Fascist v Neutral ideology

[Anichent]

We've heard a lot about the different abilities and limitations of democratic nations v fascist nations v communist nations, but I'm a bit confused about "neutral" ideological countries.

Based on the civil war DD, it seems Greece under Metaxas is considered neutral. A lot of dictatorial states in the time period walked a fine line, many of which could be considered in some ways fascist, just closer to Italian fascism than nazism. There are a lot of countries that had multiple, competing, fascist movements like Austria or Czechoslovakia where the Italian style fascists and the nazi style fascists were very different and competing movements.

I was wondering if the devs could let us know:
a) the value (in game terms) of having these countries (ie. Brazil, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Greece) being "neutral" rather than just a brand of fascist?
b) the powers or limits these "neutral" countries have? (ie. ability to declare war)
c) will all countries have a "neutral" faction, or is this just a starting faction for those borderline countries who seem hard to place?

 

[Sweed Raver]

This is just speculation right here, but I think it might have to do with them not being officially fascist/communist (a dictatorship in general).

a) The governments that are neutral (such as Greece) are too volatile (easily subject to change) to be considered democracies. The nations could very easily, without changing the government, start changing policies according to different ideologies, based on influence from other nations. In democracies, a coup needs to happen in order to follow totalitarian policies. It could also be that the government is officially democratic, but unofficially is not (dictocracies/democratorship).
b) They can declare war on nations that they have a reason to declare war on (and support for in their population), without changing their type of government, just like democracies. They should also be declare war without a cause and officially declare the country a dictatorship. I would assume this increases world tension.
c) If anything, that's what nations drifting from dictatorship to democracy or vice versa would be considered. However, I think that is not the case, because I don't know if it has ever happened in real life.

 

[Anichent]

It honestly seems more to be based on the fact that they were not nazi-esque.
HOI has always seemed to focus too much on nazi style fascism than Italian style which was far more wide-spread.
Perfect examples would be Belgium and Czechoslovakia, where in HOI3 the party chosen was the less popular Nazi-style fascists rather than the more realistic and more popular Italian Fascist parties of van Severen and Gajda respectively. ie. Gajda's Italian style fascist had actual support in elections and minor victories, where the sudentenland german nazis were almost non-existant and only represented the Germans...

Truth is while some countries, like the Baltics, is maybe less clear countries like Greece were clearly fascist - who they sided with in the war is irrelevant. He banned political parties, prohibited strikes, instituted censorship, indoctrinated children in schools, banned parties, was very anti-communist, and even used the Roman salute. I mean if Greece wasn't Fascist then no one but Italy and Germany are which is just not accurate.

I understand maybe in game the choice was made to make some fascist countries "neutral" because of certain bonuses given to the fascist ideology which could throw off balance if too wide-spread, but so far I'm a bit confused and leaning towards thinking if Greece has been miscategorized some other countries might be as well, especially in latin America

 

[omnib]

Also question what exactly will be Poland, which were clearly not democracy more like fascist.

 

[Zoob]

I think the point of the neutral governments/faction is to stop nations that generally stayed out of faction politics from dropping into Allied/Axis/Comintern at the drop of a hat.

 

[Anichent]

I think the point of the neutral governments/faction is to stop nations that generally stayed out of faction politics from dropping into Allied/Axis/Comintern at the drop of a hat.

Maybe, but based on how quickly the US and Ireland and the Baltics joined factions in WWW, I don't think its having that effect and I'd be forced to assume that effect is then not intended. Although the quickness of countries to enter the war in WWW is a whole different weird issue. I don't think the reluctance of countries to go to war, neutral or not, is being represented or is rightly represented by neutral ideology.

It seems to be, and I'd love to be corrected by devs, that "neutral" is being assigned as an ideology for countries who have dictators who the devs are not prepared to call fascist. But some of these really ought to be

 

[kviiri]

I think the point of the neutral governments/faction is to stop nations that generally stayed out of faction politics from dropping into Allied/Axis/Comintern at the drop of a hat.

I on the other hand think they're meant to serve as targets of main ideologies' influence - they are easier to impact than other countries.

 

[Razielus]

Also question what exactly will be Poland, which were clearly not democracy more like fascist.

Just Authoritarian regime
Just like Hungary ruled by Horthy
but in game terms they are indeed closer to fascism

 

[Kovax]

Just Authoritarian regime
Just like Hungary ruled by Horthy
but in game terms they are indeed closer to fascism

Not a good example. Horthy was technically a Regent, as there was no actual King remaining, and the feeble efforts to instate an heir to the crown met with strong resistance both inside and outside the country. His power was severely limited in many respects (more persuasive than authoritarian), and all legislation still needed to pass through Parliament. Hungary was a case of being an authoritarian state on paper, but considerably closer in practice to a Parliamentary Democracy with token royalty (as is the UK) and ethnic restrictions at the state level (which YUG, ROM, and CZE had in practice, if not in theory). HOI3 depicted Hungary as a Fascist state and Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia as Democracies, yet one would not easily be able to tell their forms of government apart by the personal freedoms and elections in each. Arguing over which was more oppressive is an exercise in futility and name-calling, and probably not allowed anyway.

In my opinion, "Neutral" either should encompass those countries which actively sought to remain unattached to other factions (Switzerland, Sweden), or else those whose political systems were in such as state that they could rapidly change from one form to the next (Greece, Yugoslavia), it should NOT include BOTH. The three "absolute" forms of government in HOI4 really don't convey the differences between various countries, not that HOI3 used its finer distinctions to any meaningful degree.

 

[Anichent]

See this is the issue with classification. People are being wayyy too restrictive on what they call fascist.
Horothy, Metaxas, Vargas: these were fascist regimes. Whether they were officially fascist or members of the axis is completely irrelevant. Fascist does not mean nazism, even though the HOI fanbase and devs seem to look at it that way.

It makes sense if "neutral" ideological countries are intended to be more easily swayed by one country or another but its still not accurate. Peru was a democracy that swayed toward Italy. Yugoslavia was a democracy allied with the axis (though not at war like Spain), but aided the allies especially Greece.

Miscategorizing regimes is not a good way to represent sway, especially since so many non-neutral regimes could also be swayed ie. Yugoslavia. Ireland too, if it picked sides, would not likely have picked the Allies even though it was a democracy. Which is why it stayed out.

Countries should be given their proper classification and their willingness to join alliances should be irrelevant of their ideology - which becomes clear in the recent WWW where Turkey was essentially willing to join both the Allies and the Axis.

In my opinion, "Neutral" either should encompass those countries which actively sought to remain unattached to other factions (Switzerland, Sweden), or else those whose political systems were in such as state that they could rapidly change from one form to the next (Greece, Yugoslavia), it should NOT include BOTH. The three "absolute" forms of government in HOI4 really don't convey the differences between various countries, not that HOI3 used its finer distinctions to any meaningful degree

You're confusing neutral country with neutral ideology. Switzerland and Sweden were clearly neutral countries but there is no question that they are democracies. You cannot confuse ideology with faction.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Historically it's up for debate whether Greece was Fascist: they were certainly authoritarian but I think they're better described as deeply conservative, traditionalist, and reactionary like Franco, as opposed to fascist. They're similar in some regards, but certainly not the same.

Gameplay wise I think the reasons are fairly obvious.

 

[Anichent]

Historically it's up for debate whether Greece was Fascist: they were certainly authoritarian but I think they're better described as deeply conservative, traditionalist, and reactionary like Franco, as opposed to fascist. They're similar in some regards, but certainly not the same.

Gameplay wise I think the reasons are fairly obvious.

that makes my point 100%, you also don't think Franco was fascist. I seriously question whether people understand exactly what fascism is....perhaps I've taken that for granted because I studied in in University but you are all being very overly conservative about it.

Also the reasons are not obvious at all yet because every explanation theorized so far, either isn't intended and/or isn't working based on what we've seen in the WWW videos.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Countries should be given their proper classification and their willingness to join alliances should be irrelevant of their ideology - which becomes clear in the recent WWW where Turkey was essentially willing to join both the Allies and the Axis.

You're paying to much attention to things like balance, when they haven't even entered beta. I've said it before and I'll say it again, WWW is, as far as I can tell, meant to demonstrate the mechanics they have developed, not the balance of the game or how the war ends up, they've still got at least 3 months of beta ahead to make sure the game is balanced. I find it unlikely the final game will resemble what is happening diplomacy and battle wise on the stream. As well as the silly things happening in diplomacy, the actual battles and war was ending up quite silly as well, with Germany just steam rolling Switzerland and the USSR easily, so I wouldn't worry too much about balance at the moment.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

that makes my point 100%, you also don't think Franco was fascist. I seriously question whether people understand exactly what fascism is....perhaps I've taken that for granted because I studied in in University but you are all being very overly conservative about it.

Also the reasons are not obvious at all yet because every explanation theorized so far, either isn't intended and/or isn't working based on what we've seen in the WWW videos.

Franco and Metaxas regimes held similarities with Fascism, but they could be described as semi-fascist at best. To put it simply, Fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, and was a very modernist ideology at the time. Franco and Metaxas however did not seek this: they sought to effectively 'bring back the good ol' days' with strong conservative, monarchist, traditionalist, authoritarian, and reactionary views. The difference is subtle, but it is key. Very few serious historians actually considered Franco a fascist, unless you're using a much looser definition of the word fascist.

Its an interesting historical debate, but ultimately it comes down to gameplay reasons, and gameplay wise it makes much mores sense to list both regimes as neutral.

 

[Anichent]

@GeneralPetrov not to get off topic of gameplay reasons, but in general this is probably one of the most well regarded modern English language books on fascism and I recommend it:
"The Anatomy of Fascism"
by Robert Paxton

Because I could not disagree more with you that Metaxas and Franco are not fascist. You cannot confuse element of certain fascist regimes like Germany or Italy as being "part of fascism." A lot of Latin American countries maybe were closer to semi-fascism, but even then variations on an ideology, like variations of democracy, doesn't change fundamentally what it is. Sure Germany fascism had ethic elements, a Spanish fascism has traditionalist/religious elements, and Brazilian fascism had integrationist elements, etc. There were lots of "flavours" of fascism, even just between the big two of Germany and Italy, but it doesn't change that it is fascism. Heck Metaxas used the fasci as a symbol seems pretty clear cut.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

@GeneralPetrov not to get off topic of gameplay reasons, but in general this is probably one of the most well regarded modern English language books on fascism and I recommend it:
"The Anatomy of Fascism"
by Robert Paxton (Author)

Because I could not disagree more with you that Metaxas and Franco are not fascist. You cannot confuse element of certain fascist regimes like Germany or Italy as being "part of fascism." A lot of Latin American countries maybe were closer to semi-fascism, but even then variations on an ideology, like variations of democracy, doesn't change fundamentally what it is.

Yes I have read the book, and while it is interesting and generally good quality, even when you rely on his definition of fascism, you'll find that Franco and Metaxas still don't fully fit the definition of fascism.

We're arguing over semantics however: fascism is such a vague political ideology that I don't believe it has a single definition, nor does it have a single spot on the political spectrum. This isn't going to get us anyway because even to this day historians and politicians still argue over its definition. The only thing we can say for certain is that Germany and Italy were definitely fascist, whether any other nations reached similar levels of fascism is debatable.

Back on topic, gameplay wise, I think it is primarily there to influence which way a nation will fall politically and which faction it will most likely join. For this reason it makes more sense to keep Greece neutral.

 

[Afganitia]

Franco and Metaxas regimes held similarities with Fascism, but they could be described as semi-fascist at best. To put it simply, Fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, and was a very modernist ideology at the time. Franco and Metaxas however did not seek this: they sought to effectively 'bring back the good ol' days' with strong conservative, monarchist, traditionalist, authoritarian, and reactionary views. The difference is subtle, but it is key. Very few serious historians actually considered Franco a fascist, unless you're using a much looser definition of the word fascist.

Its an interesting historical debate, but ultimately it comes down to gameplay reasons, and gameplay wise it makes much mores sense to list both regimes as neutral.

Yes I have read the book, and while it is interesting and generally good quality, even when you rely on his definition of fascism, you'll find that Franco and Metaxas still don't fully fit the definition of fascism.

We're arguing over semantics however: fascism is such a vague political ideology that I don't believe it has a single definition, nor does it have a single spot on the political spectrum. This isn't going to get us anyway because even to this day historians and politicians still argue over its definition. The only thing we can say for certain is that Germany and Italy were definitely fascist, whether any other nations reached similar levels of fascism is debatable.

Back on topic, gameplay wise, I think it is primarily there to influence which way a nation will fall politically and which faction it will most likely join. For this reason it makes more sense to keep Greece neutral.

Well, as a matter of a fact, franquism was fascist. Nobody can deny that. Still, stuff happened. That stuff was that fascist lost the war. And Spain knew it. From, 1943 exactly. They changed their policy of non interventionism, which meant send troops and help to the axis, to neutrality. Franco started to "clean" Spain of fascist references. The civil war was won by fascist militars, with the support of fascist parties. Spain partially abandoned fascist symbology. Still, they were fascist. "the people is the state, and the state is the people" kind of thing. Single party, singly sindicate, mitification of Spanish history. National Coporativism. However, the economic and social ostracization of Spain, derived in misery for the country. Spain could not be an autarky. So, the USA offered them peace and international recognition, as well as returning to the world economics, in exchange for military bases, and collaboration. So 1959 onwards, Spain became capitalist. All the militars in the goverment (only them were allowed to be there) were kicked out. Civil people entered the government. Fascism was dead.

So, yeah, fascists nowadays hate Franco. They think he was a traitor.

 

[Anichent]

Back on topic, gameplay wise, I think it is primarily there to influence which way a nation will fall politically and which faction it will most likely join. For this reason it makes more sense to keep Greece neutral.

Then there's a problem because then everyone except the majors should be "neutral" - ideology should not impact which faction you join to that degree, and it doesn't seem like it is the largest factor based on what we've seen. Democracies have joined the Axis, fascist (yes fascist) regimes allied with the allies....its just not accurate to do it that way. And its just speculation that thats the reason they do it in HOI4.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

Then there's a problem because then everyone except the majors should be "neutral" - ideology should not impact which faction you join to that degree, and it doesn't seem like it is the largest factor based on what we've seen. Democracies have joined the Axis, fascist (yes fascist) regimes allied with the allies....its just not accurate to do it that way. And its just speculation that thats the reason they do it in HOI4.

Again though, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the diplomacy in WWW. This is the same game in which neutral Greece decided to join the United Chinese Front

 

[kviiri]

I think simply being an autocracy or dictatorship isn't enough to make one "fascist" - of course, it's hard to come up with a completely sensible definition for such a term loaded with sore memories.

In HoI 4 perspectives I'd define fascism as a combination of several of the following:

• rhetorical opposition to both capitalism and communism ("Third Way")
• militarism
• nationalism
• building up a system based on arbitrary government powers (as opposed to legalism, constitutional rule etc)
• building up a cult of personality

This definition would exclude dictatorships that were capitalist or socialist in nature, as well as dictatorships and monarchies that weren't interested in military buildup.