Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

Delhi doesn't have democracy. The nicest possible interpretation is that it's a bunch of local strongmen and despots using the Raj as a fig leaf to justify their own rule. Out of the three Indias, only Bharat has actual democracy (unless Bose takes over and turns it into basically a nationalist dictatorship).

Also...Sand France is literally a colonial regime AND a military dictatorship at the same time that literally uses black people as slaves, Australasia starts out a dictatorship and has to have democracy restored, the West Indies are a white-supremacist patchwork that mostly exists to stop the non-white people from telling Eddie to piss off, and Canada has been straight-up hijacked by the royals and their pet minions so that they can throw away lives in a futile attempt to retake a country that told them to get lost because it was time to become a republican regime.

Those are not the good guys.
Uhm, the nicest possible interpretation of Delhi definitely covers democracy given they have, you know, elections that decide the government and can be won by multiple parties covering a wide political range (unlike, say, the Long's AUS) - even parties led by people willing to negotiate and unite with an amenable Bharatiya government (eg., with Gandhi).
 
Well, two things.

I believe that every "villain" is the hero of his own history, so unless they are a insane regime like the iron guard or theocratic ottoman empire or sorelian France, they can be considered a total waste.

NAT. France is a dictatorship, but this also prevents from from going natpop or totalist, something that can happen on the CoF, they can turn into totalist.

But I agree that the Entente is the rightist faction, Portugal, Brazil, Sicily and other members of the Entente are usually natpops.
 
They also ignore the fact that India has democracy for example.
The Dominion of India shouldn't even even have democracy (or exist) at all. They're the remnants of the British Raj, a colonial regime that treated the Indian people like dirt and actively exploited and killed them throughout its history. The Brits would never be willing to give any sort of equality or self-rule to the Indians when they never even saw them as actual people.
 
I mean, it is a bit of a left wing term (suggesting a bias).
and there point basically breaks down to "how dare the Entente resist our volient over throw of the goverment".
No, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"
 
The Dominion of India shouldn't even even have democracy (or exist) at all. They're the remnants of the British Raj, a colonial regime that treated the Indian people like dirt and actively exploited and killed them throughout its history. The Brits would never be willing to give any sort of equality or self-rule to the Indians when they never even saw them as actual people.
I feel you are being a bit hyperbolic here, but you are right. Delhi should not exist.
 
No, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"
a. I some how dought that it was the will of the people
b. Force has been used, the rebels and Canada are at war, if not actively persuing it.,
 
No, the point break down to "it was the will of the people to end the previous regime and because of that retaking the homeland would be like firing at protestors"
The syndicalists and radsocs also fired into protests, it was a civil war and if 1/3 of the total population supported the old order it would mean that over ten million people had to be suppressed.
 
a. I some how dought that it was the will of the people
b. Force has been used, the rebels and Canada are at war, if not actively persuing it.,
Very few revolutions succeded when most of the population didn't want it, and point b is irrelevant
 
Very few revolutions succeded when most of the population didn't want it, and point b is irrelevant
There is this Elizabeth I movie scene that makes sense for this situation. Basically the Anglican court is discussing about the Catholics and how to deal with them. Someone proposes suppressing them to be replied with "Do you want to repress almost half of the population?".

It is similar here.

Edit: I'm aiming at the "firing at protestors" argument, not trying to justify a invasion.
 
Last edited:
There are events where you have elections!
No. It is run by trade unions. It is at best an incredibly olgicaral democracy.
1. Those aren't "elections" as we think of them, they're more an elective monarchy deciding whose bloc should be in charge.
2. How is a state run by, for, and about the common worker, with power vested directly in the people through a confederation of elected union leaders, NOT a democracy??? Yes, Bose institutes an authoritarian regime and Gandhi doesn't react super well to that for obvious reasons, but the Bharatiya Commune is literally a popular movement that seeks to put power in the hands of the common Indian people.
Incorrect.
Uhm, the nicest possible interpretation of Delhi definitely covers democracy given they have, you know, elections that decide the government and can be won by multiple parties covering a wide political range (unlike, say, the Long's AUS) - even parties led by people willing to negotiate and unite with an amenable Bharatiya government (eg., with Gandhi).
That's not democracy, it's a bunch of local rulers united by a fig leaf jockeying for position to see whose bloc takes charge.
 
As Delhi is at the moment, then no, the events do indicate they are elections as we think of them ("Four major parties are competing for the people's votes.", "The Swaraj Party Dominates at the Ballot Box", "Jinnah's Leftists Sweep the Elections" - that last also putting someone unfriendly to continued Dominion status in power, you may notice). Where did you get the idea they aren't? Now, you can certainly argue it is unrealistic (my own take is that it is unrealistic, but more realistic than a figleaf of British rule managing to cling on to a significant part of India any other way, so the alternative should be no Delhi, not dictatorship Delhi).
 
Now, you can certainly argue it is unrealistic (my own take is that it is unrealistic, but more realistic than a figleaf of British rule managing to cling on to a significant part of India any other way, so the alternative should be no Delhi, not dictatorship Delhi).
Or a Republican Delhi under some sort of "Republic of India" tag, for that matter. If I did KR's India, Delhi would be a bunch of republicans under the right-wing faction of the Indian National Congress while the Princely Federation would be the remnants of Entente rule there.
 
Last edited:
a. I some how dought that it was the will of the people
Given that the Revolution in Britain was a popular uprising, it's clear at least that the majority of British wanted the monarchy gone and a more equal redistribution of wealth.

If Britain goes Totalist, and Canada is democratic, then they could be the good guys. But if the Union is a democratic state, with popular support, then the Royalists are pretty damn clearly the bad guys.
 
"elective monarchy deciding whose bloc should be in charge" is the Princely Federation, not Delhi.

the Bharatiya Commune is literally a popular movement that seeks to put power in the hands of the common Indian people.
The Bharatiya Commune doesn't even abolish the caste system, the Totalists do it during the course of their path.
 
"elective monarchy deciding whose bloc should be in charge" is the Princely Federation, not Delhi.


The Bharatiya Commune doesn't even abolish the caste system, the Totalists do it during the course of their path.
  1. Then what actually IS Delhi? It's based in the area that was mostly Princely States (while the Federation is in the more republican and formerly directly-ruled south), it's ostensibly loyal to the British royalist exiles...and yet it's allegedly a democracy??? How and why does that work or make sense at all?
  2. Yeah, even OTL Gandhi was pro-caste-system. Bharat is still clearly presented and operates as a popular movement.
 
British royalist exiles...and yet it's allegedly a democracy??? How and why does that work or make sense at all?
It is a democracy.
It is loyal to the Enente due to the people in goverment
Yeah, even OTL Gandhi was pro-caste-system. Bharat is still clearly presented and operates as a popular movement.
If anything, I would argue that the lack of socail engerneening suggests it is a popular movement.
 
Top