Is there a consideration given for colonial independence efforts, e.g. Algeria? How about puppets? Would the rebel forces still be a puppet as in HOI 3?
Hearts of Iron IV - 34th Development Diary - 20th of November 2015
- Thread starter Rufo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The implication of your comment, as I understood it, was that everyone that didn't "vote the right way" would go to jail, and that would be more than half of Germany's population.
What you are mentioning is not true only for what you think of as totalitarian regimes. It was done to a large extent by the Allies during the Nuremberg trials. The French did it during the Algerian war. The US are doing it today in Guantanamo bay. Several Western countries will jail you if you question the official story of specific parts of history, that cannot even be mention on this forum I guess .
No I have consistently said that historians are more reliable and trustworthy than Hollywood, the history channel, computer games and the mass media. A very persistent problem is that most people get their history from the latter sources. I thought you said in the past that historians are Nazi revisionists and that we instead should trust sources from mainstream media...
I don't think applying today's moral standards to the past is going to help us understand history, nor make us better historians, whether we are talking of Genghis Khan, Stalin, the National Socialists or the Zulus. You may very well hold hatred against Hitler and the National Socialists, and let this be a starting point when you study history, but then be aware of that such people have always been seen as first and foremost ideologes.
When you quote mark "dangerous", it does tend to indicate that you are being sarcastic about it. The Nazis certainly didn't categorize all their enemies as communists, nor did they think that all their enemies were communists.
I don't admire them but I don't hate them either. As far as I am concerned, you don't have to admire something you don't hate.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
Can someone explain this? Do you mean does the equipment get experience? Can equipment get experiece!?
This is quite ridiculous if you think about it since you assume that half of Germany's population would vote against Hitler & cronies. The point of intimidation tactics is to deter that - so no political movement is powerful enough to encourage such an outcome and no person feels safe voting that way.
- 1
It's not something I think, it's a historical fact. Most Germans voted for other parties than Hitler's NSDAP in 1932 and in 1933. I know what intimidation is, but Nicolas I claimed that ordinary German women could go to jail if they didn't vote for Hitler, which is nonsense. He said it in response to my comment that women had no suffrage in France at all at the time.
- 4
- 3
Very nice DD, this will make things very interesting all around.
With the new supply method, and now this, I can foresee the cloak and dagger espionage also being a lot more effective.
With the new supply method, and now this, I can foresee the cloak and dagger espionage also being a lot more effective.
This is incorrect since Nicolas I was talking about a "totalitarian regime" which by definition excludes the Weimar Republic. Even under its latest, most stringent anti-communist laws the most the Weimar republic could ever be called is "repressive".
So "voting the right way" would apply in the 3 elections held after March 1933.
- 1
For a less drastic example, how about Japan? The government was supported by popularity, and its opponents, while numerous, weren't as popular nation-wide. While quite a few high-profile anti-war / democrat candidates won seats here and there, they weren't able to actually stop Imperial Rule Assistance Association due to the lack of popularity, and they weren't IRAA assigned dummy opposition either, among them were Saito Takao, who was previously expelled from the Diet for anti-military speech, and basically return in a triumph, and there were Hatoyama Ichirō (post war PM and grandfather of recent PM Hatoyama Yukio) and Abe Kan (grandfather of current PM Abe Shinzō), and there's Kita Reikichi, brother of Kita Ikki, who was executed for "ideological support" of the Feb. 26th rebels.
The electorial system wasn't systematically oppressing non-affiliates either, as it was multi-member district single non-transferable vote with no consideration of affiliation, and most of the opposition candidates won 2nd~5th seat in their district.
Politic-wise, IRAA wasn't a sham either, there were a lot of power dynamics going on, and the Chairman (and PM) was far from indisputable: Konoe fell probably due to the inability to end the war in China militarily nor diplomatically, Tōjō fell because he screwed up, and Koiso failed to negotiate a peace.
The electorial system wasn't systematically oppressing non-affiliates either, as it was multi-member district single non-transferable vote with no consideration of affiliation, and most of the opposition candidates won 2nd~5th seat in their district.
Politic-wise, IRAA wasn't a sham either, there were a lot of power dynamics going on, and the Chairman (and PM) was far from indisputable: Konoe fell probably due to the inability to end the war in China militarily nor diplomatically, Tōjō fell because he screwed up, and Koiso failed to negotiate a peace.
- 1
Please, read what I wrote before posting, twice, misleading interpretations.
The overwhelming majority of historians agree nazis were fascists/totalitarian, not democrats in any way as you pretend. They could not win honestly (even if they had some real popular support, I don't deny it) so they intimidated, jailed, forbade political reunions and finally all the political parties and in the end elections...
I think you must be very selective in your readings to find a bunch of nazis sympathizers who twist historical facts to present the nazis as peaceful victims when they were the ruthless executioners.
I never said that nor anything resembling that, you must have seen that in your fields of dream (dreams in red and black I presume).
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
So the fact that most Germans didn't vote for Hitler is incorrect because the Weimar Republic was not a totalitarian regime? I don't understand your logic.
Why is how you define the Weimar Republic relevant to the debate? Lol for only mentioning the anti-communist laws without any mention of the anti-NSDAP laws by the way.
Again, what are you trying to say? That ordinary Germans could be sent to jail for not voting on Hitler in the Wiemar Republic?
- 6
- 3
Oh yes I did, several times, and this is what you said:
Yes german women could vote, but if they didn't vote the "right way" they could be sent to jail .
Yes of course they were fascist. But why is it that you still don't understand that a fascist, or totalitarian party in general, can win a democratic election?
Whether the elections in Weimar Germany in 1932 and 1933, when Hitler won, were less democratic, free and fair than elections in the France (which had no suffrage for women or in the colonies), the British Empire (which had plural voting for aristocrats and no suffrage in the colonies) and USA (which had no suffrage for blacks and in the colonies) in the same period, is up to one and each us.
No, that's typical mainstream media revisionism. Mainstream historians contest that the NSDAP won honestly in the two 1932 elections. Even Wikipedia has a paragraph about it: It was the last free and fair all-German election before the Nazi Machtergreifung on 30 January 1933
It's quite obvious that it is you and not me who must be very selective in your historical readings as you consider Wikipedia and mainstream historians to be evil Nazis that twist the facts you've been reading about in BBC . I think your vile anti-Nazi hatred might be cloaking up your vision a bit. Have you looked under your bed for Nazis lately?
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/austrian-civil-war.888972/page-2#post-20151806
I'm not sure of which statement in particular you feel is Nazi revisionism in that thread, but it seems to be what I have been putting forward by mainstream historians such as Taylor and Ovary. Anyways, you denied the claims put forward by what you regarded as "Nazi revisionists" and defended your position with a link to a mainstream media site.
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
No. You said "It's not something I think, it's a historical fact. Most Germans voted for other parties than Hitler's NSDAP in 1932 and in 1933.". What is incorrect is that you are talking about 1932 and 1933 which is not relevant. The fact itself is true. Your thinking is incorrect here though since you aren't talking about the same issue. See last point.
Once again Nicolas was originally talking about totalitarian regimes. Which the Weimar Republic was not to answer both questions. And I mentioned the anti-communist laws as they were most relevant to 1932 and 1933, sorry for not being "objective" and including the Nazis in the list of parties that were discriminated against. Poor Nazis! Even if they were at some point it wouldn't be relevant to my point.
So you are trying to frame this as a "ordinary Germans can't be sent to jail for not voting for Hitler in the Weimar Republic" when the issue wasn't even about the Weimar Republic, it was about a totalitarian state. That is Germany after the Enabling Act.
- 1
Yes, I am talking about the election in 1932 and 1933; I have never been talking about anything else. I was talking about them since the very beginning but at one point Nicolas I heroically entered the debate and claimed I was Nazi for questioning that the elections held in the late Weimar Republic were less free and fair than the ones held in France and the US (here). It is you and Nicolas I's lectures about totalitarianism that is completely irrrelevant.
Once again, Nicolas I first mentioned the word totalitarian later in the debate, here, when he seems to be claiming that the Weimar Republic was a totalitarian state.
But you did include the communists in your equation didn't you? The poor communist!
Read up some history though. The Weimar Republic took far more measures against the NSDAP, Hitler and its supporting militia than it ever took against the Communists, Thälmann and the Roter Frontkämpferbund.
Again, it was Nicolas I who first claimed that German women could be saint to jail if they did not vote for Hitler in the Weimar Republic.
Anyways, as I've mentioned several times, Hitler won two elections in 1932 before the the Enabling Act. Second, the Enabling Act took place within the legal framework of the Weimar Republic so even the 1933 election was technically held in the Weimar Republic.
Feel free to consider the Weimar Republic a Nazi totalitarian state if that makes you feel better, but then understand that you have no mainstream historian on you side.
EDIT: I'm confused. Upon reading your previous comments I see that you consider the Weimar Republic not to be totalitarian. So which one is it?
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
Not as such. It's even better than that.
You gain military experience that can be used to improve division templates and some other things. So, by giving arms to the Spanish, you can improve techs and doctrines indirectly without fighting yourself.
- 2
Yes, the two people you are debating with are wrong and irrelevant and you are not, that seems fair. At any rate even if women's participation in democracy did overrule the fact that the Nazis used voter intimidation and bullying, this is a bad comparison since the Nazis were responsible for the intimidation and not for the women being able to vote, etc, compare it to whatever group couldn't vote in these Western democracies. And if the Nazis were in government prior to women's suffrage I highly doubt they would be the ones introducing it.
Read up some history? I've read a lot of history, mainstream too, about the rise of the Nazi Party. Maybe you should actually provide some evidence instead of the ultra vague "read up" then?
The Nazi Party won the most seats in the Reichstag, that doesn't mean he "won" them, as it didn't give him legislative powers.
What? You are out of touch with reality. My view is the exact opposite as I already stated.
Reading skills 11/10.
- 1
- 1
Does this mean there is a sort of "experience" value like manpower for instance that can be applied to everything? The experience I have with experience is just from Hoi2/3 which is each division.
Yes. There is XP that can be applied to doctrines, variants, techs, and division templates.
There are DDs about all of these things (more than one, so I won't bother linking here), but go to the archive thread at the top of the forum and look the DDs up.
Short version: You can learn what does or does not work to some extent even by giving equipment to other countries who are actually fighting even if you are not. This will let you improve both equipment and how you fight.
Divisions also have some kind of XP value of their own.
- 2
- 1
You need Land XP to change your divisions Template. Adding a new regiment (the first brigade of an regiment) cost 25 XP and a new brigade or changing a existend brigade 5 XP. As far as we saw until now. The same Land XP is also used to upgrade your tanks.
To upgrade ships you need Naval XP and for airplanes Air XP.
This is sepereated from the experience level of your divisions
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f-iron-iv-dev-diary-6-division-design.783017/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...loper-diary-8-experience-and-variants.794277/
Yes. The majority is not always right.
For the fourth time in this thread, the two elections in the Weimar Republic in 1932 are considered fair and free by historians. NSDAP were not responsible for women suffrage, but Hitler generally got more electoral support from women than men so one can hardly say they considered it a huge problem. Quite frankly, they seem to have had less problems with it than the political elite in the freedom fighting country of France, which in no election prior to the war allowed woman suffrage.
That's right, they would have abolished voting altogether, given they had won the election in the first place.
I can give you some book recommendations.
Yes, this is typically called winning. If you too, wanna call it something else when people you don't like win, be my guest.
That's great then, we agree.
The problem was that all of the discussion has revolved around when the Weimar Republic still existed. So it's a bit confusing when you enter the debate and say that Hitler won elections in the Weimar Republic because they were held in a totalitarian state, at the same time as you claim that the Weimar Republic was not a totalitarian state.
- 2
- 2
Presented without comment a Nazi Era Ballot, which would have been filled out with two SS men looking over the voter's shoulder:
- 7
- 3
- 2