I agree with Mr. Jarvis. We will all lose if we create instability in Europe. Victory is the establishment of cooperative and stable nations.
-
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.
But then we weaken ourselves and strengthening Britain and France. These two might be enemies next war. We must take as much as possible to be strong enough to crush all potential enemies when next war begins.
If they are our enemies in the next war, we have no one to blame but ourselves for aligning with them in the last war, much as we aided Prussia in the 1860's came back to haunt us.
Mr. Nightmore, you want to so thoroughly crush all potential opposition, most of which is imagined, when really all that will do is create more strife, and eventually more war. We need a balance of power, and we cannot in any way, shape, or form destroy Germany or Russia or Austria, for if we do, Britain and France will expand their powers exponentially. Do what we want in pressing for reforms, but we cannot break them, or we will only bring about another great war.
Mr. Nightmore, you want to so thoroughly crush all potential opposition, most of which is imagined, when really all that will do is create more strife, and eventually more war. We need a balance of power, and we cannot in any way, shape, or form destroy Germany or Russia or Austria, for if we do, Britain and France will expand their powers exponentially. Do what we want in pressing for reforms, but we cannot break them, or we will only bring about another great war.
With the state of affairs in Europe, destroying the ability of Russia and Germany after the war would be like leaving a man outside in freezing temperatures with no clothing. Europe is quite volatile right now, and to leave our enemies defenseless would be inviting further warfare from countries seeking concessions, old territorial claims, and so on. Moreover, that we fought a war now does not mean 20 or 30 years from now these countries might not be our friends. We can be guaranteed their hatred, however, if we punish them for this war.
Our main goal from this war should not be the punishment of these nations. We must see it as an opportunity to aid them - we must demand democratic reforms of these nations and establish prosperous relations by bringing them into the fold of other free nations. This is the best way we can honor our dead and prevent such further carnage from happening. At this time, my soldiers, colleagues and I are concentrating on seeing this war to its finish. I ask that our esteemed elected officials not to get too far ahead of the game and give our soldiers what is needed to fight and gain victory in this war first, and worry about winning the peace second.
In Service,
Major General Walter Mandrake
Our main goal from this war should not be the punishment of these nations. We must see it as an opportunity to aid them - we must demand democratic reforms of these nations and establish prosperous relations by bringing them into the fold of other free nations. This is the best way we can honor our dead and prevent such further carnage from happening. At this time, my soldiers, colleagues and I are concentrating on seeing this war to its finish. I ask that our esteemed elected officials not to get too far ahead of the game and give our soldiers what is needed to fight and gain victory in this war first, and worry about winning the peace second.
In Service,
Major General Walter Mandrake
On the issue of peace, we must seek to use this peace to ensure a liberal and peaceful future. It's to this end that nationalities currently controlled by the defeated; the Poles, the Romanians, the South Slavs, the Baltics and what have you, shall be given their independence as democratic states. Similarly the defeated nations themselves will be forced to democratise. We won't punish the German, Austrian, Chilean or Russian people. We want to see them prosper in peaceful, democratic states and the butchering leaders of these nations brought to justice. The Congress system of the past one-hundred years has clearly failed. I want to see it replaced by a more effective diplomatic system dedicated to avoiding a repeat of these terrible years; the League of Nations.
While I can agree with your views on Poland and Romania, though I would clarify mine by saying they have a plebiscite on independence, autonomy, or to remain within the current nations, your idea that the League will prevent wars like this is unfounded. More than likely, America will be forced to carry the weight of financing the League, will have to dispatch her men across the globe to resolve French, or Chinese, or Ottoman issues (none of which we have any business involving ourselves in), and will have to cede our rights as a nation in order to ensure this League can even function. The League comes across as a wonderful idea, but utopian and will likely be ineffectual, imperialist, biased to Britain or France (and more than likely helping create tension between those two), and too heavy-handed and burdensome in its rulings.
However, our current Congressional system will work much better, since we can actually pick and choose our battles at our discretion, maintain unbiased diplomatic and trade relations, and will be subservient to no group.
However, our current Congressional system will work much better, since we can actually pick and choose our battles at our discretion, maintain unbiased diplomatic and trade relations, and will be subservient to no group.
A League of Nations would inevitably become dominated by the US, and become seen as a power utilized by our great nation for our benefit, not the world's. We should certainly provide aid to the defeated nations, lest the new found freedoms we provide help radicals sway the poor masses. In terms of dividing up defeated countries in order to free potential peoples: This should probably be done by a vote of the area in question by the sovereign people, so that the break up of nations does not harm global peace.
If we can somehow come up with a system where each member country of our global association should provide a percentage of their GDP, and provide an equal amount of troops to enter a global peace keeping force, then it would be ensured that this "League" did not overstep the bounds into becoming a tool by the victorious nations. Equal votes would be a must as well, as well as inviting the defeated nations in to show our gesture of good faith. However, considering we are so focused on the election at hand, perhaps such a bill for a peace keeping force should be tabled until all parties can discuss it?
If we can somehow come up with a system where each member country of our global association should provide a percentage of their GDP, and provide an equal amount of troops to enter a global peace keeping force, then it would be ensured that this "League" did not overstep the bounds into becoming a tool by the victorious nations. Equal votes would be a must as well, as well as inviting the defeated nations in to show our gesture of good faith. However, considering we are so focused on the election at hand, perhaps such a bill for a peace keeping force should be tabled until all parties can discuss it?
Well allow me to put it this way Mr Taggerman; I think you will be pleased when Secretary McCahill's proposals, which I too plan to use as a basis, are published.
Presidente? Senator Taggart has been visiting Mexico too frequently, it seems.
Other than that I support the crration of a league of nations. Should it be powerful enough, it will stop these impearialist wars and set grounds for international commerce and a competitive world market
In my opinion we lose our chance to become the leading nation of the World if we don't strengthen our positions. There will be more wars, and we need to grow stronger and spread our dominance. There can be no peace until America rules the World.
If we shall rule, it shall be through the economic might of our free citizens in the states, not in the assertion of political and militaristic power onto the sovereign states of the world. Let our cars drive through the streets of Europe, not our tanks. Let our radios broadcast the news to foreign families, not our orders.
Truly an eloquent statement, and one I agree with completely!
And to you Mr. Nightmore, why should we desire to rule the world, or even be the greatest nation? Why not simply work towards bettering our nation, freeing our people, and creating strong diplomatic and relations with the world? What you desire will only bring about our destruction, or the ruin of the world. And even if we do somehow manage to dominate the world, what then? How would we go about maintaining our control? We cannot possibly remain a free society if we have overextended ourselves to such a degree! Only a tyrant could hold such a nation together, and even then I have reservations. Indeed, you strive for an unreachable, and frankly, unwanted goal.
I have to wonder, why Mr Jarvis you say you want to support diplomatic ties, and that you don't want a world dominated by ourselves or another superpower (and may I point out, a prime reason we fought this bloody war was to stop the tyrant alliance becoming a hegemon of the world), yet you continue to oppose a new and more substantial diplomatic system which would assist to protect the smaller countries against larger aggressive neighbours.
While having this institution may be well and good, and it can be created, I question whether we should be members or not; not because I am against international relations, but because I am concerned to the sovereignty of this nation. And before you say that we will place laws against any cessation of power, let me remind you that some of your proposals during the war were unconstitutional, but we overlooked the law. And that many of our previous presidents overstepped their bounds shows that simply because we have a law doesn't mean it is being followed.
Furthermore, it is not our place to protect another nation. If that were so, then Mr. Nightmore's assertion that America must rule the world (and I'm assuming either directly or indirectly, and through force or fear of force) would be correct. However, I feel we should not, in this peace treaty, give our allies so much power, or weaken the Germans, Austrians, and Russians so much, that the balance of power is shifted to one side or to one nation, for that will only create another war. I have never said anything about doing any more than that; we are not Europe's, or the world's, keeper. We should be friendly with all nations, but we should neither show favouritism, or imperialism, for both will lead us to war, as you have shown, Mr. President.
Furthermore, it is not our place to protect another nation. If that were so, then Mr. Nightmore's assertion that America must rule the world (and I'm assuming either directly or indirectly, and through force or fear of force) would be correct. However, I feel we should not, in this peace treaty, give our allies so much power, or weaken the Germans, Austrians, and Russians so much, that the balance of power is shifted to one side or to one nation, for that will only create another war. I have never said anything about doing any more than that; we are not Europe's, or the world's, keeper. We should be friendly with all nations, but we should neither show favouritism, or imperialism, for both will lead us to war, as you have shown, Mr. President.
The facts are simple: until one nation reach total hegemony wars will happen. Thus this nation has to be us, because otherwise it will be some other nation and we would be slaves. The end of this war won't end the wars, there will soon be a new one coming. We need to become strong enough to win the next war too, and the war after that one.
The Primary of 1916
Federal Candidate(s)
Thomas H. Terrance (b. 1871), Incumbent President of the Republic ((Mikeboy)). Having guided the nation to victory in the war, Terrance now hopes to help it win the peace, to be achieved with the “League of Nations” and continued social reform.
Kevin McCahill (b. 1870), Secretary of Education ((theAhawk)). McCahill believes in largely the same ideals as Terrance. He however, has a clear idea of what he wants from the peace, as his goals are based on the shelved War Aims Act. He is also one of the most avid supporters of the “League of Nations”.
Republican Candidate(s)
Joseph P. Jarvis (b. 1860), Senator for California ((Riccardo93)). The heart of the Republican Party since Hensdale’s defeat in 1913, Jarvis opposes the “League of Nations”. He believes that the United States should return to its pre-war industrial make-up as fast as possible. He is also for the reformation of the tax system.
William Carlsson (b. 1862), Senator for Alabama ((thekinguter)). One of the country’s most outspoken pacifists, Carlsson promises a normalization of relations with Germany and the rest of the Tripartite, commemoration of the Battle of Walsh Street, and a downsizing of the army.
William Taggarman (b. ????), Senator for Texas ((zagoroth)). Taggarman is at most lukewarm to the “League of Nations”, and believes the United States should be an anti-war nation first and foremost. He believes it can serve as a home to all those whose lives were ruined by the war. He is a supporter of lenient peace terms.
---------------------------
Exceptional Situation(s):
None as far as I know.
Last edited:
(BBB, my character was born in 1862)
I believe I had not given my opinion about the League of Nations. I support it wholeheartedly! It will help us solve our disputes peacefully through negotiation, it will lead to international disarmament, it will force peace into the world and it will certainly help international trade and cooperation. It's certainly one step forward from my previous proposal of pacifist isolationism and therefore I endorse the League of Nations
I believe I had not given my opinion about the League of Nations. I support it wholeheartedly! It will help us solve our disputes peacefully through negotiation, it will lead to international disarmament, it will force peace into the world and it will certainly help international trade and cooperation. It's certainly one step forward from my previous proposal of pacifist isolationism and therefore I endorse the League of Nations
Last edited:
I think Mr. McCahill's goals for the peace are admirable. I would like to ask him however if he would support including Ireland in the list of nations granted independence and democracy. Your proposal calls for "self-determination for the peoples of Europe", so if you say no side is to be held responsible for the war, should not the victors also live up to the noble goals you have stated.
Patrick Ryan
Mr Ryan,
Whilst I do not wish to force Britain to cede Ireland, I would support diplomatic efforts for a peaceful transition and I condone all those who believe we should start a war over it or threaten the principles of free trade on which the world economy depends by pulling out of the Commonwealth of Nations over the issue. The League of Nations would be the main concert of powers and therefore a suitable place to push such proposals.
If you have any further queries, do not hesitate to ask!
Whilst I do not wish to force Britain to cede Ireland, I would support diplomatic efforts for a peaceful transition and I condone all those who believe we should start a war over it or threaten the principles of free trade on which the world economy depends by pulling out of the Commonwealth of Nations over the issue. The League of Nations would be the main concert of powers and therefore a suitable place to push such proposals.
If you have any further queries, do not hesitate to ask!