Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

He's best described as a vaguely anarcho-fascist apocalyptic violence fetishist. He liked revolutions not for the theoretical end result but for what he saw as the cleansing power of people murdering each other.
He also was a firm believer in the idea of an übermensch and was feared by the Soviet government to be a Russian Mussolini.
There was a post on Reddit about this that I quite liked, one moment now and I’ll find it.
 
I would say a monarchy that actively cracked down on any and all possible opposition, used secret police (Okhrana) to hunt down and murder any threats to its power, resisted every chance of reform in order to retain its autocratic power over Russia, and treated 90% of its own population like slaves fits the definition of totalitarian.
It didn't, though. While radical leftism was heavily cracked down upon liberalism was allowed, even within the political sphere. Open dissent was tolerated so long as it didn't morph into calls for overthrowing the whole system. That's actually the main difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

While serfdom was officially abolished in 1861 (the fact that it lasted this long is kind of telling), the life of the average Russian at this time was still extremely awful, and most of the reforms that sought to improve the lives of the population were undone once Alexander III came to power.
What reforms? Alexander III's reaction mainly involved political repression against leftists, not backsliding on Alexander II's social reforms (which in fairness didn't go that far due to aristocratic opposition). The main problem with emancipation was that most freed serfs were still tied to lands owned by big landowners (where have I heard that one before) and Alexander didn't feel strong enough to move against them. With hindsight we can say he should have, but ultimately neither Tsar was some cackling tyrant wondering how much oppression they could do today.

Tsarist Russia was pretty terrible, don't get me wrong. But it definitely wasn't worse than Savinkov's Russia, and we don't know if KR's Restoration would be as bad; in particular, Kyrill seems like an enlightened guy(and OTL he wanted to work with the Soviets) so it seems doubtful he'd go back on the Republic's social reforms, especially if Wrangel (also a pretty alright guy) put him in power. I can't imagine the Tsar would be more likely to enact organized genocide than Savinkov.
 
What reforms? Alexander III's reaction mainly involved political repression against leftists, not backsliding on Alexander II's social reforms (which in fairness didn't go that far due to aristocratic opposition). The main problem with emancipation was that most freed serfs were still tied to lands owned by big landowners (where have I heard that one before) and Alexander didn't feel strong enough to move against them. With hindsight we can say he should have, but ultimately neither Tsar was some cackling tyrant wondering how much oppression they could do today.
The guy also incited pogroms, oppressed non-Russian minorities, caused a famine, banned non-Russian languages, banned Jews from staying in rural areas and shtetls, and established laws similar to the Nuremberg laws limiting Jewish employment
 
As someone who is still a fan of Kaiserreich's more "meme-y" paths, this as a general alternate history scenario still intrigues me alot. In your scenario is mainland France still syndicalist and the french government in exile in Africa, or is France a united republic more along the lines of this scenario's Britain?

As for the general idea, a couple of other ideas I've had:

The 2ACW would be fought between the "Populists", a coalition of various left-leaning groups including traditional Progressives, Syndicalists and Huey, and the "Nationalists" which is the moderate liberal/conservative US establishment, MacArthur, and Right-Wing groups like the WPC and KKK. The Populists would control the great plains, rustbelt, and Texas-Louisiana area while the Nationalists control the deep south, New England, and the Rockies. Floyd Olson leads the Populists as a member of the Progressive faction, but if the war goes on for too long he dies due to Stomach Cancer and Huey Long takes leadership of the Progressives and the nation (though under him they become more authoritarian). In response, socialists and communists split from the Populists and form a Socialist faction, like how in base HoI4 the Spanish Civil War can devolve into a 4-way war.

In a parallel to KR's Russia, Russia is at the start mostly controlled by Kolchak, with a small eastern state controlled by Kerensky. An event for an assassin striking Kolckhak at the beginning of the game will occur, though its the choice of the player if the assassination succeeds. All of Russia's paths lean Right, and can at best be a Wrangel-led Junta or Constitutional Monarchy, or at worst can be a Black 100s Monarchy or a Russian Hitler analog (Perhaps it would be led by Savinkov, I don't know much about him in real life and if his portrayal in KR is accurate). Kerensky's far eastern government, meanwhile, is made up of Liberals, SocDems, RadSocs, and even the remnants of some Soviets that are only united against Kolchaks Russia, with Japan reluctantly guaranteeing them since they're a good buffer.

The Austrians and Ottomans have already collapsed despite winning the war, considering how bad of a shape they were in. The Germans occupy Austria and have to manage relations with the new Hungarian State. They can either prove to be a useful ally or a sponsor for Eastern Europe anti-german terrorists. The Ottomans have lost control of their Middle East Holdings and a civil war is ongoing in Turkey, with each of the major factions being able to back a different combatant.

Is this a bit too unrealistic? Any other ideas from anyone?
I mostly agree with this, actually. I think National France is a really interesting idea if it didn't get whitewashed, so I'd have mainland France controlled by the Syndicalists, while North Africa is controlled at least in part by the Reactionary French. I'm less keen on the Austrians and Ottomans falling apart. It feels kind of weird to have a "German Empire wins WW1" mod and have their main allies all broken apart. They should be very unstable and weak, yes, but keeping them around would maintain the aura of "the old order" when playing the game.
 
I feel as though while a new Tsar in KR Russia would certainly be bad, I don't think it's reasonable to say that they would be worse than Savinkov. It's similar to comparing the Kaiser and Hitler, I would say. Both were terrible, but one is distinctly more terrible than the other.
 
While serfdom was officially abolished in 1861 (the fact that it lasted this long is kind of telling), the life of the average Russian at this time was still extremely awful, and most of the reforms that sought to improve the lives of the population were undone once Alexander III came to power.

A constitutional monarchy where the Tsar still held absolute power and could dissolve the Duma whenever he wanted to. I also might add that Nicholas II’s refusal to pass the necessary reforms that the Duma was proposing was what led to the 1907 coup in the first place.

I would say a monarchy that actively cracked down on any and all possible opposition, used secret police (Okhrana) to hunt down and murder any threats to its power, resisted every chance of reform in order to retain its autocratic power over Russia, and treated 90% of its own population like slaves fits the definition of totalitarian.
1- Yes, but by 1914 On Moscow, Petrograd, Kiev and other cities you had catched up the average european city

Russia suffered from a problem, that still suffers, and that Brazil also suffers due it's large size, you cannot have a cohese and complete development of the whole country at the same time, the cities are easier to develop, especially Petrograd since it's russia door to the west and Tsarytin, but as you move away from them, it get's more difficult

That being said, Russia had the most growth in europe before WWI, the Russian industrial production doubled from 1914 to 1917, this even with them losing Poland and parts of Lithuania, the country would eventually catch europe more and more if wasn't for so many desasters happening at the same time

2- Yes, because the constitution garanteed, that is the russian context

Lenin, Stalin, Nikita, Putin, Nicholas II,

All of these are figures who held (or Hold, as Putin), a large amount of power on their hands, even tough they have a duma, or a presidium. The tsar did had a lot of parties and considerably more political freedom than the soviets, however, the state could be represented as either as a authoritarian democracy or a paternal autocracy, but still has the division of the power, the tsar just can overrule it if he feels he needs to

Russia didn't resisted all forms of reform, you had Witte and Stolypin's reforms, the russians were not suicidal thugs trying to keep the 14th century alive

And say, where did you get the 90% number from? I'm curious

And no, that doesn't means totalitarism, totalitarism comes from total state control, it's a very rare thing, even modern China or Iran are not totalitarian, just North Korea.
 
The guy also incited pogroms, oppressed non-Russian minorities, caused a famine, banned non-Russian languages, banned Jews from staying in rural areas and shtetls, and established laws similar to the Nuremberg laws limiting Jewish employment
I don't mean to downplay Alexander III being awful, and those are certainly all things he did. But he didn't backslide on Alexander II's emancipation reforms (what I presume the guy I was replying to was talking about).
 
Why wouldn't he be antisemitic?
It is my guess, I am Brazilian and passionate about history, especially my country's history. My guess is that without :
  1. Russian Revolution
  2. Hitler
  3. Mussolini still being a socialist
IMO, there would be nothing that would push more people to being antisemitic especially Barroso. Although with these three factors absent the AIB wouldn't even exist most likely. Although the Protocols of Zion still exist so I would say there is a 50/50 chance he would be antisemitic as in OTL.
It made me ponder on how he started to believe all that crap just because he read that book... it would be like reading Harry Potter and believing magic is real.
But it is JUST speculation to which I do not have a definitive answer.
I hardly believe the new Dom Pedro would tolerate that for long. His grandfather knew Hebrew after all and according to this news service , it was his favorite language.


@Hindustani Person again it is all speculation. Kaiserreich for many verses would be unpredictable and borderline dystopian.
 
It is my guess, I am Brazilian and passionate about history, especially my country's history. My guess is that without :
  1. Russian Revolution
  2. Hitler
  3. Mussolini still being a socialist
IMO, there would be nothing that would push more people to being antisemitic especially Barroso. Although with these three factors absent the AIB wouldn't even exist most likely. Although the Protocols of Zion still exist so I would say there is a 50/50 chance he would be antisemitic as in OTL.
It made me ponder on how he started to believe all that crap just because he read that book... it would be like reading Harry Potter and believing magic is real.
But it is JUST speculation to which I do not have a definitive answer.
I hardly believe the new Dom Pedro would tolerate that for long. His grandfather knew Hebrew after all and according to this news service , it was his favorite language.


@Hindustani Person again it is all speculation. Kaiserreich for many verses would be unpredictable and borderline dystopian.
The Russian Revolution still very much happened. And I'm skeptical of the claim that anti-semitism wouldn't find a following in the KRTL, as we already know that the Iron Guard still rises.
 
@coffeebreakcigarette and @Matryoshka

Barroso IS a antisemite on Kr, his description tells that and when the integralists assault a sinagogue, something they did otl and forced Salgado to send a ultimatum asking for Barosso to stop or he would dissolve the AIB, you get a option on Kr to endorse the attack and begin a kristallnacht like attack on Jews.

Barroso otl proposed internment camps for Jews, he might be less antisemite than otl, but he hates Jews still.
 
Interesting. However, how exactly is it that the Entente goes Liberal? Even currently in Kaiserreich, National France at least is the furthest thing from being "liberal" (it utilizes slave labor to build its ships) and Canada has uneasy streaks of authoritarianism due to the current regime being born out what was essentially a bloodless coup of the native Canadian government. While I could maybe see a path for a liberal Canada, I just don't see it for National France. These two countries are made up of the most reactionary, racist, and authoritarian parts of British and French society. To be frank, they are built for fascism. They are imperialist nations that were "stabbed in the back" by socialist revolutionaries, and their overarching goal is literally to reclaim their imagined heritage. That is pretty fascist, if I must say so myself.
I'm still working on that, although I think it's logical to assume National France wouldn't be authoritarian forever and since the British Revolution never happens TTL, Canda won't be either, as the Royal Family are still ruling from London.

I've just noticed something ~ the Kaiserreich beta is letting me in, however the mod is still listed as being incompatible with my current version of vanilla...weird.
 
I'm still working on that, although I think it's logical to assume National France wouldn't be authoritarian forever and since the British Revolution never happens TTL, Canda won't be either, as the Royal Family are still ruling from London.

I've just noticed something ~ the Kaiserreich beta is letting me in, however the mod is still listed as being incompatible with my current version of vanilla...weird.
The explanation for Britain makes a lot of sense. I don't really see National France liberalizing at all, though, at least without causing a hell of a lot of internal chaos. Petain of all people runs National France, after all. The path best fit for democracy in regards to National France in my personal opinion is it completely falling apart to native revolts, which might institute a more liberal government in its place.
 
The explanation for Britain makes a lot of sense. I don't really see National France liberalizing at all, though, at least without causing a hell of a lot of internal chaos. Petain of all people runs National France, after all. The path best fit for democracy in regards to National France in my personal opinion is it completely falling apart to native revolts, which might institute a more liberal government in its place.
The thing with National France is that it's basically supposed to be "Right-Wing France" while the Commune is "Left-Wing France". The Commune itself has several tendencies it can go, some more authoritarian than others. In that regard, National France probably should have liberal tendencies, even if the Regime likely would start more on the Authoritarian side.

Most likely in the personnel of National France, the farther left one could go would be Social Liberal and they'd have only a few of those. They'd be probably have a bit more Market Liberals but the way I see it the vast majority would likely be Social Conservatives and beyond on the spectrum. So the most liberal National France could go would likely be Social Conservative realistically. It wouldn't be a completely liberal regime but it's not synonymous with Authoritarian in my opinion.

The starting situation will likely be very authoritarian though. National France was built on the idea of recovering the mainland from the Syndies basically so it would lean very much into Authoritarian Right territory, doubly so considering the way events played out. The military has also been said in the lore to play a major role, which explains why Pétain is leading the regime at the start in 1936.

The thing though is that people often see Pétain for worse than he is because he lead Vichy State OTL. While that certainly doesn't make him the nicest of guys, I think he sits more at home as a Paternal Autocrat than anything else. He probably can have an entourage that is much much worse politically than himself, but I don't think that means he will necessarilly go even more authoritarian than what he starts with.

The other thing to factor in is De Gaulle. Canonically he is in National France. Ideologically, he probably is a Social Conservative that borders on Authoritarian Democrat given his OTL political views. The man was hoever also pretty pragmatic so I think he could see the point in adopting a few more liberal measures. But the more important point is that OTL he and Pétain were originally on pretty good terms before they split apart in the late 1930s. De Gaulle was even regarded as Pétain's protégé for a while. Which means that he could occupy a very high position in National France if not be one of Pétain's potential Dauphin and/or Successors in Kaiserreich at the start. So that opens the possibility of a more liberal leadership, or at least more liberal than the rest.

Not gonna say that National France should necessarilly go Liberal nor that it would be easy, but I still think there is a decent likely path to be found among the possibilities.
 
The thing with National France is that it's basically supposed to be "Right-Wing France" while the Commune is "Left-Wing France". The Commune itself has several tendencies it can go, some more authoritarian than others. In that regard, National France probably should have liberal tendencies, even if the Regime likely would start more on the Authoritarian side.

Most likely in the personnel of National France, the farther left one could go would be Social Liberal and they'd have only a few of those. They'd be probably have a bit more Market Liberals but the way I see it the vast majority would likely be Social Conservatives and beyond on the spectrum. So the most liberal National France could go would likely be Social Conservative realistically. It wouldn't be a completely liberal regime but it's not synonymous with Authoritarian in my opinion.

The starting situation will likely be very authoritarian though. National France was built on the idea of recovering the mainland from the Syndies basically so it would lean very much into Authoritarian Right territory, doubly so considering the way events played out. The military has also been said in the lore to play a major role, which explains why Pétain is leading the regime at the start in 1936.

The thing though is that people often see Pétain for worse than he is because he lead Vichy State OTL. While that certainly doesn't make him the nicest of guys, I think he sits more at home as a Paternal Autocrat than anything else. He probably can have an entourage that is much much worse politically than himself, but I don't think that means he will necessarilly go even more authoritarian than what he starts with.

The other thing to factor in is De Gaulle. Canonically he is in National France. Ideologically, he probably is a Social Conservative that borders on Authoritarian Democrat given his OTL political views. The man was hoever also pretty pragmatic so I think he could see the point in adopting a few more liberal measures. But the more important point is that OTL he and Pétain were originally on pretty good terms before they split apart in the late 1930s. De Gaulle was even regarded as Pétain's protégé for a while. Which means that he could occupy a very high position in National France if not be one of Pétain's potential Dauphin and/or Successors in Kaiserreich at the start. So that opens the possibility of a more liberal leadership, or at least more liberal than the rest.

Not gonna say that National France should necessarily go Liberal nor that it would be easy, but I still think there is a decent likely path to be found among the possibilities.
The teasers for the NatFrance rework show that they'll be able to go all ideologies right of SocDem, so an outright liberal France will be possible.
I can understand National France becoming social conservative. However, I see the extent of National France's liberalism only going to civil rights/voting rights for the French colonials. I don't think a regime that literally enslaves native people will be going anywhere near equality among races.
 
I can understand National France becoming social conservative. However, I see the extent of National France's liberalism only going to civil rights/voting rights for the French colonials. I don't think a regime that literally enslaves native people will be going anywhere near equality among races.
Maybe I've missed that part (I don't know Kaiserreich lore that well) but I'm not sure it's ever said National France is actually enslaving the natives. And if it does, it probably should be reworked because that would actually be one of the things that make the less sense.

The reason is simple: even if National France is based in its colonies, the population ratio is still likely highly in favor of the natives. French North Africa is also a pretty very large territory with the Sahara desert in the middle. Thus it's a logical nightmare for an army to hold complete control. National France has also lost the Weltkrieg and been kicked out of the continent, which means it has suffered depleted ressources. For around 20 years. If it's been enslaving the natives for that long and still not recovered the mainland, it should be on the verge of collapse because there is no way you can keep the thing together for this long. And it's also not really compatible with the idea that National France is a real threat to the Commune...

The other thing is that, even if limited, France still offered education to its colonial subjects. Some of which could end up rising pretty high through the ranks. Not saying these will be many in National France (definitely not given the time-period and the natue of the regime) but I still think that means you have colonial personnel that's been issued from the native population and still loyal to the government. It's also one of the only ways National France could have hold on to its colonies for so long: they need a small native elite that has reasons to support the regime rather than throw their lot with the Commune or fight for independance...

One final thing would be that OTL Decolonisation in French North Africa went rather smoothly: most of the countries in the region actually got to their independance progressively and mostly through peaceful negotiations. Algeria is basically the only exception to that rule even if it's pretty major. Context in Kaisserreich will be different of course but I still think that means relations between colonials and natives aren't that bad in the area.

Again, I'm not trying to paint National France as better than it should be: it's by all means a Colonial Regime based in its colonies and ruled by an Authoritarian Military Government at the start. It would definitely not be a paradise of equality: French colonials would definitely have it better than the natives. But it can't have been treating the native population completely like shit for 20 years and still be around... It has to have had some form of concessions or at least earned a local elite that's loyal enough. Something that seems to have been the case OTL to a small degree.

National France should definitely have a tons of negative modifiers and be under the threat of a native rebellion at the start if it handles things poorly. It's probably not going to end up with complete equality of the races either but there should be room for the natives to earn more rights. Especially if you have Pragmatists in the leadership that know they will need colonial troops to retake Paris from the Commune.
 
Top