HoI4 Dev Diary - A Post-Colonial World: Map Changes and New Tags

[Conad1985]

HOi4 could have been a worthy ww2 simulator sandbox, instead you are moving it into an arcade and easy, just for simple fun click around and release nations.. bah.. you missed the opportunity to set the game at the reference point of strategic games. PDX please don't censure this, i know you dont like critics.

 

[acur123]

Since the devs are looking at the UK, could they add in Commando Brigades? Formed by event after the fall of France, they have very high amphibious landing attacks. Instead of naval invading, they can launch raids, in which they cross the channel, attack the enemy and cause casualties, and then return to the UK after the combat ends. Being a very small unit(a brigade), if it ends up in prolonged fighting it will be destroyed, so they should not attempt to hold ground they take. A successful raid(one that takes the ground and has the Brigade return to the UK intact) will increase war support. If they attack a radar station, or an airfield, they can give the UK a buff to researching planes or radar, for example, or make German planes or radar less effective.

 

[EryErk]

With the Man the Guns DLC, I’m guessing the UK, USA, and Italy will get a focus rework, while in the next DLC which paradox said they wanted to include a espionage mechanic which would give maybe a focus rework to France and Poland since both had large resistances, is it also possible to make states out or North Schleswig form Denmark and The part that Belgium took from The German Empire in WW1. Also could there be an event once East and West Germany Exist, Poland gains cores on the new land and loses cores on its old land and Germany loses its cores on the new polish lands.

 

[Teleros]

But will Lichtenstein get a Tag????

Since the devs are looking at the UK, could they add in Commando Brigades? Formed by event after the fall of France, they have very high amphibious landing attacks. Instead of naval invading, they can launch raids, in which they cross the channel, attack the enemy and cause casualties, and then return to the UK after the combat ends. Being a very small unit(a brigade), if it ends up in prolonged fighting it will be destroyed, so they should not attempt to hold ground they take. A successful raid(one that takes the ground and has the Brigade return to the UK intact) will increase war support. If they attack a radar station, or an airfield, they can give the UK a buff to researching planes or radar, for example, or make German planes or radar less effective.

I'm hoping that Paradox do a proper special forces DLC / patch myself. I'm thinking something like the following:

• New battalions for the division designer, for practicality's sake.
• Very low manpower cost but high equipment cost. Maybe they can only be in divisions with their fellow SF battalions too, and not regular army battalions.
• Long training time, and maybe (like present) only X% of your army can be SF.
• Cannot capture territory.
• Can travel over impassable desert terrain like the Sahara if mechanised (Long Range Desert Group).
• Can damage / destroy military buildings, docked ships & landed aircraft in provinces they enter (Commandos & SAS).
• Reduce supplies in the state they're in (ie like occupation resistance at present).
• Can be parachuted over enemy territory (SAS).
• Huge bonuses to planning time, disengaging & retreating from combat, embarking, and disembarking. They should be fast & hard to catch.
• Big bonuses to specific terrains (Chindits).
• Reasonable chance in combat against smaller regular division designs (think cheap, low-manpower garrison forces, not 20+ width combat divisions etc).

If you're playing as Germany against the UK for example, British SF types should be an attrition- or nuisance- based threat: ie they shouldn't threaten your rule over conquered France or anything, but they should require you to keep more soldiers stationed there, curse when they sink a capital ship, and spend noticeably more CIC on repairs (and if in Africa, MIC on lost aircraft) than you otherwise would. If you're playing the UK fighting Germany, you want these guys to soften up invasion points, drain their CIC, and deny the Luftwaffe air supremacy.

Above all, they should be cost-effective in manpower / IC terms. Germany should be spending more IC and manpower to counter them than the UK spent in deploying & maintaining them (assuming basic competence on both sides of course).

All this could of course fit into an espionage DLC - in which case you could also consider proper secret police divisions (hi, Comrade Stalin), rebel armies (eg formations of Russians fighting for Germany against the USSR), and maybe having SF guys providing partisan resistance bonuses to states they're in. Tagging @badgr in case this is of any help.

 

[EryErk]

I will have to stop you right there and tell you that it is Königsberg not Kaliningrad.

It isn’t Königsberg or Kaliningrad it’s Kròlewiec

 

[forgeworld]

Mosley's whole party line was peace with Germany while reinvigorating the economy with Keynesian economics that would not be funded through usury. To create a "Fascist" anti-German Britain is to have a Churchill Britain without Churchill and that whole decolonization thing at the end. This makes no sense - Mosley saw Britain as Europe's Umbrella and wanted to create a "Brotherhood of Europe" that would work together to first knockout communism and then work together to solve the problems of the world. (No, I'm not thinking of the cliches of "world hunger" and impossible equality). What a fascist Britain should be focused on is not the European continent, but rather the three main alien powers that challenge European power - Bolshevism, Japanese Imperialism, and radical American individualism (or just America for short).

An Alternative Solution: Create a European Alliance/Bloc

This is not an EU, please keep in note that the likes of who we are talking about were not fans of Kalergi's manifesto - read it for yourself if you are interested

To unite Europe under a unified front like this will obviously not be bloodless. France, with the popular front, was pretty much de-facto communist by 1934 and, without some massive political upheaval, (Front de la Liberte or a counter-revolution, the ruling government at the time was especially not popular) France will likely not fall into this coalition without some military defeat. A Poland-France could cause conflict for awhile - however in order to stop the ai from gobbling up all of France a pre set peace conference should be considered. Italy (if she joins and does remotely well) should be able to take Tunisia, French Somaliland, Savoy and Corsica, Germany could take A-L and perhaps there could be a map modification allowing for the retaking of French Flanders (including Duinkerken and Kales - Dunkirk and Calais). With this the total collapse and restructuring of the French gov't under Petain could allow for a France under the European bloc. Basically with an isolationist Fascist Britain, Germany will be able to take a more peaceful path (once France is knocked out, and assuming that the Soviets don't make a move too quickly) which could result in some things happening in the Baltics as well as the Nordic countries (perhaps Aland to Sweden for guarantee for Finland? That brings two countries into the frey). Spain, given a Nationalist victory, would be enthusiastic to join while Salzar in Portugal was a devout Roman Catholic who despised communism who, under the right persuasion and maybe with the help of the exiled and domestic National Syndicalists, would join as well (dont forget that really old treaty). Not to mention the Netherlands, concerned over the Japanese threat, Yugoslavia, without the British-sponsored coup, maybe even Italy and Greece can reach an agreement (however Turkey might not be happy about this).

Japan/USA - A different kind of "Unholy Alliance"

It is no secret that Japan was very nervous about the Philippians as it served as a gate straight into Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland. This is partially the reason for attacking not only the European colonial powers but also the US. This threat was too dangerous for them. However, with a Germany that is now allies with the Netherlands AND Britain, it seems that a "befriend China" will be the only logical and plausible way to go for Germany. Worrying about this growing European octopus, Japan and the US can potentially find common enemies and perhaps a rapprochement.

Soviet/US relations

As almost all of us know, this relationship did exist in real life. One of the first things Roosevelt did was recognize the Soviet regime. Much food and supplies were delivered through Murmansk and also through Iran after they were invaded. Not much here to explain other than they have common enemies.

Japan/Soviet relations

Japan was no friend of communism, and certainly some had their sights on Vladivostok and greater Manchuria. However, similar to real life, Japanese relations with the soviets could improve with time as they did in our time line with particular factions taking power rather than others. (Note that Japan had a non-aggression pact with the Soviets until 1945 when the Soviets sweeped into Manchuria). To say that they could be co-belligerents is not out of the question if the situation provides it.

An interesting note

The Fascist South Africa tree/path will run into a bit of conflict if the path above is taken. Britain will (should) have the choice to attempt to reconcile with the Boers and attempt to keep South Africa in the Dominions or allow them to break free and fall under a more German-dominated sphere (or perhaps dutch? I dream...). Either way, a European Alliance would not differ much from the two choices.

Pet Peeves

South Africa's Cape Corps should not be allowed to be reconstituted whatsoever under a Fascist government or even under certain paths of the Democratic government.

New Zealand's tree for the Labor government's policy towards the Maoris should be exclusive to a democratic government (National Party is currently represented by the non-aligned party). Just a pet peeve.

_______________________________________________________________________________

I must also express something here that should be changed ASAP. The immigration thing with the de-colonialization is absolutely something that should not be included. First off, immigration period is probably the most controversial subject present and has been for decades. I would not poke it with a stick. Second, immigration is a policy, not some spontaneous natural-occurring phenomenon. Immigration policy only opened up in Britain years after the war was over, not before it.

Finally - these buffs/benefits for decolonization in the Britain tree is alarming. Reality did not reflect this at all. Decolonization should be something that a non-communist Britain should be steered to avoid. A communist Britain, however, could seek to "decolonize" but keep advisors in the newly independent states to "guide them" to the "true revolution".

 

[polkad]

and the dev diary of this week?

 

[bubbas]

Are we not getting a new dev diary today?

. . . This results in a two-week Dev Diary hiatus. You can expect the regular Dev Diary schedule to resume on the first of August . . .

 

[vertinox]

I like the update... But can you consider a big favor?

Can you make making defacto puppets a thing without having to wait til peace deal?

Say... As an invading force, and your occupying territory you don't really want to own or occupy after the war anyways...

It would be really nice to be able to make puppets of releasable nations without having to rely on events like Vichy or Croatia.

So let's say the Japanese don't want to keep Burma and India on a war of liberation so as they have all the cores for Burma they can make a defacto puppet which acts like a puppet but independant of the the occupiers so they get a less of an occupation malaus and can get more manpower.

Of course there still would be pro-British sentiments so perhaps there would still be resistance and the Japanese have to lend lease the puppet to prop them up a bit. And if you took their troops and fought on the front line it would put them towards independence all together.

And this would apply to any releasble nation... Or actual nations. Perhaps, one could make a puppet of even an enemy nation (say democratic Italy that is still in conflict with the Fascist north).

Just would make it easier to make those puppets as in Japans case of releasing Burma or say Pakistan, they would have to rely on Germany to invade the UK or USA depending on how far the war got.

Also, I feel like a Kaiser Germany would release Ukraine before the Soviets capitulated or put a Monarchist Russian on the throne in Leningrad (well St. Petersburg at that point) while the Soviets still hold out in Siberia.

Just a thought...

 

[Olliganak]

It isn’t Königsberg or Kaliningrad it’s Kròlewiec

It isn't Königsberg, Kaliningrad, or Kròlewiec.
It's Twangste.
Sambians 4eva

 

[Kekslauch]

Wow it´s great that HoI4 is a Game as Service. You give me a good reason to buy DLCs for this great game. But I played HoI3 and saw that there were more than two scenarios. And it´s something that disturbing me. I mean a 1941, 1944/45 and 1946 (maybe were the nations in war or temporary peace) would be nice. Im a bit bored by starting in a world without large changes btw. 36/39. May in a DLC? "Scrap the barrel for WorldWar"? But great work guys

 

[Ironside121]

Wow it´s great that HoI4 is a Game as Service. You give me a good reason to buy DLCs for this great game. But I played HoI3 and saw that there were more than two scenarios. And it´s something that disturbing me. I mean a 1941, 1944/45 and 1946 (maybe were the nations in war or temporary peace) would be nice. Im a bit bored by starting in a world without large changes btw. 36/39. May in a DLC? "Scrap the barrel for WorldWar"? But great work guys

There are a few good mods that release new start dates, perhaps look into those? I believe there's a 1942 one which is a good point, and a 1945 one called Endseig, have a look

I don't think there are many that offer alt-WW2 scenarios though, but you could still look for them.

 

[Sir Garnet]

I'm hoping that Paradox do a proper special forces DLC / patch myself. I'm thinking something like the following:

• New battalions for the division designer, for practicality's sake.
• Very low manpower cost but high equipment cost. Maybe they can only be in divisions with their fellow SF battalions too, and not regular army battalions.
• Long training time, and maybe (like present) only X% of your army can be SF.
• Cannot capture territory.
• Can travel over impassable desert terrain like the Sahara if mechanised (Long Range Desert Group).
• Can damage / destroy military buildings, docked ships & landed aircraft in provinces they enter (Commandos & SAS).
• Reduce supplies in the state they're in (ie like occupation resistance at present).
• Can be parachuted over enemy territory (SAS).
• Huge bonuses to planning time, disengaging & retreating from combat, embarking, and disembarking. They should be fast & hard to catch.
• Big bonuses to specific terrains (Chindits).
• Reasonable chance in combat against smaller regular division designs (think cheap, low-manpower garrison forces, not 20+ width combat divisions etc).

Special troops should have special aspects but multiplying special abilities and exceptions overcomplicates the game and also increases the odds of weird exploits and hysterical dominant strategies.

 

[General Explorer]

Exactly - we don't have the art time for 250-some portraits right now

All I have to say is this:

jk, Adding Rod Hull was the best thing that you ever added! keep up the good work

 

[Teleros]

Special troops should have special aspects but multiplying special abilities and exceptions overcomplicates the game and also increases the odds of weird exploits and hysterical dominant strategies.

That's true, but I don't think I've listed too much fancy stuff. When I think of all the MOBA or MMORPG games out there, something like this seems pretty trivial to balance by comparison. Plus, given that my SF battalions are going to be low on manpower (and should be low on hard attack & combat width too - maybe even under 1 per battalion for the latter), putting them up against regular divisions should basically always lead to the SF guys losing. Perhaps you could mix a few SAS battalions into your regular INF divisions or whatever, but that seems okay - they'd be sort of like expensive pseudo-support companies to help you kill enemy infantry faster.

 

[Asilzade Reddest Medic]

İt look pretty nice
I hate Africa area before this now ı don't need fight England and French much
And this is this is better play potential than normal version

 

[Ruslan]

I hope u won't forget about resources in the new countries, such as Kazahstan, which have the all periodical table of chemical elements.

 

[Teleros]

I hope u won't forget about resources in the new countries, such as Kazahstan, which have the all periodical table of chemical elements.

Ah, but can they extract the useful ones in usable quantities with at best 1950 tech?

 

[SpartanB12]

Hi, I love your message - it's very well-written and looks to be quite informed. I'm a university student with a focus on British fascism and Sir Oswald Mosley's pre-war/post-war political and economic endeavours and I wanted to clear a few misconceptions with what you've written, as well as offer my own thoughts on the subject and your proposals.

Mosley's whole party line was peace with Germany while reinvigorating the economy with Keynesian economics that would not be funded through usury.

There is, unfortunately, no actual way for Hearts of Iron IV to model Mosley's ambitious and, quite frankly, inspired economic reforms - though you will note in the focus tree that there is a focus called the 'Mosley Manifesto', which was the name of Mosley's economic plan offered to Ramsay Macdonald's Labour Government. To fairly accurately model Mosley's suggested reforms in Hearts of Iron IV, I would suggest this list of changes:
A national spirit boosting infrastructure building speed, to model Mosley's major public works scheme designed to drastically lower unemployment.
A change in export/import law from Export Focus to Export Only, to model Mosley's plans of a self-sustaining British Empire and insular trading block.
A change of economy law to War Economy, to model Mosley's calls for the national housing crisis to be treated as though it were a theatre of war.
The instant construction of military factories like in the German tree, to model Mosley's calls for rapid rearmament.
The instant construction of civilian factories, to model Mosley's calls for increased production of consumer goods.

Of course there could be more, like a political power debuff to match Mosley's suggestions for an oligarchic technocracy with a buff to research speed, but as there is no real way to completely mimic Mosley's proposals there isn't much point in trying to tackle every facet of his manifesto. If you're interested in reading more from the source himself, I recommend Revolution by Reason (his 'Manifesto' before being altered so it could be presented to government), the Mosley Manifesto itself, and The Greater Britain or Tomorrow We Live for Mosley's adjusted economic plans after his turn to fascism (which is where ideas like the technocracy exist). If you're interested in Mosley's career as a member of parliament, I cannot more highly recommend both Mosley and British Politics 1918-1932 by David Howell and Politicians and the Slump: The Labour Government of 1929-1931 by Robert Skidelsky.

To create a "Fascist" anti-German Britain is to have a Churchill Britain without Churchill and that whole decolonization thing at the end. This makes no sense - Mosley saw Britain as Europe's Umbrella and wanted to create a "Brotherhood of Europe" that would work together to first knockout communism and then work together to solve the problems of the world. (No, I'm not thinking of the cliches of "world hunger" and impossible equality).

This is a very complicated facet of Mosley's movement and a contentious topic amongst academics studying British fascism. Just how pro-German was the British fascist movement? How far would the British fascists go to keep Britain out of a war with Germany? I cannot speak for all in the British fascist movement, save for British Nazis like William Joyce and Arnold Leese whose stance on the matter became very clear, but Mosley's efforts did have a breaking point. The necessary background information is that Mosley was avidly anti-war after having fought in World War I, and was of the staunch belief that Britain should mind Britain's own business and safeguard her own interests. It was not in the interest of the British people to go die for Poland when Mosley and the British government knew that Britain could not defend Poland. This permissiveness had limits - should Hitler have driven west into France then Britain and the European peace would all be threatened, and a Mosleyite Britain would likely side with France as Britain did historically - we can theorise as much because Mosley suggested as such in some of his writings (without explicitly saying so). You can also infer as much from his political record and his reasons for leaving the conservative party over the issue of Ireland.

Taking this all back to the context of Hearts of Iron IV, it is inevitable that Nazi Germany will drive west into the Benelux and into France. Yes, inevitable. That is simply how the German focus tree works. A warmongering Germany and a peace-obsessed fascist Britain could not be friends - and it would be inevitable that Britain would be drawn into the war one way or another. Mosley understood and accepted the Germans feeling that they needed to expand east, and Mosley did not seek to hinder the Germans in doing so (at least through force), but even that war he sought to prevent by offering an alternative (we'll return to this shortly). Looking at the focuses, you are offered what I believe to be the perfect spread of choices. "Prevent a Continental Hegemony" is exactly what Mosley and Mussolini would seek to do if they were aligned together. Just as Trotskyists and Stalinists had their split - in this alt-history scenario, fascism and national socialism have their split. However, if you want to play with a British-German alliance you are still able to with the Nazi-aligned Edward VIII under the King's Party branch. The truth is, under a British monarch is the only way the British people could be persuaded into Germany's offensive wars. Mosley, even as prime minister with his suggested governmental reforms, could not persuade the British people that marching into the cold wintery hell of Russia just so that Germany could expand its borders would be worth it - especially after 20 years of demanding nothing but peace. More accurately, a Mosleyite Britain could be what America was to Britain and the Soviet Union during World War II before they joined the war themselves - an arsenal of fascism.

The 'Brotherhood of Europe' I'd like to address in a second as well as the idea of "knocking out" communism, but I just have two points to share on your last sentence, which I won't belabour. Ironically, feeding the hungry of the world was exactly one of the things that Mosley wanted to do. I was looking for a quote to back this up but I don't believe I have the correct literature on me, so if I recall correctly such a plan was raised in the third or fourth edition of Tomorrow We Live and further expanded on in Mosley's Broadsheets. Also, I'm not sure what your definition of 'impossible equality' is, but Mosley (at least in the years following World War II) expounded a political philosophy that could be summarised by the phrase 'separate but equal'. If you refer to the sexes then I highly suggest you read Julie Gottlieb's Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain's Fascism Movement because as you'll learn Mosley's fascist movement was one of the most progressive in British politics at that time, and fielded more female candidates running for regional seats at one point than all the other British parties combined.

What a fascist Britain should be focused on is not the European continent, but rather the three main alien powers that challenge European power - Bolshevism, Japanese Imperialism, and radical American individualism (or just America for short).

I'll address the European fascist situation altogether, but first I'd like to look at your ideas of what fascist Britain should be focused on in terms of adversaries. Luckily, there's not much to say - I agree! Japan represents a strategic threat to the British Empire (Mosley was sure he'd be able to settle the situation with Japan peacefully, though we know in hindsight that this was very unlikely), the Soviet Union represents the ideological threat, and the United States represents both a strategic, economic, and ideological threat. So first we should address realism and next we'll talk about the game. Historically this is a no-brainer really, Mosley was completely and utterly opposed to war and expansion of the British Empire and so I would certainly wager that Mosley would not declare any offensive wars against any of these nations. Japan and Britain were headed for a collision as their aims in the Pacific were bound to end in conflict, so Mosley whips Britain into a fervour with his spectacular oratory after a surprise attack by the Japanese on Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaya and then war begins. Mosley didn't want war with the Soviet Union, but he was very clear in his message that the communists in Moscow were no friends of Britain or Europe. His policy towards the Soviet Union should be summarised in his own words, "We seek war and strife with no nation, but to Russia we say: 'Hands off Europe and back to the East where you belong!" Now, the USA wasn't targetted directly by many of Mosley's speeches or writings but one of his favourite targets to rail against as an enemy of Britain were the 'fat cats of Wall Street'. Globalist capitalism was a staunch enemy of Mosley's pre-war and post-war movements because he believed that capitalists would always undercut the British labourer by exploiting the underprivileged peoples of the world by forcing them into sweatshops and paying them lower wages than a Briton would ever accept. Did this mean war? Of course not, but that's no fun so let's move away from history and onto Hearts of Iron IV now.

In Hearts of Iron IV, there is no need for a lengthy discussion because we're both getting what we want, as can be seen in the focus tree. 'Pre-Empt the Strategic Threat' targets Japan, 'Pre-Empt the Ideological Threat' targets the Soviet Union, and Bratyn confirmed here in this thread that 'Unite the Anglosphere' targets the USA - all three foci can be accessed by imperial and fascist Britain from the looks of it. Italy gets targetted in the Edward VIII imperialist tree, and Germany gets targetted in the Mosleyite fascist tree - which sounds to me like everybody gets roughly what they would want out of a British fascist game.

Mosley saw Britain as Europe's Umbrella and wanted to create a "Brotherhood of Europe" that would work together to first knockout communism and then work together to solve the problems of the world.

An Alternative Solution: Create a European Alliance/Bloc

This is not an EU, please keep in note that the likes of who we are talking about were not fans of Kalergi's manifesto - read it for yourself if you are interested

To unite Europe under a unified front like this will obviously not be bloodless. France, with the popular front, was pretty much de-facto communist by 1934 and, without some massive political upheaval, (Front de la Liberte or a counter-revolution, the ruling government at the time was especially not popular) France will likely not fall into this coalition without some military defeat. A Poland-France could cause conflict for awhile - however in order to stop the ai from gobbling up all of France a pre set peace conference should be considered. Italy (if she joins and does remotely well) should be able to take Tunisia, French Somaliland, Savoy and Corsica, Germany could take A-L and perhaps there could be a map modification allowing for the retaking of French Flanders (including Duinkerken and Kales - Dunkirk and Calais). With this the total collapse and restructuring of the French gov't under Petain could allow for a France under the European bloc. Basically with an isolationist Fascist Britain, Germany will be able to take a more peaceful path (once France is knocked out, and assuming that the Soviets don't make a move too quickly) which could result in some things happening in the Baltics as well as the Nordic countries (perhaps Aland to Sweden for guarantee for Finland? That brings two countries into the frey). Spain, given a Nationalist victory, would be enthusiastic to join while Salzar in Portugal was a devout Roman Catholic who despised communism who, under the right persuasion and maybe with the help of the exiled and domestic National Syndicalists, would join as well (dont forget that really old treaty). Not to mention the Netherlands, concerned over the Japanese threat, Yugoslavia, without the British-sponsored coup, maybe even Italy and Greece can reach an agreement (however Turkey might not be happy about this).

Alright, where to begin? Let's begin with your assertion that the European fascists were opposed to 'European Union'. In short: you're right and you're wrong. First, seeing as the bulk of your contribution was focussed on British fascism it seems only right that we begin there. Now let's start with a simple question, was Oswald Mosley opposed to 'European Union'?

Let me elaborate: in 1936, Oswald Mosley published in the political 'academic' journal Fascist Quarterly an article called Towards a Fascist Europe where he called for a united European economic and political front - he even used the exact words 'European union'. Mosley does not write in a concise fashion, so I shall speak for him until I deem a phrase or sentence of his worth repeating in whole. Now, Mosley recognised that there were a number of factors keeping European countries from living harmoniously and joining in economic and political unity - and he goes onto detail about why Germany and Britain were at current (in 1936) heading for a collision. In his words: "[...] the only policy which can logically produce another explosion on the Western frontiers of Germany is the denial of expansion [...] but the solution here suggested is not the partition of Russia, not merely because it is the first interest of Europe and should be the first objective of British policy to keep the peace, but also because the solution of the European problems in terms both economic and political is possible on the lines already indicated without any offensive action against Russia." Mosley argued that Europe's political and economic struggles could all be solved by a "Four Power Bloc of Fascist nations", by which he presumably meant the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, and France. Mosley wanted to combine the military might of a United Europe with the resources provided through the British Empire to create a new world order hell-bent on countering the Soviet Union while maintaining global peace - presumably countering Japanese ambitions in China as well. Best to summarise Mosley's beliefs on the merits of a United Europe with his own final words on the subject: "Great is the responsibility that high fate imposes on us. We fight not only for the salvation of the land we love; we fight also for the Peace of Mankind."

Let's now very quickly address the aims of continental fascism historically, starting with Italy. Mussolini and the Italian Fascists very early on came to the decision that they believed they were cheated out of territory that they deserved after World War I. Their answer was to take what they felt they were owed - and then some. Mussolini's dream of 'Mare Nostrum' is no secret today. That means Italy had designs on Egypt, Cyprus, Malta, Tunisia, and likely large swaths of the Middle East. The Italians greatly overestimated their ability to wage war, and while they may have been content to play the long game like Japan I think we know from history that they were not. So Italy was placed on a collision course with either Britain or France because they had irreconcilable colonial ambitions. German fascism meant expansion into large swaths of already occupied territory - namely that of Russia, the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland, Czechia, Belarus, and all the territory up to the Urals. War, for Germany, was inevitable - not only because of their ambitions but also because of their time-bomb of an economy. French fascism was exceptionally ultranationalistic - and what French ultranationalist dreams of friendship with the Germans? French fascism inherently was staunchly anti-German and while both of their movements could reconcile in their anti-semitism there would be little more that they could agree on. British fascism has been covered extensively enough already - very against expansion, but would certainly defend the borders of its empire. TLDR: Italian fascism meant expansion south and inevitably war, French fascism meant countering German continental hegemony and inevitably war, German fascism meant expansion east and possibly north and west and inevitably war, British fascism meant isolation and peace through almost any means and probably inevitably war.

Please do not mistake my verbose explanations as a repudiation, as I do very much like your suggestion and you have clearly put much thought into it. I would suggest you make a mod for it! Unfortunately for France, your suggestion for how this fascist military bloc forms initially is the most likely. France is forced into cooperation with Italy and Germany - and loses some of its core territories to both powers, with much of their empire carved up and given to Italy in the process. This does not create a willing partner though, and just as Bismarck predicted that Germany seizing Alsace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War would result in revanchism you can bet your ass that this puppeted France is going to be facing much more popular and much more powerful civil wars. However, this hypothetical war alone may be enough to repulse Mosley from any sort of military alliance with Italy or Germany. I suppose the kinks would be left to you or any other prospective modder to work out.

Hopefully you have found all this information interesting, and are at least somewhat swayed as to why a British-German alliance under Mosley would be impossible with the current status of the German focus tree. Oswald Mosley was many things, but he was never a warmonger - and only the most ignorant of his enemies ever accused him as such! Hitler on the other hand... well we're all very familiar with how his "foreign policy" turned out. If anyone is interested in learning more about British fascism or Oswald Mosley and wants some book recommendations then feel free to PM me

 

[DeathBirnger]

Swaziland and Lesotho should be separate states in south Africa due them being British protectorates and not part of south Africa, will the states of Yugoslavia later be able to be released into the 6 republics