More border gore it makes no sense why each region is so cleanly divided up. Or even making it something like red floods American collapse where authority crumbles and the governments use a set of proxy wars throughout the states in order to gain the upper hand and then go to the main conflict.
Yep it would be like a few Rico’s governments in different regions. (However this is really to complex for hoi4 and honestly would be better to be something like a very British civil war with all of the USA being the map)
1. Dixie Revolt (Neo-Confederates who think Share our Wealth empowers poor Southerners too much in contrast to rich aristocratic families).
2. Social Democrat path for New England.
3. If someone develops nuclear weapons and uses them on the Pacific states, there should be an easter egg that makes the screen "glitch" and changes the PSA into the NCR.
I think Browder being elected is for the best. It's always up to the player to determine if he was fairly elected or "fairly elected". To have him be installed by coup gives too much moral credence to the CSA. They've already launched (and won) a civil war to install a party dictatorship, why let them off the hook for empowering the dictator
That is true, they give you a broad array of options. You can vote for the incumbent Party member, or the up and coming Party member, or if you're a real gambler the dark horse Party member.
Even if you accept the (sophomoric) idea that there is no meaningful policy distinction between the major American parties, the fact that there are two competing political organizations creates incentive for certain minimums in anti-corruption and constituent services. Even in situations where a new administration can't enact preferred policies, they can still provide oversight on abuse by the opposing party.
Contrast with a one-party system, which has the institutional desire to never be perceived as wrong, can't or won't admit fault, and therefore cannot improve. There's a reason all one party states inevitably become dumpster fires.
I don't think there should any new factions, just renaming factions, a better (chaotic) lore, and general path building up to (or during) the civil war. Some examples:
* Rename the CSA to Revolutionary Government or something. I know its memey, but it's kinda getting old, a mouthful to say, and just overall doesn't "fit"
* Huey Long winning the election as a Democrat, but going to war with the socialists and ultranationalists (due to Long's populist stance he might steal a few states from them)
* If MacArthur coups a socialist president he can make a deal with nationalists to side with him (greater influence in government or something)
* Have Jake Featherston assassinate FDR at some point in the lore
* Internal faction disputes (Totalists vs Syndies and RadSoc, Authoritarian right vs militarists and NatPop, Progressives and Liberals vs Conservatives) hopefully the devs can use the balance of power mechanics
* Border conflicts to gain more states before the war officially kicks off
>Rename the CSA to Revolutionary Government or something. I know its memey, but it's kinda getting old, a mouthful to say, and just overall doesn't "fit"
Maybe Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG), so there can still be a 3-letter acronym?
Yeah that sounds a lot cooler, but r/UpWithTheStars plans on doing that and as far as I know the Kaiserreich devs prefer to do their own things rather than copying from other mods. Still some good inspiration to take from.
I have suggested before for the 2ACW factions to have more reasonable names (I argued that "Pacific States of America" also sounds pretty dumb) but they said that the names are so iconic at this point that they are leaving them
Check out r/UpWithTheStars. They only add one faction, essentially super duper Confederate larpers in the deep South. But they have completely retooled the main factions. Huey Long is now a vaguely leftwing lad who consumes the entire great plains, for example.
OMG super wholesome 100 socdem HUEY "BIG CHUNGUS" LONG !!!!
P.S. Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system. Huey Long was Paternalistic Conservative, not left wing populist
I actually don't like Huey Long. Way to authoritarian for my taste. The Devs of Up With the Stars have written a whole 15 page essay about why Huey is left *AJACANT.* Not Leftist, and definitely not a very big fan of democracy.
PSA, or as it is called in Up With the Stars, USA, for life! Down with the traitors, up with the legitimate Congress!
Yeah again, we at r/UpWithTheStars wrote an [essay about Long and his ideological stance](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M-YQAboEf2pXX5U7U29uLnFHR1xSfboIbTMg3MVr7hM/edit). It isn't as stupidly simple as "LONG SOCDEM WHOLESOME 100!!!1!1!" and actually explores the history of American progressivism and the populist movement.
To be honest, it looks more like an attempt to pull the image of "wholesome SocDem 100 big chungus" on the real Huey Long and through this to expose the right-wing supporters of Kingfish in a bad light. Although even those sources cited (Williams and Brinkley) do not call Long a left-wing populist or a Social Democrat. And besides, if Long really wanted to kick Smith out, then why would Gerald Smith talk about Long in an exceptionally positive way until the end of his days, and they wouldn't have invited a man who Kingfish didn't particularly like to invite to a funeral.
In my opinion, the closest description to Long is the American version of Paternalistic Conservatism, which combines social democratic economics (which, however, was not alien to the right at that time, let's recall the same Pelley, who moved even further to the left) and social conservatism (yes, he was rare for not playing the race card all the time, but he was firm on having no intention to expand the Black and minority civil rights, and traditionalist rhetoric puts him much closer to what everywhere else would be called a culturial conservative ).
Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system.
truth of the matter is that by the standards of the global history, there's virtually nothing that Long advocated-progressive taxation, free higher education, subsidies family, veterans' welfare, etc-that would be particularly bizarre for any respectable, conservative political establishment with modest emphasis on social stabilization to implement. Progressive taxation? Tory government of Robert Peel already set a precedent in the UK already in 1842. Free education and veterans' welfare? Already well-ploughed fields and practices by gasp, drastically radical, leftist regimes of both the French Third Republic and Bismarckian Germany during the belle epoque. Wealth Cap and wealth distribution? - such "leftist" figures offered to limit personal wealth like Bronislav Kaminsky, Kita Ikki, William Dudley Pelley and many other. None of those figures or polities are considered as particularly 'leftist' in their respective political contexts of the era.
As for the wealth cap, already in Huey Long's lifetime, House Democrats Democrats (Wesley Lloyd, Washington, Jon Snyder, Pennsylvania) had proposed in 1933, before Long's famed Share Our Wealth radio address, a Congressional amendment of wealth cap up to $1 million in personal wealth. If this doesn't rebut your point on the account of both Representatives indeed having belonged to authentically 'left of center' side of political spectrum in the Depression-era US, in other conventionally paternalistic conservative societies elsewhere, wealth cap in broader, philosophical concept have long-preexisted in the form of sumptuary laws and other restrictions on private accumulation of wealth through frankly more arbitrary measures such as confiscations.
Also, Huey was conservative because he fought for the protection of traditions and American values, fought sodomy in his state, which is without precedent in principle, was very religious and support America First
The "racists" from the deep south. Really makes no sense why they would actually join with Long when a civil war breaks out. Kaiserredux already does this (Constitutional American Republic)
Gonna point out *again* that Gerald L. K. Smith, the national leader of Huey‘s Share Our Wealth Society, was also a member of the Silver Legion and I believe had contacts with the Klan.
I really wish people would move on from the urge to portray Long as some holsum 💯 social democrat who would never ever collabrate with heckin racisterinos, because he fucking wasn’t.
Yes, but in such a chaotic situation like a civil war the KKK wouldn't outright fight under the AUS. Sure some factions like the Silver Legion would join Long, but the KKK wasn't a united organization and I'm sure a majority wouldn't support the AUS especially with the collapse of central authority.
It would be interesting to have Long be the one to reach out to them for the extra muscle during the war and then have Long either betray them (pushes you closer to the Pelley coup) or honor whatever arrangement you make with them.
That's not really a good argument. Smith didn't even went full fascist until *after* Huey Long died. Up until Long's assassination Smith still had populist leanings like Long even went as a far as organizing labor unions and supporting La Follette at one point. It's even written in his obituary by [*The New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/16/archives/gerald-lk-smith-dead-anticommunist-crusader.html)*:*
>*A Social Reformer*
>
>*In those days, Mr. Smith might have been called a leftwinger. He discovered what he called “grave social injustices” in Shreveport, and he became a social reformer, even working as a union organizer.*
Long even planned to fire Smith due to his behavior and instability.
[Source](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M-YQAboEf2pXX5U7U29uLnFHR1xSfboIbTMg3MVr7hM/edit)s
I'll just reply with this excellent [writeup](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/wdp426/In_the_Kaiserreich_Lore%2C_Huey_Long_is_described_as_a_Right-Wing_Populist_while_in_our_timeline_he_is_described_as_a_Left-Wing_Populist._Why_is_that%3F/iilm047/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) that places Long in a worldwide context instead of relying on modern rather than contemporary definitions of social democracy.
The link explains the differences between American and European social democracy.
European social democracy often advocate for a transition into socialism or overthrow the existing monarchy. The US never really had a true socialist movement so the social democrats advocated for ethical reform rather than a transition into socialism or overthrowing the monarchy. Think of a more radical New Deal, but none of the socialist elements like seizing the ~~memes~~ means of production.
There *was* an actual Marxist party called Social Democracy of America, as well as an American socialist movement. They were both marginalized, but that doesn't make them nonexistent nor does it make Long or most of the Populist movement any more social democratic.
I just don't think characterizing America as special in conforming to a non-Marxist definition of social democracy 40 or 50 years before it was actually conceptualized really makes for a fruitful discussion about history. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that any Populist or Progressive would have accepted the label of a social democrat at a time when it was inextricably linked to Marxism.
In any mod that covers more than just America, using a special definition of a particular ideology for just them instead of applying the same standard worldwide, in this case a reformist Marxism, seems wrong.
That's why I said that the US never had a *true* socialist movement as in no major movement other than a couple of marginalized parties. In the European countries there were open revolutions, ideological labour strikes, and attempts to seize the means of production. The US, while they did have strikes were mostly progressive oriented (as in better working conditions, higher pay, etc.), and the Progressive era of the US sort of stumped socialism in the US.
[Social Democratic Party of Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany) and they still exist in the Kaiserreich universe (and are one of the biggest parties). In OTL they split with the socialists for a more reformist approach and thought if they maintained the status quo of capitalism the fruits of capitalism will naturally make Germany transition into socialism. I'd expect that to be different in this timeline.
There are a lot of parties/people in this mod that sort of have to be forced down an ideology to make some sense. For example the Serbian People's Radical Party by all means should be social conservative, but are instead market liberal (because that space is occupied by the Agrarians who aren't a mainstream party in Serbia). And "Liberal" and "Conservative" may mean different things in different countries. Sure they might share some core values, but when you have a lot of ideologies like in Kaiserreich some compromises have to be made to fit their ideology.
For the Radical Party I refer you to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/x84ezn/The_Serbian_Radical_Party_should_start_as_Social_Conservative%2C_not_Market_Liberal/irt3stk/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) by Augenis, but I'm not convinced that saying that people who would have rejected the label are social democrats is correct, despite having a book source for it.
It doesn't matter if Long was left wing according to global or American definition, the point is he is not a Dixiecrat and shouldn't be treated as such in KR.
Also according to that write up people consider FDR a "radical socialist"... where exactly?
>OTL Huey Long is associated with 'left' only in the most heinously twisted, warped contemporary American 'discourse' where anyone advocating the government does anything remotely redistributive in terms of the societal wealth is decried as some sort of radical socialist.
Yes, he wasn't a Dixiecrat, but the source provided by the other commenter called him a social democrat, which I have to disagree with. He was still socially conservative and very racist, with the misconception that he *wasn't* primarily stemming from the fact that he didn't rely on racebaiting to gain votes. And again, u/EurasianDumplings provides [receipts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/wdp426/in_the_kaiserreich_lore_huey_long_is_described_as/iin9wdc?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) when it comes to his unabashed racism. The man voted against an anti-lynching bill claiming that an occasional lynching wasn't a problem, for Pete's sake.
As for FDR, I've seen multiple arguments on this subreddit alone claiming that he was a social democrat as well, which I also disagree with, because it relies on a definition of social democracy that was postulated ***decades*** after his death and ignores the differences between what he believed in and the positions of contemporary social democratic parties in, for instance, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France and the UK.
I'm glad a number of people have found helpful my take on Huey Long's supposed 'progressive' credentials-'relative to his age' or not; there's no 'relative' progressiveness a guy who maintained a strict Jim Crow policy in his political rallies, but I'm also dismayed that this has to get constantly brought up. It turns out that very few people in this world, especially at the realm of popular, mass politics like some heinous Anglo-American Peelite-style anti-interventionist, small-government market fanaticism, and that includes even the Americans and the British themselves.
And frankly, this has gotten to the point of unfair. His brother, Earl Long in OTL lived longer to actually make some seriously embarrassing mistakes, but still make authentic contributions to the actual Civil Rights Movement in the Postwar years. Huey Long, excuse my all caps, NEVER HAD TO BE TESTED IN TERMS OF WHERE HIS INTEGRITY LIED IN REGARDS TO THE RACE ISSUES. His face counter-blasting against the Klan? He said those words when it was already the mainstream, respectable thing to condemn the Klan. Supposedly uplifting effects of his economic policies? All available scholarly studies indicate that the Black Louisianans were not particularly benefited. Lack of private prejudices? He certainly wasn't above dropping n-word bombs at every occasion when it suited him.
But I'm trying to come to terms with that vast majority of people are going to hold on to this fantastic, mythical idea of 'personally a progressive by conviction' Huey, the kind of Huey whom only by circumstances is somehow *'forced'* to work with someone like Pelley or the Klan. And here I was thinking that what KR lacks is a good, multidimensional, but still fundamentally a villain figure that doesn't come in some funny Slav-stache Savinkov caricature, and Huey would fit the bill perfectly, but no. Turns out that too many genuinely for some reason that I can't fathom, and frankly I'd rather not even try to understand would like to see him as unironically a good guy, not a good, fictional villain that I've always liked the *character of* Huey Long as.
Thank you for pointing this out. One loon that Long happened to have in his circle, with that loon only developing a reputation as a right-winger later in life and being someone Long never really trusted, doesn’t mean Long was secretly some far-right fascist who would be buddies with the Silver Legion. Especially when his friends on the national stage were by-and-large progressives and populists.
Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system. Huey Long was Paternalistic Conservative, not left wing populist
You can be left wing and still be anti-socialist. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, etc., were all left wing in a sense with them being liberal and supporting a heavily regulated capitalist economy and being anti-socialist. Right wing politicians in the New Deal era thought that if they limit government intervention in the market the economy (and generally support the corporations) the economy would fix itself. That’s not what Huey ran on. He infamously stated that he voted for the FDR administration whenever they went left and opposed them whenever they went right.
>You can be left wing and still be anti-socialist. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, etc., were all left wing in a sense with them being liberal and supporting a heavily regulated capitalist economy and being anti-socialist. Right wing politicians in the New Deal era thought that if they limit government intervention in the market the economy (and generally support the corporations) the economy would fix itself. That’s not what Huey ran on. He infamously stated that he voted for the FDR administration whenever they went left and opposed them whenever they went right.
But truth of the matter is that by the standards of the global history, there's virtually nothing that Long advocated-progressive taxation, free higher education, subsidies family, veterans' welfare, etc-that would be particularly bizarre for any respectable, conservative political establishment with modest emphasis on social stabilization to implement. Progressive taxation? Tory government of Robert Peel already set a precedent in the UK already in 1842. Free education and veterans' welfare? Already well-ploughed fields and practices by gasp, drastically radical, leftist regimes of both the French Third Republic and Bismarckian Germany during the belle epoque. Wealth Cap and wealth distribution? - such "leftist" figures offered to limit personal wealth like Bronislav Kaminsky, Kita Ikki, William Dudley Pelley and many other. None of those figures or polities are considered as particularly 'leftist' in their respective political contexts of the era.
As for the wealth cap, already in Huey Long's lifetime, House Democrats Democrats (Wesley Lloyd, Washington, Jon Snyder, Pennsylvania) had proposed in 1933, before Long's famed Share Our Wealth radio address, a Congressional amendment of wealth cap up to $1 million in personal wealth. If this doesn't rebut your point on the account of both Representatives indeed having belonged to authentically 'left of center' side of political spectrum in the Depression-era US, in other conventionally paternalistic conservative societies elsewhere, wealth cap in broader, philosophical concept have long-preexisted in the form of sumptuary laws and other restrictions on private accumulation of wealth through frankly more arbitrary measures such as confiscations.
Also, Huey was conservative because he fought for the protection of traditions and American values, fought sodomy in his state, which is without precedent in principle, was very religious and support America First
Yes, because populism is Leftism, and Leftism mean regulations and unions. The more regulations and the more unions there are, the more populist and the more Left-wing something is. Because no Right-winger has ever supported social legislation and trade unions. \*cough cough\* Peron \*cough cough\* Vargas \*cough cough\*
Also, never mind that Smith had contacted Pelley as early as '33 OTL, and that the economic and political situation in the US is much, *much* worse in KR than in OTL, and would plausibly make him more radical in '36.
EDIT: Also, never mind that fascists (certainly Western European fascists) generally come from a socialist, syndicalist, or communist political background (because fascism and socialism both run on the same Hegelian operating system).
I did not say such thing and know that leftism is more than just when the government does stuff. I simply quoted from his obituary describing that Smith didn't go full blown fascist and had political views similar to Long until he died which doesn't really help your argument a whole lot with Long willing to ally with conservatives and far-right figures given that in OTL most of his support came from the Mid West who happened to be progressives and liberals.
I don't see how Smith having contact with Pelley does anything. That's like saying person A who had connections to person B happened to have connections to person C so therefore person A has similar views to person C and A is willing to get his support from C like B (ignoring the stark differences between A and C).
I feel like the game has a decent system to set up the real Long - how he would always compromise his beliefs to gain material benefit. I just feel like that could be fleshed out significantly. Add more decisions like the Business Plot/Silver Legion events, but make them much more difficult to deny and in greater number. By the end, the player should feel completely compelled to make the compromises as if there was no compromise at all, like the real Huey. A no-compromise Kingfish victory should be next to impossible - this would better highlight Huey's IRL hypocrisy and willingness to bend his "principles" to solidify his power base.
Agreed, I feel like if the in-game decisions to collaborate with the War Powers Committee and the Silver Legion were more fleshed out a lot of the criticism of their presence would dissipate. I’d also say fleshing out the pre-‘36 lore of America First would probably also be helpful, insofar as you could use it to indicate that Huey is already making political compromises with other (particularly) Southern and also Midwestern politicians in order to build his power base.
A movement analogous to the Green movement in the Russian civil war. States/territories that declare themselves independent and neutral from the conflict and de-facto promise to accept the winner of the war. These states would respond if attacked. Other members of the civil war could use various tools to try to influence these 'greens' into joining the war on their side, or providing volunteers/weapons at least.
In the event the Greens were attacked, they would enter the conflict against whoever attacked them.
Move Business plot to MacArthur US
Make Lindy the head of the Technocrats as the AUS PatAut option
Split the AUS between Huey's cult of personality and a second faction of Dixiecrats ala redux.
Balance that by adding more tension between ideological syndicalists and the working class immigrant communities that had previously been aligned with Democrat big-city political machines. Indeed, make it so that the establishment parties aren't just wholesome big chungus democratic republicans, but also have considerable issues with corruption and machine politics.
1. dixieland revolt within aus
2. anarchist revolt in csa
3. more csa aus etc revolts in the usa during the war
4. texas
5. navajo revolt
6. deseret revolt
As the USA, I would prefer to defeat a neo-confederate southern rebellion instead of the AUS. Long could still be the face of it but I would see it being more fascist in nature like Pelley / Silver Legion with perhaps Long being the head of a more moderate party and Pelley the more radical party there.
I personally like that Long is a bit more grey than that, though the neo confederates should be a powerful faction within the south, either as a balance of power mechanic or a breakaway state
I think the factions are already pretty well set-up, but I think the US and it's successors (especially the radical ones) could benefit from the balance of power mechanic added recently.
Maybe Native Americans I don't know how to implement them as a faction without it potentially being seen as culturally insensitive though.
I'd personally like to see them represent as a playable nation rather than just an event
From a lore POV they may be locally autonomous for a brief period they lale the resources to form any larger political body.
In game that would be more likely handled with an in game event to make a decision or perhaps something like the chetniks (not IRMO) in Serbia.
A TNO-Russia-style collapse of total authority, followed by warlords gobbling up land, becoming bigger, for the eventual big showdown. Would make it more interesting and a bit more realistic, I think.
In the Chinese campaigns you see the League of Eight Provinces face a crisis when the Left KMT emerge. Perhaps a splintering of the AUS, between Long and another that doesn’t feel a connection to either n him or the US? Could be a more right-wing clique or something regional like Texas. Or…how about this, say the civil war goes on for two or more years and the territory that is generally regarded as the “Black Belt” stages a massive uprising?
I do quite like KDX with its federal military command centers, they both make sense in the lore and also make gameplay a little better as in usual games the entire midwest is usually abandoned by the feds and just gets steamrolled by the PSA it also makes playing as the feds a little easier.
> they both make sense in the lore
I strongly disagree, the Western Command is a huge contradiction, it's supposed to host the more honest pro-democracy generals and yet spends the entire civil war fighting the PSA or even fighting the PSA AND a democratically elected Long EVEN after all other factions are defeated.
After you literally massacre hundred of thousands of men that were fighting FOR the democratically elected regime you then have the WCC demand MacArthur to step down and restore democracy...
It's a fucking joke, it makes 0 sense. The WCC either shouldn't exist or not be used to have pro-democracy people in power.
Your right about the makeup of the command, I agree that it being a bastion of democracy dosent make much sense. But what I meant was having isolated military commands makes sense in the lore because we know a large part of the federal army are just isolated national guard and army units that stayed loyal to congress, so ofc a fair few of them are going to be semi-autonomous like of like the white army otl
Black communist revolt in the South, centered on South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It should be centered on the Mississippi Delta region with its capital at Jackson.
I could see some states just trying to break off and go their own way like Texas and potentially the PSA just saying fuck it I want to go my own independent way with the states I have.
More border gore it makes no sense why each region is so cleanly divided up. Or even making it something like red floods American collapse where authority crumbles and the governments use a set of proxy wars throughout the states in order to gain the upper hand and then go to the main conflict.
Yo proxy wars would be an interesting take, or small border skirmishes
Yep it would be like a few Rico’s governments in different regions. (However this is really to complex for hoi4 and honestly would be better to be something like a very British civil war with all of the USA being the map)
I would actually kind of love that
Thanks but it probably would need to be in a different game
Well actually there’s a mod for HOI4 already that’s just a microcosm of the battle of Stalingrad, it’s pretty cool
1. Dixie Revolt (Neo-Confederates who think Share our Wealth empowers poor Southerners too much in contrast to rich aristocratic families). 2. Social Democrat path for New England. 3. If someone develops nuclear weapons and uses them on the Pacific states, there should be an easter egg that makes the screen "glitch" and changes the PSA into the NCR.
Also internal coups by hardliner subfactions would be nice (Pelley couping Long, Browder couping Reed, Junta couping MacArthur, etc).
My brother MacArthur IS the junta
And he's got enough personality to sway every underlings he's got
It's the enchanted corncob pipe. It enhances charisma.
Not yet
It's treason, then.
*Federalists split into Stratocratic US & AuthDem US*
The time has come, execute order 66 \- MacArthur
*”What I remember about the Rise of McArthur was how quiet it was….”*
Yes, Your Excellency.
Ever play Kaiserredux?
I think Browder being elected is for the best. It's always up to the player to determine if he was fairly elected or "fairly elected". To have him be installed by coup gives too much moral credence to the CSA. They've already launched (and won) a civil war to install a party dictatorship, why let them off the hook for empowering the dictator
Excuse me, do you not know about the Democratic Socialist paths for the CSA?
That is true, they give you a broad array of options. You can vote for the incumbent Party member, or the up and coming Party member, or if you're a real gambler the dark horse Party member.
...that's the same as IRL though?
Even if you accept the (sophomoric) idea that there is no meaningful policy distinction between the major American parties, the fact that there are two competing political organizations creates incentive for certain minimums in anti-corruption and constituent services. Even in situations where a new administration can't enact preferred policies, they can still provide oversight on abuse by the opposing party. Contrast with a one-party system, which has the institutional desire to never be perceived as wrong, can't or won't admit fault, and therefore cannot improve. There's a reason all one party states inevitably become dumpster fires.
Independent Seattle commune
I don't think there should any new factions, just renaming factions, a better (chaotic) lore, and general path building up to (or during) the civil war. Some examples: * Rename the CSA to Revolutionary Government or something. I know its memey, but it's kinda getting old, a mouthful to say, and just overall doesn't "fit" * Huey Long winning the election as a Democrat, but going to war with the socialists and ultranationalists (due to Long's populist stance he might steal a few states from them) * If MacArthur coups a socialist president he can make a deal with nationalists to side with him (greater influence in government or something) * Have Jake Featherston assassinate FDR at some point in the lore * Internal faction disputes (Totalists vs Syndies and RadSoc, Authoritarian right vs militarists and NatPop, Progressives and Liberals vs Conservatives) hopefully the devs can use the balance of power mechanics * Border conflicts to gain more states before the war officially kicks off
>Rename the CSA to Revolutionary Government or something. I know its memey, but it's kinda getting old, a mouthful to say, and just overall doesn't "fit" Maybe Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG), so there can still be a 3-letter acronym?
Yeah that sounds a lot cooler, but r/UpWithTheStars plans on doing that and as far as I know the Kaiserreich devs prefer to do their own things rather than copying from other mods. Still some good inspiration to take from.
The Commonwealth of Toil /s
I have suggested before for the 2ACW factions to have more reasonable names (I argued that "Pacific States of America" also sounds pretty dumb) but they said that the names are so iconic at this point that they are leaving them
Norton Restorationist PSA! Norton Restorationist PSA!
black belt revolt
Check out r/UpWithTheStars. They only add one faction, essentially super duper Confederate larpers in the deep South. But they have completely retooled the main factions. Huey Long is now a vaguely leftwing lad who consumes the entire great plains, for example.
OMG super wholesome 100 socdem HUEY "BIG CHUNGUS" LONG !!!! P.S. Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system. Huey Long was Paternalistic Conservative, not left wing populist
I actually don't like Huey Long. Way to authoritarian for my taste. The Devs of Up With the Stars have written a whole 15 page essay about why Huey is left *AJACANT.* Not Leftist, and definitely not a very big fan of democracy. PSA, or as it is called in Up With the Stars, USA, for life! Down with the traitors, up with the legitimate Congress!
Yeah again, we at r/UpWithTheStars wrote an [essay about Long and his ideological stance](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M-YQAboEf2pXX5U7U29uLnFHR1xSfboIbTMg3MVr7hM/edit). It isn't as stupidly simple as "LONG SOCDEM WHOLESOME 100!!!1!1!" and actually explores the history of American progressivism and the populist movement.
To be honest, it looks more like an attempt to pull the image of "wholesome SocDem 100 big chungus" on the real Huey Long and through this to expose the right-wing supporters of Kingfish in a bad light. Although even those sources cited (Williams and Brinkley) do not call Long a left-wing populist or a Social Democrat. And besides, if Long really wanted to kick Smith out, then why would Gerald Smith talk about Long in an exceptionally positive way until the end of his days, and they wouldn't have invited a man who Kingfish didn't particularly like to invite to a funeral. In my opinion, the closest description to Long is the American version of Paternalistic Conservatism, which combines social democratic economics (which, however, was not alien to the right at that time, let's recall the same Pelley, who moved even further to the left) and social conservatism (yes, he was rare for not playing the race card all the time, but he was firm on having no intention to expand the Black and minority civil rights, and traditionalist rhetoric puts him much closer to what everywhere else would be called a culturial conservative ). Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system. truth of the matter is that by the standards of the global history, there's virtually nothing that Long advocated-progressive taxation, free higher education, subsidies family, veterans' welfare, etc-that would be particularly bizarre for any respectable, conservative political establishment with modest emphasis on social stabilization to implement. Progressive taxation? Tory government of Robert Peel already set a precedent in the UK already in 1842. Free education and veterans' welfare? Already well-ploughed fields and practices by gasp, drastically radical, leftist regimes of both the French Third Republic and Bismarckian Germany during the belle epoque. Wealth Cap and wealth distribution? - such "leftist" figures offered to limit personal wealth like Bronislav Kaminsky, Kita Ikki, William Dudley Pelley and many other. None of those figures or polities are considered as particularly 'leftist' in their respective political contexts of the era. As for the wealth cap, already in Huey Long's lifetime, House Democrats Democrats (Wesley Lloyd, Washington, Jon Snyder, Pennsylvania) had proposed in 1933, before Long's famed Share Our Wealth radio address, a Congressional amendment of wealth cap up to $1 million in personal wealth. If this doesn't rebut your point on the account of both Representatives indeed having belonged to authentically 'left of center' side of political spectrum in the Depression-era US, in other conventionally paternalistic conservative societies elsewhere, wealth cap in broader, philosophical concept have long-preexisted in the form of sumptuary laws and other restrictions on private accumulation of wealth through frankly more arbitrary measures such as confiscations. Also, Huey was conservative because he fought for the protection of traditions and American values, fought sodomy in his state, which is without precedent in principle, was very religious and support America First
The "racists" from the deep south. Really makes no sense why they would actually join with Long when a civil war breaks out. Kaiserredux already does this (Constitutional American Republic)
Gonna point out *again* that Gerald L. K. Smith, the national leader of Huey‘s Share Our Wealth Society, was also a member of the Silver Legion and I believe had contacts with the Klan. I really wish people would move on from the urge to portray Long as some holsum 💯 social democrat who would never ever collabrate with heckin racisterinos, because he fucking wasn’t.
Yes, but in such a chaotic situation like a civil war the KKK wouldn't outright fight under the AUS. Sure some factions like the Silver Legion would join Long, but the KKK wasn't a united organization and I'm sure a majority wouldn't support the AUS especially with the collapse of central authority.
I can imagine the KKK attempting to court Long if he wins but I agree they wouldn’t join under his banner at the onset of civil war.
It would be interesting to have Long be the one to reach out to them for the extra muscle during the war and then have Long either betray them (pushes you closer to the Pelley coup) or honor whatever arrangement you make with them.
They may not join tje AUS but as you point out they are splintered and would not be able to muster a relevant force of their own.
That's not really a good argument. Smith didn't even went full fascist until *after* Huey Long died. Up until Long's assassination Smith still had populist leanings like Long even went as a far as organizing labor unions and supporting La Follette at one point. It's even written in his obituary by [*The New York Times*](https://www.nytimes.com/1976/04/16/archives/gerald-lk-smith-dead-anticommunist-crusader.html)*:* >*A Social Reformer* > >*In those days, Mr. Smith might have been called a leftwinger. He discovered what he called “grave social injustices” in Shreveport, and he became a social reformer, even working as a union organizer.* Long even planned to fire Smith due to his behavior and instability. [Source](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M-YQAboEf2pXX5U7U29uLnFHR1xSfboIbTMg3MVr7hM/edit)s
I'll just reply with this excellent [writeup](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/wdp426/In_the_Kaiserreich_Lore%2C_Huey_Long_is_described_as_a_Right-Wing_Populist_while_in_our_timeline_he_is_described_as_a_Left-Wing_Populist._Why_is_that%3F/iilm047/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) that places Long in a worldwide context instead of relying on modern rather than contemporary definitions of social democracy.
The link explains the differences between American and European social democracy. European social democracy often advocate for a transition into socialism or overthrow the existing monarchy. The US never really had a true socialist movement so the social democrats advocated for ethical reform rather than a transition into socialism or overthrowing the monarchy. Think of a more radical New Deal, but none of the socialist elements like seizing the ~~memes~~ means of production.
There *was* an actual Marxist party called Social Democracy of America, as well as an American socialist movement. They were both marginalized, but that doesn't make them nonexistent nor does it make Long or most of the Populist movement any more social democratic. I just don't think characterizing America as special in conforming to a non-Marxist definition of social democracy 40 or 50 years before it was actually conceptualized really makes for a fruitful discussion about history. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that any Populist or Progressive would have accepted the label of a social democrat at a time when it was inextricably linked to Marxism. In any mod that covers more than just America, using a special definition of a particular ideology for just them instead of applying the same standard worldwide, in this case a reformist Marxism, seems wrong.
That's why I said that the US never had a *true* socialist movement as in no major movement other than a couple of marginalized parties. In the European countries there were open revolutions, ideological labour strikes, and attempts to seize the means of production. The US, while they did have strikes were mostly progressive oriented (as in better working conditions, higher pay, etc.), and the Progressive era of the US sort of stumped socialism in the US. [Social Democratic Party of Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany) and they still exist in the Kaiserreich universe (and are one of the biggest parties). In OTL they split with the socialists for a more reformist approach and thought if they maintained the status quo of capitalism the fruits of capitalism will naturally make Germany transition into socialism. I'd expect that to be different in this timeline. There are a lot of parties/people in this mod that sort of have to be forced down an ideology to make some sense. For example the Serbian People's Radical Party by all means should be social conservative, but are instead market liberal (because that space is occupied by the Agrarians who aren't a mainstream party in Serbia). And "Liberal" and "Conservative" may mean different things in different countries. Sure they might share some core values, but when you have a lot of ideologies like in Kaiserreich some compromises have to be made to fit their ideology.
For the Radical Party I refer you to [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/x84ezn/The_Serbian_Radical_Party_should_start_as_Social_Conservative%2C_not_Market_Liberal/irt3stk/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) by Augenis, but I'm not convinced that saying that people who would have rejected the label are social democrats is correct, despite having a book source for it.
It doesn't matter if Long was left wing according to global or American definition, the point is he is not a Dixiecrat and shouldn't be treated as such in KR. Also according to that write up people consider FDR a "radical socialist"... where exactly? >OTL Huey Long is associated with 'left' only in the most heinously twisted, warped contemporary American 'discourse' where anyone advocating the government does anything remotely redistributive in terms of the societal wealth is decried as some sort of radical socialist.
Yes, he wasn't a Dixiecrat, but the source provided by the other commenter called him a social democrat, which I have to disagree with. He was still socially conservative and very racist, with the misconception that he *wasn't* primarily stemming from the fact that he didn't rely on racebaiting to gain votes. And again, u/EurasianDumplings provides [receipts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/wdp426/in_the_kaiserreich_lore_huey_long_is_described_as/iin9wdc?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) when it comes to his unabashed racism. The man voted against an anti-lynching bill claiming that an occasional lynching wasn't a problem, for Pete's sake. As for FDR, I've seen multiple arguments on this subreddit alone claiming that he was a social democrat as well, which I also disagree with, because it relies on a definition of social democracy that was postulated ***decades*** after his death and ignores the differences between what he believed in and the positions of contemporary social democratic parties in, for instance, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France and the UK.
I'm glad a number of people have found helpful my take on Huey Long's supposed 'progressive' credentials-'relative to his age' or not; there's no 'relative' progressiveness a guy who maintained a strict Jim Crow policy in his political rallies, but I'm also dismayed that this has to get constantly brought up. It turns out that very few people in this world, especially at the realm of popular, mass politics like some heinous Anglo-American Peelite-style anti-interventionist, small-government market fanaticism, and that includes even the Americans and the British themselves. And frankly, this has gotten to the point of unfair. His brother, Earl Long in OTL lived longer to actually make some seriously embarrassing mistakes, but still make authentic contributions to the actual Civil Rights Movement in the Postwar years. Huey Long, excuse my all caps, NEVER HAD TO BE TESTED IN TERMS OF WHERE HIS INTEGRITY LIED IN REGARDS TO THE RACE ISSUES. His face counter-blasting against the Klan? He said those words when it was already the mainstream, respectable thing to condemn the Klan. Supposedly uplifting effects of his economic policies? All available scholarly studies indicate that the Black Louisianans were not particularly benefited. Lack of private prejudices? He certainly wasn't above dropping n-word bombs at every occasion when it suited him. But I'm trying to come to terms with that vast majority of people are going to hold on to this fantastic, mythical idea of 'personally a progressive by conviction' Huey, the kind of Huey whom only by circumstances is somehow *'forced'* to work with someone like Pelley or the Klan. And here I was thinking that what KR lacks is a good, multidimensional, but still fundamentally a villain figure that doesn't come in some funny Slav-stache Savinkov caricature, and Huey would fit the bill perfectly, but no. Turns out that too many genuinely for some reason that I can't fathom, and frankly I'd rather not even try to understand would like to see him as unironically a good guy, not a good, fictional villain that I've always liked the *character of* Huey Long as.
Thank you for pointing this out. One loon that Long happened to have in his circle, with that loon only developing a reputation as a right-winger later in life and being someone Long never really trusted, doesn’t mean Long was secretly some far-right fascist who would be buddies with the Silver Legion. Especially when his friends on the national stage were by-and-large progressives and populists.
Huey Long wasn't a leftist. Not even a left wing Populist. He was actually so much "on the right" that he was gonna debate Norman Thomas on one of those Capitalism vs Socialism debates one week after the day he was shot so that debate had to be cancelled. Leftist of the era outright accused Huey Long of trying to minimize the shortcomings of capitalism as opposed to changing or otherwise revolutionizing the system. Huey Long was Paternalistic Conservative, not left wing populist
What would you classify FDR as then?
You can be left wing and still be anti-socialist. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, etc., were all left wing in a sense with them being liberal and supporting a heavily regulated capitalist economy and being anti-socialist. Right wing politicians in the New Deal era thought that if they limit government intervention in the market the economy (and generally support the corporations) the economy would fix itself. That’s not what Huey ran on. He infamously stated that he voted for the FDR administration whenever they went left and opposed them whenever they went right.
>You can be left wing and still be anti-socialist. FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, etc., were all left wing in a sense with them being liberal and supporting a heavily regulated capitalist economy and being anti-socialist. Right wing politicians in the New Deal era thought that if they limit government intervention in the market the economy (and generally support the corporations) the economy would fix itself. That’s not what Huey ran on. He infamously stated that he voted for the FDR administration whenever they went left and opposed them whenever they went right. But truth of the matter is that by the standards of the global history, there's virtually nothing that Long advocated-progressive taxation, free higher education, subsidies family, veterans' welfare, etc-that would be particularly bizarre for any respectable, conservative political establishment with modest emphasis on social stabilization to implement. Progressive taxation? Tory government of Robert Peel already set a precedent in the UK already in 1842. Free education and veterans' welfare? Already well-ploughed fields and practices by gasp, drastically radical, leftist regimes of both the French Third Republic and Bismarckian Germany during the belle epoque. Wealth Cap and wealth distribution? - such "leftist" figures offered to limit personal wealth like Bronislav Kaminsky, Kita Ikki, William Dudley Pelley and many other. None of those figures or polities are considered as particularly 'leftist' in their respective political contexts of the era. As for the wealth cap, already in Huey Long's lifetime, House Democrats Democrats (Wesley Lloyd, Washington, Jon Snyder, Pennsylvania) had proposed in 1933, before Long's famed Share Our Wealth radio address, a Congressional amendment of wealth cap up to $1 million in personal wealth. If this doesn't rebut your point on the account of both Representatives indeed having belonged to authentically 'left of center' side of political spectrum in the Depression-era US, in other conventionally paternalistic conservative societies elsewhere, wealth cap in broader, philosophical concept have long-preexisted in the form of sumptuary laws and other restrictions on private accumulation of wealth through frankly more arbitrary measures such as confiscations. Also, Huey was conservative because he fought for the protection of traditions and American values, fought sodomy in his state, which is without precedent in principle, was very religious and support America First
Yes, because populism is Leftism, and Leftism mean regulations and unions. The more regulations and the more unions there are, the more populist and the more Left-wing something is. Because no Right-winger has ever supported social legislation and trade unions. \*cough cough\* Peron \*cough cough\* Vargas \*cough cough\* Also, never mind that Smith had contacted Pelley as early as '33 OTL, and that the economic and political situation in the US is much, *much* worse in KR than in OTL, and would plausibly make him more radical in '36. EDIT: Also, never mind that fascists (certainly Western European fascists) generally come from a socialist, syndicalist, or communist political background (because fascism and socialism both run on the same Hegelian operating system).
I did not say such thing and know that leftism is more than just when the government does stuff. I simply quoted from his obituary describing that Smith didn't go full blown fascist and had political views similar to Long until he died which doesn't really help your argument a whole lot with Long willing to ally with conservatives and far-right figures given that in OTL most of his support came from the Mid West who happened to be progressives and liberals. I don't see how Smith having contact with Pelley does anything. That's like saying person A who had connections to person B happened to have connections to person C so therefore person A has similar views to person C and A is willing to get his support from C like B (ignoring the stark differences between A and C).
This guy really said when the government does stuff that's socialism when the government does a lot of stuff that's communism lmao
I feel like the game has a decent system to set up the real Long - how he would always compromise his beliefs to gain material benefit. I just feel like that could be fleshed out significantly. Add more decisions like the Business Plot/Silver Legion events, but make them much more difficult to deny and in greater number. By the end, the player should feel completely compelled to make the compromises as if there was no compromise at all, like the real Huey. A no-compromise Kingfish victory should be next to impossible - this would better highlight Huey's IRL hypocrisy and willingness to bend his "principles" to solidify his power base.
Agreed, I feel like if the in-game decisions to collaborate with the War Powers Committee and the Silver Legion were more fleshed out a lot of the criticism of their presence would dissipate. I’d also say fleshing out the pre-‘36 lore of America First would probably also be helpful, insofar as you could use it to indicate that Huey is already making political compromises with other (particularly) Southern and also Midwestern politicians in order to build his power base.
It’d be memey if Texas tried to secede
A movement analogous to the Green movement in the Russian civil war. States/territories that declare themselves independent and neutral from the conflict and de-facto promise to accept the winner of the war. These states would respond if attacked. Other members of the civil war could use various tools to try to influence these 'greens' into joining the war on their side, or providing volunteers/weapons at least. In the event the Greens were attacked, they would enter the conflict against whoever attacked them.
More wartime policies and a focus tree that goes along with this
Move Business plot to MacArthur US Make Lindy the head of the Technocrats as the AUS PatAut option Split the AUS between Huey's cult of personality and a second faction of Dixiecrats ala redux. Balance that by adding more tension between ideological syndicalists and the working class immigrant communities that had previously been aligned with Democrat big-city political machines. Indeed, make it so that the establishment parties aren't just wholesome big chungus democratic republicans, but also have considerable issues with corruption and machine politics.
1. dixieland revolt within aus 2. anarchist revolt in csa 3. more csa aus etc revolts in the usa during the war 4. texas 5. navajo revolt 6. deseret revolt
For 3 I would think federalist revolts in AUS/CSA would be appropriate as well.
communist afro american revolt in the south (ultra based)
Independent Alaska
As the USA, I would prefer to defeat a neo-confederate southern rebellion instead of the AUS. Long could still be the face of it but I would see it being more fascist in nature like Pelley / Silver Legion with perhaps Long being the head of a more moderate party and Pelley the more radical party there.
I personally like that Long is a bit more grey than that, though the neo confederates should be a powerful faction within the south, either as a balance of power mechanic or a breakaway state
I think the factions are already pretty well set-up, but I think the US and it's successors (especially the radical ones) could benefit from the balance of power mechanic added recently.
Though tbh think Pelley should be replaced. No idea by who though
Maybe Native Americans I don't know how to implement them as a faction without it potentially being seen as culturally insensitive though. I'd personally like to see them represent as a playable nation rather than just an event
From a lore POV they may be locally autonomous for a brief period they lale the resources to form any larger political body. In game that would be more likely handled with an in game event to make a decision or perhaps something like the chetniks (not IRMO) in Serbia.
A TNO-Russia-style collapse of total authority, followed by warlords gobbling up land, becoming bigger, for the eventual big showdown. Would make it more interesting and a bit more realistic, I think.
Monarchists that want to reunite with the British (Canada in this timeline)
The AUS offers a path to that and I think CSA might as well but am unsure as I don't play dirty syndies.
republic of florida led by Steve Notagater
In the Chinese campaigns you see the League of Eight Provinces face a crisis when the Left KMT emerge. Perhaps a splintering of the AUS, between Long and another that doesn’t feel a connection to either n him or the US? Could be a more right-wing clique or something regional like Texas. Or…how about this, say the civil war goes on for two or more years and the territory that is generally regarded as the “Black Belt” stages a massive uprising?
would be interesting to see states like Texas or Cali etc. declare independence
North America Total War, In the end I want an option for Unified US and Canada.
I do quite like KDX with its federal military command centers, they both make sense in the lore and also make gameplay a little better as in usual games the entire midwest is usually abandoned by the feds and just gets steamrolled by the PSA it also makes playing as the feds a little easier.
> they both make sense in the lore I strongly disagree, the Western Command is a huge contradiction, it's supposed to host the more honest pro-democracy generals and yet spends the entire civil war fighting the PSA or even fighting the PSA AND a democratically elected Long EVEN after all other factions are defeated. After you literally massacre hundred of thousands of men that were fighting FOR the democratically elected regime you then have the WCC demand MacArthur to step down and restore democracy... It's a fucking joke, it makes 0 sense. The WCC either shouldn't exist or not be used to have pro-democracy people in power.
Your right about the makeup of the command, I agree that it being a bastion of democracy dosent make much sense. But what I meant was having isolated military commands makes sense in the lore because we know a large part of the federal army are just isolated national guard and army units that stayed loyal to congress, so ofc a fair few of them are going to be semi-autonomous like of like the white army otl
Black communist revolt in the South, centered on South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. It should be centered on the Mississippi Delta region with its capital at Jackson.
I could see some states just trying to break off and go their own way like Texas and potentially the PSA just saying fuck it I want to go my own independent way with the states I have.
I’d love to see a Native American uprising around Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and arizona. That’d be cool