Kaiserreich: Legacy of the Weltkrieg

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.
 
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.
 
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).
The only explanation for India as presented (a British dominion that never breaks from the Entente unless Canada is taken and literally everybody else leaves, that's more focused on retaking the rest of India and run alternatively by Eddie or Ganga Singh) that makes a lick of sense to me is that it's an alliance of princely states who are anti-Nizam for various reasons and cling to the Canadians for a supply of surplus ships and weapons from the former British navy that the Canadians can no longer maintain (see Australasia's whole mothball fleet crisis). There's just no realistic way that a true democratic Indian state would be so loyal to a rump British Empire-in-exile. It's a bunch of local strongmen and dirtbags professing loyalty to Canada to get support in military matters to keep the populace down and fight off native-ruled states to the south and east.
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.
I would scrap the Raj remnant entirely. South India would be a right-wing republic playing the Japanese and Germans off each other, Delhi would be a group of princely states banding together rather than hanging separately, and Bharat would be a broader coalition of the left. I'd definitely have to ask someone well-versed in late colonial India for lore work though, I'm not sure if having the south be an intensely traditionalist, Hindutva-dominated state and Bharat be divided between people who just want the British and nobles out and those who want to straight-up remake society and junk the caste system would work.

I might make Bose be an autdem since he's more like Huey than anything (left-flavored authoritarian nationalist and populist but not particularly racist and more of a strongman with a big ego than batshit insane), but totalist works in a pinch I suppose.

Anyway, my overall position on the Entente is that everything about them, from their nature as fading colonial regimes clinging to power with dated military force, to their catchphrase "Reclaim the birthright", is fundamentally rooted in illiberal, authoritarian philosophy. Leaving aside Sand France's racism, and Australasia which even when it becomes a democracy is still pretty shitty to the remaining natives, Canada and Sand France start full-scale invasions of Red France and Britain for no reason other than to institute regime change. You can say that Red France is an asshole victim for demanding "give clay or war" from Germany (although that risks going down a pointless argument about historical wrongs), but what exactly is Canada, with a population of 11 million and a fleet that hasn't been updated since 1925 and is economically impractical to maintain, going to do to Britain other than cause mass civilian casualties? And why on Earth would the British welcome His Fecklessness as their new Glorious Leader, even IF Mosley takes over and starts putting his face on churches and disappearing dissidents?
 
  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.
The simple explanation is that it doesn't make sense, because the lore for India was created a decade ago and not changed a bit since then. It's not ruled by British exiles, though, no clue where you're taking that from. But that's what it is like in KR right now - Delhi is an Indian state with dominion status and a democratic form of government.
 
Top