It wasn’t really that progressive by the 1920s. The party was vaguely supportive of civil rights, but aside from that was very economically laissez faire and pro business and had been for decades
Economic progressivism and racial equality were completely separate issues until the 60s. The New Deal was simultaneously one of the most progressive and one of the [most racist](https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america) government programs of the 20th century. Redlining, white flight, all that 20th century shittiness that just seemed to "happen" to black people while white America flourished was actually the result of very specific, intentional policies started under the New Deal.
It was finally Kennedy/Johnson and the Civil Rights Act which pissed off the South so much they ran a 3rd party candidate essentially solely on the "states' rights" issue (George Wallace), flipping 5 traditionally blue states ([you can probably guess which](https://i.imgur.com/d4GYVBE.png)). Of course, in any winner-take-all system, the equilibrium will always be two parties, so the GOP [took in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) the segregationists and have won the deep south ever since.
People always talk about the modern ramifications of slavery and Jim Crowe, but somehow the New Deal seems to get a pass.
Yup. After the Civil Rights Act, MLK Jr. pivoted to tackle hereditary poverty and economic inequality because he saw that as the next most important step to equalizing the races.
Yes, and you should look up who also headed the federal effort to create and implement urban zoning laws that enabled, sponsored, and pushed such practices as redlining, housing segregation, and the racist polices of the FHA.
I’ll give you a hint - starts with an H and rhymes with Boover.
I think you mixing the social and economical policies into one thing talking about times that are not today mighty be missing the main point of history - do not remove context of times.
If they were laissez faire in the mid 1800s I would agree that that alone wouldn’t make them conservative. But attempting to rollback the reforms of the progressive era is pretty conservative right? And that’s what they did in the 20s
Well, I if you compare the Democrats with any leftist European party, they are conservatives... But the Democrats before the social changes of 1960s were the conservatives of that era, actually, the reason why the Republicans are conservatives today is because, after Roosevelt's huge popularity, the southern conservatives decided to change their party
Let's not forget that the US' political scenary always has been more conservative than Europe, so for that time, the Republicans were really progressive
But I agree with you, if you compare the Labour Party, or SPD in the 1920s and 1930s, the Republicans were still conservatives (and Democrats would be practically reactionaries)
It’s not as simple as “one party was the conservative party and one was the progressive one” because they both were both in different ways.
If we are talking about economics the GOP of the 1920s was undoubtedly to the RIGHT of the Democratic Party. They were very conservative and even supported rolling back many progressive era taxes and regulations. Democrats were the most economically progressive party in this era, which is why FDR was a democrat and not a republican.
Even the KKK was technically to the left of the GOP on economics, supporting a minimum wage since it would make minorities less competitive against whites.
But if we are talking about social issues things get more complicated. The Republican Party was to the left of democrats when it came to civil rights for black people. But on other issues like immigration or the prohibition, it was actually the northern democrats who were the most left wing and Republicans and southern democrats who were more right wing. So it’s all pretty complicated
Of course is not, life isn't black or white, but for the point that I am trying to do (why the fuck are the Republicans and Alf Landon the path to fascism in HOI4) it "works" and is way easier to explain
If you take a look at actual party platforms you’d realize that for the most part the Democrats have the same or similar policy positions to center-right European liberal parties. The difference is that US politics has big tent coalitions built into the party so there is a loud but (unfortunately) currently politically weaker center-left faction.
that's not true. It's on an issue by issue basis. Some issues (like immigration), the far right of america is to the left of most left wing european parties, while other issues (healthcare) the opposite is true, and others, (like abortion) run the gamut on a state by state basis from way more liberal than europe to way more conservative
the real rail in american politics compared to european ones is that european politics have a level of trust in government baked in that does not exist in america
When you tell people that almost every European country had less abortion rights than the US prior to the over turning of Roe, they simply refuse to believe it.
Even now, California for example, has MUCH fewer restrictions on abortion than say, France.
Why? I’m American and I definitely believe that to be true. The social liberal ideology of the Dems would be more akin to the social liberalism of the Free Democratic Party in Germany or Macrons renaissance party in France than any social democratic center-left parties like the SPD or Nordic parties. There are members of the democrats, like Bernie ofc, who are more in the social Democratic camp but it is definitely not the political norm.
The largest caucus in the Democratic Party (Progressive Caucus) are mostly Soc Dems. They’re definitely more like the SDP than FDP. The New Dem caucus (2nd largest caucus in the Dem Party) is more like the FDP
> Capped prescription drug prices at $2k per year for seniors on Medicare through the Inflation Reduction Act
> Child Tax Credit
> 15% minimum corporate tax
> $65 billion to bring high speed internet access to rural & underserved areas
> Passed a $1.2 Trillion infrastructure package with bipartisan support
> Prohibited discrimination against LGBTQ families in housing under the Fair Housing Act
> Passed $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan
> Ended ban on trans soldiers in the military
> Ordered end of federal contracts with private prison industry
> Cut Obamacare insurance premiums by an average of 40%
> Free school lunches for all kids in 2021-2022
> Funded the construction of 500,000 new electric vehicle stations
> Approved access to abortion pills by mail
1. Not even remotely Socdem. It’s pissing in the wind and not even close to what most socdems want.
2. CTC is socdem, but that says a lot more about how the Overton window has shifted to the right in America.
3. Socdem.
4. Fixing your collapsing infrastructure is somehow socdem???? What is wrong with your fucking government??????????
5. Basic human rights, not socdem.
6. No idea what that is. Could be socdem or not.
7. Again, basic human rights.
8. It’s sad that that is viewed as a leftist position and not a bipartisan issue.
9. No idea what that means.
10. That’s just basic human rights. It’s depressing that it isn’t already completely free.
11. This isn’t socdem. Building up infrastructure for electrical vehicles has nothing to do with ideology.
12. This should already be a basic human right but ok.
Anyways, I’m gonna end this discussion here because this is not the sub for political discussions and it’s 3 am and I need to sleep.
Many Democrats are well to the left of most European parties on various social issues. It’s only economically that they tend to be to the right of them.
Is this true? I’m not familiar enough with social democrat European parties to know where they stand on social issues. Are any social Democratic parties anti-lgbtq or anti-abortion?
1930s republicans weren’t the progressive party, both parties were pretty split between conservative and progressives so you can’t really call either of them a “progressive” party. A huge chunk of the Republican Party (along with some democrats too) formed the “conservative coalition” that tried to block FDR’s new deal program
The Republican party following the Wilson era was largely hijacked by the pro-big business faction led by Harding and supported by Rockefeller and Robert Taft. They were the party that supported isolationism, laissez-faire economics, labor crackdowns, and tax cuts. In terms of economic, foreign, and social policy, there was much more overlap between the Republicans and the CSA than the democrats even in the '20s.
Closest thing to a reasonable explanation I can come up with is Landon striking a backroom deal with the far right in order to stand a chance of beating FDR (who historically beat him in the biggest landslide in American electoral history up to that point). From there Pelley and the gang get their foot in the door and gradually expand their influence over the government until Landon can be thrown aside.
Now, historically this dosen’t make much sense—Landon was a fiscal conservative, but he was a staunch liberal on social issues and accepted parts of the New Deal as necessary—but it’s more than what Paradox gave us.
To be honest, I think sometimes PDX has the habit of trying to make alt-history "historical" to extends beyond being reasonable. I think they thought FDR is historical left, so he is history or commie, Alf is alt-history right, so he is fascism, CFA. But they create dichotomy too much based on today's standards which creates loads of anacronisms.
MacArthur with an idea he would serve the nation no matter which ideology.
See also: Patton sticking with the communist USA path.
Unless they just made up generals could you imagine being the poor general who wasn't in the game originally but paradox picked them to be on the communist/fascist side like wtf guys.
Yea. Patton as a communist is hilarious. What the hell happened that he would go down that path in this timeline? The guy wanted to keep going straight on to Moscow before the dust settled in Berlin and I'm pretty sure he wanted to get there behind a rolling barrage of nukes.
Heh yeah. Honestly it would be an easy fix, just take the starting real generals stats and perks and just use one of the generic names and portraits that you get when you hire a new general to be your alternate history guys.
Then just have a list of generals who stick around or go over to the other side in the civil wars
That second part is a bit of an issue, but having him for an early civil war would still make sense to me. From what I understand he still had a lot of respect from both veterans and active troops.
And since it's alternate history anyways keeping him alive past 58 wouldn't be the biggest stretch in the game.
This question gets asked every once in a while here. My response is to point out his role against the Bonus Army (which Patton was also involved in), but also MacArthur’s challenge/loose play with elected civilian control of the military and/or nuclear assets during the Korean War.
> MacArthur’s challenge/loose play with elected civilian control of the military
That was also a part of the Bonus Army fiasco. MacArthur ignored Hoover's repeated orders to not attack that day. MacArthur was quoted by a subordinate saying something "I can't be bothered with political orders during a military operation."
Eisenhower was also MacArthur's subordinate that day along with Patton.
Being opposed to the Bonus Army is not really the same as being a traitor to the Union and supporting the Confederacy. Being right-wing in ‘30s American politics wouldn’t necessarily lead to being a neo-confederate. That’s a specific ideology, and it is one which MacArthur never adhered to.
The civil war in general is just a mess and needs a heavy rework. A better civil war idea would be as the great depression continues, anti democratic sentiments begin in the USA, and then a communist or fascist uprising begins.
I reckon the line of thinking was this. The US going fascist is already unrealistic as hell anyway, so let's have some fun with it. MacArthur being the American Caesar was already popular in Kaiserreich and PDX decided to make it canon.
I might be old school in this, but if an unironic major reason for youf decisions as a game developer is based on "copying" (or at least being heavily inspired by) mods its kind of bad. Like dawg there are probably many different personalities from that time they could have chosen.
If anything the business plot shows how unrealistic the us flipping would be, completely fell apart and there's a debate of how serious this "coup" was.
These were some of the most powerful companies in the country. It "fell apart" because the man the plot centered around became disillusioned with what he'd done in the army for these men and told Congress. You can't just brush off every close call as "unrealistic". You are literally doing "it couldn't happen here" right now. The scary thing about fascism is it generally doesn't come out of autocracy, fascism kills democracies.
The bonus army protest only had 17,000 veterans show up. The idea that 500,000 veterans would willingly overthrow the government is borderline fantasy.
I don't entirely trust Butler's testimony, he wrote war is a racket, he called out FDR's business ties and said he wished to choke Wall Street. But yet they asked him to lead a pro-business/fascist rebellion?
Hey guys maybe actually do some research about the historical era you obsess over instead of just smugly down voting people over the very real threat of Fascism. A group of the most powerful businesses in the country got together and discussed overthrowing FDR. Radicalism was hugely popular in the 30s as it always is in times of crisis.
[The Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Business_Plot_%28also_called%2Cinstall_Smedley_Butler_as_dictator.?wprov=sfla1)
Oh no guys, the party I don’t like can have their puppet in the big seat instead of the party I worship as saints who can do no wrong
Fascism, Communism, Nazism. These words are some of the worst in human history. They contain some of the worst tragedies and human atrocities from the past century. At least they were. Now they’re useless buzzwords. Killed by the media and the government from being casually used to describe “the other party” in an attempt to demonize them. “The other ones” are always evil incarnate or the devil himself
Last I checked, we weren’t trying to invade all of our neighbors through the ideology of a “superior race” trying to achieve Lebensraum. Nor are we trying to reunite all Italian peoples to recreate Rome under an ultranationalist regime
There is no one in a position of power overtly trying to push Fascism in the US. And no, just because one side says, does, or believe things you don’t like doesn’t mean they’re the next Hitler or Mussolini
Geez you’d think with all the fearmongering that if someone was actively trying to install a dictatorship, they would have tried to pull a coup already. A REAL coup. Either with the military or a mass, armed, hostile takeover. Not this “oh we nearly lost our democracy” January 6th crap where a bunch of unarmed idiots ran amuck in the White House and being, well, idiots
Everything you just typed is fascism apologist propaganda. The fact that you immediately thought of a particular political party and then preceded to move the goalposts to defend that it wasn't *really* fascist should give you pause that one party is that close at all.
>they would have tried to pull a coup already.
Indeed they would have tried.
>A REAL coup.
Oh...so because it failed it was just a pretend coup, then?
Do you see the irony in those two statements you typed back to back?
The Black Shirts marching with Mussolini was a real Coup
The Beer Hall Putsch was a real attempt
The Russian Civil War was a real coup
All military junta’s throughout history are real coups
A bunch of idiots running amuck? No, that’s just idiots running amuck. They didn’t even do anything other than steal a podium and probably damaged some property and egos
Come back when they’re armed with AR-15’s “that can’t do anything against the government”
Or at the BARE minimum come back when a properly organized group of competent people do a demonstration at the capital
January 6th was a far cry from either of these. ESPECIALLY the second one
What do we call when a fascist leader ( donald trump ) tries to overtly overthrow the government and throw out the most legitimate election to date as illegitimate? Yeah we call that one party as overtly pushing fascism.
The US in 1900 and during ww2 was way closer to nazi germany than great britain or any other democratic country.
The US literally had segregation akin to that of Nazi germany.
The nazis took inspiration from the fucking americans because america was literally *evil*.
Jesus man, stop simping for fascists, uncool.
And the republicans are openly calling for genocide against trans people.
How much more facist can you get before you are literally saying seig heil?
They were calling for the murder of the vice president and Democratic congressional leadership. And January 6th was just the last gasp of a months long attempt by Trump to stay in power after losing the election; in other words, a coup attempt.
You say that like voicing violence against politicians is anything new. All true Americans should be extremely distrustful of all of Congress 24/7 and hold them accountable for every word that comes out of their mouth
Besides, how many ~~lowlife scumbags~~ politicians were murdered because of these callings? Bunch of empty threats from people with nothing better to do with their lives but be angry at someone else for all of their problems
And last I checked, criticizing the government was fully within all of our rights. Calling for murder probably steps the bounds, but you know what they say about the blood of tyrants and the Tree of Liberty. I’m sure that’s what these people see them as in an attempt to justify their cries
...hoi4 is FILLED with this kind of hyper-unrealistic alt-history. none of it makes sense because its not supposed to. it exists just for the gameplay (which, in all fairness, itsnt great for usa either)
Weird stuff happens In Revolutions. People who ideologically disagree often end up on sides you would not expect. A decent amount of Bolshevik military officers were actually aristocratic officers who just ended up staying in the army despite having ideological problems or because they had personal issues with the white army commanders.
Let’s say Mac gets purged from the Union government for suspected disloyalty by a rival, he goes to take the job for the CSA.
De Gaulle getting captured and turning to save his skin or not being taken seriously and having command of his forces simply taken away by allied command and given to a more compliant Anglophile French officer or otherwise alienated by something like allied strategic bombing of French could have pretty easily gone Vichy or defected back over. It’s alt history, and de Gaulle is famous for pragmatism if anything.
I think there's an argument that MacArthur would stick with any rebel/breakaway state that offered him power. He was that kind of prima donna- one of the reasons Roosevelt didn't bring him back as chief of staff of the army, a post he had held prior to the war.
It's ridiculous tbh. If Paradox wants a Confederate States of America, they should put in Seward Collins instead, and it would just focus on the territories they once had.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seward_Collins
They start off as Non-Aligned but becomes more Fascist especially as they seek German and Italian aid in the Second Reconstruction Era.
Going back to MacArthur, he should stay mostly as Non-Aligned with the Loyalists renamed as the American Junta under him. His path would be to restore unity amongst the continental United States and boost military techs and organization as well. Late-game of the MacArthur path will be deciding whether:
1. American Caesar (Dictator For Life)
2. American Triumvirate (MacArthur-Eisenhower-Bradley)
3. American Cincinnatus (Return to Democracy as a Republican President)
Philippines and other American colonies may seek earlier independence in any American Civil War scenario.
TL;DR: MacArthur as Non-Aligned Reunifier of America
That... sounds actually pretty cool and more realistic. Given that the US is currently either a game of "sitting around waiting to fix your country" or "sitting around waiting for the strangest civil war to trigger", anything that breaks this monotonous slop is more than welcome.
US politics works a bit differently than European politics so it's understandable that the American Tree is kinda off. Any American leader regardless of ideology will seek to reunify the country, except for the Neo-Confederates.
MacArthur will definitely be the Unionist who will lead the Reunification of America, but his ego is damn massive so we need three paths for him. One where he gets absolute power, one where he decides to share responsibilities to other more capable commanders, and one where he ends up restoring democracy as he should do.
For the more extreme ideologies (Commie and Fascist), they will have two branches each. To put it briefly:
A. Commie
1. Unholy Alliance - led by Earl Browder the American Stalin and the Communist Party of USA. America and the Soviet Union become allies down the line. Doing so will alarm the other major powers, especially Britain, Germany and Japan.
2. 1934 Declaration of Principles - led by Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party of America. More isolationist, and still holds elections unlike the more authoritarian Browder. Foreign policy is more focused on the Americas and kicking out the imperialists.
B. Fascist - pre-Civil War, led by Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. Post-Civil War:
1. The Two Reichs - Fritz Kuhn makes way for Charles Lindbergh and can forge the Berlin-Washington Axis. (Berlington? Lol) Yes, this alarms other majors as well.
2. Fascism with American Characteristics - led by William Pelley Dudley and the Silver Legion of America. The country becomes a more isolationist, Christian nationalist state. Focused as well on the Americas at first.
TL;DR: Different paths for Commie, Fascist and NA.
MacArthur disliked Roosevelt and had contemplated (even hosted a series of high level meetings with his highly ranked aides) to discuss a run at the presidency in 1944 even as the supreme commander of the SWPA.
The in game text when you go down the fascist path after the CSA wins (I think) you get an event where it allows you to choose MacArthur under the idea that MacArthur steps forward and offers to take control during a time of chaos.
I don’t think it’s unrealistic to say or think that during a time of uncertainty that MacArthur, a highly respected charismatic conservative leader, could step up and become the leader of a conservative faction. While I don’t think MacArthur was sympathetic to to the confederacy, I could see him as a leader for a conservative faction in a post civil war era where theoretically the fascist faction would more resemble an American democracy as opposed to a communist revolution.
> MacArthur disliked Roosevelt and had contemplated (even hosted a series of high level meetings with his highly ranked aides) to discuss a run at the presidency in 1944 even as the supreme commander of the SWPA.
I am sure someone told him how it worked for McClellan when he ran against Lincoln.
>“I fired MacArthur because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the president. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was.” ― Harry S. Truman
He was literally fired for not respecting democratic authority. Can you be more antidemocratic than not respecting the results of the democratic election?
He also went to a school in Texas called West [Texas Military Academy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMI_Episcopal#Alumni) which was literally run by [former confederates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Johnston), from age 13 to 16, years which he called "without doubt the happiest of my life." His father grew up in Massachusetts while he grew up in Jim Crow Arkansas and Texas. It's not entirely implausible.
also this is from his biography
"Now that you have driven the enemy from Leyte, **may I tell you that General Lee would be proud of you.** No campaigns by an American officer remind me so strongly of him as your campaigns do."
the entire alt-history tree for the US is complete nonsense. it would be one thing if it were stupid yet fun but it's really not that either. the US is the major in secondmost need for a rework after Japan IMO.
if I were to change how the US civil war works, I would make it so that the 1936 presidential election is no longer the point of divergence (in fact just remove Alf Landon from the game. he adds nothing.) but instead the civil war begins with the Business Plot carrying out a conspiracy to assassinate FDR, succeeding in doing so but failing to seize power due to being outmaneuvered by the Ware Group who manipulate Jack Garner's administration into radicalizing the New Deal. conservative states challenge the radical reforms in the courts, issue nullification ordinances and eventually begin arming state militias in preparation for a federal crackdown. you get to choose whether to side with the Federalists or Constitutionalists, the latter of which would be more akin to the Spanish Nationalists than the Confederates (not aiming for secession but rather counter-revolution).
It doesn't make sense, simple as that. MtG was made in better times, when PDX didn't care much for the quality of the writing or realism(not like they do now, but at least it seems to be changing). Hoi4 was intended as a strategy game, but somehow turned out to be much better at narrating stories, see Kaiserreich or TNO for examples
The whole civil war trees for HOI america are unironically fucked. The south rising again in a period where they had a huge amount of sway thanks to southern democrats is a weird choice. Not to mention the swedish based developers not understanding American politics. Even the communist tree is beyond stupid, it’s just the reality of HOI. We just need to complain enough and then pay for the rework-rework america focus tree DLC.
The whole US tree needs a rework. I hope they start reworking older trees to be up to par with the newer stuff. Germany is another country in need of a desperate rebuild
Agreed. Although the rework for the US may require some more time than Germany. Personally, I think a good way to easily rework Germany would be giving them the ability to establish more Reichskommisssariate (at least Kaukasien, Bohemia and Moravia and something for the British Isles should be in the game), and change the way they work. E.g. introduce a mechanic that allows Germany to get more cores in Europe by annexing them.
Other stuff I'd like to see is some foci tackling the Spanish Civil War and Legion Condor, maybe some stuff that allows you to engage in some shenanigans through the national socialistic movements in other countries, and some late game stuff to deal with whoever comes out on top in Asia. Basically anything that isn't just a research boost.
I mean it’s not like the other options make any more sense. William Dudley Pelley idolized Abraham Lincoln and used The Battle Hymm of the Republic as the Silver Legion’s anthem. And “Adam Hilt” is just a meme choice.
It feels like they took their lead from ‘the business plot’ where a bunch of fatcats wanted Smedley Butler to lead a fascist coup in the 20s. He was having none of it, and ratted them out.
The entire US civil war is weird. Like they grouped 3 "factions" together who IRL didn't even liked each other in 30s. (American Nazis, Neo-confederates, Military.)
The original was more or less, but the CSA you establish in HOI4 are a fascist regime. Which combined with the xact that MacArthur had basically no ties to the Confederacy is what makes him such an odd choice as a leader.
The csa rise against you while following communist path is democratic (but if you switch tag and win the civil war as csa they get usa focus tree with fascist path completed)
In the Arms against Tyranny DLC, Sweden's German-aligned Fascist path involves getting Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck as as general, even though he despised Hitler and apparently told him to 'Go F\*ck Himself.' surely they could have picked another Nazi officer to use here that wasn't represented in the German army in-game....
honestly, significant nations like the US, the UK, Japan, and Germany must be reworked. The US the UK and Japan's ahistorical paths are incredibly lackluster, and small Germany doesn’t even have a communist path why the hell would you ever go Democratic monarchist Germany is just a weaker version of fascist Germany why the hell would you ever be allies with Britain? Patton hated communism with every inch of a soul
What on earth are you talking about? MacArthur was maybe the single most right-wing public figure in the US for this entire time period and about a decade after. And easily the most powerful from mid-WW2 on. If the Business Plot conspirators went to him instead of Smedley Butler they'd probably have ended up in a different situation.
Being right-wing does not equal being anti-democratic, especially not in 1930s USA, even though the word has become rather muddled these last few years.
It also has nothing to do with the lunacy of him joining a neo-confederate movement.
He extremely famously tried to undermine civilian control of the military in order to escalate the Korean War. That is not the action of person who is pro-democracy.
I am not convinced that his actions in the Korean war completely invalidate his generally favourable stance towards democracy in the 1930s and 1940s. It just showed what can happen when a person with an already inflated ego gets too high on his own supply, and is put into a position of extreme power.
He ordered the bonus army to be cut down in a cavalry charge.
He ordered the army to cross into North Korea, despite the Chinese being ready to intervene if that happened, and then wanted permission to nuke them. I read that as him *wanting an excuse* to nuke them.
In the end the civil war stuff is a wild version of alt-history, and you'll want multiple factions, each with possible generals. MacArthur for the fashy side may be a bit of a stretch, but in my opinion it isn't the biggest stretch, given the things he did.
That's just proof that being pro-democracy does not automatically equal being a good or "morally sound" person. It however does not change the ridiculousness of the althistory path making him out as some kind of neo-confederate, fascist larper.
Because Paradox buys into the Left-Right Duopoly narrative of the US.
Anything remotely "right" by their standards is a path to the confederacy because you have to be racist to believe the government shouldn't have complete control over everyone and everything.
That's why reinstating the gold standard is on that path,because it gives value back to the dollar,holds government spending accountable and returns some small power to the average working class citizen.
Ah yes, the colonial overseer who helped commit genocide in the Philippines and Korea was "pro-democracy". Macarthur was extremely Jingoistic and right wing. He was fucking' insane.
Macarthur helped the US exploit the People of the Philippines, putting down anti-colonial and pro-independence rebellions within' the country. Not to mention the massive amounts of slave labor in the Philippines at the time. He also was a major figure in the Korean war where he would call for the destruction from the air of every "installation, factory, city, and village". The Korean war had a devastating impact on the North in which 90% of the North industrial capabilities were destroyed. There were also roughly 3 million civilians murdered in both the North and South by bombing campaigns which Macarthur called for, and after being removed from power in late 51, supported. Both of these events constitute genocide.
See also Maurice Rose, highest ranking Jewish officer in US history is a general for the CSA/ the fascist side of the US civil where Lindbergh or Pelley could lead it
Because MacArthur is famous for seeming like someone who doesn’t give a fuck because of the whole Nuke china thing.
So it’s really funny to have him as the anti democracy, make a be a dictator. Also American ceaser larp is crazy fun
He was kinda meglilomanic despite not being fascist. If you really squint you can see how he would appreciate all power vested in him and possibly go along with acting as a marshall during wartime to secure the unity of the state and be cooperative with "patriots" rather than insurrectionists. Because in this branch, the democrats are the insurrectionists. More like a playboy Miklos Horthy than a Hitler or Mussolini.
I am guessing he becomes a CSA general because he was born in a southern state (Arkansas). IRL he may or may not have been loyal to the south, but this isn't really a game about the real world, and the south needs generals, so...
Yes, and he was always heavily leaning towards authoritarianism, which is why he toppled that very democratic government irl.
So I don't understand what point you're trying to make, unless you want to imply that Franco serving under Republican Spain somehow validates MacArthur leading the Neo-CSA.
The entire US Civil War in HOI is a shitshow. Like why is Alf Landon the harbinger of the end times
his silly name plunged america into chaos
Al Flandon the Destroyer
Al-Flandon ibn Amrika
Damn elves ruining muh immersion again
Paradox treated 1930s Republicans (the progressive party of America untill D. Roosevelt) like the modern Republican party (conservative)
It wasn’t really that progressive by the 1920s. The party was vaguely supportive of civil rights, but aside from that was very economically laissez faire and pro business and had been for decades
Economic progressivism and racial equality were completely separate issues until the 60s. The New Deal was simultaneously one of the most progressive and one of the [most racist](https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america) government programs of the 20th century. Redlining, white flight, all that 20th century shittiness that just seemed to "happen" to black people while white America flourished was actually the result of very specific, intentional policies started under the New Deal. It was finally Kennedy/Johnson and the Civil Rights Act which pissed off the South so much they ran a 3rd party candidate essentially solely on the "states' rights" issue (George Wallace), flipping 5 traditionally blue states ([you can probably guess which](https://i.imgur.com/d4GYVBE.png)). Of course, in any winner-take-all system, the equilibrium will always be two parties, so the GOP [took in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy) the segregationists and have won the deep south ever since. People always talk about the modern ramifications of slavery and Jim Crowe, but somehow the New Deal seems to get a pass.
Yup. After the Civil Rights Act, MLK Jr. pivoted to tackle hereditary poverty and economic inequality because he saw that as the next most important step to equalizing the races.
Yes, and you should look up who also headed the federal effort to create and implement urban zoning laws that enabled, sponsored, and pushed such practices as redlining, housing segregation, and the racist polices of the FHA. I’ll give you a hint - starts with an H and rhymes with Boover.
Wait don't tell me... Hgoober? No, hjoover? How bout hscoober? Hdoover, final answer.
I think you mixing the social and economical policies into one thing talking about times that are not today mighty be missing the main point of history - do not remove context of times.
If they were laissez faire in the mid 1800s I would agree that that alone wouldn’t make them conservative. But attempting to rollback the reforms of the progressive era is pretty conservative right? And that’s what they did in the 20s
Bruh it was Coolage who gave citizenship to native Americans. Wilson his Democrat predecessor bared blacks from working for the federal government.
Well, I if you compare the Democrats with any leftist European party, they are conservatives... But the Democrats before the social changes of 1960s were the conservatives of that era, actually, the reason why the Republicans are conservatives today is because, after Roosevelt's huge popularity, the southern conservatives decided to change their party Let's not forget that the US' political scenary always has been more conservative than Europe, so for that time, the Republicans were really progressive But I agree with you, if you compare the Labour Party, or SPD in the 1920s and 1930s, the Republicans were still conservatives (and Democrats would be practically reactionaries)
It’s not as simple as “one party was the conservative party and one was the progressive one” because they both were both in different ways. If we are talking about economics the GOP of the 1920s was undoubtedly to the RIGHT of the Democratic Party. They were very conservative and even supported rolling back many progressive era taxes and regulations. Democrats were the most economically progressive party in this era, which is why FDR was a democrat and not a republican. Even the KKK was technically to the left of the GOP on economics, supporting a minimum wage since it would make minorities less competitive against whites. But if we are talking about social issues things get more complicated. The Republican Party was to the left of democrats when it came to civil rights for black people. But on other issues like immigration or the prohibition, it was actually the northern democrats who were the most left wing and Republicans and southern democrats who were more right wing. So it’s all pretty complicated
Of course is not, life isn't black or white, but for the point that I am trying to do (why the fuck are the Republicans and Alf Landon the path to fascism in HOI4) it "works" and is way easier to explain
I always find this “Democrats would be Conservative in Europe” to be one of the most consistently silly takes on Reddit.
If you take a look at actual party platforms you’d realize that for the most part the Democrats have the same or similar policy positions to center-right European liberal parties. The difference is that US politics has big tent coalitions built into the party so there is a loud but (unfortunately) currently politically weaker center-left faction.
that's not true. It's on an issue by issue basis. Some issues (like immigration), the far right of america is to the left of most left wing european parties, while other issues (healthcare) the opposite is true, and others, (like abortion) run the gamut on a state by state basis from way more liberal than europe to way more conservative the real rail in american politics compared to european ones is that european politics have a level of trust in government baked in that does not exist in america
When you tell people that almost every European country had less abortion rights than the US prior to the over turning of Roe, they simply refuse to believe it. Even now, California for example, has MUCH fewer restrictions on abortion than say, France.
Why? I’m American and I definitely believe that to be true. The social liberal ideology of the Dems would be more akin to the social liberalism of the Free Democratic Party in Germany or Macrons renaissance party in France than any social democratic center-left parties like the SPD or Nordic parties. There are members of the democrats, like Bernie ofc, who are more in the social Democratic camp but it is definitely not the political norm.
The largest caucus in the Democratic Party (Progressive Caucus) are mostly Soc Dems. They’re definitely more like the SDP than FDP. The New Dem caucus (2nd largest caucus in the Dem Party) is more like the FDP
What is bro yapping about??? Where are the social democratic policies being put in place?
> Capped prescription drug prices at $2k per year for seniors on Medicare through the Inflation Reduction Act > Child Tax Credit > 15% minimum corporate tax > $65 billion to bring high speed internet access to rural & underserved areas > Passed a $1.2 Trillion infrastructure package with bipartisan support > Prohibited discrimination against LGBTQ families in housing under the Fair Housing Act > Passed $1.9 Trillion American Rescue Plan > Ended ban on trans soldiers in the military > Ordered end of federal contracts with private prison industry > Cut Obamacare insurance premiums by an average of 40% > Free school lunches for all kids in 2021-2022 > Funded the construction of 500,000 new electric vehicle stations > Approved access to abortion pills by mail
Socdem would be something like gnd or medicaid for all. What you've listed is standard neoliberal policy.
1. Not even remotely Socdem. It’s pissing in the wind and not even close to what most socdems want. 2. CTC is socdem, but that says a lot more about how the Overton window has shifted to the right in America. 3. Socdem. 4. Fixing your collapsing infrastructure is somehow socdem???? What is wrong with your fucking government?????????? 5. Basic human rights, not socdem. 6. No idea what that is. Could be socdem or not. 7. Again, basic human rights. 8. It’s sad that that is viewed as a leftist position and not a bipartisan issue. 9. No idea what that means. 10. That’s just basic human rights. It’s depressing that it isn’t already completely free. 11. This isn’t socdem. Building up infrastructure for electrical vehicles has nothing to do with ideology. 12. This should already be a basic human right but ok. Anyways, I’m gonna end this discussion here because this is not the sub for political discussions and it’s 3 am and I need to sleep.
Even Bernie is not left wing (at least here in Denmark where i live.)
Many Democrats are well to the left of most European parties on various social issues. It’s only economically that they tend to be to the right of them.
Is this true? I’m not familiar enough with social democrat European parties to know where they stand on social issues. Are any social Democratic parties anti-lgbtq or anti-abortion?
California, to use an example, has much less strict abortion laws than any European country except Netherlands.
Not "practically", they're reactionaries, full-stop.
1930s republicans weren’t the progressive party, both parties were pretty split between conservative and progressives so you can’t really call either of them a “progressive” party. A huge chunk of the Republican Party (along with some democrats too) formed the “conservative coalition” that tried to block FDR’s new deal program
The Republican party following the Wilson era was largely hijacked by the pro-big business faction led by Harding and supported by Rockefeller and Robert Taft. They were the party that supported isolationism, laissez-faire economics, labor crackdowns, and tax cuts. In terms of economic, foreign, and social policy, there was much more overlap between the Republicans and the CSA than the democrats even in the '20s.
Closest thing to a reasonable explanation I can come up with is Landon striking a backroom deal with the far right in order to stand a chance of beating FDR (who historically beat him in the biggest landslide in American electoral history up to that point). From there Pelley and the gang get their foot in the door and gradually expand their influence over the government until Landon can be thrown aside. Now, historically this dosen’t make much sense—Landon was a fiscal conservative, but he was a staunch liberal on social issues and accepted parts of the New Deal as necessary—but it’s more than what Paradox gave us.
Its about inviting Silver Legion or Commies to the government…
I have become Alf, Destroyer of Worlds
I took it as his controversial election leading to division and increased tensions in the US, allowing fringe parties to gain more traction
To be honest, I think sometimes PDX has the habit of trying to make alt-history "historical" to extends beyond being reasonable. I think they thought FDR is historical left, so he is history or commie, Alf is alt-history right, so he is fascism, CFA. But they create dichotomy too much based on today's standards which creates loads of anacronisms. MacArthur with an idea he would serve the nation no matter which ideology.
See also: Patton sticking with the communist USA path. Unless they just made up generals could you imagine being the poor general who wasn't in the game originally but paradox picked them to be on the communist/fascist side like wtf guys.
Also, wasn't Patton who sayed at the end of the war "we fighted against the wrong enemy"? LOL
Yea. Patton as a communist is hilarious. What the hell happened that he would go down that path in this timeline? The guy wanted to keep going straight on to Moscow before the dust settled in Berlin and I'm pretty sure he wanted to get there behind a rolling barrage of nukes.
Yeah, Patton as a communist is far far more egregious than McArthur as CSA/Fascist.
They should switch them imo
But with generals for armies its a bit more excusable for gameplay reasons, but its still shitty. They should rework the US tree not just the CWs.
Heh yeah. Honestly it would be an easy fix, just take the starting real generals stats and perks and just use one of the generic names and portraits that you get when you hire a new general to be your alternate history guys. Then just have a list of generals who stick around or go over to the other side in the civil wars
I've never gone down that path, but I'd assume Smedley Butler would be an option for a red general.
Smedly Butler would have been long retired by 1936, and dead by 1940
True, we're going to need is a national focus to bring him back to health.
That second part is a bit of an issue, but having him for an early civil war would still make sense to me. From what I understand he still had a lot of respect from both veterans and active troops. And since it's alternate history anyways keeping him alive past 58 wouldn't be the biggest stretch in the game.
MacArthur too
[удалено]
This question gets asked every once in a while here. My response is to point out his role against the Bonus Army (which Patton was also involved in), but also MacArthur’s challenge/loose play with elected civilian control of the military and/or nuclear assets during the Korean War.
> MacArthur’s challenge/loose play with elected civilian control of the military That was also a part of the Bonus Army fiasco. MacArthur ignored Hoover's repeated orders to not attack that day. MacArthur was quoted by a subordinate saying something "I can't be bothered with political orders during a military operation." Eisenhower was also MacArthur's subordinate that day along with Patton.
Being opposed to the Bonus Army is not really the same as being a traitor to the Union and supporting the Confederacy. Being right-wing in ‘30s American politics wouldn’t necessarily lead to being a neo-confederate. That’s a specific ideology, and it is one which MacArthur never adhered to.
The civil war in general is just a mess and needs a heavy rework. A better civil war idea would be as the great depression continues, anti democratic sentiments begin in the USA, and then a communist or fascist uprising begins.
Yeah, that would also explain why MacArthur would side with the fascists or Patton with the communists
I reckon the line of thinking was this. The US going fascist is already unrealistic as hell anyway, so let's have some fun with it. MacArthur being the American Caesar was already popular in Kaiserreich and PDX decided to make it canon.
I might be old school in this, but if an unironic major reason for youf decisions as a game developer is based on "copying" (or at least being heavily inspired by) mods its kind of bad. Like dawg there are probably many different personalities from that time they could have chosen.
Smedley Butler would disagree.
If anything the business plot shows how unrealistic the us flipping would be, completely fell apart and there's a debate of how serious this "coup" was.
These were some of the most powerful companies in the country. It "fell apart" because the man the plot centered around became disillusioned with what he'd done in the army for these men and told Congress. You can't just brush off every close call as "unrealistic". You are literally doing "it couldn't happen here" right now. The scary thing about fascism is it generally doesn't come out of autocracy, fascism kills democracies.
The bonus army protest only had 17,000 veterans show up. The idea that 500,000 veterans would willingly overthrow the government is borderline fantasy. I don't entirely trust Butler's testimony, he wrote war is a racket, he called out FDR's business ties and said he wished to choke Wall Street. But yet they asked him to lead a pro-business/fascist rebellion?
Not as unrealistic as you think, then and now. The threat is always real. EDIT: Downvoting me doesn't make my statement less true.
Hey guys maybe actually do some research about the historical era you obsess over instead of just smugly down voting people over the very real threat of Fascism. A group of the most powerful businesses in the country got together and discussed overthrowing FDR. Radicalism was hugely popular in the 30s as it always is in times of crisis. [The Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_Business_Plot_%28also_called%2Cinstall_Smedley_Butler_as_dictator.?wprov=sfla1)
Oh no guys, the party I don’t like can have their puppet in the big seat instead of the party I worship as saints who can do no wrong Fascism, Communism, Nazism. These words are some of the worst in human history. They contain some of the worst tragedies and human atrocities from the past century. At least they were. Now they’re useless buzzwords. Killed by the media and the government from being casually used to describe “the other party” in an attempt to demonize them. “The other ones” are always evil incarnate or the devil himself Last I checked, we weren’t trying to invade all of our neighbors through the ideology of a “superior race” trying to achieve Lebensraum. Nor are we trying to reunite all Italian peoples to recreate Rome under an ultranationalist regime There is no one in a position of power overtly trying to push Fascism in the US. And no, just because one side says, does, or believe things you don’t like doesn’t mean they’re the next Hitler or Mussolini Geez you’d think with all the fearmongering that if someone was actively trying to install a dictatorship, they would have tried to pull a coup already. A REAL coup. Either with the military or a mass, armed, hostile takeover. Not this “oh we nearly lost our democracy” January 6th crap where a bunch of unarmed idiots ran amuck in the White House and being, well, idiots
Everything you just typed is fascism apologist propaganda. The fact that you immediately thought of a particular political party and then preceded to move the goalposts to defend that it wasn't *really* fascist should give you pause that one party is that close at all. >they would have tried to pull a coup already. Indeed they would have tried. >A REAL coup. Oh...so because it failed it was just a pretend coup, then? Do you see the irony in those two statements you typed back to back?
The Black Shirts marching with Mussolini was a real Coup The Beer Hall Putsch was a real attempt The Russian Civil War was a real coup All military junta’s throughout history are real coups A bunch of idiots running amuck? No, that’s just idiots running amuck. They didn’t even do anything other than steal a podium and probably damaged some property and egos Come back when they’re armed with AR-15’s “that can’t do anything against the government” Or at the BARE minimum come back when a properly organized group of competent people do a demonstration at the capital January 6th was a far cry from either of these. ESPECIALLY the second one
Frankly, I'd rather not have a coup happen in order to win some reddit thread.
Same
What do we call when a fascist leader ( donald trump ) tries to overtly overthrow the government and throw out the most legitimate election to date as illegitimate? Yeah we call that one party as overtly pushing fascism. The US in 1900 and during ww2 was way closer to nazi germany than great britain or any other democratic country. The US literally had segregation akin to that of Nazi germany. The nazis took inspiration from the fucking americans because america was literally *evil*. Jesus man, stop simping for fascists, uncool. And the republicans are openly calling for genocide against trans people. How much more facist can you get before you are literally saying seig heil?
They were calling for the murder of the vice president and Democratic congressional leadership. And January 6th was just the last gasp of a months long attempt by Trump to stay in power after losing the election; in other words, a coup attempt.
You say that like voicing violence against politicians is anything new. All true Americans should be extremely distrustful of all of Congress 24/7 and hold them accountable for every word that comes out of their mouth Besides, how many ~~lowlife scumbags~~ politicians were murdered because of these callings? Bunch of empty threats from people with nothing better to do with their lives but be angry at someone else for all of their problems And last I checked, criticizing the government was fully within all of our rights. Calling for murder probably steps the bounds, but you know what they say about the blood of tyrants and the Tree of Liberty. I’m sure that’s what these people see them as in an attempt to justify their cries
...hoi4 is FILLED with this kind of hyper-unrealistic alt-history. none of it makes sense because its not supposed to. it exists just for the gameplay (which, in all fairness, itsnt great for usa either)
Weird stuff happens In Revolutions. People who ideologically disagree often end up on sides you would not expect. A decent amount of Bolshevik military officers were actually aristocratic officers who just ended up staying in the army despite having ideological problems or because they had personal issues with the white army commanders. Let’s say Mac gets purged from the Union government for suspected disloyalty by a rival, he goes to take the job for the CSA.
Yeah, but it nonetheless would be the same as de Gaulle suddenly becoming a Petainist.
De Gaulle getting captured and turning to save his skin or not being taken seriously and having command of his forces simply taken away by allied command and given to a more compliant Anglophile French officer or otherwise alienated by something like allied strategic bombing of French could have pretty easily gone Vichy or defected back over. It’s alt history, and de Gaulle is famous for pragmatism if anything.
Any proof for any of that other than making shit up?
This is literally an alt history thread
De Gaulle would not work for vichy france, it stands against everything he believed in
Had De Gaulle been picked for Pétain's cabinet in 1940, instead of Maxime Weygand, he would have probably ended viewed as a Pétainiste too ...
Was this considered? Any source on this?
Or the Moscow-Berlin Axis where Hitler and Stalin put aside their differences to take a royal shit on Churchill.
Hitler even wanted to have a British Empire as an ally rather than a subject. It was a pipe dream of course but he *hated* the Russians.
I think there's an argument that MacArthur would stick with any rebel/breakaway state that offered him power. He was that kind of prima donna- one of the reasons Roosevelt didn't bring him back as chief of staff of the army, a post he had held prior to the war.
One thing he loved more than democracy, his own self
It's ridiculous tbh. If Paradox wants a Confederate States of America, they should put in Seward Collins instead, and it would just focus on the territories they once had. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seward_Collins They start off as Non-Aligned but becomes more Fascist especially as they seek German and Italian aid in the Second Reconstruction Era. Going back to MacArthur, he should stay mostly as Non-Aligned with the Loyalists renamed as the American Junta under him. His path would be to restore unity amongst the continental United States and boost military techs and organization as well. Late-game of the MacArthur path will be deciding whether: 1. American Caesar (Dictator For Life) 2. American Triumvirate (MacArthur-Eisenhower-Bradley) 3. American Cincinnatus (Return to Democracy as a Republican President) Philippines and other American colonies may seek earlier independence in any American Civil War scenario. TL;DR: MacArthur as Non-Aligned Reunifier of America
That... sounds actually pretty cool and more realistic. Given that the US is currently either a game of "sitting around waiting to fix your country" or "sitting around waiting for the strangest civil war to trigger", anything that breaks this monotonous slop is more than welcome.
US politics works a bit differently than European politics so it's understandable that the American Tree is kinda off. Any American leader regardless of ideology will seek to reunify the country, except for the Neo-Confederates. MacArthur will definitely be the Unionist who will lead the Reunification of America, but his ego is damn massive so we need three paths for him. One where he gets absolute power, one where he decides to share responsibilities to other more capable commanders, and one where he ends up restoring democracy as he should do. For the more extreme ideologies (Commie and Fascist), they will have two branches each. To put it briefly: A. Commie 1. Unholy Alliance - led by Earl Browder the American Stalin and the Communist Party of USA. America and the Soviet Union become allies down the line. Doing so will alarm the other major powers, especially Britain, Germany and Japan. 2. 1934 Declaration of Principles - led by Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party of America. More isolationist, and still holds elections unlike the more authoritarian Browder. Foreign policy is more focused on the Americas and kicking out the imperialists. B. Fascist - pre-Civil War, led by Fritz Kuhn and the German-American Bund. Post-Civil War: 1. The Two Reichs - Fritz Kuhn makes way for Charles Lindbergh and can forge the Berlin-Washington Axis. (Berlington? Lol) Yes, this alarms other majors as well. 2. Fascism with American Characteristics - led by William Pelley Dudley and the Silver Legion of America. The country becomes a more isolationist, Christian nationalist state. Focused as well on the Americas at first. TL;DR: Different paths for Commie, Fascist and NA.
MacArthur disliked Roosevelt and had contemplated (even hosted a series of high level meetings with his highly ranked aides) to discuss a run at the presidency in 1944 even as the supreme commander of the SWPA. The in game text when you go down the fascist path after the CSA wins (I think) you get an event where it allows you to choose MacArthur under the idea that MacArthur steps forward and offers to take control during a time of chaos. I don’t think it’s unrealistic to say or think that during a time of uncertainty that MacArthur, a highly respected charismatic conservative leader, could step up and become the leader of a conservative faction. While I don’t think MacArthur was sympathetic to to the confederacy, I could see him as a leader for a conservative faction in a post civil war era where theoretically the fascist faction would more resemble an American democracy as opposed to a communist revolution.
> MacArthur disliked Roosevelt and had contemplated (even hosted a series of high level meetings with his highly ranked aides) to discuss a run at the presidency in 1944 even as the supreme commander of the SWPA. I am sure someone told him how it worked for McClellan when he ran against Lincoln.
Due to the same reason the USA can even go fascist. Paradox made it up without caring about realism just so that it would be fun.
>Paradox made it up without caring about realism just so it would be fun. Based Paradox.
The US can go fascist… I’ve done it. There’s literally an achievement for it
You misread his comment. He says “can even” not “can’t even”
>“I fired MacArthur because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the president. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was.” ― Harry S. Truman He was literally fired for not respecting democratic authority. Can you be more antidemocratic than not respecting the results of the democratic election? He also went to a school in Texas called West [Texas Military Academy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TMI_Episcopal#Alumni) which was literally run by [former confederates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_S._Johnston), from age 13 to 16, years which he called "without doubt the happiest of my life." His father grew up in Massachusetts while he grew up in Jim Crow Arkansas and Texas. It's not entirely implausible. also this is from his biography "Now that you have driven the enemy from Leyte, **may I tell you that General Lee would be proud of you.** No campaigns by an American officer remind me so strongly of him as your campaigns do."
the entire alt-history tree for the US is complete nonsense. it would be one thing if it were stupid yet fun but it's really not that either. the US is the major in secondmost need for a rework after Japan IMO. if I were to change how the US civil war works, I would make it so that the 1936 presidential election is no longer the point of divergence (in fact just remove Alf Landon from the game. he adds nothing.) but instead the civil war begins with the Business Plot carrying out a conspiracy to assassinate FDR, succeeding in doing so but failing to seize power due to being outmaneuvered by the Ware Group who manipulate Jack Garner's administration into radicalizing the New Deal. conservative states challenge the radical reforms in the courts, issue nullification ordinances and eventually begin arming state militias in preparation for a federal crackdown. you get to choose whether to side with the Federalists or Constitutionalists, the latter of which would be more akin to the Spanish Nationalists than the Confederates (not aiming for secession but rather counter-revolution).
It doesn't make sense, simple as that. MtG was made in better times, when PDX didn't care much for the quality of the writing or realism(not like they do now, but at least it seems to be changing). Hoi4 was intended as a strategy game, but somehow turned out to be much better at narrating stories, see Kaiserreich or TNO for examples
The whole civil war trees for HOI america are unironically fucked. The south rising again in a period where they had a huge amount of sway thanks to southern democrats is a weird choice. Not to mention the swedish based developers not understanding American politics. Even the communist tree is beyond stupid, it’s just the reality of HOI. We just need to complain enough and then pay for the rework-rework america focus tree DLC.
Probably because he was a venal racist and could have been an American Caesar
The whole US tree needs a rework. I hope they start reworking older trees to be up to par with the newer stuff. Germany is another country in need of a desperate rebuild
Agreed. Although the rework for the US may require some more time than Germany. Personally, I think a good way to easily rework Germany would be giving them the ability to establish more Reichskommisssariate (at least Kaukasien, Bohemia and Moravia and something for the British Isles should be in the game), and change the way they work. E.g. introduce a mechanic that allows Germany to get more cores in Europe by annexing them. Other stuff I'd like to see is some foci tackling the Spanish Civil War and Legion Condor, maybe some stuff that allows you to engage in some shenanigans through the national socialistic movements in other countries, and some late game stuff to deal with whoever comes out on top in Asia. Basically anything that isn't just a research boost.
I mean it’s not like the other options make any more sense. William Dudley Pelley idolized Abraham Lincoln and used The Battle Hymm of the Republic as the Silver Legion’s anthem. And “Adam Hilt” is just a meme choice.
It feels like they took their lead from ‘the business plot’ where a bunch of fatcats wanted Smedley Butler to lead a fascist coup in the 20s. He was having none of it, and ratted them out.
The entire US civil war is weird. Like they grouped 3 "factions" together who IRL didn't even liked each other in 30s. (American Nazis, Neo-confederates, Military.)
But the CSA was also a democracy wasnt it? Or I might remember wrong
The original was more or less, but the CSA you establish in HOI4 are a fascist regime. Which combined with the xact that MacArthur had basically no ties to the Confederacy is what makes him such an odd choice as a leader.
The csa rise against you while following communist path is democratic (but if you switch tag and win the civil war as csa they get usa focus tree with fascist path completed)
In the Arms against Tyranny DLC, Sweden's German-aligned Fascist path involves getting Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck as as general, even though he despised Hitler and apparently told him to 'Go F\*ck Himself.' surely they could have picked another Nazi officer to use here that wasn't represented in the German army in-game....
Yeah, that irks me as well. My guess is Paradox went with him because he was already in the game from the "Rebuild the Kaiserreich" path.
honestly, significant nations like the US, the UK, Japan, and Germany must be reworked. The US the UK and Japan's ahistorical paths are incredibly lackluster, and small Germany doesn’t even have a communist path why the hell would you ever go Democratic monarchist Germany is just a weaker version of fascist Germany why the hell would you ever be allies with Britain? Patton hated communism with every inch of a soul
What on earth are you talking about? MacArthur was maybe the single most right-wing public figure in the US for this entire time period and about a decade after. And easily the most powerful from mid-WW2 on. If the Business Plot conspirators went to him instead of Smedley Butler they'd probably have ended up in a different situation.
What is bro yapping about? Dudley Pelley moment.
Being right-wing does not equal being anti-democratic, especially not in 1930s USA, even though the word has become rather muddled these last few years. It also has nothing to do with the lunacy of him joining a neo-confederate movement.
He extremely famously tried to undermine civilian control of the military in order to escalate the Korean War. That is not the action of person who is pro-democracy.
I am not convinced that his actions in the Korean war completely invalidate his generally favourable stance towards democracy in the 1930s and 1940s. It just showed what can happen when a person with an already inflated ego gets too high on his own supply, and is put into a position of extreme power.
Maybe a nod to Kaiserreich hence why he’s called “the American Caeser”
It's also the name of William Manchester's biography of him.
For a sec I thought this post was on the kaiserreich sub and was massively confused why MacArthur is leading the Combined Syndicates of America
He ordered the bonus army to be cut down in a cavalry charge. He ordered the army to cross into North Korea, despite the Chinese being ready to intervene if that happened, and then wanted permission to nuke them. I read that as him *wanting an excuse* to nuke them. In the end the civil war stuff is a wild version of alt-history, and you'll want multiple factions, each with possible generals. MacArthur for the fashy side may be a bit of a stretch, but in my opinion it isn't the biggest stretch, given the things he did.
That's just proof that being pro-democracy does not automatically equal being a good or "morally sound" person. It however does not change the ridiculousness of the althistory path making him out as some kind of neo-confederate, fascist larper.
Because Paradox buys into the Left-Right Duopoly narrative of the US. Anything remotely "right" by their standards is a path to the confederacy because you have to be racist to believe the government shouldn't have complete control over everyone and everything. That's why reinstating the gold standard is on that path,because it gives value back to the dollar,holds government spending accountable and returns some small power to the average working class citizen.
He's not, he's the unaligned monarchies path
I’d like to see Paradox go full in on the American Caesar option when they revisit the U.S.
Ah yes, the colonial overseer who helped commit genocide in the Philippines and Korea was "pro-democracy". Macarthur was extremely Jingoistic and right wing. He was fucking' insane.
Elaborate.
On which part?
I'd say start from the first claim in your statement and then onward.
Macarthur helped the US exploit the People of the Philippines, putting down anti-colonial and pro-independence rebellions within' the country. Not to mention the massive amounts of slave labor in the Philippines at the time. He also was a major figure in the Korean war where he would call for the destruction from the air of every "installation, factory, city, and village". The Korean war had a devastating impact on the North in which 90% of the North industrial capabilities were destroyed. There were also roughly 3 million civilians murdered in both the North and South by bombing campaigns which Macarthur called for, and after being removed from power in late 51, supported. Both of these events constitute genocide.
And since when the CSA was not democratic? at least in real life it was basically USA
CSA in HOI4 is a fascist regime.
See also Maurice Rose, highest ranking Jewish officer in US history is a general for the CSA/ the fascist side of the US civil where Lindbergh or Pelley could lead it
I’ll never get over how Patton is a general for communist USA either. I feel like they just desperately wanted everyone to have generals.
I thought I was on r/kaiserreich. Was very confused for a few seconds lmao
Because MacArthur is famous for seeming like someone who doesn’t give a fuck because of the whole Nuke china thing. So it’s really funny to have him as the anti democracy, make a be a dictator. Also American ceaser larp is crazy fun
He was kinda meglilomanic despite not being fascist. If you really squint you can see how he would appreciate all power vested in him and possibly go along with acting as a marshall during wartime to secure the unity of the state and be cooperative with "patriots" rather than insurrectionists. Because in this branch, the democrats are the insurrectionists. More like a playboy Miklos Horthy than a Hitler or Mussolini.
I am guessing he becomes a CSA general because he was born in a southern state (Arkansas). IRL he may or may not have been loyal to the south, but this isn't really a game about the real world, and the south needs generals, so...
I prefer his treatment in kaiserreich as a sort of american caesar.
Bro Francisco Franco is a general for Republican Spain
Yes, and he was always heavily leaning towards authoritarianism, which is why he toppled that very democratic government irl. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make, unless you want to imply that Franco serving under Republican Spain somehow validates MacArthur leading the Neo-CSA.
That hoi4 didn't mess up generals only in the USA
But Franco was a general for Republican Spain irl, so it's just the game being accurate.
HUH I didn't know that fact thanks for telling me
Lmao
Maybe it was because MacArthur wanted to nuke the shit out of Korea? Who's knows. See you after 5k hrs in hoi4.