Why can you start civil wars that aren't of your ideology?

[SCP993]

So, during the last WWW stream, we saw the possibility of starting a civil war in British Raj. My problem is, why could Fascist Japan possibly start a Democratic or Communist civil war? I can understand why you might want to (an enemy fighting a civil war isn't fighting you), but why should you be able to?

 

[electriccat]

I can see it. Like you say, sometimes you just want to sow some chaos. Sometimes you just want a nation on anyone by X side. I might have to deal with them later but I can do that then. Especially as like the US, even if you were to like flip Japan to the Commitern it would allow you to focus in one direction at a time.

 

[Jamey]

Throughout history, great powers have incited revolts or coups regardless of the ideology of who they were supporting.

How many dictatorships have been supported by democracies because the new dictator is considered a reliable supporter of the democracy's interests?

 

[FOARP]

So, during the last WWW stream, we saw the possibility of starting a civil war in British Raj. My problem is, why could Fascist Japan possibly start a Democratic or Communist civil war? I can understand why you might want to (an enemy fighting a civil war isn't fighting you), but why should you be able to?

Historically, Imperial Germany aided Lenin's take-over of Russia, so it's not totally beyond plausibility.

 

[Caesar15]

Historically, Imperial Germany aided Lenin's take-over of Russia, so it's not totally beyond plausibility.

And anti-communist dictators in South America have been supported by the CIA.

 

[Denkt]

Maybe because it would be to simple to start a civil war if you can pick the best side for each case.

 

[Caesar15]

Maybe because it would be to simple to start a civil war if you can pick the best side for each case.

Just have a penalty for supporting ideologies that aren't yours.

EDIT: or the penalty of the new country not joining would be enough.

 

[Mac Lazer]

It makes sense. The best reason I can think of is that you want the target nation to be of a different ideology as soon as possible. You don't care which, it just has to be different. If you're a fascist player, it would be best to do fascism, of course. But if there is 40% support for communism, you might just want to do communism instead so that they aren't democratic. Hope I explained that well.

 

[Jeremy971]

If I remember you can send divisions to Spanish Republic as Germany. So, you can do whatever you want. Even nuke your capital. But will you be stupid enough to do it ?

 

[Jeremy971]

It makes sense. The best reason I can think of is that you want the target nation to be of a different ideology as soon as possible. You don't care which, it just has to be different. If you're a fascist player, it would be best to do fascism, of course. But if there is 40% support for communism, you might just want to do communism instead so that they aren't democratic. Hope I explained that well.

If you are at war against UK and you 40% of communism. Make a coup would be a great move !

 

[Paragon707]

It worked for Germany, Germany funded Lenin and his communists and Russia and look how that turned out, true the civil wars faction wont be in your favor, but after the civil war the winning side would be weaker than it was to begin with, and possibly with out any friends if the party you supported won, so an easy conquest. Every Rebel they have to fight is a division less fighting you, more damage to the infrastructure which makes it harder for the country to fight you et cetera.

 

[Mannstien]

Because, the enemy of my friend, is my friends enemy

 

[aruon]

Because, the enemy of my friend, is my friends enemy

tell that to the US. we have a tenancy of creating "friends" that become worst enemies 1-2 decades down the road.

 

[Jeremy971]

tell that to the US. we have a tenancy of creating "friends" that become worst enemies 1-2 decades down the road.

It's why we all hope, you will make Canada great again !

 

[sevsquad]

yeah ultimately it comes down to weakening enemies in whatever way is most convenient and cost effective.

 

[Mannstien]

tell that to the US. we have a tenancy of creating "friends" that become worst enemies 1-2 decades down the road.

Ahh, but is this not the way it has been for 1000's of years? Perhaps the change in relationship ship just happens faster now as communication and everything else speeds up?

 

[nauticalweasel]

The Cold War is full of the U.S. setting up dictatorships because they're more resistant to communism, or a democratically elected leader did something vaguely communist.

 

[hewhoispale]

I feel that supporting 'wrong-faction' rebels just because they aren't that one guy would make more sense in a cold-war era game than in HoI4.

Practically speaking, I see limited situations where a wrong faction coup wouldn't just serve to strengthen a different enemy. Outside of bizarre multiplayer custom faction shenanigans, anyway.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The most bizarre example of this (aside from Lenin, mentioned above) is probably the American government's support of the Khmer Rouge - arguably the most mindlessly barbaric regime in modern history - simply because both the United States and Cambodia opposed North Vietnam, and so they found themselves as co-belligerents, if not actual allies. This is especially weird when you consider that the Khmer Rouge and the Viet Cong were sister branches of the same political party, and the regime in Cambodia was far, far harsher than that in North Vietnam.

It may be the best example of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.'

 

[nauticalweasel]

I can see it being used in cases similar to the Lenin one; I don't care what ideology wins I just want you to fight someone else instead of focusing on me. Or it could just be used to destroy a country civil wars are awful and a nation embroiled in civil war isn't going to be crippled for a while.