The Russian civil war wasn't that simple. Multiple sides were included, not just the Bolshevik and the various "White Army" factions. The White Army wasn't a thing. Just the opponents have been called that in response to the own Red Army of the Bolsheviks.
The White Army were just generals and factions, who just got along or just got into fighting the same enemy, may it be the "Green Armies", the Anarchist Free Territory or the Red Army.
The problem with that map is that only two factions are shown: The Red Army and the various factions, that fought the Red Army and their allies.
The "White Army" may as well include the remnants of the Provisional Government, the democratic socialist Mensheviks, who were the biggest power in the Rossyskaya Imperiya before the coup by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Also the Center Social Revolutionaries likely fought against the warmongering and authoritarian Bolsheviks.
But for this, the ideologies should be revamped. They are nonsense anyway and are made not for historical accuracy, but for game balancing purposes. Because, why wouldn't socialists support political reforms? In history and today they were in support of democratic reforms, because it gives more power from the authority to the masses.
Realistically socialists would support like 90 or 100% political reforms.
Also, Social Democracy might be viable after 1900. The actual socialist parties of Europe became less and less radicalized, since they either got their aims partially through or they split into the radical one and the very moderate one how we know them today. In Germany it was the MSPD and the USPD, with the MSPD being very moderate and the predecessor of the todays SPD. They also supported the Great War, which might made them Pro-Military in the game.
The USPD was the more radical one and openly opposed the war as the only faction in the German parliament and later came to be in power of Bavaria, with Kurt Eisner as their head, who later got murdered by a monarchist since he was a Jew, a socialist and came from Berlin, which is in Prussia, the stronghold of the SPD.
Anarchism was a thing. Not the nonsense """"Anarcho-liberalism"""", but Anarchism as in history, as it really existed. The Free Territory under Nestor Ivanovich Makhno for example. Imagine them as some sort of Robin Hoods Merry Men. They stole from the rich and gave it to the poor.
They held high values for the freedom of the individual and opposed hierarchy and the state. They didn't usually form parties, rather than unions or communes.
They were utterly democratic, voting in every matter no matter how important.
Also they supported Direct Democracy instead of a representative one.
They were quite militant (of course) and formed Anarchist militias and got usually many volunteers in their ranks. In the Free Territory their total troop count was around 100.000 and they fought the Caucasus Army under Denikin (?) and were betrayed by the Bolsheviks.
It usually wouldn't be viable due to the existence of the state and nations thing, but they were a large factor in most of the civil wars at that time, the Russian one included. There was a Korean Anarchist Territory, called the Shinmin District inside of todays Chinas borders, in todays Manchuria. There was the Bavarian Council Republic under Kurt Eisner and was led by mostly Anarchists and Socialists.
And there was the CNT in Spain, which had a large supporter base in the Labor unions.
It also existed before Communism by Marx and the basis for the philosophy was made by Jean-Jaques Rousseau with his theory of Freedom and the nature of man and was branched into several different Anarchist theories by Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Proudhon.
The communists should be turned into Marxist-Leninists and should only appear around 1890 or so. They represent the authoritarian wing of the actual libertarian Marxists and Socialists, like the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries were and the Anarchists.
Don't get me wrong, Marx in his later years had a change in mindset and supported Democratic Reform instead of Revolution.
"Anarcho-liberals" should be turned into market liberals or such imo. It would make more sense, with the liberals being classic liberals and radical liberals included (French Revolution), while the "Anarcho-liberals" are more regressive and not at all radical.
Anarchists would have the following policies in a historical context:
Free Trade (between fellow Anarchists of course)
Planned Economy or Laissez Faire (autonomy or mutualism? something new would fit better, like communal, which would also apply to communists)
Full Welfare state (for the maximum freedom of the people, not hindered by poverty or starvation)
Jingoism or Pro-Military (Anarchist militias)
100% support for both political and social reforms
But also they could be hated by everyone as in actual history, by both other leftists like communists or reactionaries, like monarchists or capitalists. They could get a aquire state cb to subdue "these lawless anarchists".
The Parisian commune may exist after the French lose the Franco-Prussian war? They were a symbol for a lot of socialists, communists and anarchists in Europe, that their ideals are possible.
The Russian civil war wasn't that simple. Multiple sides were included, not just the Bolshevik and the various "White Army" factions. The White Army wasn't a thing. Just the opponents have been called that in response to the own Red Army of the Bolsheviks. The White Army were just generals and factions, who just got along or just got into fighting the same enemy, may it be the "Green Armies", the Anarchist Free Territory or the Red Army. The problem with that map is that only two factions are shown: The Red Army and the various factions, that fought the Red Army and their allies. The "White Army" may as well include the remnants of the Provisional Government, the democratic socialist Mensheviks, who were the biggest power in the Rossyskaya Imperiya before the coup by Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Also the Center Social Revolutionaries likely fought against the warmongering and authoritarian Bolsheviks.
But for this, the ideologies should be revamped. They are nonsense anyway and are made not for historical accuracy, but for game balancing purposes. Because, why wouldn't socialists support political reforms? In history and today they were in support of democratic reforms, because it gives more power from the authority to the masses. Realistically socialists would support like 90 or 100% political reforms.
Also, Social Democracy might be viable after 1900. The actual socialist parties of Europe became less and less radicalized, since they either got their aims partially through or they split into the radical one and the very moderate one how we know them today. In Germany it was the MSPD and the USPD, with the MSPD being very moderate and the predecessor of the todays SPD. They also supported the Great War, which might made them Pro-Military in the game.
The USPD was the more radical one and openly opposed the war as the only faction in the German parliament and later came to be in power of Bavaria, with Kurt Eisner as their head, who later got murdered by a monarchist since he was a Jew, a socialist and came from Berlin, which is in Prussia, the stronghold of the SPD.
Anarchism was a thing. Not the nonsense """"Anarcho-liberalism"""", but Anarchism as in history, as it really existed. The Free Territory under Nestor Ivanovich Makhno for example. Imagine them as some sort of Robin Hoods Merry Men. They stole from the rich and gave it to the poor.
They held high values for the freedom of the individual and opposed hierarchy and the state. They didn't usually form parties, rather than unions or communes.
They were utterly democratic, voting in every matter no matter how important. Also they supported Direct Democracy instead of a representative one.
They were quite militant (of course) and formed Anarchist militias and got usually many volunteers in their ranks. In the Free Territory their total troop count was around 100.000 and they fought the Caucasus Army under Denikin (?) and were betrayed by the Bolsheviks.
It usually wouldn't be viable due to the existence of the state and nations thing, but they were a large factor in most of the civil wars at that time, the Russian one included. There was a Korean Anarchist Territory, called the Shinmin District inside of todays Chinas borders, in todays Manchuria. There was the Bavarian Council Republic under Kurt Eisner and was led by mostly Anarchists and Socialists. And there was the CNT in Spain, which had a large supporter base in the Labor unions.
It also existed before Communism by Marx and the basis for the philosophy was made by Jean-Jaques Rousseau with his theory of Freedom and the nature of man and was branched into several different Anarchist theories by Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin and Proudhon.
The communists should be turned into Marxist-Leninists and should only appear around 1890 or so. They represent the authoritarian wing of the actual libertarian Marxists and Socialists, like the Mensheviks or the Social Revolutionaries were and the Anarchists.
Don't get me wrong, Marx in his later years had a change in mindset and supported Democratic Reform instead of Revolution.
"Anarcho-liberals" should be turned into market liberals or such imo. It would make more sense, with the liberals being classic liberals and radical liberals included (French Revolution), while the "Anarcho-liberals" are more regressive and not at all radical.
Anarchists would have the following policies in a historical context:
Free Trade (between fellow Anarchists of course) Planned Economy or Laissez Faire (autonomy or mutualism? something new would fit better, like communal, which would also apply to communists) Full Welfare state (for the maximum freedom of the people, not hindered by poverty or starvation) Jingoism or Pro-Military (Anarchist militias) 100% support for both political and social reforms
But also they could be hated by everyone as in actual history, by both other leftists like communists or reactionaries, like monarchists or capitalists. They could get a aquire state cb to subdue "these lawless anarchists".
The Parisian commune may exist after the French lose the Franco-Prussian war? They were a symbol for a lot of socialists, communists and anarchists in Europe, that their ideals are possible.
Sorry for the long post!