Yeah, reformist speer is about as bad as "political chat country" existing in our timeline.
The New Order: Last Days of Europe Thread II
- Thread starter SirHalifax
- Start date
The more I think about this line of thought - which seems to be often repeated by TNO fans - the less it makes sense to me. More destructive outcomes are desirable because they morally 'delegitimize' Nazism?
I mean, the logical extension of this is that WW2 and the Holocaust were more desirable outcomes of the interwar period, as opposed to those not happening, because they 'delegitimized' Nazism and its associated ideologies.
Really, it's like saying Maoist China during the height of the Cultural Revolution was better than modern China because it was less sustainable.
They wanted apolitical strongman, they're gonna get apolitical strongman.
So, this is a very hot take, but I talked with a few friends and they convinced me of that.
Basically the gang of four should be a failstate, but not something like "Speer good failstate", but basically they should only be possible as a route if the Nazi system has a collapse. It is not feasible for a system like that to reform like that by the inside.
Basically the gang of four should be a failstate, but not something like "Speer good failstate", but basically they should only be possible as a route if the Nazi system has a collapse. It is not feasible for a system like that to reform like that by the inside.
The Nazi system has collapsed.
Even if the devs take out the civil war the massive social upheaval and 4 sided coup as well as the general collapse of the pact is orthodox Nazism last grasp.
From here all side are actually reformist relative to the starting point with only the degree of it being widely different.
I disagree, it only can collapse if it loses it's conquests from WWII
At the most I could see is a hardline non nazi military junta under the old prussians, I cannot see it changing to a democracy without such a collapse, the system probably would last forever
But it does.
All of Africa is untenable and the east has to be reconquered in almost all cases.
I get that the G4 succeeding has really dark implications by making the nazi rule a positive for Germany long term but they are 1 hard path to go with from 7+Shorner coups currently available.
And also Speers bio after they take over literally says that not everything will be easy or nice from here on.
Last edited:
They always reconquer the east, bada Bing bada boom.
Africa isn't part of the nazi ideology in the same way the east is.
From our hoi4 gamer perspective sure but in universe that is a huge thing.
Also the 2WRW will also be far more of a big dilemma for the G4 path then any other and im sure it will not be pretty considering that the NSDAP will still be there and the people at large will be supportive of there eastern brother and sisters in Moscovien regardless of what is best in any sense.
chankljp
Donor
Well, to be fair, while I DO NOT support that view point at all... I have seen people arguing that WW1 and all the pointless bloodshed in the trenches of Europe was the more desirable outcome compared to a continuation of the late 19th and early 20th century balance of power... Since otherwise, the European colonial powers would likely have been able to maintain their empires for longer, the same goes for monarchism.
The 'Nuclear SS warlords is better compared to Dengist Speer or even a GO4 Germany becuase the latter will make Nazism sustainable' argument in the TNO fandom can be seen as the same line of though, but taken to a logical extreme.
I've seen that argument too. I'd say it definitely comes from the same line of bizarre logic.
What do you even call "mass death in the past was good because it led to my preferred moral outcome now?" It seems kind of like an offshoot of Marxist historical determinism, but I'm not too sure.