HOI4 Dev Diary - India - Struggle for Independence

[MPNader36]

Guys my English is so weak then I refer only to headers:
- fully flexible borders. sudetenland, Southern Slovakia, Zaolzie, memel and other such regions are useless after some historical events and victors Certainly dont use those in peace conference. Specially sudetenland with its strange shape!!!
- annexation of puppets or even other countries entirely by force without military action or parts of these countries
- donating region to other countries
- creating new countries in your land every where you want, every name, flag, leader , etc you want

 

[SensitiveDannyBoi]

1. The autonomy system applies to all nations yea
2. Answered above, subject forces
3. They are older and we got better at making them is the short of it. We will probably expand base game trees at some point too

For number 3....you dont need to wait for another dlc to expand "base" national focuses trees. Come on. I would also like to see some expanded industry options for low industry, high manpower countries, like essentially a construction draft, that were typical of soviets/China/industrializing nations at the time. Much more political choices instead of the same old obvious always good choices.

 

[fanta_a]

Will the new artwork include spg\spaa\td pictures? Also unique infantry equipment?

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Will the new artwork include spg\spaa\td pictures? Also unique infantry equipment?

I think Australia and Canada get some stuff, and the Bob Semple tank for New Zealand gets its own model. India didn't have indigenously designed equipment to reference off from for in-game art, but here's hoping Indian infantry get a unique skin. Khaki shorts and Turbans. Yeah, I know Sikhs are not a big part of India, but the Sikhs are pretty iconic of the British Indian Army, otherwise they would have to have Brodie helmets and look too similar to British troops.

 

[Aarn]

India looks good! One question I have though is, by saying we are put into the shoes of Bose, does that mean that he is an option for leader of both fascist and communist india? How exactly will those mechanics work?

 

[The_Meme_Man]

India looks good! One question I have though is, by saying we are put into the shoes of Bose, does that mean that he is an option for leader of both fascist and communist india? How exactly will those mechanics work?

It's very weird, because even Bose himself was ideologically a democratic socialist, or probably more similar to Franklin D Roosevelt. It would be best to keep the current ideological leaders they have in the game because India did have communists, and India did (does) have falangists (Hindus of course, instead of Catholics, but the mechanics are still the same). It did have fascists and nat. socialists too, but not enough to matter.

Realistically, India has many more choices of "likely" or "rightful" leaders than many other countries in the game, for each party. Bose makes the most sense for democratically aligned parties, because while he was an Axis collaborator and approved of German and Italian authoritarianism, he was staunchly opposed to Nazi racialism, and only saw authoritarianism useful during war and sought democracy during peace. He certainly wasn't a communist, though he was somewhat a socialist (though inspired by Hinduism rather than by Marxism, so again, democratic socialist is most defining of him). However, Nehru was the historical leader of democratic India. Gandhi and Jinnah were also good contenders. Though Jinnah needs to lead Pakistan, he was a supported leader by Gandhi since Gandhi thought a Muslim leader could seal the rift between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority. Gandhi himself also, though less likely, could have contended to being a leader as well (like how he is falsefully depicted as such in the Civilization series). Bose makes the most sense for Democratic India if India breaks out violently from Britain, while Nehru or Gandhi makes sense for leading India's peaceful breakout, and Jinnah pretty much requires India to be both democratic AND completely loyal to the Allied powers.

However I doubt this is happening, so if Bose has to be for one of the two, I'd say the Fascists. Even though he only held the "authoritarian" part of the Fascist ideology, and not even in a permanent manner, he was DEFINITELY NOT a Communist. This decision is literally "He is a fascist because we know he wasn't a communist, and there are no openings for anything else soooooooo yeah".

 

[Orlunu]

However I doubt this is happening, so if Bose has to be for one of the two, I'd say the Fascists. Even though he only held the "authoritarian" part of the Fascist ideology, and not even in a permanent manner, he was DEFINITELY NOT a Communist. This decision is literally "He is a fascist because we know he wasn't a communist, and there are no openings for anything else soooooooo yeah".

To be fair, the racial line was a product of the National Socialists, not the Fascists. In the game, a whole lot of NatSoc and Fascist countries (Austria, KMT, &c) are considered non-aligned, and several countries which aren't either of those (Japan, Hungary) are considered 'Fascist'. The criteria for the in-game set seem simply to be: authoritarian, nationalist, should join the Axis. This is a set that Bose falls into quite nicely.

 

[Fishman786]

It's very weird, because even Bose himself was ideologically a democratic socialist, or probably more similar to Franklin D Roosevelt. It would be best to keep the current ideological leaders they have in the game because India did have communists, and India did (does) have falangists (Hindus of course, instead of Catholics, but the mechanics are still the same). It did have fascists and nat. socialists too, but not enough to matter.

Realistically, India has many more choices of "likely" or "rightful" leaders than many other countries in the game, for each party. Bose makes the most sense for democratically aligned parties, because while he was an Axis collaborator and approved of German and Italian authoritarianism, he was staunchly opposed to Nazi racialism, and only saw authoritarianism useful during war and sought democracy during peace. He certainly wasn't a communist, though he was somewhat a socialist (though inspired by Hinduism rather than by Marxism, so again, democratic socialist is most defining of him). However, Nehru was the historical leader of democratic India. Gandhi and Jinnah were also good contenders. Though Jinnah needs to lead Pakistan, he was a supported leader by Gandhi since Gandhi thought a Muslim leader could seal the rift between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority. Gandhi himself also, though less likely, could have contended to being a leader as well (like how he is falsefully depicted as such in the Civilization series). Bose makes the most sense for Democratic India if India breaks out violently from Britain, while Nehru or Gandhi makes sense for leading India's peaceful breakout, and Jinnah pretty much requires India to be both democratic AND completely loyal to the Allied powers.

However I doubt this is happening, so if Bose has to be for one of the two, I'd say the Fascists. Even though he only held the "authoritarian" part of the Fascist ideology, and not even in a permanent manner, he was DEFINITELY NOT a Communist. This decision is literally "He is a fascist because we know he wasn't a communist, and there are no openings for anything else soooooooo yeah".

Golwalkar (RSS leader during the war) could be a good choice for an Indian Fascist leader. But then Bose is much more recognisable and they need to fit him in somewhere.

 

[Aarn]

To be fair, the racial line was a product of the National Socialists, not the Fascists. In the game, a whole lot of NatSoc and Fascist countries (Austria, KMT, &c) are considered non-aligned, and several countries which aren't either of those (Japan, Hungary) are considered 'Fascist'. The criteria for the in-game set seem simply to be: authoritarian, nationalist, should join the Axis. This is a set that Bose falls into quite nicely.

The KMT could hardly be called fascist. Also Japan was pretty fascist, they may not have called themselves fascists, but they sure did act like they were.

And well, Bose was part of the left-wing of the INC, and as the dev diary said he did ask the USSR for help first. So I guess he could be considered more... syncretic? Is that the word?
Anyway, I think that there is absolutely no reason to classify Bose as simply a fascist when he was not. Maybe just call him non-aligned and call it a day?

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The issue here is obviously that of attempting to use historical terminology and an important gameplay mechanic simultaneously.

Bose wasn't a fascist. Horthy wasn't a fascist, and was in fact overthrown by Hitler for that very reason. The KMT weren't fascist; they were a traditional, authoritarian military clique of much the same kind that survive in parts of East Asia today.

As @Aarn rightly says, the Empire of Japan very much fits the fascist description, even if they did not subscribe to the label -- remember that fascism is essentially a European phenomenon based upon the lingering effects of the Great Depression, ultra-nationalism, and more often than not the Roman Catholic church. Apart from the nationalist factor, these evidently do not apply to Japan.

Unfortunately, for as long as Paradox wish to confuse and conflate fascism - a specific ideology and form of government - with 'will tend to join the Axis and fight the Soviets' then we'll end up with these annoying discrepancies.

 

[Orlunu]

The KMT could hardly be called fascist. Also Japan was pretty fascist, they may not have called themselves fascists, but they sure did act like they were.

And well, Bose was part of the left-wing of the INC, and as the dev diary said he did ask the USSR for help first. So I guess he could be considered more... syncretic? Is that the word?
Anyway, I think that there is absolutely no reason to classify Bose as simply a fascist when he was not. Maybe just call him non-aligned and call it a day?

KMT were NatSoc, not fascist. Japan, on the other hand, falls short on pretty much all the points of fascism except for the areas under control of the Imperial Way and the Control Faction; the first was pretty much broken after a failed coup in '36, and the latter managed to get their man in as PM only in '41. Noteworthily, he was elected to the position, as Japan maintained free elections throughout (unlike, say, the UK). They were closest to old-style imperialists.

 

[Aarn]

KMT were NatSoc, not fascist. Japan, on the other hand, falls short on pretty much all the points of fascism except for the areas under control of the Imperial Way and the Control Faction; the first was pretty much broken after a failed coup in '36, and the latter managed to get their man in as PM only in '41. Noteworthily, he was elected to the position, as Japan maintained free elections throughout (unlike, say, the UK). They were closest to old-style imperialists.

Let alone the fact that there is no difference between "National Socialism" and Fascism, where would you get the idea that the KMT were NatSoc?

 

[Orlunu]

Let alone the fact that there is no difference between "National Socialism" and Fascism, where would you get the idea that the KMT were NatSoc?

Well, if you haven't the slightest grip on the ideologies, it may be hard to explain that to you, but I'll give it a go:
-The KMT were Han ethno-nationalists in the time period - originally the Three Principles had guided them along pan-Chinese lines, but that broader definition had long been dropped, as evidenced by their policies for promotion of the Han over the other groups such as the Mongols and the Jurchen. Even before that, they had largely been violently opposed to non-Chinese.
-The principle of welfare was followed to a strong degree, often to the point of causing uprisings, with strong centralisation and homogenisation accompanied with punitive taxes on the wealthy and a hefty nationalisation program.
-Whilst supporting a very socialist state, the KMT (much as the NSDAP), believed that such measures must result from the dictate of the state rather than disobedience from some part of the populace, and ruthlessly crushed autonomous protests and uprisings even when their end goals were similar.
-Expansionist? Check.
-Militarist? Check.
-Führerprinzip? Check.
-Merger of party and state? Check.
-Political secret police? Check.
and so on and so forth. They weren't just National Socialists, they were stereotypical national socialists.

Anyway, you seem to be repeatedly missing my point, being that 'fascism' in the game fits a loose definition that's pretty dependent on game mechanics rather than the actual political ideologies of the countries involved.

 

[Aarn]

>implying national socialism is socialist

I'm just not going to get into this argument thank you

 

[Orlunu]

>implying national socialism is socialist

I'm just not going to get into this argument thank you

Oh, you're one of those memesters. Well, you won't be listening to the evidence, and I've already read it, so I'll agree that there's no point continuing this conversation.



For any onlookers who wish to investigate for themselves, the 25-Point Programme (the NSDAP's manifesto) would be a good starting point, followed by the role of anti-Junker and anti-banking propaganda and so on.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

>implying national socialism is socialist

I'm just not going to get into this argument thank you

National Socialism, Nazism, Hitlerism, Fascism, Strassarism are all divergent ideologies. There are notable national socialist regimes in the 19th century, depending on how you define ideologies. To some extent, I know it is becoming practice within Historical work to try and be as distinct as possible, to define for instance Nazism as relating to a Stassarist/Hitlerist axis, which is distinct from National Socialism. Likewise, terms such as fascism become mechanisms of explaining broader ideological tendencies, rather than defining specific things. In this instance, you would talk about German Fascism, or Spanish Fascism, or Italian Fascism as if they were all divergent non connected ideologies. Even then it is a quagmire, largely because values and names are ascriptive and pejorative. We functionally liken others or ourselves in context to our esteem or disgust.

 

[Zarathustra_the]

Oh, you're one of those memesters. Well, you won't be listening to the evidence, and I've already read it, so I'll agree that there's no point continuing this conversation.



For any onlookers who wish to investigate for themselves, the 25-Point Programme (the NSDAP's manifesto) would be a good starting point, followed by the role of anti-Junker and anti-banking propaganda and so on.

The issue with that is the transformation within NSDAP ideology that takes place in 1933. Essentially, the NSDAP represents a left right split within it's self, the Strasser elements for instance being notably anti-middle class, while the Hilterist elements were seeking the Junkers money. The internal war with the Strasser brothers actually represents the beginning of Goebbels rise to power, specifically as Gauleiter of Berlin in the late 20s early 30s.

 

[eliphas8]

I would personally prefer more distinct communist and fascist routes for independent India, because all of the other major commonwealth territories seem to get something along those lines, and it seems like there's plenty of options open in Indian history to work it out. But overall I like where this is going and the idea of managing the risk of famine is a good idea that I think could be applied elsewhere in the world as well.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

I would personally prefer more distinct communist and fascist routes for independent India, because all of the other major commonwealth territories seem to get something along those lines, and it seems like there's plenty of options open in Indian history to work it out. But overall I like where this is going and the idea of managing the risk of famine is a good idea that I think could be applied elsewhere in the world as well.

However it is very difficult to truly successfully represent Fascist India without it being Falangist India. I mean, yeah, Falangism is strictly unique to Catholic countries, but considering Falangism is more based on religion and regional ethnicity rather than specific ethnicity or race, it fits the bill for India far-right movements. India's far-right is predominantly pro-Hindu rather than pro-Indian or pro-Aryan/Dravidian or something because of how ethnically and racially diverse India is. They are so diverse, yet there is a concept of a united Bharat due to the legacy of the Mauryan Empire, so the only uniting characteristic that a right-wing Indian could make use of is religion: Hinduism. Indian Muslims have their own far-right movements but they are so limited (for the time period) due to their minority status, and Pakistan can have their own parties.

Communism got a bit more success in India since India became socialist after independence.

The problem with India compared to other commonwealth nations was that the rest of the commonwealth were already Western and sovereign nations. They had their identities, their interests, and have political movements that reflect the general will of the majority population (or at least as claimed by political champions). India, however, was just starting to see the light of day of independence. It was the first time the concept of an Indian nation existed (plenty of Indian Empires existed, never an Indian Nation though), and all around them they saw political ideologies tried and failed. Australia and South Africa have historical extremist movements to back up their national focus trees, while India requires some real fantasy, or using extremely fringe extremist groups that were so small they could be considered "cults". Collaboration, however, is completely historically backed. India knew it was going to be a democracy from the start because the idea was that equal representation would alleviate problems that happened in China.

 

[Mic0603]

It was part of the British Raj.

It Separation from British India in 1937 so that i think it should be event to seperate British Burma