• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Karl Peters Plan; The Deutsche Reichspartei Alternative

The Karl Peters Plan; The Deutsche Reichspartei Alternative
dr1.jpg
dr4.jpg

dr10.jpg
dr21.jpg


We, the Deutsche Reichspartei, suggest an alternative to the Muller Plan. We believe that the Imperial (Ironic?) Coalition is attempting to do surgery with a hatchet, rather than the scalpel needed.

There are three elements to this plan:

1. Corporate Rule;

Corporate rule has worked extremely well thus far. Goering, was an issue in mismanagement, but that does not mean we should throw out the entire system. Overall the Corporations have been huge successes.


2. Militarization;

The colonies are a key part of our empire, they provide resources, and are the frontline in the fight against Syndicalism. By militarizing and placing troops and naval attachments in the colonies we can deter foreign aggression, quell rebellion, and ensure that Syndicalism never spreads to these areas.

3. Expansion

We should work to enlarge our colonial territory, through war. This will obviously stabilize the economy.

By increasing colonial territory we will gain more resources critical to German Industry.

(In Game Terms: What I'm trying to say is we have two puppets who will give us troops. There is no reason to completely revise the system.)
 
Last edited:
You forget, Avatar Federal, that colonialism is NOT a one way street. Does Germany have the resources to constantly pour into colonies while still strengthening the home front against the Syndicalists?
 
The Prosecution's opening statement:

We are not debating the defendant, William Hermann Goering's, war record, as it stands on its own merits. Nor is the Muller plan up for discussion, as the charge does not apply to the Muller plan, only to the charge of treason that resulted from the defendants refusal to follow orders given to him by his superiors. Treason, which is defined as:

1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.

3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

The first definition does not apply, the second and third do.

As to the second definition, the defendant said, and quote, "to hell with the chancellor". Those are not the words one generally associates with allegiance and cooperation. While he could have expressed those views in a positive and constructive manner, instead he chose a complete break and separation of the colony of Mittelafrika from the German Empire. This is a violation of allegiance to one's state and its interests. It is as simple as that.

As to the third definition, Herr Goring was invested with Mittelafrika and told to make it grow and prosper. Instead, he emblezzled state revenues for his own personal gain, and when caught, committed the act of treason, as explained above, by separating the colony we gave to him in trust from the German Empire.

As to the suggestion that he is a "war hero", and as such, should be treated differently than others, I will posit this. All German citizens are treated the same, it is our law. If anything,the defendant's knowledge of the chain of command due to his prior military service makes him fully culpable, under the law, as he was not ignorant of the consequences of breaking it. The duly elected government of Germany was his superior, and he chose to not only ignore, but directly contravene our orders, which makes him guilty of the charge of treason.

I will state this again. The defendant, William Hermann Goering, willfully disobeyed his superiors, which was the duly elected government of Germany, despite knowing the consequences of doing so. Due to this, despite his best efforts to the contrary, even he himself knows and understands that he must be held fully accountable for his actions.
 
You forget, Avatar Federal, that colonialism is NOT a one way street. Does Germany have the resources to constantly pour into colonies while still strengthening the home front against the Syndicalists?

Yes. It does. It will take time, but with priority placed on military spending we will. The basis of colonialism is there, it just needs protection, and expansion.
 
Yes. It does. It will take time, but with priority placed on military spending we will.

Even with our current economic depression? Do you really want to stop the economic programs now, when they are just beginning to succeed?
 
Actually, yes. I want a full-blown war time economy, we should be militarizing for war, and defending the colonies.

As stated, this program would stimulate heavy industry and increase jobs for all Germans.

Believe it or not, despite all the moaning and groaning, they're is only one direct syndicalist threat to the colonies by themselves, Egypt. This problem will not last long, and France doesn't have the manpower to fight us on two fronts, the UoB is more concerned with Canada, and no other syndie power has the means to get at them.

In short, our current economy is more the enough to deal with the threat.
 
Yes. It does. It will take time, but with priority placed on military spending we will. The basis of colonialism is there, it just needs protection, and expansion.

Mittelafrika takes more resources and manpower than it gives in return. In its current incarnation, it is a lead weight chained to ones feet. A liability in an increasing hostile world.

What should happen if, in the event of war, the Syndicalists sponsor uprisings under the guise of 'national liberation?'

You can't say 'it won't happen because we'll crush them all with our might' because, as it stands, German forces cannot defend every point of interest. And before you blame the current government for that, need I remind that it is a position that was inherited from the prior government?

Actually, yes. I want a full-blown war time economy, we should be militarizing for war, and defending the colonies.

As stated, this program would stimulate heavy industry and increase jobs for all Germans.

Stormbringer is well qualified in economic affairs. There is full confidence that he will pull Germany out of its slump, accelerating industrial expansion and military construction.
 
Actually, yes. I want a full-blown war time economy, we should be militarizing for war, and defending the colonies.

As stated, this program would stimulate heavy industry and increase jobs for all Germans.

We are already mobilizing. 12 Infantry divisions are in training, and all existing divisions have been upgraded to modern standards and reinforced to full strength.

Full war economy without a war is a disaster for the economy. I know this, the Cabinet knows this, every reputable economist in the world knows this, and the Syndicalists know this. Bring Germany to a full war footing now, and the Syndicalists will deliberately withhold their declaration of war, meaning that either we begin a war of aggression, run Germany's economy into the ground, or go back to civilian economy with an enormous loss of efficiency, money, and public support. Not happening.
 
Believe it or not, despite all the moaning and groaning, they're is only one direct syndicalist threat to the colonies by themselves, Egypt. This problem will not last long, and France doesn't have the manpower to fight us on two fronts, the UoB is more concerned with Canada, and no other syndie power has the means to get at them.

In short, our current economy is more the enough to deal with the threat.

I'm worried about Egypt, but more along the lines of Syndicalist inspired revolutions in the Freistaat Mittelafrika and in the Allgemeine Ostasiatische Gesellschaft.

By dismantling Mittelafrika, and granting more autonomy and less direct influence, we would be begging for Syndicalist revolution.
 
I'm worried about Egypt, but more along the lines of Syndicalist inspired revolutions in the Freistaat Mittelafrika and in the Allgemeine Ostasiatische Gesellschaft.

By dismantling Mittelafrika, and granting more autonomy and less direct influence, we would be begging for Syndicalist revolution.

On the contrary, by NOT dismantling what the locals see as an oppressive regime, we are begging for Syndicalist revolution. The AOG already had its headquarters burned down, and Mittleafrika was on the verge of something similar when we recalled Goering.
 
I'm worried about Egypt, but more along the lines of Syndicalist inspired revolutions in the Freistaat Mittelafrika and in the Allgemeine Ostasiatische Gesellschaft.

By dismantling Mittelafrika, and granting more autonomy and less direct influence, we would be begging for Syndicalist revolution.

Monitors shall be in place to ensure that these governments are free as are the elections. By the time all of this comes to fruitation the syndicalist threat will probably be over.
 
We are already mobilizing. 12 Infantry divisions are in training, and all existing divisions have been upgraded to modern standards and reinforced to full strength.

Full war economy without a war is a disaster for the economy. I know this, the Cabinet knows this, every reputable economist in the world knows this, and the Syndicalists know this. Bring Germany to a full war footing now, and the Syndicalists will deliberately withhold their declaration of war, meaning that either we begin a war of aggression, run Germany's economy into the ground, or go back to civilian economy with an enormous loss of efficiency, money, and public support. Not happening.

Well, we'd obviously go to war. Start the annexation of Mitteleuropa perhaps, or the Netherlands. Prevent Sweden and Norway from going Syndicalist.

The unemployment rate is high, people are making less purchases than they were a year ago, and overall output is flat. This is why we should go to war.

There are four reasons as to why we should go to war.

First, on the demand side, increased military demand for goods and services is generated directly by government spending.

Secondly, this direct spending induces a multiplier effect of general consumer spending.

Third, on the supply side the maintenance of a standing army removes many workers, from the civilian workforce.

Fourth, enlistment offers direct opportunities for education or skill acquisition.

Also, by bringing more colonial lands into the Reich, we shall gain access to new markets, meaning we can increase demand for our products.

What should happen if, in the event of war, the Syndicalists sponsor uprisings under the guise of 'national liberation?'

You can't say 'it won't happen because we'll crush them all with our might' because, as it stands, German forces cannot defend every point of interest. And before you blame the current government for that, need I remind that it is a position that was inherited from the prior government?

No, you're right. I'd call for the building of garrison units and regular army units to guard Mittelafrika and the AOG.

Also, by bringing more colonial lands into the Reich, we shall gain access to new markets, meaning we can increase demand for our products. By offering fair rule, and good trade the natives and colonists will remain loyal.

What I do accuse the current Government of is running away, and betraying the colonists, natives, and all Germans with an ideology of defeatism.
 
Last edited:
Except we in the Cabinet have already been discussing the prospect of a limited war to take the Netherlands and/or Egypt, we've simply been fleshing out its details before asking the Reichstag's opinion on it.

As for economic expansion through war - please, find yourself a reputable economist and ask him why that doesn't work.
 
Except we in the Cabinet have already been discussing the prospect of a limited war to take the Netherlands and/or Egypt, we've simply been fleshing out its details before asking the Reichstag's opinion on it.

No, there is a lot more we ought do. The war we need will be one of gigantic proportions, something like, invasion, and annexation of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Austria, Bohemia, Hungary. The preparation and actual invasion will do wonders for getting us out of the unemployment crisis.

It would also open the door to German companies when we begin reconstruction.


As for economic expansion through war - please, find yourself a reputable economist and ask him why that doesn't work.

Defense Spending Would Be a Great Stimulus

For the military, the increased spending will require an expanded supplemental budget for 2009 and an increased budget for 2010. A 10% increase in defense outlays for procurement and for research would contribute about $20 billion a year to the overall stimulus budget. A 5% rise in spending on operations and maintenance would add an additional $10 billion. That spending could create about 300,000 additional jobs. And raising the military's annual recruitment goal by 15% would provide jobs for an additional 30,000 young men and women in the first year.

Martin Feldstein:

In 1977, he received the John Bates Clark Medal of the American Economic Association, a prize awarded every two years to the economist under the age of 40 who is judged to have made the greatest contribution to economic science. He is among the 10 most influential economists in the world according to IDEAS/RePEc. He is the author of more than 300 research articles in economics and is known primarily for his work on macroeconomics and public finance.

A well-known figure on the Harvard campus, Feldstein taught the introductory economics class "Social Analysis 10: Principles of Economics" (referred to as "Ec10" by Harvard students) for twenty years. Ec10 was routinely the largest class at Harvard, and remains one of the largest.

Feldstein is currently a member on the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

(Source: Wikipedia)
 
Sure, you've reduced unemployment. When you used to have 1,500 workers competing for 1,000 jobs, and now you have 800 workers competing for 1,000 jobs, you've reduced unemployment.

Military Keynesianism doesn't work. Refer to the Broken Window Fallacy.

And why in the WORLD would we invade the nations you've listed? They're our ALLIES, for God's sake!
 
Military Keynesianism doesn't work. Refer to the Broken Window Fallacy.

I consider the "broken window fallacy" a fallacy unless all of the economy's resources are fully employed at the moment (which they are not). If the shop-keeper has to spend $250 for a new window I have in my small town here in N.GA two glass shops, neither of which is fully employed (names on request except as it might violate their privacy). In my example the shop keeper can't sell any of his inventory today or tomorrow so therefore he/she has no need to invest his $250 in anymore merchandise; so he orders the window fixed and pays for it out of any cash reserves. (If he/she had to borrow the money the equation would be a little different). The window guys now have $250 to spend on replacement glass (probably $100, or so) with a gross profit of $150. However, the glass Co. has plenty of glass on hand so they don't order any, but instead put their $250 in the bank thus increasing the bank's reserves. Then the glass Co, after fixing the broken window, has $250 he didn't have and decides to take his wife out for dinner at a local eating place for which the bill comes to $50 for which he writes a check (on the $250 deposit). The restaurant which wasn't full that night now has $50 more than they had and they make their night deposit to the bank and the bank now has $50 more reserves, etc.

The point is there were unused resources available in the a community that have been put to work and the bank can make that loan to the the home builder who can put other unused resources in the community to work. I believe that all of this is called the "mulitiplier effect", or similar. In other words they can create wealth that was not going to be created unless the $250 was spent.

Source

In the case of this recession, not all resources are being used. Military spending and expansion will use them and put them to work.

And why in the WORLD would we invade the nations you've listed? They're our ALLIES, for God's sake!

They all have potentials for Syndicalist spread, also it would once again stimulate our economy. Besides there are lots of Germans/German culture there so it'd be a pretty easy occupation. There are Germans not in the Reich, they need to be in the Reich. Also if we don't gobble it up the Soviets will get it.
 
Last edited:
They all have potentials for Syndicalist spread, also it would once again stimulate our economy. Besides there are lots of Germans/German culture there so it'd be a pretty easy occupation. There are Germans not in the Reich, they need to be in the Reich. Also if we don't gobble it up the Soviets will get it.

T-That is just Paranoia! It is such an absurd reason to invade so many countries. OUR ALLIES that is!
 
T-That is just Paranoia! It is such an absurd reason to invade so many countries. OUR ALLIES that is!

Ok, it's not an "invasion" just a "integration" of Mitteleuropa into the Reich, where they belong.

Austria, Bohemia, Poland are all totally German, and the rest is just for IC and Resources, and preventing Syndicalist Spread. They want our protection from Syndicalism.

Also it'd be great for the economy.

Guys is it really that big a surprise? Have any of you read the Deutsche Reichspartei's platform?
 
Last edited:
Avatar Federal said:
No, there is a lot more we ought do. The war we need will be one of gigantic proportions, something like, invasion, and annexation of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Austria, Bohemia, Hungary. The preparation and actual invasion will do wonders for getting us out of the unemployment crisis.

- As someone who shares your desire to see all Germans united into one country, I will state why we are not even considering invasions of those countries at this time. The Syndicalists are very strong, and as such, we cannot dilute the forces and manpower of ourselves and non-Syndicalist powers through conflict. Rather, what the best path at the moment is to internally reform these countries such that it makes the peaceful takeover of them at a later date easier. The great Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu once said, "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Why fight, when we can take them over eventually without firing a shot?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.