I hate how much reactionaryism is in this game

[balmung60]

And you mentioned France, and said god forbid France live in this century...
Has anything you have ever seen in French modern History, told you that idologically they live in this century... they still claim the power and prestige of Napoleon the First as it is, even though they haven't won a war against a Power since Napoleon. (and in some cases against minors)

Wait until you see Germany's war record since unification then. France has won wars since Napoleon. Italy has won wars since unification. Unless you count putting down colonial uprisings as wars, a unified Germany has never won a single war (and they sat out the biggest colonial uprising they could have helped put down because the kaiser was an indecisive boob). If winning wars is your metric for national power and prestige, Germans should be clambering for the dissolution of Germany.

As for modern power and prestige, France has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, is one of only two countries to ever build a nuclear-powered carrier, and has remained one of an increasingly small number of countries capable of independent development of tanks and military aircraft.

Kaiser: After being Tossed out because his generals took over and screwed the country then blamed him.

The generals didn't make Germany lose WWI by tossing the kaiser, Germany was on its way to defeat before that. Germany and the Central Powers were always going to overtax their manpower and industry before the Entente. And the Kaiser was a major contributor to that by trashing Germany's alliances. Indeed, they did such a good job of covering up how thoroughly boned Germany really was that they were able to peace out before Entente troops set foot in Germany by making it look like they could still drag the war out for years to come, when the German army was basically tapped out and no longer in a position to continue to offer serious resistance. This likely helped spare Germany the complete humiliation of being forced to sign a peace treaty like Brest-Litovsk, Trianon, Sevres, or Saint-Germain-en-Laye, which completely dismembered Russia, Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Austria-Hungary (though the Russians and Turks pretty quickly disregarded their respective treaties). And there absolutely were elements of the Entente that wanted to completely dissolve Germany like they did to the other Central Powers (and like Germany did to Russia), but they were convinced in part by Germany's overplaying of how much they could still fight to impose a milder treaty sooner.

The generals blamed a lot of people who weren't responsible, but the kaiser wasn't one of the parties they misblamed. He weakened Germany's political position before the war and helped get them into the mess in the first place.

 

[Vlad123]

Since you mentioned Devil's advocacy, I am going to assume that you don't really fully believe in what you are saying, and are instead exemplifying how the narrative could be spinned among the population to create an idealised view of the past and a longing for the restoration of monarchy.
However, I can't help but giving some nuance to these claims, just in case someone takes them seriously.
France and Germany were already addressed before so let me adress the rest.


Since this is an argument for getting back the Tzar in the late 30's it is anachronistic to use the current legacy of the USSR as point of reference.
The majority of people of the USSR in the late 1930's had grown up in a feudal, brutally repressive backwards society, that was Imperial Russia in the early 1900's.
Their earliest memories were of living grueling poverty, while the Russian Artistocracy lived in abundant oppulence, as well as being pathetically humiliated by Japan in the Russo-Nipponic war and Germany in ww1

I want to remember, however, that the USSR was certainly not a "paradise" with the same toughness (as a dictatorship) in Nazi Germany, it was much better. But this is because Hitler had excellent ministers at his side (see Shact, named in the MEFO bills, which from 34/35 until they were used, until 38/39 transformed Germany from a "third world" country to a "super power" The USSR, on the other hand, survived only because: A second and third front opened, the American LL and the continuous bombing of the Anglo-Americans on German industries.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

I want to remember, however, that the USSR was certainly not a "paradise" with the same toughness (as a dictatorship) in Nazi Germany, it was much better. But this is because Hitler had excellent ministers at his side (see Shact, named in the MEFO bills, which from 34/35 until they were used, until 38/39 transformed Germany from a "third world" country to a "super power" The USSR, on the other hand, survived only because: A second and third front opened, the American LL and the continuous bombing of the Anglo-Americans on German industries.

Goddamn it, i accidentally pressed "Post reply" too early and immediately deleted the comment to start over, and yet, somehow, you pressed reply before i could react.

 

[celethiel]

Since you mentioned Devil's advocacy,

I actually do believe they should have or keep paths for returns of monarchies, under certain conditions. And I actually enjoy Monarchist paths, they had a third option other becoming Communist, Fascist, or a Democracy.
I actually don't nessarilly like the monarchist Path for England Simply because of the whole thing where If the government Complety went: "yeah we don't like the King" and left, leaving civil services and other things the affect the population of the country, which would either Cause open rebellion or cause them to support the King, or Both... As for the Dominions Leaving during that path... maybe some of them... but How does the British Raj leave, it's not like the Indians were exactly willing participants in the British Empire to begin with. There is also the Fact that South Africa has a tree to make Edward their leader if he's exiled... so why would they leave if he's leader...
Not to mention why would there be a Black Imperialist uprising in South Africa, Blacks were oppressed in South Africa, and i can't imagine a Black leader saying in South Africa, yeah, the government stinks we were better under back in the days our oppresive Overlord's overlord ruled more directly. I also feel like the names need to be fixed since it says "The Emu Empire Declares on Australia" (also would have loved to see an Emu Ruling said Emu Empire, that'd be hillarious) then when you look at the country it says "Imperialist Australia"

As for Hungary, I like it for the Fact it gives you a path to the Austria-Hungarian Reunification... Although it feels like it'd be better suited to Austria (which if they just made Conditions to the Ansluss (like Austria has to be such and such (ruled by this guy, or have this guy assassinated), they'd make Austria and the Game better.)
I play the Hungarian path to Austria-Hungary Frequently.

For France, France has had so many revolutions and monarchist overthows it's not funny, it was less than a hundred years since the last Napoleon was rulling (Vastly unpopular i'd imagine, by the time he was overthown during the Franco-Prussian Rule. (i've not played France since my several dozen failed attempts to take over Germany and forge the Little Entente.)

I like the German return Path, and play it frequently. The things i'd change about Germany would have little to do with the Return of Monarchists. (as I recall there WERE people in Germany who wanted to break up Germany. )

Spain actually had a significant Monarchy revivalist group in the 1930s as i recall, one reason Franco did what he did. I also haven't played Spain at all, wasn't going to until they got their own tree, and just having since they got it either.

I believe that several conditions would have to happen to put Tsars back into Russia in the game, Stalin being overthrown, and Communism being overthrown, and then deciding on a course of action.

China's Monarchist path is the Fascist path, and is that way for at least one reason, probably several. The First being that the Emperor is little more then a puppet propped up by the Japanese to legitimize their Rule over the Manchurians. Another is the Emperor of China, Puyi and his dynasty are Manchurian, not Han Chinese. There is a reason that Emperor Puyi has to find a way to prove his legitimacy before becoming the Son of Heaven once more. I only wish that his path gave cores on historic Manchurian territories in Russia for instance, and several of his government peoples were in their actual places.

Never actually played Portugal, or especially wanted to However i still enjoy the idea of restoring the Monarchy.

Greece already was in a state of civil Flux between the Monarchists and the Democrats at game start
Turkey welcoming back the Sultan has a wiggly way of going about it which in a way makes sense.

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

That is pretty wrong. Russia stopped being feudal after 1860s. It was highly unequal and repressive regime, however it had huge industry, science and modern stuff. It`s like saying modern China is a feudal backwater because it still has ~600millions of peasants, or US in 1910s was rural backwater, because it didn`t reach even 50% urbanization.

This is simply not true.
Although Russia did experience a slight growth in the 1860, but it has been pretty stagnant ever since the 1870's , and honestly thats the furtherst back the living memory of the politically active population in 1936 can realistically go.
But after the war was over and Lenin began implementic new economic policies, the GDP of the USSR spiked unprecedentely and consistently untill 1936.
By 1900, Russia had a GDP per capita on pair with the balkans and inferior to southern Europe.
By 1939 the USSR had a GDP per capita superior to anyone in eastern or southern Europe.
It is undeniable that Russia's economic situation vastly improved.

Russia lost wars quite often. Czars regime had it`s highs and lows, good and bad monarchs so that point is quite irrelevant argument.

Its not irrelevant, because of the timing.
For the politically active people of 1939, their youth was defined by two pointless and humiliating wars. The timing is very important in this context.

There were plenty of protests and uprisings in 1920s and 1930s (and 40s and 50s actually) in SU(they just aren`t known), and poverty was much worse, because unlike during Czars regime, that had seen around 100 years of no major fighting on Russian territory (Crimea excluded), USSR had seen most of it`s country devastated by WW1 and civil war, and a almost a decade of simply not having money to invest into infrastructure.

So, technically life was better under Czar. Simply because a 7-10 years of war were mindbogglingly devastating. That was the reason NKVD was having it`s brutal reign. Soviet living conditions only seriously improved in late 50s, which, unsurprisingly was the time Soviet eased off repressions.

The civil war led to great poverty, hunger and instability of course, but it's different, because its the context of a civil war to ovethrow a regime, people knew a few eggs had to be broken, the devasation caused by the civil war doesn't change the population's view of the new regime. If anything it makes them even favour the new regime more, since the Whites had foreign support, so they were essentially the foreign and opressive agressor, and cause of this devastation. I don't have hard data on the "living conditions" but considering the economic situation improved so vastly one would assume they would have improved slighty (expecially for the working class peasantry, not so much for for the landowners and merchants).

I mean, I shouldn't even bother trying to argue why the general population would be favourable to the revolution, because we KNOW they were. That's why the revolution won in the first place, the revolution would have never been sucesfull if not for the support of the majority of the Russian people.
And when you fight through a civil war for an ideology... there is no turning back, at that point you are way too deep into the rabbithole. Even if you get eventually disalusioned with the course of the revolution, you simply don't turn your back on it and fight to get back to the time before the revolution.
For the USSR to colapse, it would take the newer, post-revolutionary generations to bein control (which was essentially what happened in our timeline)

Holomodor was a lot more widespread than just Ukraine (Russians just don`t want to recognise/discuss it, like many of their government brutalities in 20s century) , but yes, minorities in Russia were interested in independence first, then some form of republic/dictatorship, maybe constitutional monarchy.

You people need to decide if the Holomodor was targeted ethnocide against Ukraineans or a natural disaster. Can't have it both ways.
Regardless, you agree that they wouldn't be supportive of the return of the Russian Tzar.

Well, that sorta answers your question itself, does it not? Stalin must be killed, and Communist party have a war over succession. Then, limited monarchy may be on the table.

How would an early death of Stalin and a crisis of sucession within the communist party somehow pave a way back to absolute monarchy? I don't see the leap you are making.

 

[mursolini]

View attachment 657069
This is simply not true.
Although Russia did experience a slight growth in the 1860, but it has been pretty stagnant ever since the 1870's , and honestly thats the furtherst back the living memory of the politically active population in 1936 can realistically go.
But after the war was over and Lenin began implementic new economic policies, the GDP of the USSR spiked unprecedentely and consistently untill 1936.
By 1900, Russia had a GDP per capita on pair with the balkans and inferior to southern Europe.
By 1939 the USSR had a GDP per capita superior to anyone in eastern or southern Europe.
It is undeniable that Russia's economic situation vastly improved.

Russia expirienced doubling of GDP/capita in 1860-1910. Ironically, German did as well.

Imperial Russia GDP/c in 1910: 287 USD, SU 1925: 232, in 1938:458. So it depends on how you view situation. Russian expirienced rapid recovery and fairly average growth.
Germany, for example went from 740 to 1126, and you should account for low base effect as well.

Yes Soviet Russia was better off, but it posted relatively similar growth rates to other countries.

So, the story is more or less : don't compare 19 and 20 century growth, they are different.

Its not irrelevant, because of the timing.
For the politically active people of 1939, their youth was defined by two pointless and humiliating wars. The timing is very important in this context.

You mean Soviet-Polish war was not very humiliating? I'd say there was nothing truly humiliating about losing WW1, and the latter was actually more humiliating, because japanese war was waged somewhere far, and didn't result in loses of territory Russians consider their core land.

If humiliating wars would be issue, Soviets wouldn't make it to 1925.

The civil war led to great poverty, hunger and instability of course, but it's different, because its the context of a civil war to ovethrow a regime, people knew a few eggs had to be broken, the devasation caused by the civil war doesn't change the population's view of the new regime. If anything it makes them even favour the new regime more, since the Whites had foreign support, so they were essentially the foreign and opressive agressor, and cause of this devastation. I don't have hard data on the "living conditions" but considering the economic situation improved so vastly one would assume they would have improved slighty (expecially for the working class peasantry, not so much for for the landowners and merchants).

Whites were remnants of the government Reds overthrew. Foreign support hardly was an issue, because troop involvement was pretty minimal.

I mean, I shouldn't even bother trying to argue why the general population would be favourable to the revolution, because we KNOW they were. That's why the revolution won in the first place, the revolution would have never been sucesfull if not for the support of the majority of the Russian people.
And when you fight through a civil war for an ideology... there is no turning back, at that point you are way too deep into the rabbithole. Even if you get eventually disalusioned with the course of the revolution, you simply don't turn your back on it and fight to get back to the time before the revolution.
For the USSR to colapse, it would take the newer, post-revolutionary generations to bein control (which was essentially what happened in our timeline)

What you say is simply wrong. Bolsheviks lost the only election held, by a wide margin to SR, hence the reason for revolution, Bolsheviks simply didn't have popular support. Also that was the reason why "democratic" on paper Soviets never had free elections.

Civil War was won because Soviets had control over most railroads and industry. They didn't have much support outside industrial centers, and spent years conquering the land.

They did get popular support later, once party dors got open to new recruits.

You people need to decide if the Holomodor was targeted ethnocide against Ukraineans or a natural disaster. Can't have it both ways.

I'm curious whom are "my" people. It pretty clearly was not a natural disaster, otherwise Soviets would stup their grain export and go around the world, frantically buiying up any surplus food. And wouldn't need to hide the situation. So it was either a case of "the needs of the many (Soviet dream prestige and foreign currency for industrialization) outweigh the needs of the few (peasants dying from hunger") or a targeted etnocide. Considering 1945 treatment of Tatars and Caucasians, and later Chernobyl, Soviet government didn't have issues with both variants.

Regardless, you agree that they wouldn't be supportive of the return of the Russian Tzar.

Obviously they wouldn't be. "Mismanagement" of food supply seems to be a very strong Russian tradition. From Czar, to Stalin, to Khrushchev (failed corn planting campaign) to Brezhnev & Gorbachev (deficit). Of almost right of passage sort.

How would an early death of Stalin and a crisis of sucession within the communist party somehow pave a way back to absolute monarchy? I don't see the leap you are making.

Stalin dead -> new communist leadership starts a civil war, because second part of said leadership doesn't want to be on the receiving side of a purge -> that later part wins due to compromise with people less supportive of communist regime -> elections -> democratic constitutional monarchy/republic -> military coup-> Czar. Alternatively: republic-president for life - crowned as new Czar, Putin Napoleon III style.

Yes, obviously huge leap. But that is the sort of issue with Russia, it lacks democratic tradition and "democrats" tend to still be a substantial minority, but never able to form republican majority. Hence constitutional puppet monarch that eventually surpasses senate in influence, or dictator crowning himself for extra legitimacy.

Anyhow, alternative Russia is sort of fantasy, considering how many NKVD managed to either imprison or kill. And unless Soviets create some sort of apocalyptic like event, they wouldn't be overthrown, Russian government a have a long and effective tradition of governing without much popular support.

 

[Dlin369]

I'd say of the Monarchist alt-history paths (in order of creation)

South Africa getting Edward VIII as King - I don't know how realistic that is given that the Fascists in South Africa are represented by Afrikaners but I think if they rewrote the path as a sort of compromise between British and Afrikaner parts of the South African right I think it's acceptable given how optional the focus is. Maybe an alternative focus to crown a German King.

Romania and Carol I -> Historical, though I feel that Carol's government should basically destablize/collapse if Romania starts losing land

Hungary and Otto -> Probably not completely plausible in 1936, though Karl did attempt to seize power several times prior. I think there should be a path where Otto focuses mainly on Hungary rather than march on Austria as well as some focuses for after Austria-Hungary is reunited.

Yugoslavia - Not really a monarchist path since it's sort of the default.

Manchukuo and Puyi - I think it's done right -> the AI is stuck in the puppet tree while players can try breaking free. I do think there should be the ability to focus on building a Manchu state rather than march on all of China, but for a country like Manchuria I suppose that'd be boring. Manchukuo could use a Kwangtang army tree though for when Japanese fascists get kicked out of Japan via civil war

Japan and Hirohito - Kohoda and Purge Kohoda maybe could see some changes but having an Emperor is historical for Japan.

Germany and Wilhelm - this path I think is justified in-game. There is a big spark - maybe not the most plausible spark but justifiable at least in-game. And there is a good followup on how the military and monarchists consolidate power rather than "poof" Monarchy. I wish France denying Rhineland could also possibly trigger a German coup (with Germany's player deciding to either eat a warsupport hit or try civil warring and the AI only rarely choosing civil war). I also wish the Oster Conspiracy or Kluge coup paths could also lead to a monarchist Germany should they win.

Great Britain and Edward VIII - this tree I think is justified internally, if implausible in real life. Edward doesn't go full on absolutist or anything, it's said through flavor that the parliament is operating as usual just with a party favorable to Edward and the King meddling in the government. Britain allying with Germany I think could use some nerfs though

Netherlands and Wilhelma - I actually don't like that they backtracked and allowed for a non-aligned tree without going into exile. I understand it was for gameplay, but I feel if there was to be a non-aligned tree for when Netherlands doesn't go into exile it should be a separate thing - maybe connected to a non-aligned Germany? So if non-aligned germany wins the trade war with Britain, Netherlands should go down this new path instead with a more authoritarian system of government

France - I think the set up for a French Monarchist takeover is pretty decent, though I do wish France had the ability on whole to jump around to represent the failing coalitions in the 1930s. I think the French far-right should take power if France fails to form a stable governing coalition, but that's hard to code. The main thing I don't like with the French monarchist tree is there isn't much domestic policy focuses for any of the branches -> Napoleon's branch is mostly just conquest and the Legitimist branch doesn't do anything outside of Spain. Only the Orlean branch does anything, though I think they should be able to go Constitutional Monarchy/Democratic (Counteraction) or continue collaborating with Action France

Spain - I think Monarchist branches in Spain are done correctly.

Portugal - I think a lot of the focuses for portugal are too shallow at the moment, but I know Portugal was a late addition. Still, I wish there were some events that buildup to Monarchists taking over Portugal rather than just a slow ticking party support. Also some events for Monarchist policies in Portugal and/or Brazil

 

[Bandua_of_Gallaecia]

Russia expirienced doubling of GDP/capita in 1860-1910. Ironically, German did as well.

Yes Soviet Russia was better off, but it posted relatively similar growth rates to other countries.

So, the story is more or less : don't compare 19 and 20 century growth, they are different.

While it might have doubled in 1860-1910, it increased by 5x between 1920-1940 (which isn't even half the amount of time)
I'm not comparing the entire 19 to 20 centuries, only a human lifspan of perceived history from 1870 to 1940 (70 years).
I know 20th century growth was exponentially larger than the 19th century one, but in the specific period I chose, such difference didn't occur yet, in fact, the west was experiencing a pretty remarkable decline, the USA's GDP in 1937 was already down to 1905's levels.

It's pretty undeniable that the early Soviet Union was economically outperforming both Europe and the U.S.A.

You mean Soviet-Polish war was not very humiliating? I'd say there was nothing truly humiliating about losing WW1, and the latter was actually more humiliating, because japanese war was waged somewhere far, and didn't result in loses of territory Russians consider their core land.

If humiliating wars would be issue, Soviets wouldn't make it to 1925.

The Polish-Soviet war happened during the Russian Civil War, this wasn't a regular war, in fact the Revolutionaries would see it as none other than an opportunistic neighbour taking advantage of their struggle to gain land, basically as just another theatre of the overall Revolution, and despite losing in that front they did manage to win the overall revolution.
And to be fair, the Soviet Union was only even formed in 1922, two years after the Soviet-Polish war.

What you say is simply wrong. Bolsheviks lost the only election held, by a wide margin to SR, hence the reason for revolution, Bolsheviks simply didn't have popular support. Also that was the reason why "democratic" on paper Soviets never had free elections.

They did get popular support later, once party dors got open to new recruits.

Do you think the argument is between Bolsheviks vs The Rest?
The argument here is Absolute Monarchy vs The Rest.

I'm not against alt-history scenarios for the USSR. I am against the Absolute Monarchy scenario in particular (and my beef is not with the USSR in particular, this just happened to be the example to chose to argue, but a general grievance with every country getting an Absolute Monarchy path, which also often times ends up being the most interesting one, regardless of which options they Historically had available to them.)

Anyway back on topic, the Bolsheviks lost to the Revolutionary Socialists, and in third place were the Ukrainian Socialists (which further supports my case that even the minorities opposed to the Russian subjugation were still favourable to the Socialist cause, and simply would like further autonomy or Indepence)
The *constitutional* monarchists only got 4,6% of the vote.

I'm curious whom are "my" people.

I didn't say "Your people", i say "You people" a single letter makes all the difference.
"Your people" would imply you belong to a certain group of people.
"You people" merely means i'm refering to everyone who brings up this subject.
I clearly meant the latter.

Regardless, the point was not the motivations or mechanisms from how it happened, the point is how would the Ukraineans (who were the ones afflicted the most by it) would react to it. And i simply don't see wanting the Tzar back being the answer.

Obviously they wouldn't be. "Mismanagement" of food supply seems to be a very strong Russian tradition.

And you seem to agree actually.

Yes, obviously huge leap. But that is the sort of issue with Russia, it lacks democratic tradition and "democrats" tend to still be a substantial minority, but never able to form republican majority. Hence constitutional puppet monarch that eventually surpasses senate in influence, or dictator crowning himself for extra legitimacy.

Okay so you agree with my core argument, which is that it would be extremely unrealistic for Absolute Monarchy to return.

Look, I said this before, but I'll reeinforce it: My issue is not any particular country's Monarchist path, but the entire Monarchist movement that plagues the entire community.

I'm not against more content, the more options we have, the better of course
But it annoys me to know the Devs really only seem to care about Monarchy at this point.
There are so many ways that history could go, and many realistic ones, and yet they really just slap a Monarchist path and call it a good rework.

There are so many improvements they could do the the entire Ideology system overall, but instead they just overbloat the already most meaningless ideology: Non-aligned.

 

[DestinyCalls]

As a German citizen - who by the way doesn’t care much about PC - with a decent amount of knowledge about the history of the 20th century, playing as Nazi-Germany always creates some sort of bad taste in my mouth - yet playing Germany is fun an playing Germany offensively is even more fun (sorry Chancellor Adenauer) and when you combine these arguments, the result is "Long live the Kaiser!"

i like the democratic path for germany where you get to join with austria and be the good guy just feels so statisfying

 

[Vlad123]

The Holodomor was so devastating that the Ukrainians were among the most collaborationists, when things started going badly for the Germans ... they even shot at former German allies! But In Belarus, Ukrainian, former Baltic republics, I believe many joined the Nazis. In one of the three Baltic countries, there are still today, the parades of veterans of the SS! Because they knew WHAT they were fighting AGAINST. https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/194652/latvian-nazi-ss-veterans-march-in-annual-riga-para/ you just have to google 2 seconds ... Maybe a series of decisions to recruit more Ukrainians ... that is, you have to read the "awkward" documents too

 

[Secret Master]

I should have known that this thread would devolve into a discussion of forbidden topics like genocide and ethnic cleansing. And, yes, the Holodomor falls under this rubric. :sigh:

It is against forum rules to discuss these things. Thread closed.