Why does Alf Landon ally with fascism and make the CSA?

[,]

the only way to become fascist is with alf landon, in the dlc man the guns so why does he do this? He wasnt a Silver Legion Supporter irl Right? And I dont think he was a CSA supporter either right? Wasnt the Silver Legion Based in Washington? Why would they like the csa

[Fritz Bittenfeld]

Rasputin, Saint-Martyr の投稿を引用：

Sallah Mohammed Faisel el-Kahir の投稿を引用：

Prove this. As a European refugee I see no evidence

Inshallah brother.

As we have seen, the Kafir will only sit and drink kefir as they banter on the internet. We will soon overtake them, as our ancestors failed to do when they were strong as people of the book - of which they are no more.

Can I get a Takbir!?

Inshallah, we will take their women and have 72 virgins in life and death

bb 80 の投稿を引用：

Jesus Christ, where do these right wing vultures come from?? Do they just search through the forums to push their agenda??

Align with us and they will be crushed

[Mikey]

Lightsong の投稿を引用：

A cursory look at conservative/right politics vs conservative/right politics of USA vs Europe proves this. Rhetoric wise, conservative politics in USA is anti wealth redistribution policies of almost every kind, pro capatalism, etc. European conseratives, are still quite pro wealth redistribution, but are more concerned with national identity, social fabric instead. These are generalizations, but basically as malovane said. USA conservative politics are rooted in classical liberalism, unlike European.

That isn't proof of anything other than liberalism is stronger in the US while socialism is stronger in Europe.
What a european calls a capitalist is seen as a die-hard commie in the US just as the most progressive socialist in US politics is seen as a liberal in the EU.

This stems primarily from the Cold War rhetoric against communism and McCarthyism pretty much wiping out any socialist progression in US society.


Also to the guy comparing fascism to communism. Stalin was a fascist masquerading as a communist, communism is not the same as fascism. If Lenin had lived longer, or Trostky gained power, we would have seen a very very different Soviet Union
You cannot take real world "communist" nations and paint the marxist movement with it as there really hasn't been any marxist nations (bar the short lived paris commune). The soviet union under Lenin came close.

[Lightsong]

Mikey の投稿を引用：

Lightsong の投稿を引用：

A cursory look at conservative/right politics vs conservative/right politics of USA vs Europe proves this. Rhetoric wise, conservative politics in USA is anti wealth redistribution policies of almost every kind, pro capatalism, etc. European conseratives, are still quite pro wealth redistribution, but are more concerned with national identity, social fabric instead. These are generalizations, but basically as malovane said. USA conservative politics are rooted in classical liberalism, unlike European.

That isn't proof of anything other than liberalism is stronger in the US while socialism is stronger in Europe.
What a european calls a capitalist is seen as a die-hard commie in the US just as the most progressive socialist in US politics is seen as a liberal in the EU.

This stems primarily from the Cold War rhetoric against communism and McCarthyism pretty much wiping out any socialist progression in US society.


Also to the guy comparing fascism to communism. Stalin was a fascist masquerading as a communist, communism is not the same as fascism. If Lenin had lived longer, or Trostky gained power, we would have seen a very very different Soviet Union
You cannot take real world "communist" nations and paint the marxist movement with it as there really hasn't been any marxist nations (bar the short lived paris commune). The soviet union under Lenin came close.

Idk why you disagreed with me then repeated me, but okay

[Mikey]

I would say true capitalism, true communism and true anarchy are the extremes we are currently working with, that meaning the "ideals" people are striving towards at the fringes.
Every single government in the world presently works in some form of compromise along those ideals with dictatorial states actually being closer to the capitalism ideal than the communism ideal. Food for thought there... (dictatorships in this reference goes towards both regal and citizen dictatorships)

Again I would like to reiterate that Stalinism was more fascist than communist. The Soviet Union fell flat on it's arse for a number of reason, primarily being a lack of top down leadership.
Stalin had a cult of personality that meant noone in the leadership dared do anything they weren't ordered to do for fear of being "disappeared".
This meant there was little to no incentive to evolve their society at all and eventually it simply collapsed.

It didn't help that due to this top down fault any failings in Stalins leadership spread down as well. We see this specifically in their food supply and infrastructure which was woefully inadequate when Stalin finally died. As Stalin didn't personally prioritize those sectors noone else in leadership spent any ressources on it since again that might just cost them their head.
The increased paranoia from Stalin didn't help matters as anyone who was thought of as "going up the ranks" was seen as a usurper and subsequently filled with lead.

The mechanisms and traditions that Stalin introduced into the soviet leadership are still quite evident in modern day Russia with a strong leader who is supposed to do everything himself and anyone saying otherwise is quickly dealt with. At least as seen from the outside.



Basicly. At any point in time a single strong dictator is MUCH better than any assembly of people AS LONG AS said person is qualified for the job and working for the betterment of the group.
The problem there being that either qualification or motive (most likely both) will in all but a handful of cases be completely missing. Anyone seeking power is ruled out immediately and anyone seeking to work for betterment won't be trying to get the gig.

[coffeemm8]

Fascism and communism aren't that different. Both are collectivist.

[bb 80]

eindringling の投稿を引用：

Fascism and communism aren't that different. Both are collectivist.

Democracy and facism aren't so different. Both proclaim to follow the popular will.
parliamentary democracy and communism aren't so different. Both call themeselves democratic.
This thread should have the title "idiots of the world unite."

[Fritz Bittenfeld]

imcoffeelingfine の投稿を引用：

Fascism and communism aren't that different. Both are collectivist.

Wow you really beat the libs with facts and logic there Mr. Shapiro

[Horny Shrimp]

SupremeLeaderPie の投稿を引用：

Sallah Mohammed Faisel el-Kahir の投稿を引用：

Prove this. As a European refugee I see no evidence

open a history book.

Don't care. Gimme my free stuff I never contributed for white person I hate... #Taqîya

[Fritz Bittenfeld]

Horny Shrimp の投稿を引用：

SupremeLeaderPie の投稿を引用：

open a history book.

Don't care. Gimme my free stuff I never contributed for white person I hate... #Taqîya

Agreed ♥♥♥♥ white people. Attention my fellow white people, it is time we go extinct. We should repay our decades of lynchings. #FasterExtinction

[iMajoraGaming]

-=Malovane=- の投稿を引用：

Burke の投稿を引用：

Because Europeans don't understand US politics and base their knowledge of it on CNN. They don't understand that it was Republicans who ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and ended the segregation period in the 60s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

True, but many Republicans in the game era fell firmly in what we might deem "paleoconservative" ideology, and are known as the "old right". They were generally anti-war, pro-tariffs, anti-immigration, largely anti-federalist, and full blown classical liberals. They were also highly opposed to Progressives and the New Deal.

It's probably the anti-immigration and anti-leftist sentiment that makes Europeans believe that Republicans of the era were somehow aligned with fascist ideology, when it couldn't be further from the truth. Part of this misconception is because Europeans in large, I have noticed, have little exposure to classical liberal thought. This is also a growing trend within the United States, of course, due to an overwhelmingly leftist academic environment.

To anyone who has studied it to any extent, there is little real difference between Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism, outside propaganda and wordplay. They're all centrally planned economies that intrude on every aspect of a citizens life, and at the core they were all founded on Marxist principles. Fascism only pretends to let people have private businesses. If you regulate everything they do, then you have control, and control is a synonym of ownerhsip. Mussolini was a full blown and lifelong communist before rejecting the globalist aspect of it. Stalin democided minorities with no hesitation, and was also more of a nationalist than a globalist.

If anything, the path to fascism should lie in the FDR route. He openly praised Mussolini and Fascism on multiple occasions, as did his advisors and many in his part. He, like Woodrow Wilson before him, was happily instituting similar Marxist systems and programs. The central bank was a pillar of Marx's plan, and the Federal Reserve was instituted in 1913 by Wilson. Progressive tax rates (another key part) was put in place shortly thereafter. FDR put in place a lot of the rest.

Progressives of the era were basically just Fascists with a different name. Even with the racial stuff.

I literally could not let this go un-necro'd because Jesus Christ this is beyond wrong.

You... you realize that people can fact check you, right? You realize that your own far-right wet dream does not change actual history or make up praise that never existed?

FDR was praised /by/ Mussolini. He did not praise Mussolini. He was literally only restrained from joining the fight against fascism sooner by Congress. He not once praised Mussolini. Progressives were fascists? ON RACE TOO?

I am legitimately blown away. I don't even know where to begin, I'm at a loss for how to even tackle something so wrong. Neither party was even tangentially like that.

Both had progressive and conservative wings. Neither Alf nor FDR fit for a fascist USA but there needs to be a diverse available path, and that's what they went with.

Please. Never pull this kind of absurdist garbage again. I'm beyond disgusted at you perverting the hell out of history because it fits your political fancy.

You want to know what looks pretty much like 21st century fascism? This sh*t. THIS.

OP, you should feel legitimate shame for highlighting this trash.

The actual reality is that nobody sees, nor has ever seen, the Republicans mid 20th century as even right wing in the slightest. Similarly to how Democrats were "Progressive", but the politicized motivations to pick a tribal camp really didn't exist. One of the Senators from Nebraska was a Republican/Independent who was part of FDR's Progressive movement, despite being a dyed red Republican on birth. This is NEBRASKA we're talking about. I live here now. It has been Republican since the party switch. Conservative Republican. Even then, there were progressive conservatives. Because progressivism was built on the ideology of Teddy Roosevelt and his can-do, "work hard, help your neighbor, be strong for your country" personal orthodoxy.

That had genuine cross-isle appeal, obviously, when you get a Nebraskan to support it, it's either conservative or it has appeal beyond partisanship.

FDR was a democratic socialist by most accounts, given his ties to the Ware group and general modus operandi. Alf Landon was a moderate.

Alf Landon and Republicans were more in favour of either stopping or at the very least tempering the ambitions of the New Deal, and there was some support for restoring the Gold Standard in hopes that it would help balance out the crumbling economy and halt the progress of the Depression.

Both eventually were in favour of arresting people like William Dudley Pelley and others for sedition, both were generally in favour of internment. This is one of the least partisan points in the entire history of the US.

The tree starts with the obvious discord between what economic measures an incumbent would be seeking to take, and in both cases it veers wildly more into something that isn't really able to be compared to real life. Alf Landon would never have turned the US into a neo-Confederacy with Nazis in government. FDR would never have joined the Comintern.

But those are the alternate history paths of the tree. The easy answer is that it's Alf Landon because the Republicans were marginally more conservative by average. Hence why pretty immediately down the Gold Standard branch you more or less ditch the Republicans to fuel the Silver Legion and whatnot. Because outside of Alf becoming a different person to what he was IRL, the Republicans would never have supported such an insane course of action.

[Shard]

-=Malovane=- の投稿を引用：

To anyone who has studied it to any extent, there is little real difference between Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism, outside propaganda and wordplay. They're all centrally planned economies that intrude on every aspect of a citizens life, and at the core they were all founded on Marxist principles. Fascism only pretends to let people have private businesses. If you regulate everything they do, then you have control, and control is a synonym of ownerhsip. Mussolini was a full blown and lifelong communist before rejecting the globalist aspect of it. Stalin democided minorities with no hesitation, and was also more of a nationalist than a globalist.

imcoffeelingfine の投稿を引用：

Fascism and communism aren't that different. Both are collectivist.

LMAO this is some big cringe. Let's just ignore the cultural aspects of all sides and the differences that come out of the circumstances of the individual nations.

[Julicos]

As much as we the Europeans misunderstand your political history so you misunderstand our politics. Fascism, National Socialism, and Stalinist Communism are very distinct. Now Fascism Corporatism could be compared with the Communist planned economy, during the Great Depression the Italian state had 40% of Italy's industry, but that was made to prevent the de-industrialization of Italy since most of the businesses went bankrupt. National Socialism doesn't have a coherent economic policy, Hitler was never interested in economics and Germany's economy at that time was purely suited to re-armament. Mind the Hitler's initial base of power was the German industrialists who were afraid of a communist revolution and wanted a man to do all the "dirty work", also those industrialists viewed the upcoming war as a great chance to enrich themselves by seizing the industries of the occupied nations and utilizing slave labour. In contrast, Italy lacked this powerful "industrialist class" and Mussolini took power mostly because of royal backing. Germany did massive privatizations at that time to fund its ever-increasing army and anyone could have private property as long as he didn't endanger "national interests", a similar situation existed in Italy too. Concerning trade, it is true that Germany, Italy, and the USSR tried to reach autarky and reduced imports as much as possible although that was a global trend following the effects of the Great Depression. Now I consider it very annoying to see Hitler described as a communist in order to denounce the American Left and the same is true for the Left trying to denounce the American Right by comparing them with Hitler. It is impossible to try to compare rulers and ideologies of the Interwar era with those of our times since those ideologies were created under the very special circumstances that the post-WW1 environment created.

[MagnusCerebrum]

Mikey の投稿を引用：

Basically. At any point in time a single strong dictator is MUCH better than any assembly of people AS LONG AS said person is qualified for the job and working for the betterment of the group.

The ideas of benevolent dictatorship, enlightened absolutism and "philosopher king" are the keywords here, and I agree.

[iMajoraGaming]

Gottfried Reiter の投稿を引用：

Mikey の投稿を引用：

Basically. At any point in time a single strong dictator is MUCH better than any assembly of people AS LONG AS said person is qualified for the job and working for the betterment of the group.

The ideas of benevolent dictatorship, enlightened absolutism and "philosopher king" are the keywords here, and I agree.

No. No. No.

[iMajoraGaming]

Rasputin, Saint-Martyr の投稿を引用：

iMajoraGaming の投稿を引用：

No. No. No.

Why not? People are stupid animals. Without someone in charge, they fight among themselves pretending to be their own emperor.

Tf outta here authoritarian.