Kaiserreich complaints and changes you would like to see?

I whould make it so that Germany invaded the French Commune as well as Russia (as they are in for invading countries twice). Then there would be no revolution in Britian, and we could have a renvage full British Empire making alliances with people and wipping itself into shape. Syndicatismcould still be in the game ), but it would be happening through (potential) revolution in USA and Russia. France in Exile would also still hopefully exist, but maybe not start in the Entente. This also removes the Germanys mangage to claim all the British colonies thing.
I thought the revolutions winning in France and Britain didn’t make since. Germany would let the remaining parts of Russia fall to communism before France. I was thinking after the WW1 Germany enforces a harsh treaty on France and puts a puppet government in place. The treaty includes demilitarization of France’s northern border regions, reparations, German occupation of some areas of France, the monarchy put back in power with a Bourbon German puppet as head, and restrictions on the military size. France and it’s remaining lands in Africa remain united. France has a Spartacus or commune like uprising right after the war that is brutally put down by the Germans. The focus tree could split a few ways. 1. Stabilize the country politically and economically under the unpopular monarch by reenforcing ties with Germany. They help you keep control and maybe give land or remove parts of the treaty in return for your loyalty. 2. Become fascist, possibly under a Bonaparte who returns to France and gets elected which is followed by a coup by him and the military. Basically Bonaparte is somewhat similar to Hitler. 3. Is socialism which could involve a election where they are voted into power which can cause a political crisis which can end in variety of ways. Preferably I would like for the USSR to survive but with less land as otl but still retain more then current Kaiserreich Russia. This is so if France goes left they can immediately ally with Soviets so they don’t get invaded and immediately stumped by Germany. If USSR or a other major socialist power don’t ally them immediately Germany just crushes any attempts at socialism unless your super good and win on your own. A socialist France can also utilize its ideology to quickly integrate Africa which boosts manpower and resources.

Britain should have had a negotiated peace at the end of ww1. They only lose some parts of their empire but still retain good bits of it. The country is in a economic and political mess. It is trying to keep the remaining bits of the empire and not fall apart. Option 1 and most common Britain goes fascist while still retaining the monarch. Think of the King’s party in the new dlc in the base game. Edward, Mosley, and Churchill working together to keep order and bring the empire back to glory. Edward tries to increase royal authority with the help of Churchill who tries to take control of the civilian government. Mosley your more extreme one. He can either depose of the other two and become leader or work with them. They ban communist and socialist parties and groups. They also try to reclaim a lot of lost territory first being Ireland. They also can integrate white rules dominions into a imperial federation. This includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, and maybe Rhodesia. Other colonies are put under strict authoritarian rule. You have a few branches for fascism. 1. The White Man’s Burden, basically integrating colonies into the greater empire especially non-white ones. This includes Britain trying to “civilize” these areas and people up to British standards. It increases manpower to name one. 2. Racial superiority or segregation which would be you following more of a Nazi like belief system. Maybe one path involves getting involved in the American civil war in hopes reconquering America. You can call it Rhodes Vision on the focus tree. Democratic route could involve the some of the same conquest but by different methods. A communist Britain route could start with royal family trying to flee Britain and governments breaking away from Britain after it falls to syndies. If you stop the royal family from fleeing and execute them it is easier to retake colonies and dominions since many either go independent or in the off chance join you. Maybe give them a Revolution Under One Sun which lets them control overseas territory and gain conquest on people if communist
 
Maybe the nationalist!independent Hungary is some right-wing dictatorship (with AuthDem, PatAut, and NatPop paths) while the moderate!independent Hungary is a democratic republic with SocCon, MarLib, SocLib, and SocDem paths?
In Hungary the nobility was very dominant during the Dual Monarchy era, so I think the Moderates and Nationalists should both be lead by noble factions at the start. Auth Dems for moderates and Pat. Auts for Nationalists. Of course the Nationalists have a loose alliance with a more populist Arrow Cross like movement (Nat Pop), while the Moderates have ties to the middle class (Soc Con, Mark Lib, Soc Lib). If there is no uprising Hungary probably remain under the Moderate nobility happy with the status quo, but if the uprising happen by either the Nationalists or the Moderates the nobility's dominance will also be questioned. And the moderates if they rebel should both be able to go with a Constitutional Monarchy (if nobles still are in control) or a Republic (if the Middle Class has seized control). That's all I got.


I'm sorry, but English is not my mother tongue, so I use the Google translator.



Good idea and quite logical. But I do not agree about Ungern, he did not agree too much with the Japanese and Semyonov to be in this position.

But about Mad Baron already wrote here (look for my post #2093) https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/kaiserreich-legacy-of-the-weltkrieg.433458/page-105

Still makes more sense the baron is there than in Mongolia. That made very little sense in the KR timeline.

I like the Bohemia idea but shouldn’t that region stay under direct control of Austria if they win ww1 given large German percentage? I also think it will be cool for them to add in more stuff about Austria and Bohemia joining Germany especially if the empire falls apart.
Remember in the KR timeline Austria was basically collapsing despite technically being a winner, because 1918 was for Austria about just as bad as OTL. So the setup with the 5 different parst of the Empire, is a large compromise that basically made absolutely no one happy. And Vienna has over time just lost real control over Prague, and I guess it would make sense they try to use the German speaking Bohemians to regain influence.
 
When it comes to revolutions in Britain and France I am fine with them. It makes things interesting, though they don't completely make sense. I could see Britain still wanting to fight is France is knocked out, because they could still win in the Middle East (they were winning OTL), and it makes sense Germany would try to rush men there to defend the Ottomans. If Britain loses in the Middle East (like they did in KR) they'd sue for peace. But I have always been of the opinion that the last front in a CP victory timeline would be the Middle East.
 
OK, time to go after a sacred cow: I don't think Huey Long should be leading the American Union State.

By both contemporary and modern standards, Long was a progressive. He doesn't fit as the leader of the far right, and it's always been unclear why he and MacArthur would be on opposing sides. I think that Charles Coughlin would make a more appropriate leader for the AUS. He'd fit in as a far-right demagogue with a few left-wing ideas.

Long, on the other hand, would make a great wild card. I could see him siding with any faction - yes, even the syndicalists. It's not hard to imagine Long abandoning his opposition to socialism in an ATL. Of course, he'd be partly motivated by personal ambitions, and might even try to restore the United States once he gained power.

Mmm, this sacred steak is really good!
 
Last edited:
Huey is an egotist above all else. His AUS is built on belligerent nationalism, bloviation, naked populism, and "enlightened" social reforms that mostly exist to appease the liberals. Him working with MacArthur is impossible because their egos would clash too much, but he also clashes with Pelley's crazy American Nazis because Pelley is a fucking crazy person, and with the War Powers Committee because those plutocrats don't like Huey's populism and vaguely left-leaning economics.
 
When it comes to revolutions in Britain and France I am fine with them. It makes things interesting, though they don't completely make sense. I could see Britain still wanting to fight is France is knocked out, because they could still win in the Middle East (they were winning OTL), and it makes sense Germany would try to rush men there to defend the Ottomans. If Britain loses in the Middle East (like they did in KR) they'd sue for peace. But I have always been of the opinion that the last front in a CP victory timeline would be the Middle East.
They could also throw the Ottomans under the bus in exchange for Britain making peace and letting Germany retain all its gains and colonies. I see Britain and Germany having a negotiated peace if Germany knocks out France and Russia in the war. Britain gets its otl lands in Middle East plus the French ones and maybe takes control of Congo to so they can at least depict the war as not a complete defeat. They gain oil and prevent Germans from expanding economically in the Middle East. Congo makes it where they can build the cape to Cairo railroad so they would at least have some good gains and no lost of land. How would the public take that? Additionally, I think Belgium and French Flanders should be rewarded to the Netherlands after ww1 while Germany gains Luxembourg. For some reason that seems more right. Germany just rewarded Netherlands because they are on good terms and they want a big friendly buffer state. Also in a Kaiserreich situation shouldn’t Italy side with the central powers in WW1 and the US stay neutral to make them winning more likely and with more realistic big gains? I feel like Italy always gets the short stick in things. Italy gets Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunis, and French Somaliland after ww1 but come into conflict with Germany after due to their claims over the ever weakening and unstable Austria-Hungary Empire. Maybe have Mussolini still come to power in a similar way. Instead of Italy feeling screwed by the allies they feel screwed by the central powers
 
Huey is an egotist above all else. His AUS is built on belligerent nationalism, bloviation, naked populism, and "enlightened" social reforms that mostly exist to appease the liberals. Him working with MacArthur is impossible because their egos would clash too much, but he also clashes with Pelley's crazy American Nazis because Pelley is a fucking crazy person, and with the War Powers Committee because those plutocrats don't like Huey's populism and vaguely left-leaning economics.
Good point but this just made me realize something. Why is Patton a general for them? I would think he would support MacArthur and be a loyalist?
 
Again, massive ego. He and MacArthur probably can't stand being in the same room as each other.
I thought they often worked together and even agreed politically in some regards? Didn’t the work together during protest marches in DC during the depression in otl? I know Patton was more racist and was also a lot less compose then MacArthur but they did share things in common on military methods and how to use it
 
Also, didn't Patton have...questionable views on race? IE, views that would put him more in line with Pelley et al than with MacArthur?
I'm not certain, though MacArthur was pretty racist himself (it was the '30s after all). It's more that two bombastic strongmen in the same room is a recipe for disaster.
 
I'm not certain, though MacArthur was pretty racist himself (it was the '30s after all). It's more that two bombastic strongmen in the same room is a recipe for disaster.

Oh, for sure. My thinking was more that the thought might have been: Patton's racist, plus he's from the South...AUS.

But yeah, I agree that he and Dugout Doug would likely have ended up shooting each other.
 
I thought they often worked together and even agreed politically in some regards? Didn’t the work together during protest marches in DC during the depression in otl? I know Patton was more racist and was also a lot less compose then MacArthur but they did share things in common on military methods and how to use it
You'd have to ask the devs, then. Maybe they had a really big argument in the '20s under President McAdoo?
 
I'm not certain, though MacArthur was pretty racist himself (it was the '30s after all). It's more that two bombastic strongmen in the same room is a recipe for disaster.
Patton was racist but MacArthur is a bit odd compared to most people in America back then. He highly respected Japanese and Far East culture. He saw elements within their culture that he thought America lacked but also thought Japanese society should adopt some of the good elements of America culture he thought they lacked in. MacArthur seems to be pragmatic in nature and value honor along military lines.
 
This might be a bit strange seeing as that HOI is at it's core a grand strategy war game meant to simulate WW2.... But I would really like it if the Second Weltkrieg can actually be avoided if the conditions are right, with there being a Cold War/ideological struggle between the various factions, making KR more of a political simulator using the existing mechanics of HOI.

This reminds me of an post like this in the Hetalia KR, of how much it would be more interesting of an muitpolar Cold War between the main camps. Sure, you could still have American and Russian Civil Wars, exiles trying to find an place in the world, China woes and horrors in Africa, but avoid the Second Weltkrieg and you have an far more interesting world.
 
Last edited:
OK, time to go after a sacred cow: I don't think Huey Long should be leading the American Union State.

By both contemporary and modern standards, Long was a progressive. He doesn't fit as the leader of the far right, and it's always been unclear why he and MacArthur would be on opposing sides. I think that Charles Coughlin would make a more appropriate leader for the AUS. He'd fit in as a far-right demagogue with a few left-wing ideas.

Long, on the other hand, would make a great wild card. I could see him siding with any faction - yes, even the syndicalists. It's not hard to imagine Long abandoning his opposition to socialism in an ATL. Of course, he'd be partly motivated by personal ambitions, and might even try to restore the United States once he gained power.

Mmm, this sacred steak is really good!
Anyone else think AUS should just be the Confederates States of America(CSA) and the syndies should be the United Socialist States of America(USSA)? But back to the question, Huey is an opportunist. I could see him trying to play any side and gain power in anyway possible. I could see him being fascist like. He would probably have an economy where everything above small or family businesses are state run or run by a few legal regulated monopolies. It would have socialist elements but he would avoid any association with it. They would probably depicted it as being Christian and not socialist. If you keep Huey alive and leader of AUS he should be the non-racist and populist branch option. Huey politically would probably run the AUS more like Italian or Iberian fascist in regards to structure. Christianity within the government and mixed into their ideology is also possible. His fascism would likely have a cult of personality around himself and try to be assimilationist in policy. I could see him liking himself to the founding fathers if he wins. What if his policy regarding race after winning the main civil war is creating a united America where everyone are the same people. He wants one American identity and race. This means encouraging mixing and enforcing one national identity. He believes in conquering all of the Americas(at least all of North America) for the AUS. The branch tree can reference this as manifest destiny or the Huey Doctrine. His branch tree could include ending segregation, state funded religions, enforcing traditional values(name it Every King Needs His Queen), and state unions
 
I think that the Entente should have the opportunity to become the national populist faction. Edward has fascist sympathies, Portugal can only go Nat Pop or Pat Aut, France has a history with integralism, Australasia 9 times out of 10 goes Nat Pop and most National Populist countries have the option to join the Entente. If Russia goes with Savinkov and allies with the Entente, you might even get the Reichspakt and the International allying together to fight a common evil.

It’d make a nice multipolar world, further playing to the ideological conflict in KR.
 
They could also throw the Ottomans under the bus in exchange for Britain making peace and letting Germany retain all its gains and colonies. I see Britain and Germany having a negotiated peace if Germany knocks out France and Russia in the war. Britain gets its otl lands in Middle East plus the French ones and maybe takes control of Congo to so they can at least depict the war as not a complete defeat. They gain oil and prevent Germans from expanding economically in the Middle East. Congo makes it where they can build the cape to Cairo railroad so they would at least have some good gains and no lost of land. How would the public take that? Additionally, I think Belgium and French Flanders should be rewarded to the Netherlands after ww1 while Germany gains Luxembourg. For some reason that seems more right. Germany just rewarded Netherlands because they are on good terms and they want a big friendly buffer state. Also in a Kaiserreich situation shouldn’t Italy side with the central powers in WW1 and the US stay neutral to make them winning more likely and with more realistic big gains? I feel like Italy always gets the short stick in things. Italy gets Savoy, Nice, Corsica, Tunis, and French Somaliland after ww1 but come into conflict with Germany after due to their claims over the ever weakening and unstable Austria-Hungary Empire. Maybe have Mussolini still come to power in a similar way. Instead of Italy feeling screwed by the allies they feel screwed by the central powers

1. They are not throwing the Ottomans under the bus. The Germans want to defeat Britain, and since they can't do it one the seas, they'll go to where they might do it on land. Of course Britain can actually win the Middle Eastern war and that would force a peace where Germany to accept they can't beat Britain. If Germans knock Britain out of the Middle East on the other hand Britain must accept defeat, because in theory the Empire is now under threat. Just how much oil the Middle East had was unknown at this time, which is why you don't see oil considerations when discussing the peace in WW1.

2. The Dutch were neutral, so no the Germans wouldn't award them with anything. Germany annexing Luxembourg and some small parts of Wallonia makes sense, it was their war aims in Belgium. I always saw it more likely they'd set up separate Wallonian and Flemish puppets though instead of a faux Belgium.

3. Italy won't get shit. They were on the losing side. And Austria has interests in making sure Italy is as weak as possible.
 
1. They are not throwing the Ottomans under the bus. The Germans want to defeat Britain, and since they can't do it one the seas, they'll go to where they might do it on land. Of course Britain can actually win the Middle Eastern war and that would force a peace where Germany to accept they can't beat Britain. If Germans knock Britain out of the Middle East on the other hand Britain must accept defeat, because in theory the Empire is now under threat. Just how much oil the Middle East had was unknown at this time, which is why you don't see oil considerations when discussing the peace in WW1.

2. The Dutch were neutral, so no the Germans wouldn't award them with anything. Germany annexing Luxembourg and some small parts of Wallonia makes sense, it was their war aims in Belgium. I always saw it more likely they'd set up separate Wallonian and Flemish puppets though instead of a faux Belgium.

3. Italy won't get shit. They were on the losing side. And Austria has interests in making sure Italy is as weak as possible.
I said they should have had Italy join the central powers instead of the allies in the Kaiserreich scenario. They were originally a central power and it makes the game more interesting
 
Top