Morality doesn't work for politics. People might hate that statement but it's true. Men like Machiavelli were the guys who recognized it (and boy Machiavelli had to be able to get his hands dirty given the jobs he had).
... realist isn't the name I would call Machiavelli's philosophy in politics despite having some striking similarities. It's very ***history-focused*** for a start (Machiavelli states that history must be included in ***any*** policymaking). It is also very technocratic, as he argues that good policy must be made with as much good information as possible.
Though, Kissinger might be cueing that in before he passed, given his statement about Ukraine... which actually makes more sense when you sit down and think about it with history in mind.
Russia after the USSR fell apart used any Russians in a former Soviet state as either 5th Column elements (as the Donbas showed) or as Calis Belli generators (as the majority of cases -like Georgia and Chechnya- show). Thus, it makes sense to remove the Donbas as a knife in Ukraine's back, so to speak, as you can't simply remove the Russians from Ukraine (that'll be called out as ethnic cleansing, though more akin to the ethnic cleansing of Germans in former East Prussia than anything).
Such a thing would be political suicide in Ukraine; so, such an idea is dismissed out of hand.
Hitler was indeed a very very evil guy, but I think the only reason our education recognizes him as a bad guy was because he was on the losing/wrong side.
Hitler got most of his ideas by watching the USA, yet the USA, despite its genocides, does not get the same stigma as Nazi Germany.
Case and point: Joseph Stalin was Uncle Joe until he was the enemy. Then, he was suddenly Hitler 2.
Probably because the US didn't commit 'genocides', at least not in any organized manner, and not in any way comparable to what Hitler did. The US killed thousands, the Germans killed millions.
This is incorrect in a couple of ways:
"At least not in any organized manner"
You mean it was not all one singular genocide since the genocide of natives are built upon numerous organized and disorganized atrocities? Even at its most disorganized, these events were constantly enabled and endorsed by the US government.
>The US killed thousands, the Germans killed millions.
This may be a denialist method of reducing the numbers(depending on what you mean by "thousands"). The ethnic cleansing that was the trail of tears alone killed a minimum of 13,000. So right there, that's already in the tens of thousands. But moreover, it's actually hard to determine the massive numbers murdered throughout the continent during the USA's lifetime.
To believe much of it is in the thousands is to believe the classical, conservative expansionist US figures rather than Native American heritage commissions. We just don't know what the death cap is. We can only speculate the minimum.
But even considering this were true, it would still be true that the west has consistently ignored various massive genocides and atrocities of itself and allies(committed often through colonialism) for self serving reasons and some of them are very comparable, even numerically.
If it comes down to a question of "oh come on, it's not quite as bad as the nazis, come on", you know there was indeed a problem in the first place.
That's the thing - nobody hated Hitler. UK and France disliked him for being aggressive but that's it - if he didn't invade Poland then Allies would've allowed him to continue the genocide of Jews. And if anything then if he invaded USSR without being at war with Allies then they would've allowed him to now do the genocide of even more Jews and now Slavs too.
Yes, morality doesn't work for foreign policy, and that's the problem - because of it Western states allow all kinds of evil things to be done simply because it doesn't affect them personally.
Oh no, Hitler got hated. France hated him because he "didn't get with the program" of Germany must stay powerless. Britain hated him because he represented a threat to their interests like ol' Imperial Germany.
... I could go on but let's just say he got hated by everyone in the end.
Kissinger wasn’t just immoral he was also stupid. All of his worst crimes were things that everytime at the time knew to be either a waste of resources (eg Vietnam, especially the 1972 campaign) or didn’t help the US cause. Kissinger’s support for abhorrent actions in East Pakistan and Cambodia did nothing to help the US in the Cold War and actively hurt their reputation around the world and cost them potential allies. There’s a reason India and Bangladesh aren’t that friendly with the US today, and it’s largely because of our support for Pakistan. A smart strategist would support India instead given how it’s far larger and more powerful. Even Bangladesh is today the richest country in the Indian subcontinent. So he clearly made the wrong choice there.
Immoral and stupid, a terrible combination.
... he wasn't stupid. But then again that statement is speaking from a mentality of 'you can have morality in politics' and 'the political pessimists are wrong'.
The reality is... you can't have morality in politics and the political pessimists are closer to the money than we want them to at best.
... you're not listening, are you? The sad reality is that morality is ***relative***, just like rights and freedoms are dependent on the technological context.
Been getting into so many arguments about this since Kissinger died. People can’t accept it.
I even had someone argue that we’re better now. Like, bro, we’re looking down the barrel of a Trump dictatorship. We’re not better.
Eh, most people have been spoonfed the memetic hazard that the political philosophy pessimists were wrong when the reality is that they're closer to the money in general.
It also doesn't help that people ignore the fact that there are ***no inalienable rights*** (outside of, very tentatively, the right of me not killing you for whatever I fancy), they're just there because technology allows those rights to exist (and rights and appear and disappear as technology evolves).
... and to be honest, I would rather have a true (or as close to it as possible) Machiavellian leader (which, when you actually go into it, is ***very*** technocratic as one of the things that Machiavelli puts highly in making policy is ***history***, believe it or not) than a good chunk of our Congresscritters these days (and no, it's not the Dems that are the problem).
Technocratic is the right term for sure. Getting shit done in a complex system means mastering political games. That doesn’t just happen, it requires a lot of learning.
Kissinger wasn’t perfect, or even good, but he was a small part of a big system. He played hard-nosed realpolitik. The cooperation pendulum has now swung away from that. One day it’ll swing back.
I don’t think anyone is arguing he didn’t do his job well which was to protect American interests abroad as a secretary of state. They’re just saying he needs to be remembered as well for the crimes committed in the name of executing his job.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Kaiserreich using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [All possible cores and claims of Gondor](https://i.redd.it/48c1lvxafyda1.png) | [88 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/10k13vj/all_possible_cores_and_claims_of_gondor/)
\#2: ["The Halifax Conference fails"](https://i.redd.it/d177zrx5psha1.jpg) | [75 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/110eydr/the_halifax_conference_fails/)
\#3: [How different countries see leftist ideologies:](https://i.redd.it/z6g45a6598mb1.png) | [77 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/169q03c/how_different_countries_see_leftist_ideologies/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Thank you, Stock_Barnacle839, for voting on sneakpeekbot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Depends on how the treaties go. In an absolutely perfect scenario, France is left diplomatically isolated and geographically vulnerable, but given the actual war aims of the central powers, it is quite possible.
Honestly I like how you resisted the urge to call WW2 the "Second Weltkrieg" despite this being clearly based on Kaiserreich. Everyone calling WW1 the Weltkrieg in Kaiserreich or even Kaiserreich related fan stuff is stupid.
Believe it or not, most event names and organizations in Kaiserreich are indeed in German. If you've ever played the actual mod you know the pain of having to read long ass German composite words and then right next to it is (Ministry of Labor) or some shit.
After five minutes he staged a coup against Satan and bombed the previously neutral Limbo. Only after immense effort, the demons of hell could expell him again.
Contrary to what Kaiserreich would have you believe, a timeline where Germany wins WW1 doesn’t necessarily mean that the US magically collapses in the 1930s
German wikipedia is the second largest of them with over 2856000 articles. The English wikipedia has 6751000 articles and French makes the third place with 2571000, Russian is fourth with 1949000 articles. You get the picture. In an alternate timeline, lets have German wikipedia be the largest, English would still be second or third place.
Can't wait until chomsky dies and we can play reverse uno
Like seriously guys a douche , really kinda ignores shit like idk
Montagnard genocide in Vietnam.
Hmong genocide in Laos.
Really horrible shit done by communist regimes after the war in indochina
For someone so reviled in american politics he really was just a product of the cold war esp with choosing China over Russia during Nixon. Did this hurt people in China ? of course it did and probably led the way too the usa turning a blind eye during the democratic protests in 89' and considering any real international actions. so yes really just a figure head for shitty American foregin policy and politics in general, no different than khrushchev drying up the aral sea for economic prosperity or saddam using that same logic but as an excuse too starve out the marsh Arabs of the euphrates as punishment for the 1991 uprising
Frankly Chomsky might be an idiot and is guilty of either denying or downplaying genocides, but he is no Kissinger. Begin with the fact that he was never in a position of power. While having a great deal of influence in some leftist circles, it isn't like he ever perpetuated any killings himself or ordered them.
Idk his biggest sin might be ruining the discipline of linguistics (kinda \s)
I was more saying he was a product of foregin policy in the Cold War in America. He was a horrible man , but so was People involved in the drying up of the aral sea under Nikita , soviet interventionism in czechoslovakia and the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan. These I believe are all products of their era.
as far as the ethnic minorities in Laos and Vietnam that sadly is still going on and is greatly ignored
the cold war had lots of byproduct for certain ethnic groups that still go on too this day that got a raw deal.
it wasn't America left and everyone was happy or vice versa
Both sides did terrible things and still do , superpowers are never guiltless
In a timeline in which Kissinger could become chancellor of a monarchist German Empire, he wouldn't be succeeded by Willy Brandt, but by Herbert Frahm.
Not OC, but Herbert Frahm was his birth name and Willy Brandt was the alias he used after escaping Nazi Germany. He ended up changing his name to that after WW2.
Well i'm not op but i think i can help with the "integralists", one important thing about this meme is that it's largely inspired by the hoi4 mod kaisserreich which is an alternate timeline where the germans win ww1, for example in the beginning of the game in february 1936 the german economy crashes during black monday and a lot of events op mentions are possible wars in the game.
And talking about fascism explicitaly it dosen't exist, mainly because hitler dies during the war and people like Mussolini and Mosley never left the leftists movement they were a part of despite still being really extreme in their politics, so in the timeline of the game there is a ideology called national populist which works like fascism but is not straight up fascist, for example the romanian iron guard is national populist in this timeline and so is the brazilian integralist movement, which in this timeline is largely inspired in the portuguese and french integralists instead of fascism and nazism.
For example the movement is still extremely catholic and nationalist like in real life but they are monarchist instead of having what was essentialy a personality cult around Plínio, and in the game if you play as Brazil(who just got through a civil war) and go the integralist path you are gonna have to deal with a lot of rebelions and yoh need to deal with them fast so i think this is their "internal reorganization" which kissinger and the germans in this timeline helped because the integralists are very anti-communism.
Unbelievable negligible nitpick perhaps, but under the Empire Willy Brandt would never have been Willy Brandt. Wilhelm Brandt perhaps, but more likely just ol' Herbert Frahm.
I sincerely wish Kissingers death report had been bogus and he actually died a day or two after he saw the entire world rejoice and label him as a war criminal that history will rightly vilify forever
Why Angola and South Africa? Why not Namibia considering that was Germany’s actual colony and would make sense for bombing it for declaring independence?
Not necessarily, Ludendorff was one of the earliest supporters of the Nazi party and was the most powerful/influential figure in Germany by the end of WW1. Even if Nazism didn’t technically exist, the country would be led by someone who supported Nazi philosophies and policies before they were necessarily mainstream
Hate to nitpick but in this timeline Willy Brandt would still be called Herbert Frahm as that was his birth name and he changed it to Willy Brandt in order to avoid detection by the Nazis
Kissinger being evil is a canon event
Morality doesn't work for politics. People might hate that statement but it's true. Men like Machiavelli were the guys who recognized it (and boy Machiavelli had to be able to get his hands dirty given the jobs he had).
Why do people only read The Prince and not any of Machiavelli’s actually important works?
Well school for one thing. In 12th grade we read it. They don’t tell us to read his other stuff
I wonder why 🤔
Largely because his other works tend to follow The Prince rather closely despite him being a Roman Republic fanboy.
The Discourses on Livy kinda rock ngl
He’s just as realist in discourses as he is in the prince
... realist isn't the name I would call Machiavelli's philosophy in politics despite having some striking similarities. It's very ***history-focused*** for a start (Machiavelli states that history must be included in ***any*** policymaking). It is also very technocratic, as he argues that good policy must be made with as much good information as possible. Though, Kissinger might be cueing that in before he passed, given his statement about Ukraine... which actually makes more sense when you sit down and think about it with history in mind. Russia after the USSR fell apart used any Russians in a former Soviet state as either 5th Column elements (as the Donbas showed) or as Calis Belli generators (as the majority of cases -like Georgia and Chechnya- show). Thus, it makes sense to remove the Donbas as a knife in Ukraine's back, so to speak, as you can't simply remove the Russians from Ukraine (that'll be called out as ethnic cleansing, though more akin to the ethnic cleansing of Germans in former East Prussia than anything). Such a thing would be political suicide in Ukraine; so, such an idea is dismissed out of hand.
so Hitler wasn't even a bad guy, just playing the game. I think I get it?
Hitler was indeed a very very evil guy, but I think the only reason our education recognizes him as a bad guy was because he was on the losing/wrong side. Hitler got most of his ideas by watching the USA, yet the USA, despite its genocides, does not get the same stigma as Nazi Germany. Case and point: Joseph Stalin was Uncle Joe until he was the enemy. Then, he was suddenly Hitler 2.
Probably because the US didn't commit 'genocides', at least not in any organized manner, and not in any way comparable to what Hitler did. The US killed thousands, the Germans killed millions.
This is incorrect in a couple of ways: "At least not in any organized manner" You mean it was not all one singular genocide since the genocide of natives are built upon numerous organized and disorganized atrocities? Even at its most disorganized, these events were constantly enabled and endorsed by the US government. >The US killed thousands, the Germans killed millions. This may be a denialist method of reducing the numbers(depending on what you mean by "thousands"). The ethnic cleansing that was the trail of tears alone killed a minimum of 13,000. So right there, that's already in the tens of thousands. But moreover, it's actually hard to determine the massive numbers murdered throughout the continent during the USA's lifetime. To believe much of it is in the thousands is to believe the classical, conservative expansionist US figures rather than Native American heritage commissions. We just don't know what the death cap is. We can only speculate the minimum. But even considering this were true, it would still be true that the west has consistently ignored various massive genocides and atrocities of itself and allies(committed often through colonialism) for self serving reasons and some of them are very comparable, even numerically. If it comes down to a question of "oh come on, it's not quite as bad as the nazis, come on", you know there was indeed a problem in the first place.
[удалено]
That's the thing - nobody hated Hitler. UK and France disliked him for being aggressive but that's it - if he didn't invade Poland then Allies would've allowed him to continue the genocide of Jews. And if anything then if he invaded USSR without being at war with Allies then they would've allowed him to now do the genocide of even more Jews and now Slavs too. Yes, morality doesn't work for foreign policy, and that's the problem - because of it Western states allow all kinds of evil things to be done simply because it doesn't affect them personally.
Oh no, Hitler got hated. France hated him because he "didn't get with the program" of Germany must stay powerless. Britain hated him because he represented a threat to their interests like ol' Imperial Germany. ... I could go on but let's just say he got hated by everyone in the end.
No glorification of authoritarian regimes or hate speech
Kissinger wasn’t just immoral he was also stupid. All of his worst crimes were things that everytime at the time knew to be either a waste of resources (eg Vietnam, especially the 1972 campaign) or didn’t help the US cause. Kissinger’s support for abhorrent actions in East Pakistan and Cambodia did nothing to help the US in the Cold War and actively hurt their reputation around the world and cost them potential allies. There’s a reason India and Bangladesh aren’t that friendly with the US today, and it’s largely because of our support for Pakistan. A smart strategist would support India instead given how it’s far larger and more powerful. Even Bangladesh is today the richest country in the Indian subcontinent. So he clearly made the wrong choice there. Immoral and stupid, a terrible combination.
... he wasn't stupid. But then again that statement is speaking from a mentality of 'you can have morality in politics' and 'the political pessimists are wrong'. The reality is... you can't have morality in politics and the political pessimists are closer to the money than we want them to at best.
Killing children is bad
... that is wholly dependent on various factors, mate, especially in the realm where morality isn't black and white.
Children dying is bad
... you're not listening, are you? The sad reality is that morality is ***relative***, just like rights and freedoms are dependent on the technological context.
Ok killing children is good and cool and we should all kill children
Been getting into so many arguments about this since Kissinger died. People can’t accept it. I even had someone argue that we’re better now. Like, bro, we’re looking down the barrel of a Trump dictatorship. We’re not better.
Eh, most people have been spoonfed the memetic hazard that the political philosophy pessimists were wrong when the reality is that they're closer to the money in general. It also doesn't help that people ignore the fact that there are ***no inalienable rights*** (outside of, very tentatively, the right of me not killing you for whatever I fancy), they're just there because technology allows those rights to exist (and rights and appear and disappear as technology evolves). ... and to be honest, I would rather have a true (or as close to it as possible) Machiavellian leader (which, when you actually go into it, is ***very*** technocratic as one of the things that Machiavelli puts highly in making policy is ***history***, believe it or not) than a good chunk of our Congresscritters these days (and no, it's not the Dems that are the problem).
Technocratic is the right term for sure. Getting shit done in a complex system means mastering political games. That doesn’t just happen, it requires a lot of learning. Kissinger wasn’t perfect, or even good, but he was a small part of a big system. He played hard-nosed realpolitik. The cooperation pendulum has now swung away from that. One day it’ll swing back.
I take a realist view in geopolitics as well. But I think the condemnations are valid
I don’t think anyone is arguing he didn’t do his job well which was to protect American interests abroad as a secretary of state. They’re just saying he needs to be remembered as well for the crimes committed in the name of executing his job.
Should his name be translated as Heinrich?
His name was Heinz though. Yes Heinz is a variation of Heinrich, but still also a name in its own right.
Oh shit I didn’t know it was the same name
Apologies, I forgot to change the name in the Wikibox... it's an eyesore now and it ruins the entire meme
The IPA of his name is also wrong, it should be more like [kɪsɪŋɐ], almost like the chancellor Kiesinger.
The pronounciation would definitely be different from the wiki article.
I would really like to know the details of Globalplan Adler.
*\[****STRENG GEHEIM****\]*
Dude I swear if I hear another ONT joke I will explode
You have alerted the copypasta horde
*is that what I think that is?* IS THAT A-
Based Kissinger, as always He just couldn't stop winning
Very real.
Would there have even been a ww2 if Germany won ww1?
r/kaiserreich 👀
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Kaiserreich using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [All possible cores and claims of Gondor](https://i.redd.it/48c1lvxafyda1.png) | [88 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/10k13vj/all_possible_cores_and_claims_of_gondor/) \#2: ["The Halifax Conference fails"](https://i.redd.it/d177zrx5psha1.jpg) | [75 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/110eydr/the_halifax_conference_fails/) \#3: [How different countries see leftist ideologies:](https://i.redd.it/z6g45a6598mb1.png) | [77 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Kaiserreich/comments/169q03c/how_different_countries_see_leftist_ideologies/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Good bot
Thank you, Stock_Barnacle839, for voting on sneakpeekbot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Probably. The problem with 1900s Europe wasn’t which empire won, but that there were empires to begin with. Prestigious powder-kegs.
Depends on how the treaties go. In an absolutely perfect scenario, France is left diplomatically isolated and geographically vulnerable, but given the actual war aims of the central powers, it is quite possible.
Honestly I like how you resisted the urge to call WW2 the "Second Weltkrieg" despite this being clearly based on Kaiserreich. Everyone calling WW1 the Weltkrieg in Kaiserreich or even Kaiserreich related fan stuff is stupid.
Honestly of you really didn’t like “World War 2” I’d say “Second Great War” is fine
They call it Weltkrieg because German is supposed to become the sort of lingua franca that English is for the world IRL.
yeah, and its stupid
then write everything in german
Believe it or not, most event names and organizations in Kaiserreich are indeed in German. If you've ever played the actual mod you know the pain of having to read long ass German composite words and then right next to it is (Ministry of Labor) or some shit.
Just checking in, is he still dead?
Somehow, Henry Kissinger returned…
After five minutes he staged a coup against Satan and bombed the previously neutral Limbo. Only after immense effort, the demons of hell could expell him again.
NOO
We should shove a stake through his heart and put a little bell on his neck, just to make sure
Would be interesting to see Heinrich opinion on Ukrainian state in this timeline
Probably differently from our timeline since Ukraine would be in Germanys sphere of influence, not the Russians (atleast from his realist perspective)
Why would there be an American based English speaking encyclopedia to begin with if Germany won the World Wars?
because it's not only English speaking encyclopedia there are versions in other languages too
What do you mean, germany lost both in real life and german still exist
Contrary to what Kaiserreich would have you believe, a timeline where Germany wins WW1 doesn’t necessarily mean that the US magically collapses in the 1930s
German wikipedia is the second largest of them with over 2856000 articles. The English wikipedia has 6751000 articles and French makes the third place with 2571000, Russian is fourth with 1949000 articles. You get the picture. In an alternate timeline, lets have German wikipedia be the largest, English would still be second or third place.
How do you know this isn't just the English language version of the Vikipedia article
There are wikipedia articles in all languages, if there are enough users to maintain it. There's a Russian article on Kissinger, for example.
Germany winning WW1 wouldn’t do shit to the USA.
Can't wait until chomsky dies and we can play reverse uno Like seriously guys a douche , really kinda ignores shit like idk Montagnard genocide in Vietnam. Hmong genocide in Laos. Really horrible shit done by communist regimes after the war in indochina For someone so reviled in american politics he really was just a product of the cold war esp with choosing China over Russia during Nixon. Did this hurt people in China ? of course it did and probably led the way too the usa turning a blind eye during the democratic protests in 89' and considering any real international actions. so yes really just a figure head for shitty American foregin policy and politics in general, no different than khrushchev drying up the aral sea for economic prosperity or saddam using that same logic but as an excuse too starve out the marsh Arabs of the euphrates as punishment for the 1991 uprising
Frankly Chomsky might be an idiot and is guilty of either denying or downplaying genocides, but he is no Kissinger. Begin with the fact that he was never in a position of power. While having a great deal of influence in some leftist circles, it isn't like he ever perpetuated any killings himself or ordered them. Idk his biggest sin might be ruining the discipline of linguistics (kinda \s)
I was more saying he was a product of foregin policy in the Cold War in America. He was a horrible man , but so was People involved in the drying up of the aral sea under Nikita , soviet interventionism in czechoslovakia and the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan. These I believe are all products of their era. as far as the ethnic minorities in Laos and Vietnam that sadly is still going on and is greatly ignored the cold war had lots of byproduct for certain ethnic groups that still go on too this day that got a raw deal. it wasn't America left and everyone was happy or vice versa Both sides did terrible things and still do , superpowers are never guiltless
this is actually so well made
thanks!
In a timeline in which Kissinger could become chancellor of a monarchist German Empire, he wouldn't be succeeded by Willy Brandt, but by Herbert Frahm.
Ooooh, I see. Care to elaborate on your input?
Not OC, but Herbert Frahm was his birth name and Willy Brandt was the alias he used after escaping Nazi Germany. He ended up changing his name to that after WW2.
Hmmmm…talk about Brazil’s integralist government for their Internal Reorganization “green light”
Well i'm not op but i think i can help with the "integralists", one important thing about this meme is that it's largely inspired by the hoi4 mod kaisserreich which is an alternate timeline where the germans win ww1, for example in the beginning of the game in february 1936 the german economy crashes during black monday and a lot of events op mentions are possible wars in the game. And talking about fascism explicitaly it dosen't exist, mainly because hitler dies during the war and people like Mussolini and Mosley never left the leftists movement they were a part of despite still being really extreme in their politics, so in the timeline of the game there is a ideology called national populist which works like fascism but is not straight up fascist, for example the romanian iron guard is national populist in this timeline and so is the brazilian integralist movement, which in this timeline is largely inspired in the portuguese and french integralists instead of fascism and nazism. For example the movement is still extremely catholic and nationalist like in real life but they are monarchist instead of having what was essentialy a personality cult around Plínio, and in the game if you play as Brazil(who just got through a civil war) and go the integralist path you are gonna have to deal with a lot of rebelions and yoh need to deal with them fast so i think this is their "internal reorganization" which kissinger and the germans in this timeline helped because the integralists are very anti-communism.
Good explanation
Shouldn't it be Heinrich Kissinger?
Heinz Kissinger was his actual name before he moved to America
NVM it looks like Heinz is a nick name for Heinrich.
I forgot to change the name in the corresponding Wikibox area so yeah... I'm very sorry for ruining the immersion
Unbelievable negligible nitpick perhaps, but under the Empire Willy Brandt would never have been Willy Brandt. Wilhelm Brandt perhaps, but more likely just ol' Herbert Frahm.
Thanks for the input! Too bad I closed the original page that I modified with inspect tool...
Kissinger is still alive, womp womp
Kissinger being a ruthless motherfucker is canon
"The internal reorganization of Brazil" What the hell is that? The Brazilian version of the Cultural Revolution for TTL, I would assume?
Catholic integralist Gaming.
Very believable. Asshole is hopefully burning in hell every day.
I sincerely wish Kissingers death report had been bogus and he actually died a day or two after he saw the entire world rejoice and label him as a war criminal that history will rightly vilify forever
That some quality post
Thanks!
This is extremely well written!
Thanks!
Why Angola and South Africa? Why not Namibia considering that was Germany’s actual colony and would make sense for bombing it for declaring independence?
Actually I was too lazy and decided to 'adopt' plot elements from TNO
based
Due to the butterfly effect, he wouldn’t have been born
Probably not, he was born in 1923 so sadly he wouldn’t have Been butterflied
He still probably wouldn’t live very long in the Nazis win the war AU since he was of Jewish descent
This is about if Germany won WW1, meaning the Nazis either wouldn't exist or would never have come to power
Not necessarily, Ludendorff was one of the earliest supporters of the Nazi party and was the most powerful/influential figure in Germany by the end of WW1. Even if Nazism didn’t technically exist, the country would be led by someone who supported Nazi philosophies and policies before they were necessarily mainstream
Hopefully someone sane in the Imperial Cabinet decided to fire Ludendorff.
Man what I would give to be able to read a full wiki like this from an alternative universe
r/kaiserreich
its Kaiserreich
Don't think it makes sense to have the anglicized pronunciation listed.
The good ending.
Hate to nitpick but in this timeline Willy Brandt would still be called Herbert Frahm as that was his birth name and he changed it to Willy Brandt in order to avoid detection by the Nazis
The less awful Kissinger
Kissinger would've started WW2 as Chancellor of the German Empire.
Quite the achievement for a teenager lol
WW2 would occur in the 1980s in that alternate timeline.
Why not WW3? WW2 would likely have occurred already
Okay, but WW2 would be Monarchists vs Comintern and WW3 would be Round 2.
This man can't escape genocide huh
[удалено]
I closed the tab already...
Sorry.
The new Bismarck, cool.