HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)

[pheonicia]

Pretty much this. In order to go fascist, you need to elect a ‘strict constitutionalist’ Republican. In order to desegregate, you need to keep the Democrats in power (or go commie), despite the fact that that makes no sense for the time period.

Actually that second one isn't quite right since you can also do it if Truman is in power unless I misremember.

Edit: though on further reflection I actually don't know if truman is still available later on if you don't reelect fdr.

 

[redcoat22]

mmmm how so?

Pretty much answered above, but indeed the US alt-history branches are borderline insulting with finding a "fascist" line to constitutionalist right. In reality fascist and communist branches are both "statist" and the statist side of American politics is/was on the left. Frankly a Republican alt-history would look more like isolationism and profiting off the war.

They took some really bad modern day propaganda and wrongly attributed it to the Republicans and Democrats.

 

[DukofDeth]

There was a significant switch in their policies in the 1950's, wasn't there? I recall reading how a lot of long-time Democrat voters switched to the Republicans in the 1950's or 1960's because of some change in what the two parties were respectively preaching. As I recall, it almost seemed as if the swapped roles, hence, also voters.

 

[Sultan Suleiman]

I don't think the US focus tree is playing with modern stereotypes.

It's simply acknowledging that the left and right wings in a democratic system are going to flirt with their more extremist counterparts. American leftists stand for socialized public programs, secularized society, and a more interventionist economy--so do, incidentally, most communists. The American right wing emphasizes traditional religious values, nationalism, military service, and an assertive foreign policy--so too, again, do most fascists. The difference is that neither side has yet taken the final step of dismantling the democratic system and introducing authoritarianism, something which both the left and right wings have been historically capable of, internationally.

I know the treatment of the Confederacy is a bee in many a southerner's bonnet, but one has to remember that the in-game Confederacy is not the Confederacy of the Civil War. It's a fictional depiction of how American fascists might attempt to win over the south, an area that would naturally be suspicious of a big, powerful government.

It seems like most of the Americans that get offended by the US national focus tree are Republicans, and I'm not sure why. As a leftist, I don't see myself as a supporter of Stalin or an opponent to democracy, yet, if I interpreted the focus tree the way others do, I ought to feel insulted by the way the Democratic Party ties into communism. I don't, however, because I understand myself well enough, and also recognize that if a left-wing, authoritarian coup did seize power, it would indeed be perpetrated by the left. Same with the right.

Also, trying to claim that fascism is a leftist ideology is a tactic of the American far right and does not hold up to scrutiny--it is frequently peddled by YouTube ads, though.

 

[Sultan Suleiman]

There was a significant switch in their policies in the 1950's, wasn't there? I recall reading how a lot of long-time Democrat voters switched to the Republicans in the 1950's or 1960's because of some change in what the two parties were respectively preaching. As I recall, it almost seemed as if the swapped roles, hence, also voters.

It's true--after the war, Republicans began to increasingly court the religious far right and the deep south, both of whom had typically felt left out of American politics (the south, being agrarian for so long, had traditionally been Democrat--however, many southern voters felt alienated by Democratic presidents like JFK, a Catholic supporter of the Civil Rights movement, among other things).

This had a profound effect on the Republican platform, which had been more or less economic in nature. To this day, the Republican Party now represents conservative social beliefs in addition to a commitment to laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[DominusNovus]

Actually that second one isn't quite right since you can also do it if Truman is in power unless I misremember.

Truman was a Democrat.

Pretty much answered above, but indeed the US alt-history branches are borderline insulting with finding a "fascist" line to constitutionalist right. In reality fascist and communist branches are both "statist" and the statist side of American politics is/was on the left. Frankly a Republican alt-history would look more like isolationism and profiting off the war.

They took some really bad modern day propaganda and wrongly attributed it to the Republicans and Democrats.

Exactly. You go on comment sections on the internet these days, and the mudslinging generally reduces to "Democrats are commies and Republicans are nazis." Paradox decided to run with that.

There was a significant switch in their policies in the 1950's, wasn't there? I recall reading how a lot of long-time Democrat voters switched to the Republicans in the 1950's or 1960's because of some change in what the two parties were respectively preaching. As I recall, it almost seemed as if the swapped roles, hence, also voters.

Close, but the actual story is a bit more nuanced. The more accurate (but still short) version is that as the economy in the southern states boomed after the war (in no small part due to air conditioning and their weaker tradition of strong unions), their populations grew accordingly, and much of that population growth was from areas that were more traditionally Republican. Most of the actual voters kept voting as they had been, they were just in different states. Which is why, until 2010, there were still offices in reliably red states that hadn't elected a Republican since Reconstruction.

Admittedly, that is a very brief overview, but its a good primer.

I don't think the US focus tree is playing with modern stereotypes.

It's simply acknowledging that the left and right wings in a democratic system are going to flirt with their more extremist counterparts. American leftists stand for socialized public programs, secularized society, and a more interventionist economy--so do, incidentally, most communists. The American right-wing emphasizes traditional religious values, nationalism, military service, and an assertive foreign policy--so too, again, do most fascists. The difference is that neither side has yet taken the final step of dismantling the democratic system and introducing authoritarianism, something which both the left and right wings have been historically capable of, internationally.

I know the treatment of the Confederacy is a bee in many a southerner's bonnet, but one has to remember that the in-game Confederacy is not the Confederacy of the Civil War. It's a fictional depiction of how American fascists might attempt to win over the south, an area that would naturally be suspicious of a big, powerful government.

It seems like most of the Americans that get offended by the US national focus tree are Republicans, and I'm not sure why. As a leftist, I don't see myself as a supporter of Stalin or an opponent to democracy, yet, if I interpreted the focus tree the way others do, I ought to feel insulted by the way the Democratic Party ties into communism. I don't, however, because I understand myself well enough, and also recognize that if a left-wing, authoritarian coup did seize power, it would indeed be perpetrated by the left. Same with the right.

Also, trying to claim that fascism is a leftist ideology is a tactic of the American far right and does not hold up to scrutiny--it is frequently peddled by YouTube ads, though.

But there was nothing about Conservatism or Republicanism in the 1930s that flirted with fascism at all. As has been said, the more likely result would be an isolationist US - which admittedly would be less fun to play (only thing I can think of is make it more economically powerful, in exchange for being bound by waiting for foreigners to attack you). But even while you're dismissing the criticism that its not playing to modern stereotypes, you cite it in your argument.

EDIT: What the trees should have been, in my opinion (to build off what was suggested a few posts back):

Two choices, broadly corresponding to the Democrats and the GOP, on how to deal with the Great Depression. The GOP approach would be more hands off, and then the Democrat approach would be more activist. Either way, have a completely viable Democratic path for both parties. Have fascism and communism gated behind the conditions of the Great Depression, if it gets bad enough. That way, either party can lead down that road. Provide an opportunity for either party to screw up managing the Depression enough that actual totalitarians (of your preferred stripe) get into power. It could even be more likely for the GOP which could be seen as 'do nothing' in the crisis.

 

[LiberiusX]

Yep...but as it stands, the current tree is remarkably shallow, especially when you compare it to the Dutch and Mexican trees.

 

[Sultan Suleiman]

"But there was nothing about Conservatism or Republicanism in the 1930s that flirted with fascism at all. As has been said, the more likely result would be an isolationist US - which admittedly would be less fun to play (only thing I can think of is make it more economically powerful, in exchange for being bound by waiting for foreigners to attack you). But even while you're dismissing the criticism that its not playing to modern stereotypes, you cite it in your argument."

Well, yes, and the Democratic Party wasn't about to jump into bed with the Soviet Union, either.

If we're holding strictly to history, there's obviously no way that the US was going to transition either to communism or fascism in the timespan of the game, so some fictionalizing was required to allow the player to experiment with those branches. In that respect, I think emphasizing, and exaggerating, the "classically" left- and right-wing tenets of each party (which are not "modern" and had been established well before the setting of the game) worked fine.

To debate this further, we'd really need to define what American fascism and communism would look like. I don't think they would resemble Germany's or Russia's, but it wouldn't make them any less fascistic or communist. I think if we did that, we may very well find more theoretical links to extremist ideologies buried in 1930's America.

But...that's more typing and research than I'm really ready to commit to right now.

EDIT: "Either way, have a completely viable Democratic path for both parties."

Isn't that what we have already, though? We can criticize the bonuses, etc., from a gameplay perspective, but it's perfectly reasonable to remain democratic while playing as the Republicans, and the "space" between democracy and totalitarianism on the tree is the same for both the Democrats and the GOP...

If you blocked the rise of American fascists/communists behind failing to deal with the Depression, I don't think most skilled players would ever get to see it, even though it is perhaps more logical from an historical perspective.

 

[Iskulya]

The leanings were in some ways the opposite.

The Republicans only veered to the right with Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. In some ways, even Herbert Hoover continued the Progressive Republican legacy and intervened extensively in the government. IN fact the social-security program he intended to implement in his second term was even more thorough than the one FDR ended up passing, and FDR campaigned against Hoover from the right, claiming that Hoover was driving up the deficit too much. Meanwhile, the most hardcore racists were in the Democratic Party, which was the party of the south.

BUT, an important caveat here is that we can't generalize too much because the parties in those days were more regional coalitions whose politics could differ considerably from area to area. New York and California democrats were VERY different from Texas and Alabama democrats for instance. It was only with the course of the New Deal that the parties began crystalizing in their present form.

It is indeed weird that Alf Landon is tied to fascism in the game. Hoover republicans hated and despised Landon because they felt he was a quasi-socialist and mostly supported the New Deal. Also doubly weird that HUAC and the Red Scare stuff show up in the Republican branch when HUAC and the hysteria over communism was started by right-wing Democrats in attempt to FDR's own 'great purge' of sponsoring challengers to conservative Democrats.

I've said it before in this forum, but i definitely think they made a mistake in not having the point of divergence be the 1937 economic crash, FDR's court packing scheme, the potential of the New Deal being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All those things going the wrong way could have resulted in a lot of chaos, maybe even FDR's assassination. There wasn't really anyone to replace FDR among the Democrats and Vice President Garner was a pretty strong conservative.

I'm a little disappointed that Harold Ickes was never a potential candidate in the right combination of election results. Ickes was a lifelong Republican who was heavily involved with the Progressive Republican campaign and the Bull Moose campaign, and the head of the NAACP in Chicago for a while. When FDR became President he invited Ickes to the cabinet. Even though he was up to that point a lifelong Republican, it was the Democrats moving to the new deal who had moved to his politics rather than him shifting his politics towards theirs. He was a much stronger progressive than FDR and was basically in the same tradition as Robert La Follette. He is in the game as the democracy advisor for the US, but it would have been nice to see US politics expanded a bit more.

 

[pheonicia]

Truman was a Democrat.

And? Executive order 9981 which desegregated the military was signed by Truman. It's perfectly historical, and even the most basic google search like I did could tell you that. While a lot of the work had to be done was under Eisenhower, he was sympathetic to the democrats and has been recorded as being happy FDR won in 32. It makes perfect sense for desegregation to be where it is currently.

 

[justtxyank]

EH...

The switch in parties was largely over race. The Republican party (historically the party of Lincoln) was struggling in national politics. Jim Crow was being attacked in the South and the Civil Rights movement was getting underway. The Republican party decided to court the racism vote by stirring up white resentment as a way to realign votes. Nixon team was very open about the strategy, publicly discussing using increasing black turnout to get Southern whites to leave the Democratic party.

 

[Iskulya]

EH...

The switch in parties was largely over race. The Republican party (historically the party of Lincoln) was struggling in national politics. Jim Crow was being attacked in the South and the Civil Rights movement was getting underway. The Republican party decided to court the racism vote by stirring up white resentment as a way to realign votes. Nixon team was very open about the strategy, publicly discussing using increasing black turnout to get Southern whites to leave the Democratic party.

It's really not that simple.

Racist Democrats continued being a thing long after the New Deal, the party logo of the Alabama Democratic Logo included a banner reading "White Supremacy" into the 1960's. Not even joking here. Although they've since moved away from the racism/segregation aspect, the archetype of the conservative Southern Democrat is actually still alive and well. They're called "Blue Dog" Democrats.

The repolarization was not primarily about race, it was, again, about the New Deal. As I already mentioned the remnants of the Progressive Republicans(as in, quite literally the veterans of the party that called itself the Progressive Party, founded by Republicans to support Teddy Roosevelt's presidential campaign) that still were clinging to their politics all defected to the Democrats with the New Deal. As part of this influence from the old Progressives, there was a push more towards racial equality(Harold Ickes was very supportive in this regard).

Also I think you are giving African-Americans way too little credit. Far from the New Deal Democrats seeking to actively get their support, it is the African-Americans themselves who demanded to be heard and represented even though it was FDR himself who wanted to put their demands under the table.

 

[LiberiusX]

EH...

The switch in parties was largely over race. The Republican party (historically the party of Lincoln) was struggling in national politics. Jim Crow was being attacked in the South and the Civil Rights movement was getting underway. The Republican party decided to court the racism vote by stirring up white resentment as a way to realign votes. Nixon team was very open about the strategy, publicly discussing using increasing black turnout to get Southern whites to leave the Democratic party.

Yet Nixon ramrodded integration in vast numbers of Southern school districts that were dragging their feet after Brown v. Board of Education? I bet that made him real popular with the racist vote.

Edit:

“In the fall of 1968, 68 percent of black children in the South were attending all-black schools. By 1974, that number had fallen to 8 percent. This extraordinary accomplishment was achieved through the shrewd political skills and raw courage of President Nixon, Secretary of Labor George Schultz, and Attorney General John Mitchell.”

Damn I bet that quote is going to make some people’s blood boil.

 

[DominusNovus]

"But there was nothing about Conservatism or Republicanism in the 1930s that flirted with fascism at all. As has been said, the more likely result would be an isolationist US - which admittedly would be less fun to play (only thing I can think of is make it more economically powerful, in exchange for being bound by waiting for foreigners to attack you). But even while you're dismissing the criticism that its not playing to modern stereotypes, you cite it in your argument."

Well, yes, and the Democratic Party wasn't about to jump into bed with the Soviet Union, either.

If we're holding strictly to history, there's obviously no way that the US was going to transition either to communism or fascism in the timespan of the game, so some fictionalizing was required to allow the player to experiment with those branches. In that respect, I think emphasizing, and exaggerating, the "classically" left- and right-wing tenets of each party (which are not "modern" and had been established well before the setting of the game) worked fine.

To debate this further, we'd really need to define what American fascism and communism would look like. I don't think they would resemble Germany's or Russia's, but it wouldn't make them any less fascistic or communist. I think if we did that, we may very well find more theoretical links to extremist ideologies buried in 1930's America.

But...that's more typing and research than I'm really ready to commit to right now.

I agree that the Democrats weren't about to jump into bed with the communists, either. Thats kind of my point. However, the parties back in the 1930s were very different than they are today, even if they both had wings that are recognizable as the forerunners to the core of each party today.

EDIT: "Either way, have a completely viable Democratic path for both parties."

Isn't that what we have already, though? We can criticize the bonuses, etc., from a gameplay perspective, but it's perfectly reasonable to remain democratic while playing as the Republicans, and the "space" between democracy and totalitarianism on the tree is the same for both the Democrats and the GOP...

If you blocked the rise of American fascists/communists behind failing to deal with the Depression, I don't think most skilled players would ever get to see it, even though it is perhaps more logical from an historical perspective.

Skilled players that want to go commie or fascist would see it. Really, its just a 'this is the cost you have to pay in order to go communist or fascist.' Germany has to fight a civil war if it wants to boot out Hitler, Japan has to fight one to go communist, etc. Rather than a civil war, you have to tank your country for a requisite period of time.

EH...

The switch in parties was largely over race. The Republican party (historically the party of Lincoln) was struggling in national politics. Jim Crow was being attacked in the South and the Civil Rights movement was getting underway. The Republican party decided to court the racism vote by stirring up white resentment as a way to realign votes. Nixon team was very open about the strategy, publicly discussing using increasing black turnout to get Southern whites to leave the Democratic party.

No, it really wasn't. Nixon wanted more voters, sure. But it was his party that carried the Civil Rights Acts, he was VP under Eisenhower who used the national guard to protect Brown v Board of Education, he advocated for MLK in the Eisenhower administration, etc. and so on. Thats a pretty good trick to convince the segregationists that you're their friend right after handing them a bunch of defeats. The GOP was struggling in Congress, yes, but it had been for decades and continued to do so until the 90s. Further, the GOP had been doing just fine on the Presidential level since WW2. 2 terms of Ike, 2 terms of Kennedy/Johnson, then two terms of Nixon/Ford.

Nixon could have won '68 without a single elector from the South, since the rest of the South got split between Humphrey and Wallace. He did not need the South, but nor did he want to just let the Democrats hold onto the famously solid belt of electors down there. The '68 Nixon coalition was upper and middle income urban voters (he took 63 and 44%, respectively), and non-southern rural voters (he won rural voters nationally, but lost the rural south).

 

[Stronghold]

can you discuss the american tree in another thread?

 

[justtxyank]

I agree that the Democrats weren't about to jump into bed with the communists, either. Thats kind of my point. However, the parties back in the 1930s were very different than they are today, even if they both had wings that are recognizable as the forerunners to the core of each party today.



Skilled players that want to go commie or fascist would see it. Really, its just a 'this is the cost you have to pay in order to go communist or fascist.' Germany has to fight a civil war if it wants to boot out Hitler, Japan has to fight one to go communist, etc. Rather than a civil war, you have to tank your country for a requisite period of time.



No, it really wasn't. Nixon wanted more voters, sure. But it was his party that carried the Civil Rights Acts, he was VP under Eisenhower who used the national guard to protect Brown v Board of Education, he advocated for MLK in the Eisenhower administration, etc. and so on. Thats a pretty good trick to convince the segregationists that you're their friend right after handing them a bunch of defeats. The GOP was struggling in Congress, yes, but it had been for decades and continued to do so until the 90s. Further, the GOP had been doing just fine on the Presidential level since WW2. 2 terms of Ike, 2 terms of Kennedy/Johnson, then two terms of Nixon/Ford.

Nixon could have won '68 without a single elector from the South, since the rest of the South got split between Humphrey and Wallace. He did not need the South, but nor did he want to just let the Democrats hold onto the famously solid belt of electors down there. The '68 Nixon coalition was upper and middle income urban voters (he took 63 and 44%, respectively), and non-southern rural voters (he won rural voters nationally, but lost the rural south).

the Southern Strategy isn’t some theory, it was specifically planned and was verbalized by people who worked for Nixon.

 

[Had a dad]

as far as I can tell, there wasn't a twitter tease about the American NF in quite some time, so that would be off topic to this thread. If you wish to discuss american politics of the late 50's through the 60's you can always visit the History forum. aka back on topic.

 

[SanguiniusStyle]

I am hyped to see espionage... (This week?)

Btw...

Kaiserreich guys can make a really wonder now with new mechanics.

 

[Iskulya]

I am hyped to see espionage... (This week?)

Btw...

Kaiserreich guys can make a really wonder now with new mechanics.

I'm afraid that's just not going to happen. Kaiserreich is militantly anti-DLC, I partially suspect this is because such a large portion of its fanbase are young students with no independent incomes.

DLC mechanics are made compatible with Kaiserreich, but they have a policy of not building the mod around paid DLC features, sorry.

We can expect to see new content integrated with resistance and compliance, which is a free feature of 1.8, but not espionage.

 

[piki]

I'm afraid that's just not going to happen. Kaiserreich is militantly anti-DLC, I partially suspect this is because such a large portion of its fanbase are young students with no independent incomes.

DLC mechanics are made compatible with Kaiserreich, but they have a policy of not building the mod around paid DLC features, sorry.

We can expect to see new content integrated with resistance and compliance, which is a free feature of 1.8, but not espionage.

Perhaps its truth bur nevertheless,if you have DLC they have no problem with intergrating it.E.g ship designer if you own DLC