did join the war after pearl harbor though.

Not only did they join the allies but in 1944 they also sent troops to Italy... admittedly only about 25,000 of them.

I didn't know about Portugal but its certainly true that the UK and the USA didn't have any particular problems supporting Fascists before and after the war, after all we indirectly supported Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

 

[alekseevic]

The reality is virtually impossible to represent in a sensible way as its so complicated, therefore the game mechanic is doomed to be a simplification.

Fascism and Nazism were damn different as well as Stalinism and Leninism. That's why I agree with your quoted sentence.

PS for everybody: please don't read wikipedia only when talking about 20th century politics.

 

[Calders]

Fascism and Nazism were damn different

The trouble with saying that is you have to define Fascism in a general way that includes all other Fascist countries but not the Nazis... this is kind of difficult. You can't simply compare Italy with Germany.

 

[alekseevic]

Ingame nazism has always been a sort of tougher or more extreme fascism. I'm totally ok with it considering this is a game, but here it looks like somebody considers this as history.

You can't simply compare Italy with Germany.

This is exactly what I meant.

 

[MartinSWE]

I´m amused every time a democratic right-winger tries to label the nazis as left-wingers even though the choice to name the party the NationalSocialistparty was PURELY for tactical reasons to trick the workers of Germany to vote for them. In reality the nazis got all their support from the middle-class and the wealthy elite in Germany who where afraid of the socialists growing popularity.

 

[Closet Skeleton]

So, my argument is, National Socialism is a progressivist-socialist movement with (hardcore) nationalism infused in it, while fascism is a traditionalist-nationalist movement, which was primarily influenced by both catholic and national-syndicalist economics. One is left-wing, the other is right-wing.

National Socialism is a nationalist movement with authoritarianism infused into it. Nationalism was a progressive movement in the 19th century and only became right wing in the 20th. Right and left are essentially meaningless terms that constantly shift depending on time and location. In Poland in 1989 , 'left wing' meant "bureaucrat loyal to the state" and 'right wing' meant "revolutionary trade unionist". In Paris two hundred years earlier 'right wing' meant constitutional monarchist reformer and 'left wing' meant "regicidal republicanism with a propensity to state induced terror".

The terms we need to understand ww2 era parties in our modern mindset are completely different to the contemporary ones. Nazism and Fascism are both 'far right' because that is the term that became popular after the war to describe them. At the time they were centre parties incorporating both left and right wing elements. Nazism was in many ways a conservative right wing movement because Socialism had been an ingrained status quo before the deposition of the Kaiser. The point of the term National Socialism was to keep the 'socialism' that had defined German identity while ridding it of any Marxist international connotations. Fascism had a lot of revolutionary agrarian idealism, but supported religion and conservatism as part of a cynical power grab despite Mussolini being an atheist.

The Japanese actually became more racist after WW2. Japanese expansionism required a rhetoric of assimilation that stressed the Japanese as a mixed people descended from Ainu and various invaders from mainland Asia. When expansionism was discredited assimilationism was abandoned with it and the attitude towards out-breeding reversed. Mixed race children were encouraged to help integrate conquered areas into Japanese society and after the war these children became a national shame. Completely insane ideas about the genetic nature of national character are popular in modern Japan in a way they weren't when they were allied with the Nazis.

In a weird sense he [Stalin] was a conservative revolutionary.

He wasn't a revolutionary at all. Stalin's Soviet Union was a Russian nationalist state during WW2. His war aims were to recover the lands lost to the Russian Empire in 1917.

I´m amused every time a democratic right-winger tries to label the nazis as left-wingers even though the choice to name the party the NationalSocialistparty was PURELY for tactical reasons to trick the workers of Germany to vote for them.

They were copying the older Austrian DNSAP (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei, eg same as the Nazis with the deutsche in a different place) which they later absorbed. The Germans adopted the name in 1920 while the Austrians had done so in 1918 and the Czech Sudentanland ones had done so in 1919. Previously all had been called DAP (German Workers Party) founded in Austria-Hungary in 1903, while the DAP that became the NSDAP was founded in 1919.

 

[EmperorTojo]

He wasn't a revolutionary at all. Stalin's Soviet Union was a Russian nationalist state during WW2. His war aims were to recover the lands lost to the Russian Empire in 1917.

True enough, and then there's the "Patriotic War" where he encouraged nationalism to save the soviet union. He wasn't Russian himself, but that doesn't really matter. Stalin could be debated even further, but yeah.

 

[scroggin]

I´m amused every time a democratic right-winger tries to label the nazis as left-wingers even though the choice to name the party the NationalSocialistparty was PURELY for tactical reasons to trick the workers of Germany to vote for them. In reality the nazis got all their support from the middle-class and the wealthy elite in Germany who where afraid of the socialists growing popularity.

The Nazi party was slightly left of centre economically having a mixture of government intervention and free market. Unlike the right wing philosophies they had a huge bureaucracy and a large government. Hitler supported the idea of having workers unions but wanted state authorised arbitration rather than strikes to deal with disputes. They were big on social welfare and healthcare reforms. The Nazi party was very folkish in its attitude, it fought furiously against socialists because it was after the support of the same people. It wasn't however antagonistic towards the rich like most socialist movements, they aimed to lift the poor up not drag the rich down.

Fascism in Italy was similar musolini brought a lot of ideas from his background as a socialist/Union leader. The main difference between Fascism and Nazism is that Nazism was more extreme and more evil in its form of nationalism.

Any system that depicts ideology is going to be a huge simplification of a vast number of overlapping policies but the triangle used in HOI3 does show the main way countries aligned during WWII
it was nationalistic-totalitarian, communist-totalitarian or democratic/Free
Finland would be the only country that ended up where it didn't belong, and that was only because they were unfortunate enough to be attacked by Russia.

 

[SDSkinner]

The Nazi party was slightly left of centre economically having a mixture of government intervention and free market. Unlike the right wing philosophies they had a huge bureaucracy and a large government. Hitler supported the idea of having workers unions but wanted state authorised arbitration rather than strikes to deal with disputes. They were big on social welfare and healthcare reforms. The Nazi party was very folkish in its attitude, it fought furiously against socialists because it was after the support of the same people. It wasn't however antagonistic towards the rich like most socialist movements, they aimed to lift the poor up not drag the rich down.

Government intervention wasn't ideological, but caused by the necessity of rearmament. Their social welfare and healthcare reforms were also minor in comparison to the arms buildup which compromised the main activity of the state. The individuals who were on the left in the Nazi party were purged, murdered and removed from the party.

Fascism in Italy was similar musolini brought a lot of ideas from his background as a socialist/Union leader. The main difference between Fascism and Nazism is that Nazism was more extreme and more evil in its form of nationalism.

The fascist cause was different from what Mussolini embraced which was different from what the Nazis did. Mussolini for example embraced the Catholic Church, making Catholicism the state religion and other religious measures (like making swearing in public a crime). Hitler subordinated religion to the state as much as physically possible, attempted to "coordinate" the Protestant Churches and had Himmler whose religious beliefs were probably non-Christian.

 

[Rudawitz]

The Nazi party was slightly left of centre economically having a mixture of government intervention and free market. Unlike the right wing philosophies they had a huge bureaucracy and a large government. Hitler supported the idea of having workers unions but wanted state authorised arbitration rather than strikes to deal with disputes. They were big on social welfare and healthcare reforms. The Nazi party was very folkish in its attitude, it fought furiously against socialists because it was after the support of the same people. It wasn't however antagonistic towards the rich like most socialist movements, they aimed to lift the poor up not drag the rich down.

Didn't Hitler crush the unions and confiscate their money? And if being left-wing doesn't put you on collision course with the ruling classes your're not really a lefty after all.

 

[scroggin]

Didn't Hitler crush the unions and confiscate their money? And if being left-wing doesn't put you on collision course with the ruling classes your're not really a lefty after all.

Hitler replaced the Earlier trade unions which he saw as socialist with his own Nazi equivalents. Earlier on when he was still gaining power the Nazis' had on-going street battles with the trade unions and socialist but he did believe in a moderate form of socialism. and he spoke in favour of the idea of unions in "mein kampf"
check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

The German Labour Front (German: Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF) was the National Socialist trade union organization which replaced the various trade unions of the Weimar Republic after Adolf Hitler's rise to power.

Its leader was Robert Ley, who stated its aim as 'to create a true social and productive community' (Smelster, 1988). Theoretically, the DAF existed to act as a medium through which workers and owners could mutually represent their interests. Wages were set by the 12 DAF trustees. The employees were given relatively high set wages, security of work, dismissal was increasingly made difficult, social security programmes were started by the Arbeitsfront, leisure programmes were started, canteens, pauses and regular working times were established, and therefore generally the German workers were satisfied by what the DAF gave them in repaying for their absolute loyalty.

Edit; When I talked about a "moderate form of socialism" I didn't mean that Hitler was moderate in the way he implemented policies I mean that his form of socialism was between the extremes of state control of the economy, and free market economy.

 

[Potassium]

Well it could be noted that the fascistic country of Portugal was a founding member of NATO too.

I do not think Brazil actually ever joined the allies, but they definitely supported them. As I say, not sure. Alot of latin american countries did join the war after pearl harbor though.

The dictator of Brazil at the time,Getulio Vargas, was more for himself than for any ideology.He was strongly influenced by positivism, he fought the Brazillian communist party and the brazilian fascist party, the integralists.He made several laws that benefited the workers that are still the base of Brazil's work laws code (CLT).Both the allies and the axis courted him, and he chose the best offer, the american one.

 

[Emre Yigit]

The dictator of Brazil at the time,Getulio Vargas, was more for himself than for any ideology.He was strongly influenced by positivism, he fought the Brazillian communist party and the brazilian fascist party, the integralists.He made several laws that benefited the workers that are still the base of Brazil's work laws code (CLT).Both the allies and the axis courted him, and he chose the best offer, the american one.

This. HOI makes all autocrats lean either towards the communists or the fascists, whereas the truth was more nuanced, and those nuances weren't small change, either.

 

[Contravarius]

This. HOI makes all autocrats lean either towards the communists or the fascists, whereas the truth was more nuanced, and those nuances weren't small change, either.

Well, does anybody have a better idea? Did the Hoi 2 system (or the lack of it) work better? What should they change?

 

[BBBD316]

Well there is some circumstantial evidence that Stalin was seeking to go through another purge and then attack the West just before his death, maybe what caused his death, but yeah if Trotsky had of won that struggle the history of the world would be much different.

I think I would like individual ministers to be able to swing their loyalty, this would mean it could be possible to make a government fall through espionage if you fund enough ministers to change their allegiance to your party.

I think most nations realised that you had to provide a modicum of welfare to your citizens or you risked them developing radical ideas in times of economic hardship, I don't think that the Nazis really subscribed overtly to any left wing ideas and dealt with issues very pragmatically to suit the party above everything else.

 

[ClothCoat]

Well, for starters I would argue that one is a left-wing ideology (National SOCIALISM)[/SIZE]

Oh God if I see this argument one more time I'm going to slit my wrists. "Socialism" in this case is not "Marxist Socialism", but a) an appeal to the German nationalist version of socialism and b) showing a desire to modernize the economy. The fact that leftists were purged by Nazis should tell you everything you need to know. I expect arguments like this from wingnut libertarians on YOUTUBE, not on this forum, where people actually know about history and don't just soak up whatever pseudo-historians like Jonah Goldberg tells them.

The argument that Nazis weren't right-wing because they were pro "big government" is so laughably bad I shouldn't really bother, but I guess I will anyway. "Right-wing" doesn't mean "small government", it just means an "appeal to inequality", which can range from moderate libertarians to extreme nationalists/racists. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of terms.

Anyway I agree that ideologies need an update, but I think the most important part is to make them change by country. For instance, the titles "paternal autocrat" and "left-wing radical" mean the ideologies are anti-democracy but in Democratic countries this wasn't the case. The America First Committee and the Socialist Party of America were both pro-democracy (perhaps the America First Committee slightly less so but still), so that needs a change up. Most democratic countries should have the label "reactionary" or "right-wing nationalist" in place of "paternal autocrat" and on the other side of the spectrum "Democratic Socialist" in place of "left-wing radical", and if they gain power they continue to support democracy, thought they may "pal around" with (See: appoint members of) more antidemocratic factions. The non-democratic countries or exceptions to this rule should keep the old labels.

 

[Calders]

@ClothCoat

Insulting the other side of the debate doesn't make you any more right... in fact it tends to make me think you have little confidence in your arguments.

There is no clear definition of what is left wing and what is right wing, which is part of the problem. I don't know where you are from but I would say that the modern European definition for most of the post war period is that left wing is high levels of state ownership and that the right wing is the promotion of private ownership. However, you could argue, that in America left wing is largely defined as social liberal and right wing as social conservative. And so we have a problem in terms.

Also I think there really is a danger of confusing ideology with forms of government... HOI makes this mistake by saying the Allies are the 'democratic' ideology, which there is little basis for. Some ideologies are necessarily totalitarian (Fascist, Marxist-Leninist), and some are necessarily democratic (Liberals), but for most of the rest the ideology does not mandate a form of government.

 

[ClothCoat]

@Calders

Don't focus on style over substance please. The recent attempt by certain people to call Nazis left-wing "progressives" is such a blatant smear attempt it does not deserve one iota of respect as far as I'm concerned. Your argument that the political spectrum is so loosely defined that none of the factions fit firmly in left-wing or right-wing territory is a defendable argument. The idea the Nazis were left-wing isn't. Proof includes:

-Persecution of left-wingers under the Nazis, and their vehement anti-Communism. They also outlawed liberal and social democratic parties.
-The fact that the German social democrats were the only party who voted against Hitler's Enabling Act and that their leader, Otto Wells, gave a speech opposing Hitler while supporting socialism. (Wells whole speech is all that's really needed to disprove this idiotic argument)
-Multiple quotes from Hitler where he labels liberalism a "disease" and says public education will be liberalism's downfall.
-The fact they aligned themselves with far-right parties and movements, and many came from the German Fatherland party, a "far-right" party.
-The Night of the Long Knives, where the "left-wing" third positionists were purged from the Nazi Party.

I'm sorry if I'm rude but what angers me more than anything is the laziness of the arguments combined with the fact they've all been discredited by actual historians, mostly in response to Jonah Goldberg's discredited book "Liberal Fascism". Seeing the same lazy, discredited arguments used over and over again and having to discredit them over and over ("National SOCIALISM, see they were left-wingers!!!") is extremely frustrating for those of us who aren't crazed ideologues.

Anyway onto more important things, the America First Committee and the Socialist Party USA are both pro-democracy but they are both labeled as anti-democratic. That really needs to be changed.

 

[Calders]

OK I agree with most of that, and I do think a lot of this debate is about what you call right and left wing. I would agree completely that National Socialism was not liberal in any way, so from that point of view it is very much right wing. Its also true that they hated the communists with a passion, although that may be because when they started they were fighting for support from the same sections of society. I would say they were socially far right, and economically centre-left, but I agree its debatable.