Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why does Fascist Korea get the short stick?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hearts of Iron IV 45524 Bug Reports 15220 After Action Reports (AAR)
Sunforged General

Sunforged General

Major
20 Badges
Nov 8, 2017
612
218
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Victoria 2
  • Darkest Hour
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
A Fascist Vietnam is "the Empire of Vietnam" a Fascist Tibet is "The Tibetan Empire" a unified fascist China is "The Chinese Empire". Meanwhile a Fascist Korea is "the independent governate of Korea"...governate means the leader is a governor, a governor in this context is put in power by some one else. Subservience to a foreign power is built into Fascist Koreas name! Why?
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I find It strange that there is some kind of correlation between fascism and empire. (obssession with Roman Empire?) I'd expect something like: Nationalist (or National) Government of Korea.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
The name used by Japan for their administration in Korea was "The General Government of Korea." Is fascist Korea a puppet or fully independent?

If it's a puppet, "Governate" makes sense, since "General Gouvernment" (or however it's spelled) is already potentially in use by a fascist puppet Poland.

Fully independent fascist Korea could probably use a different name.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Happy Trigger said:
Who wasn't imperialist at the time? That is just a bad interpretation of the period.
Click to expand...
The democracies of the period were no longer expanding their colonial empires and were distancing themselves from their colonial past. Meanwhile the fascist countries were strongly embracing imperialism. Infact the three major fascist countries, Germany, Japan and Italy, were all empires, by official name, German Reich can be loosely interpreted as "German Empire" Japan was literally the empire of Japan. And Italy was also the Italian Empire.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
The democracies of the period were no longer expanding their colonial empires and were distancing themselves from their colonial past. Meanwhile the fascist countries were strongly embracing imperialism. Infact the three major fascist countries, Germany, Japan and Italy, were all empires, by official name, German Reich can be loosely interpreted as "German Empire" Japan was literally the empire of Japan. And Italy was also the Italian Empire.
Click to expand...
Resuming: While some were satisfied with the extension of their empires, others were trying to build one.

Let's be frank, the British didn't have any plans to dissolve their empire, the same goes to France and, even, US (Hello, Philippines!). About Germany, the building of their empire is more a consequence of the war than a policy of state. The Germans had a rough idea about empire building, than a concrete plan to achieve It. That later would become an aspiration, different from Italy and Japan.

Not questioning the morality of having/building a empire or not, but I think it's important notice that everyone at the time was concerned about the keep/building of a safe net (colonies) as a way to make their countries self-sufficient. International trade was growing fast, but people of that period were still thinking in terms pre-WW1. So, no. Empires aren't a fascistic idea only. (Though, I like the sound of countries named Empire something. Sounds very nice! ;D)
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Germany and Japan were not fascist, and Italy just wanted what France and Britain had, colonies. The same can be said for Japan. Before ww2 generally Japan and Italy were seen as allies, and the Japan mindset to my understanding did not understand why they couldn't continue to do what Britain had done for many years previous. Stating imperalism is generally a fascist element is probably a simplification.

We have Italy as an example, and you can point at the roman ambitions and that they entered ww2. But is that because they where fascist(Mussolini however never achieved total control and authority though) or just the state of the world and the opportunity he thought presented itself? Perhaps both but it's not a very easy answer in my eyes.
 
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
The democracies of the period were no longer expanding their colonial empires and were distancing themselves from their colonial past. Meanwhile the fascist countries were strongly embracing imperialism. Infact the three major fascist countries, Germany, Japan and Italy, were all empires, by official name, German Reich can be loosely interpreted as "German Empire" Japan was literally the empire of Japan. And Italy was also the Italian Empire.
Click to expand...

Reich does not translate well to Empire. Reich translate better to Realm.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
Well weren't fascists generally imperialist?
Click to expand...
No, they tend to not be big fans of Imperialism. Hence why in WW2 you had the biggest imperialists powers of Britian, France, The Soviet Union on one side.

Japan while technically an axis country was not fascists. Instead being military dictatorship and was the most Imperialistic of the "axis".
 
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Joshua Happytree said:
In the United Kingdom, the Queen is officially titled ‘Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith’
Click to expand...

Yeah, she is not an Empress :) Reich = Realm. Not Empire.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Putuna said:
No, they tend to not be big fans of Imperialism. Hence why in WW2 you had the biggest imperialists powers of Britian, France, The Soviet Union on one side.

Japan while technically an axis country was not fascists. Instead being military dictatorship and was the most Imperialistic of the "axis".
Click to expand...
Lol im sorry but what? What Italy did in Ethiopia was literally Imperialism. Also, it would be hard to claim that everything Germany did between 1939 and 1945 wasn't Imperialism.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
Well you'll have to forgive me for not speaking German, but the Google translates Empire in English as Reich in German
Click to expand...

I just checked and it also translates Realm to Reich. In swedish we have the same word, Rike and it does not mean Imperium.

I might be wrong, but I think an Empire needs some sort of subject/colony/conquered territory. A Rike/Realm/Reich is, to put it in Hoi-terms, core territory.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Sunforged General said:
Well you'll have to forgive me for not speaking German, but the Google translates Empire in English as Reich in German
Click to expand...
Reich's English cognate is reach. Österreich means Eastreach. Translating it as a realm isn't really fair, because realm comes from the French royaume, meaning royal property (a kingdom). German doesn't have a separate word for empire. Many languages don't. My own, Hungarian, has birodalom, which would mirror-translate as dominion, because birtok means property. Empire is a really unique word, because it's a military honour that has been turned into the title of a military dictator (which the roman emperor de jure was). Emperors before Rome just called themselves "kings of kings". Greek didn't have a word specifically for emperor, either, so they just repurposed the old word for king (basileus).

TL;DR "Empire" is very Latin-specific, and outside of the former Roman Empire, it holds no value, apart from sounding grandiose to English speakers.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
huh I always thought Nazi Germany was not imperialistic but instead driven towards a hegomonic ethno state.

For me the difference of empire and national state was mostly an aspect of a realm with multiple cutlures, with one culture dominant.

So Britain was an empire, when it controlled multiple territories that other ethnic groups lived and dominated them. Same with Ottomans, Austria, France and so on.
When France lost Algiers, and only had Frenchmen in their territory, they weren't an empire anymore.
On the other hand, Switzerland isn't an Empire, since multiple ethnic groups live peacefully side by side without one dominant ethnic group.

Japan very much was an Empire, with Korea and the korean people under their control, Italy aswell with Libya and Ethopia, but Germany first tried to unify germanic people, and later expand its territory, without wanting the former people of the land still living there.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Happy Trigger said:
Let's be frank, the British didn't have any plans to dissolve their empire, the same goes to France and, even, US (Hello, Philippines!).
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, USA actually had plans to dissolve its control over the Philippines*: a series of bills passed by the US Congress and the Philippine legislature set a ten-year timetable from its date of adoption: once the Philippines had a constitution in place for ten years, the USA would formally grant independence on 4 July the year following. The Philippine constitution went into effect on 15 November, 1935, and even the Pacific War didn't delay the result: the last US High Commissioner for the Philippines, Paul McNutt, officially turned over sovereignty on 4 July, 1946.

* Now do Guam and Puerto Rico. ;)
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back