• 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.
nnnnnnnnoooooooooooooo!!

i will oppose any such federal reserve system, it will merely give the government more power to print more money for more wars.

times ten
 
Can I propose a change to the Federal Reserve Act, removing the Secretary of the Treasury from the Board, so as to prevent Politics from being confused with Economics; doesn't the Government already have power to act through congress? Maybe there could be 5 bankers and 5 non-banking economists as detailed above who elect a chairman between themselves?

On another note, I am saddened that my bills weren't passed, and hope the issues I was trying to prevent don't continue unresolved: let's hope someone can find better solutions that are more amenable to congress!
 
I have a proposal:

Fallen Soldiers Act

Article I
A monument in remembrance of those who lost their lives shall be constructed in Washington, D.C., with the names of all the fallen written either on it, or in the near vicinity of the monument itself.

Article II (ignore if already provided for)
For all soldiers wounded or injured, the United States government will provide a disability insurance to ensure that those men and women who found themselves horribly disfigured or maimed in this war will be able to provide themselves with the proper medical care and other necessities.
 
I have a proposal:

Fallen Soldiers Act

Article I
A monument in remembrance of those who lost their lives shall be constructed in Washington, D.C., with the names of all the fallen written either on it, or in the near vicinity of the monument itself.

Article II (ignore if already provided for)
For all soldiers wounded or injured, the United States government will provide a disability insurance to ensure that those men and women who found themselves horribly disfigured or maimed in this war will be able to provide themselves with the proper medical care and other necessities.

I agree with both proposals, so far as Article I is to be started after the war is over. It is mighty bad luck to consider such a monument before victory is won. Perhaps Article II could use a bit more depth as to the injuries. A lost finger or a shot to the leg, I know about that one, is not in anyway similar to the trauma of a loss of limb. Also, what does this do for the men returning with mental disorders caused by the fighting?

-Senator Marshawn Cain
 
Yes, the construction would begin once the war is finally over. And on the matter of the severity of the injury, such minor injuries would not warrant much, or any, assistance; severe wounds, such as a loss of a limb, or limbs, or mental problems emerging from this bloody conflict, would receive the most benefit (and any other such injuries that our good Congressmen would deem necessary).

As well, the monument would not be commemorating a victory, since the grave loss of life is, to me, a tremendous defeat. It will serve both as a reminder of the horrors of war, and as testament to the brave men and women who gave their lives in this great and terrible war.
 
A Jarvis wishing for more public welfare. I never thought I'd see the day.

Both of these issues shall be covered in a bill I shall present to Congress for the transition of our nation from wartime to peacetime.
 
Nay on both proposed bills, with a caveat.

The Treasury already manages the printing of money through the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. There does not need to be a second entity performing the same function. In order to maintain a level of independence, I think the Treasurer should not be appointed chairman, and rather this commission should be independent of the executive branch (i.e. The Treasury). This would allow it to develop monetary policy and interest rate decisions without interference.
I would like to propose amendments to Senator Jarvis’ bill. As you all know, my grandfather, Maximilian Mandrake, was a General and a champion for the common soldier during and after the Civil War. He made it a mission to encourage Congress and the President to assure veterans that they would be taken care of after the war. This has been an extremely important legacy for my family and one I wish to see continued. My family has a long history and a bond with the Jarvis family, so it is with the greatest amity that I propose the Jarvis-Mandrake Fallen Soldiers and Veterans Support act:

Article I
A commission shall be established to raise private funds and select a design for a monument, in remembrance of those who lost their lives, which shall be constructed in Washington, D.C., with the names of all the fallen written either on it, or in the near vicinity of the monument itself. All private funds raised for the purpose of the monument shall be given a matching federal grant.

Article II
A pension trust shall be established to provide to all wounded and disabled soldiers from wars past or present, or their immediate family (widow and children), a fair and ample pension that shall be provided in gratitude of their service and sacrifice to the nation and to ensure their continued welfare.

Article III
A commission shall be established before the conclusion of hostilities to secure pledges from the private sector for gainful employment for veterans returning from the war. This commission shall also be given authority to create and manage a Labor Corps for returning veterans to receive employment in public works and public service projects if they are unable to find a job in the private sector.

Article IV
A commission shall be established to ensure that American war dead are located, identified, and provided a final resting place and accorded all military honors. To this end, the commission will be entrusted with the task of acquiring land for the establishment of a National Military Cemetery as a fitting honor to those who have sacrificed their lives in the defense of this nation.


In order to ensure the success of this proposed bill, the Mandrake family pledges $50,000 for the construction of a national monument, as well as pledging 500 jobs and apprenticeship programs for returning veterans at the Mandrake Arms Company.

Politics aside, I am pleased with the progress that has been made on both fronts; however, I am disappointed with the sheer cost of men's lives that has been spent on ill-planned offensives. I encourage ouir military and political leaders to come together and plan a knockout blow to the Tripartite. We must strike hard and fast on many fronts to overwhelm their ability to fight and cope. The fact that they are on the defensive and soon will be defending their own homes should be enough to bolster their resolve and cost many more men and months to end this war. I would still like to propose that Operation Grizzly be considered as just that knockout blow, but I would still be pleased to aid in any operational planning needed to end this war quickly while saving lives.

And lastly, I beseech our elected officials to consider that while this war appears to be now in our favor, and as the Tripartite struggles to carry on, we must begin planning for the peace that follows this war. We must be just but firm, and we must set a firm requirement that democratic reform accompanies this peace in the defeated nations. We must not be to zealous to inflict punishment and misfortune on these nations, and rather we must work to make them partners in a more free and peaceful Europe. If we let anger and vengeance shape the peace, we will see war again in a matter of 20 years.

Major General Walter Mandrake
3rd Infantry Division
 
Last edited:
((I wasn't planning on introducing this yet, but seeing as people want to organise what happens after the war I suppose I will.))

We have faced, I think and hope, the most bloody year of our great struggle. We may now be able to see through the smoke of exploded shells towards sunlight and peace. We must not for a second however forget the lessons of the past, or take our eyes off the battles of today, but I think now it is reasonable to look to the pastures of the future. We must organise for the end of the war and the monumental effects this shall have on our economy as millions of servicemen are reintegrated into our work force. I feel it is the duty of the government to ensure this transition occurs as smoothly as possible, particularly hoping to avoid the three banes of unemployment, inflation and a lack of housing. I promised at the start of the war to give our men a better country to return to, one with a higher standard of living and further social reform. This act shall achieve that with the introduction of Old Age Pensions and safety standards. We must also I feel, begin to discuss within the country and our alliance the demands we shall place on our enemies when victory is won.

Transition to Peace Act

Article I:
Section I. Any factories that have been placed under the control of the Department of Industry are to be sold.
Section II. Loans are to be provided so as to allow factory owners to change from wartime to peacetime production.
Section III. The National Work Board is to return to its original purpose; to improve standards of safety for our workforce.

Article II:
Section I. The Department of Industry is to establish a Federal Housing Commission
Section II. This shall be responsible for ensuring adequate housing is provided to the populace of the United States.
Section III. It shall recruit among the unemployed demobilising soldiers and provide construction training where necessary.

Article III:
Section I. Disability payments are to be made to those injured in combat.
Section II. It is the responsibility of the military branch to which the person is a member to initially assess whether someone will be eligible for such payments.
Section III. These must be reassessed by a doctor every five years.
Section IV. Further payment shall be made if they are completely unable to work due to this disability.

Article VI:
Section I. A national pension scheme is to be put in place. There shall be two types of pensions.
Section II. A pension awarded to all those over a certain age, that age is to be set by the Department for the Interior. These shall be called Old Age Pensions.
Section III. People may apply for early awarding of Old Age Pensions due to work-induced disability, this would require the note of a doctor recommending such action.
Section VI. A pension to be granted to those who's partners have died fighting for the United States Military branches or in the WAMS. These shall be called Widow's Pensions.

Article VI:
Section I. A commission within the Commonwealth is to be established to ensure that all Commonwealth war dead are located, identified, and provided a final resting place and accorded all military honours.
Section II. It shall be tasked with maintaining those war graves in-perpetuity.
Section III. This shall be funded and provided with a Board of Directors from all of the states of the Commonwealth.
Section IV. It shall also seek to acquire funds via charitable donations.
Section V. This organisation shall be called the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

Article VII:
This Act shall commence upon the cessation of hostilities.

 
Last edited:
I'm assuming you're talking about the British Commonwealth; which I wasn't aware these United States were a member of, since denying British superiority in 1776... Do you propose joining or was it a different commonwealth to which you were refering?
 
((There is no British Commonwealth in this timeline. There's the Commonwealth of Nations which is a free-trade area and alliance comprising the US, UK, France and the UK's dominions, Cuba might be a member too. It was established by the Buffalo Accords

The Buffalo Accords
We are willing to concede, but a fully independent Quebec is not an option.

Canadian Provinces
Shall be granted Independence within 50 years, with a plebiscite in each province to decide whether to join the nation of Quebec or the nation of Canada, both under the de jure jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
A plebiscite shall be held in each nation to elect a constitutional council to decide the nature of their government.
The nations resulting from these plebiscites shall be protected by both the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Caribbean

The United Kingdom will recognise the United States' right to liberate the Spanish Caribbean as well as the just cause for the extradition of insurrectionist elements currently being harboured there by the Spanish Crown.
The United States is bound by legislation to respect the wishes of a Cuban plebiscite should they come under United States' control.
The United States will recognise that the present United Kingdom's possessions in the Caribbean and South America are that Kingdom's undisputed territory and will not violate their sovereignty.

Australia and its Adjacent Isles

Shall be granted self-government within 50 years, with an election to choose their constitutional council and decide on a form of government under the de jure jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
The United States shall respect the independence of these nations and not interfere in their governance.

The Commonwealth of Nations

Any territories granted independence by British or American administrations shall have the opportunity to become part of an organisation, overseen by the British and American governments, dedicated to promoting solidarity, free-trade, and resolving disputes between member nations.
The United Kingdom and United States would host multilateral talks in the Commonwealth Conferences (an annual event, lasting one month, held in London or Washington) in the hope of moving diplomatically and in concert to maintain the balance of power. All proposals made at the conference would ultimately have to meet the approval of both the United States and the United Kingdom.

Additional:
The United States will not expand its territory outside the Americas and Pacific Ocean.
The United Kingdom will not expand its territorial holdings within the American continents.
The United States will not support any rebellions or coups against democratically elected governments, including that of the United Kingdom should it remain so.
The United Kingdom will extradite any U.S. citizen, publicly indicted for treason, found within their jurisdiction.
The United States will extradite any UK subject, publicly indicted for treason, found in their jurisdiction.


Admittedly there hasn't been any mention of France being added but I pledged to do it and would assume it would have joined prior/over the course of the war.))
 
Last edited:
Sorry!

And seeing as were talking about peace plans;

The War Aims Act

1.The United States will try to end the current war for all parties along the following principles:
(i)Self-determination for the peoples of Europe, based on plebiscites on state-wide levels in all German territories (remain German, join neighbouring country, independence) and the establishment of an independent Polish, Hugarian, Croatian, Balkan and Baltic states.
(ii)Democratisation of Germany, Russia, Austria, Chile and all new states based on universal suffrage to elect a government; there is no necessity to remove the Monarchy from these countries, just to stop them having any legislative power and move that to an elected parliament.
(iii)The independence of all German, Russian and Austrian territories outside of Europe (and Asian Russia).
(iv)The establishment of a League of Nations, which will oversee plebiscites and the transition of colonies, and will be established to further democracy, free trade and stability around the world (to be chartered on the secession of hostilities). ((It will also deal with disarmament, for those of you who are keen on that one!))
(v)All signatories of the peace treaty must join the League of Nations.
(vi)No one party is to be held responsible for the war, nor is any money to be demanded of the losing side.
(vii)All signatories of the peace treaty must be included in any peace negotiations.

2.These aims aren't binding for any peace deal; just the summary of American goals at any conference.
 
Last edited:
Nay to the FRA, Yes to the TPA. I propose there be a forced disarmament of the Triple Alliance and Chile until they have proved that there democratic government is stable in the WAA. ((Do we vote on the Buffalo Accords?))
 
I am concerned that forcing disarmament would be unacceptable to the people of the Triple Alliance, and anyway, it is difficult to measure how stable democratic government is... how ever I do share your view that disarmament is bad. Obviously general disarmament is unrealistic and dangerous is incomplete; maybe we could push for a treaty which limits the armed forces at equal numbers on both sides and can only be increased if the other side agrees? (sort of like the Anglo German Naval Agreement that would limit the Kreigsmarine to 35% of the Royal Navy... but with 100%...or maybe even better on a population ratio basis...)

((I believe The Buffalo Accord is old; older than when I joined, hence why I wasn't aware of it!))
 
Last edited:
I think making decisions on re-armament should be the purview of this proposed League of Nations.
 
Ok; we'll leave disarmament until the war is over for the LoN charter.
 
General Mandrake, your proposals are are strong and I support this joint bill you have proposed. On your bill, Mr. President, I see some articles that I support, but I have not yet read it fully. And Mr. McCahill, your bill concerns me greatly, as now we are trying to impose democracy on nations and peoples that may not want such institutions. And while I support the idea of a plebiscite for self-governance, I feel that we will only accomplish little help and give France and Britain undue levels of power in Europe, which was part of the cause of this war. However, other portions of your proposal seem reasonable, so I will consider supporting some of it.

While it does seem odd that I, or any member of my family, would support government welfare, I do believe that the men and women of this nation, who died for Frenchmen and Englishmen, to preserve European democracy, and, more positively, served their nation is this war, deserve support for their injuries.
 
Mr Jarvis, would you be so kind as to spell out to me how exactly you feel my bill could be improved: what would you do to ensure liberty for the people of Europe that would prevent Anglo-French dominance?
In other news, I am glad to report that His Majesty's government have offered me St James Palace and the adjoining Clarence House in the city of Westminster in which to base a League of Nations, pledging his support behind such a project. I believe it could be converted into a secure and well-equipped facility quickly and cheaply. The French ambassador was very supportive of the project aswell, though I was only able to talk to him for a short time.
 
I personally feel that we should not try to force independence or democracy on people; if they want freedom, let them achieve it. If we have to get it for them, then we'll have to maintain it for them, which means we'd be more involved in Europe than we already are. If the British and French so decide to police Europe, that is their business, but I feel that we should lead by example, and not by force.

Also, I feel that this League of Nations would do nothing more than either give America too much power (and thus many enemies) or devolve our own power in favour of some world government.
 
In Europe, my hope is to provide liberty for the oppressed, and as such, there will be no forcing of independence. There is already a strong free Polish movement, for example. As to democracy, not only was much of the initial call to arms a rally against the tyranical regimes in Germany and Russia, but democratisation offers the best way towards reconciliation, via a change of the guard.

The league will be devised as a mediator and a global justice system to work for global liberty and security as already stated. Whilst this will require some investment from its members, I feel the security it would provide is invaluable. As to America's power within such an organisation, we would be only one of many partners in such an endeavour, and the only demands on us as a liberal and stable nation would be a small input of money and resources in return for free trade, liberty and security which would benefit the global economy and make future wars less likely and less devistating.