von Mackensen as coup leader. Opinions?

[aono]

Obvious over Beck?

Yes. If you insist that Paradox devs stealed idea from @Sleight of Hand you can ask him as well.
Thing is, you don't need powerful statesman, great organizer or something like that on such post. You need a man who can soothe country and give power away to Wilhelm (II or III). Von Mackensen is quite better for this matter then Beck.
Beck is better to really rule such a coup, with Canaris and such. But to be public leaderheads? No.

 

[hkrommel]

Yes. If you insist that Paradox devs stealed idea from @Sleight of Hand you can ask him as well.
Thing is, you don't need powerful statesman, great organizer or something like that on such post. You need a man who can soothe country and give power away to Wilhelm (II or III). Von Mackensen is quite better for this matter then Beck.
Beck is better to really rule such a coup, with Canaris and such. But to be public leaderheads? No.

That's not how coups that turn into civil wars work but ok, feel free to think that.

 

[aono]

That's not how coups that turn into civil wars work but ok, feel free to think that.

Please, give me some examples how coups that turn into civil wars work.

 

[hkrommel]

Please, give me some examples how coups that turn into civil wars work.

Spanish Civil War, coup led by Sanjuro's faction was led by Franco after Sanjuro's death, Franco actually led forces and ruled.
Russian Civil War, whites led by Kolchak, Kornilov, Denikin, etc. Far more than figureheads.
Algerian Civil War, Zeroual was the leader there, again not a geriatric figurehead.
Ethiopian Civil War, where Mengitsu was the leader, not a figurehead.
Central African Republic Civil War, Djotodia is the leader there.
If you want to go really far into the past, the First and Second Barons' Wars in England were both led by their instigators and active generals.

I think that about establishes it, though there are more examples readily available. Point being that the leaders of coup factions, even after the coup proper fails (as it must if a civil war results), are not 80-something year old retired generals who are mere figureheads. They're primary instigators, faction insiders, generals, or some combination of those.

 

[XShoukiX]

Actually, I feel like they chose von Mackensen because von Mackensen remained openly a monarchist throughout his entire career. He attended functions in his Imperial WW1 German Uniform and was suspected by officials in The Third Reich of disloyalty. In the 1932 election, von Makcensen supported von Hindenburg against Hitler and he opposed killing Ferdinand von Bredow and Kurt von Schleicher during The Night of the Long Knives. Mackensen remained a committed monarchist and in July 1941 appeared in full imperial uniform at Kaiser Wilhelm's funeral at Doorn, in the Netherlands. von Maceknsen also opposed the massacres and atrocities that were omitted during the invasion of Poland.

There is plenty of evidence that would indicate von Mackensen would have been amicable to a restoration of the monarchy, especially in a game starting in 1936 or 1939. There is enough historical plausibility for von Mackensen to be the leader of a monarchist revolt.

As for the nature of their character, the Oster conspiracy is already in the game as something that can occur. That said, the Oster Conspirators plotted to overthrow Hitler but never actually acted on their ambition because Hitler was given the Sudatenland. Given as there is already an event in the game to have the Oster Conspiracy play out with Hitler being assassinated, it seems redundant to make them the national focus tbh.

 

[aono]

Did you noticed that your examples have a nice common point - military leaders wasn't actually mean to give away power after they won?

 

[hkrommel]

There is plenty of evidence that would indicate von Mackensen would have been amicable to a restoration of the monarchy, especially in a game starting in 1936 or 1939. There is enough historical plausibility for von Mackensen to be the leader of a monarchist revolt.

Being amicable to a cause and being chosen to lead it are two very different things. As previously stated faction leaders in civil wars are usually chosen for some form of capability and ability to act in the field or in the faction itself in terms of politicking. Von Mackensen isn't going to be leading any armies at his age and is hardly going to engage in enough politicking to secure his position.

Did you noticed that your examples have a nice common point - military leaders wasn't actually mean to give away power after they won?

Not all the people listed are military leaders. What point are you trying to make?

Also I cleared your hurdle, the burden of proof is on you at this point.

 

[XShoukiX]

Being amicable to a cause and being chosen to lead it are two very different things. As previously stated faction leaders in civil wars are usually chosen for some form of capability and ability to act in the field or in the faction itself in terms of politicking. Von Mackensen isn't going to be leading any armies at his age and is hardly going to engage in enough politicking to secure his position.

I mean, no? Not really?

One name: Erwin von Witzleben.

He was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in a post-Nazi regime had the July 20 plot succeeded. At 62 years old, von Witzleben was a retired military officer. At the time, he had no real control over the military nor was he even really an active participant in the coup events that were seeking to place him in command. He didn't show up to the coup until 8pm, hours after he was supposed to 'take command', and then left after 45 minutes declaring the entire thing had been bungled.

Regardless, von Witzleben would have been named the Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht had the coup succeeded.

Being the leader of an opposing side doesn't mean von Mackensen needs to be on the frontlines wielding a weapon himself. As a popular figure and a field marshal, von Mackensen has the military knowledge to dictate plans as well as a good name to bolster support. He is a logical choice for a monarchist coup figurehead.

 

[hkrommel]

He was designated to become Commander-in-Chief of the Wehrmacht in a post-Nazi regime had the July 20 plot succeeded

1. So you're talking about a successful coup, but that's not what we're talking about. In game, it's a botched coup that leads to a civil war.

A new path has been added, mutually exclusive with the Rhineland focus. It sparks a civil war led by the legendary August von Mackensen.

In your example, von Witzleben only becomes relevant in "a post-Nazi regime" meaning the coup succeeded and there isn't a civil war.

2. Even if I take your circumstances to be relevant, von Witzleben would have been outranked by:
-Ludwig Beck, President
-Carl Goerdeler, Chancellor
-Possibly Friedrich Olbricht, Minister of War (unsure about ranking structure here but presumably he would have authority over the Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht)

All of these figures were extensively involved in the planning, and Olbricht in the execution, of the coup.

 

[aono]

Not all the people listed are military leaders. What point are you trying to make?

Simple. What would be gain for the cause from Beck to be formally named as a leader of Provisional Military Government, especially in civil war? Is he more respected in Army or in German people that von Mackensen? Is he better declaration like "hey, it's not military usurpation of the nation"?
Von Mackensen would be a leader of Provisional Military Government the same reason Germany voted for von Hindenburg in 1932, when he was 84. And actually the same reason colonel Alparslan Türkeş gives full power to general Cemal Gürsel (he was 64 and died six years later), who never was a part of the plot. Because he was respected and adored by nation and by Army, because when junta would recruit some doubting generals they could point on von Mackensen and say - hey, we have this guy!
And also because von Mackensen was a Generalfeldmarschall, and Beck - just Generaloberst.

 

[hkrommel]

Von Mackensen would be a leader of Provisional Military Government the same reason Germany voted for von Hindenburg in 1932, when he was 84.

Because elections are analogous to civil wars

And actually the same reason colonel Alparslan Türkeş gives full power to general Cemal Gürsel

Which was not a civil war situation but a successful coup, and thus irrelevant. Also,

who never was a part of the plot

Wiki: As of 2015 the only leader in the world put into power by a military takeover who had previously had no role in its planning or execution

Well would you look at that? The only leader that supports your point came to power in a non-analogous situation! You've really got to pick better evidence to support your argument.

Respect isn't how leaders are chosen in coups-turned-civil wars, capability is. Again the burden of proof is on you, show me an example that actually fits what we're talking about (failed coup turned civil war). Better yet, provide more examples than I did so you actually override my evidence. I'll be waiting until then.

 

[aono]

Because elections are analogous to civil wars

Actually, yes. It's popularity contests.

Again the burden of proof is on you, show me an example that actually fits what we're talking about (failed coup turned civil war).

Ok, let's look into history.
Condifions:
1. We're speaking about coup turned into civil war. Any other examples disqualified. That excluded every turkish coup.
2. We're speaking about coups/civil wars made to restore dethroned monarch. That excluded all your examples.
3. We're speaking about coups/civil wars with a plan to create provisional governments. That excluded baron wars.
4. When speaking leaders we means heads of said provisional governments, not a people who would lead armies.
UPD - forgot: 5. Such a head of provisional government should be picked for his popularity and amicability, not for his military capability.
Am I right?

 

[hkrommel]

Actually, yes. It's popularity contests.

Yeah no, it's a war. How did the Spanish Nationalists win the war when they lost the election if it's a popularity contest?

Am I right?

No, the only relevant factor you listed is the first one. The issue at hand is that there is a civil war, not what government the factions are seeking, there are obviously provisional governments and excluding the baron wars doesn't make any sense because the nobles controlled and governed land during the war not under the control of the king obviously, and 4 isn't relevant either since Mackensen isn't going out into the field (unless Paradox makes him an assignable officer which would make zero sense). The issue at hand is whether the person can lead a provisional government to victory when that faction failed to execute a coup.

Again, find me a person who led a faction in a civil war resulting from a military coup attempt who is analogous to von Mackensen.

EDIT:

UPD - forgot: 5. Such a head of provisional government should be picked for his popularity and amicability, not for his military capability.

Capability in general, it can be political as well though that wouldn't be the case with von Mackensen, more Mengitsu.

 

[aono]

Yeah no, it's a war. How did the Spanish Nationalists win the war when they lost the election if it's a popularity contest?

Oh, simple!
1. They had better international support.
2. They took main support in officer corps, with army divided close enough.
Both are popularity contest issues.
And yeah, they had big, big problems early; if Republicans didn't apply to terror tactics, they could won.

The issue at hand is whether the person can lead a provisional government to victory when that faction failed to execute a coup.

No. We finding instances where such persons was called by such faction (and you actually offered Kolchak, Kornilov, and Denikin, who definitly didn't won). There is a difference.

Algerian Civil War, Zeroual was the leader there, again not a geriatric figurehead.

By the way, Zeroual. Nice example actually. Not as he managed to lead his government to victory, but nice indeed.
What happened in Alger? Islamists won local elections, then Army make coup and canceled presidential elections. For two years he was out, and then, in 1992, Army deposed President, putting in his place... well, not Zeroual. Mohamed Boudiaf. 73-yeared vet of Algerian Independence War, who spent last 26 years in exile in Morocco. Why him, not some acting general? Because "he was presented as a leader exiled for too long to be tainted by the violence and corruption of Algeria's internal post-revolutionary politics", that was official version (real one, I believe, was because he wouldn't interfere into military issues). Well, half a year later Boudiaf was killed, and he was suceded by... not Zeroual again, by Ali Kafi, retired Algerian army colonel, vet of Algerian Independence War, who was 64 years old and was diplomat since 1962. It didn't helped, so in 1994 he was replaced by Zeroual, vet of Algerian Independence War, who wasn't part of clique firstly (and was retired officer since 1990; returned as Minister of Defense in 1993). Zeroual was known as negotiator, and he actually tried to negotiate; it failed, so he offered presidential elections. Opposition was against it, but elections happens, Zeroual won and ruled until 1999, when he retired as well. He was replaced by military-backed 63-yeared ex-military (you guess) vet of Algerian Independence War, ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who did actually nothing in the war, Abdelaziz Bouteflika, acting president of Algeria.
In 2002 civil war ended, in 2011 emergency rule ended.
I believe Boudiaf, Ali Kafi and Bouteflika fits criteria; as you can see military faction in Algeria was quite insistent to put such compromise and amicable persons (well, as amicable as was possible!) to highest posts. And yes, they won.

Ethiopian Civil War, where Mengitsu was the leader, not a figurehead.

Ok, Derg. Another nice example.
When Derg imprisonment Haile Selassie in 1974, they named Aman Mikael Andom as a leader of state and Derg chairman (with real power concentrated in Mengitsu hands). Why? Well, because he was popular in army; being popular in Derg would be another matter, so in November, after he lost "his" military, general was killed (or suicided) and replaced by Tafari Benti. Well. Let's not notice that Derg didn't abolish monarchy until 1975, so for a year "leader" of their state would be Haile Selassie. Actually Tafari was powerless nobody, but he quickly became a crystallisation center to opposition against Mengitsu, so in 1977 Mengitsu overthown him and actually gain formal title of Derg chairman. 10 years later Derg was changed into republic (where Mengitsu was a president), and in 1991 Mengitsu leaved country (so his faction actually lost Civil War).
I'd say Aman Mikael Andom and Tafari Benti would be nice examples as well, even as they wasn't old.

Central African Republic Civil War, Djotodia is the leader there.

Once again, no victory for coup faction here (as you declaring coup-turned-into-civil-war as a main criteria, you should admit it's disqualification).
First of all, no coup faction at all. Seleca was plain rebels. Same about Baron Wars - it wasn't failed coups turned into civil wars, it was plain revolts. My lovable Warlord Era isn't fit by this criteria as well. Same Austrian Civil War - no coup.
Secondly, Djotodia failed, Central African Republic Civil War continues. Well, it's complicated, but it's not like Seleca won.

And please, don't put White Movement into this mess. They couldn't define who is their leader and what actually they trying to achieve, that was kind of problem.

But yeah, as you can notice having figureheads who actually should just give legitimacy is quite popular. If von Mackensen would be a head of provisional government, it doesn't mean Beck wouldn't be a general for coup's armies. And in Wiki he would be named as one of the leaders.
If you want another example - please, look into Emperor Meiji. Restoration named "Meiji Restoration", he is listed in English Wiki for every battle of Boshin War, and he was 16-year boy who, let's put it mildly, wasn't the best military or intellectual asset. But all that happened happened in his name and with his formal leadership. Why? Because it gave Satchō Alliance legitimacy they needed.

 

[Gurkhal]

I wonder what the event will read when the coup is succesful? Will Hitler commit suicide or will he be hanged?
Whenever PDx chooses a leader for a country its 51% coolness factor and 49% historical accuracy.

Personally I would think that Hitler and top leading Nazis are executed by firing squad. I don't think the German army is as sensitive nor imaginative to stage some elaborate like Hitler taking his own life or something like that. They'll probably just line them up against a wall and shoot them off. Not that I'm complaining, mind you.

 

[Ksyr]

If not him then we would have a thread named "Why not Von Mackensen?"

 

[Orlunu]

Which of the heads of government in game were intimately involved in the running of their militaries? A couple of the big ones. Let's look at their interventions:
Hitler's are generally regarded as useless and terrible, and obvioulsy so to the military under him. They were generally unwelcome.
Stalin's are generally regarded as useless and terrible, and obvioulsy so to the military under him. They were generally unwelcome.
Churchill's are generally regarded as useless and terrible, although not so obviously so, apparently.


I find it deeply entertaining that the first example given in that list was Sanjuro - an extremely close analogue of Macky.

 

[hkrommel]

snip

You've got to be clearer with the point you're making, give me topic sentences or something if you're writing paragraphs. It's not clear what point you're actually making.

I find it deeply entertaining that the first example given in that list was Sanjuro - an extremely close analogue of Macky.

Actually it was Franco, reading comprehension is fun!

Also I'd like to point out that based on where Paradox is putting von Mackensen he's going to be more than a figurehead, note how King George VI isn't the "leader" of Britain or the commonwealth.

 

[Lykanion]

I'm aware it's Alt-History, but there would have been far more plausible options that wouldn't require quite that much suspension of disbelief.

I think most things have been mentioned already. I'll just add that I don't think everyone knows what loyalty means to an conservative army officer of the 1930s that has been raised in the prussian military tradition. I don't think there could have been a successful Wehrmacht revolt while Hitler was still alive and the officers held by their oath. And then add the fact that von Mackensen was personally fond of Hitler.

 

[Orlunu]

Actually it was Franco, reading comprehension is fun!

Spanish Civil War, coup led by Sanjuro's faction was led by Franco after Sanjuro's death, Franco actually led forces and ruled.
...

Spanish Civil War, coup led by Sanjuro's faction was led by Franco after Sanjuro's death,
...

Yes, it is.

Also I'd like to point out that based on where Paradox is putting von Mackensen he's going to be more than a figurehead, note how King George VI isn't the "leader" of Britain or the commonwealth.

No need, I'm aware. Note that I said "head of government", not "head of state", and used Churchill, who was PM under the king as one of my examples. I already knew you were right about the joys of reading comprehension, but this just reaffirmed it!