But the Spanish Anarchists did fight in a war... they fought the Nationalist for several months until the communists attacked them.
I'm not saying your wrong but I think its a case of focusing too much on Anarchist theory (which personally I think is an effort to make something extremely simple very complex). At its simplest anarchy means one thing: from the Greek 'anarchos' meaning "one without rulers", so any system where there are no leaders and people have an equal say in decisions can be described as Anarchic. They had some relevance in the game time because of the division caused in the republican side of the Spanish civil war, and because they could have been involved in taking power in both Italy and Greece had the Allies allowed it (although how influential they were is disputed - see above).
As a side note an Anarchist group also formed in the Ukraine in the Russian civil war, they twice aligned themselves with the Bolsheviks, but were ultimately attacked by them after the white Russians were defeated.
So to keep this vaguely on topic I would say that the game should represent Anarchist groups.
For the Ukranian case, you mean the Revolutionary Insurrectional Army (also called Black Army of Nesto Makhno or Makhnosvhschina). Again, some of the veterans ended up in the anarchist columns of the Spanish Civil War.
In order to represent these groups and tendencies, I´d simplify it as an ideological group with the capacity to create a new form of government just like HoI3 creates empires, monarchies, republics and so on. Call it libertarian communism (the most common term and political doctrine at the time) and there you go.
I even think that the degree of detail is too much, as the game could simply assume anarchism as part of an in game ideology (I think Left-Wing Radicals are what best represents it) with the apropriate ministers and that should be it.
